Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and the World Organization against Torture (OMCT) today highlighted a range of human rights violations, including of freedom of association and assembly, in India’s repression of peaceful protests and the impact of COVID-19 measures in the country.
The joint statement “OMCT and ICJ welcome the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and echo his concerns over the intensity and seriousness of the threats to the enjoyment of these rights, including the impact of current Covid-19 pandemic on the already fragile civic space.
We are particularly alarmed over the increasingly violent repression of dissent in India and the arbitrary detention and harassment of activists and human rights defenders by the state in relation to their participation in peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA), the National Population Register and the National Register of Citizens.
The repression of anti-CAA protests has been brutal, with the police reportedly using excessive force against demonstrators, including firing indiscriminately into crowds, using teargas and water cannons, beating bystanders and detaining and torturing protesters, including children. At least 31 persons were killed during these protests and scores were injured. No impartial and transparent investigations into the violence have been conducted to this day.
Reportedly fabricated charges of sedition, murder, and terrorism under repressive anti-terror and national security laws – such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act – have been filed against activists and human rights defenders participating in the protests. Those arrested and detained include Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Isharat Jahan, Dr. Kafeel Khan, Sharjeel Imam, Akhil Gogoi and Asif Iqbal. They are still in prison despite repeated calls for their release by national and international human rights groups and the United Nations.
Severe restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association have been imposed in the framework of the Covid-19 emergency. These include blanket shutdown of internet services and the imposition in several areas of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a colonial law banning public protests and gathering of more than five people. While appreciating India’s efforts to prevent the spread of Covid-19, we remind the government that restrictions must meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and shall not be abused to muffle dissent.
We call on the Government of India to take urgent steps to ensure that its people enjoy the rights to express dissent and to participate in peaceful protests without fear of being arrested, brutally beaten, tortured or killed. The right to life and from the prohibition of torture and other ill treatment as well as the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are protected under international law including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party.
We further call for a thorough, prompt, transparent and impartial investigation into allegations of unlawful use of force by police, and for the immediate release of all unjustly detained activists and HRDs.”
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum highlighted today concerns on freedom of association and assembly in Zimbabwe, on the occasion of discussion by the Human Rights Council of a report of the relevant UN expert’s visit to the country.
The statement was prepared for delivery in an oral interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly on his reports to the Human Rights Council, including the report of his visit to Zimbabwe in September 2019.
The statement could not actually be read aloud due to the limited time for civil society statements in the dialogue.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“ICJ and the Forum welcome the report by the Special Rapporteur which acknowledges the continued restrictions on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in Zimbabwe.
The report mentions the use of excessive and lethal force by security forces; the use of military forces in managing protest; and the subsistence of repressive laws that curtail the enjoyment of the rights to Freedom of assembly and association.
ICJ and the Forum agree with the findings by the Special Rapporteur that the use of disproportionate and excessive force by the security has resulted in massive violations against protestors. In January 2019 following the “shutdown protests”, the Forum documented at least 1800 violations including 17 killings, 16 cases of rape and 81 victims were treated for gunshot wounds while ICJ documented at least 77 incidences of violation of fair trial rights of protestors.
The Maintenance of Peace and Order Act [Chapter 11:23] (MOPA) was enacted into law in November 2019 to repeal the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). MOPA reveal common similarities with POSA and maintains problematic provisions that do not guarantee the right to peaceful assembly.
ICJ and the Forum wish to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the ongoing violations which have escalated in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown enforcement and the declining economic and social situation in Zimbabwe. While public health measures are crucial, these must be advanced in ways that do not unduly infringe on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
The government of Zimbabwe must be encouraged to comply with International human rights standards and guidelines such as the Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa; the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and firearms by law enforcement officials and the 10 principles for the Proper Management of Assemblies developed by the mandate in 2016.
ICJ and the Forum would to like to ask the SR what follow up he will do to monitor whether the Government of Zimbabwe complies with its international human rights obligations?”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC44-statement-SRFoAA-2020
Jul 9, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ filed a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of its review of Lebanon’s human rights record between January and February 2021.
Information provided in the submission was based on a number of recent ICJ publications, including on the independence of the judiciary; military courts; gender-based violence; and a forthcoming publication on the human rights of refugees and migrants in Lebanon.
In the submission, the ICJ drew the attention of the Working Group to the following concerns with respect to Lebanon:
- The independence of the judiciary and the use and jurisdiction of military courts;
- The obstacles that continue to impede women’s and girls’ access to justice for sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV); and
- The inadequate framework and practices undermining migrants’ and refugees’ rights.
The ICJ called on the Working Group and Human Rights Council to urge the Lebanese authorities to take the following actions:
With regard to the independence of the judiciary and the use and jurisdiction of military courts:
- End executive control and undue influence over the judiciary, including by divesting the Minister of Justice of any role in the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, secondment or any other aspects of the management of the career of judges;
- Ensure that the High Judicial Council is independent from the executive, including by amending its composition to ensure that the majority of members are judges elected by their peers, and that it is pluralistic, gender and minority representative, competent to decide on all issues relating to the career of judges, and empowered to uphold the independence of the judiciary;
- Ensure that military courts have no jurisdiction to try civilians, and that such jurisdiction is restricted to military personnel over alleged breaches of military discipline or ordinary crimes not involving the commission of human rights violations, to the exclusion of human rights violations and crimes under international law.
With regard to women’s access to justice for SGBV:
- Repeal all discriminatory provisions against women, particularly those in the Criminal Code, the Nationality Code and Personal Status Laws;
- Adopt a unified civil Personal Status Law for all religious groups, where all customs discriminating against women and girls are overridden in accordance with article 2(f) of CEDAW; and ensure that issues related to divorce, inheritance and custody are adjudicated before ordinary courts consistent with international standards;
- Amend Law No. 293/2014 on the protection of women and other family members from domestic violence (Law No. 293/14) and the Criminal Code to ensure that it criminalizes all forms of SGBV, including by properly defining rape as a type of sexual assault characterized by a physical invasion of a sexual nature without consent or under coercive circumstances, and ensure that marital and all other acts of rape be criminalized; and, to this end, abolish provisions of Law No. 293/14 providing for a religion-based claim to marital rights;
- Amend the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and Law No. 293/14 to include gender-sensitive investigations and evidence-gathering procedures in order to enable women to report violence against them, and take effective steps to address the social and practical factors that continue to impede women’s access to justice, such as gender-based stereotypes and prejudices that operate in society and in the justice system;
- Remove obstacles related to gender stereotypes, economic and social realities that continue to impede access to justice in SGBV cases, including by ensuring that where law enforcement officers fail to ensure an effective investigation into an incident of SGBV, their omissions be actionable as a breach of their duties and subject to disciplinary measures as appropriate;
- Provide routine capacity building training to justice sector actors on the application of international human rights law, including CEDAW and related jurisprudence.
With regard to the treatment of refugees and migrants:
- Become a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and pass legislation to adequately protect the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless people and migrants, in compliance with Lebanon’s international obligations;
- Amend the 1962 Law on the Entry, Stay in and Exit from Lebanon (Law 1962) to ensure full compliance with these obligations, and that people entitled to international protection, chiefly refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless individuals, are not penalized, automatically arrested or deported for their “illegal” entry and stay in the country;
- Ensure that no individual is deprived of their liberty solely on the grounds of their immigration status, and, to this end, amend articles 32 and 36 of Law 1962; until then, provide automatic, periodic judicial review of the lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of any immigration-related detention;
- Strictly comply with Lebanon’s non-refoulement obligations, including by ensuring that no individual is transferred to a country where they face a real risk of persecution or other forms of serious harm; that nobody is forcibly returned without an individualized, fair and effective procedure guaranteeing due process; and by establishing a moratorium on all removals to Syria.
Lebanon-UPR Submission-Advocacy-Non Legal submission-2020-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Jul 7, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, along with other NGOs, made a joint submission in response to the call for written contributions in advance of the General Assembly’s review of the UN human rights treaty body system and of the effectiveness of the measures taken to strengthen the system in Resolution 68/268 (2014).
The submission reiterates the ICJ’s strong commitment to the treaty body system, and reiterates that it is essential that UN Member States adequately support this key component of the UN’s human rights architecture.
Download the submission here: Universal-NGO response to TBSP cofacs questions-Advocacy-non legal submissions-2020-ENG
Jun 30, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council today, the ICJ urged action on longstanding and pervasive impunity for human rights violations in the Philippines and highlighted new threats posed by a pending new counter-terrorism law.
The oral statement, delivered in an interactive debate on the human rights situation in the Philippines based on a report prepared by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) concurs with the High Commissioner’s finding that overemphasis by the Government of the Philippines on national security and public order has led to serious human rights violations (A/HRC/44/22, para 12). Such violations will only increase if the draft Anti-Terrorism Act is approved and implemented.
The draft law would, for example, allows detention without judicial warrant for up to twenty-four days. Such prolonged pretrial detention without judicial review This is inconsistent with the prohibition of arbitrary detention under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the right under the ICCPR of anyone arrested or detained on criminal grounds to be brought promptly before a judge. The Human Rights Committee has stressed that such judicial control of initial detention periods is not only essential to guarantee the right to liberty but also to prevent torture, other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance.
In line with both the High Commissioner’s report and the 25 June 2020 statement by a large number of Special Procedures, the ICJ urges the Government of the Philippines to accept the findings and recommendations and rapidly implement corrective measures, in cooperation with the OHCHR, civil society, and the Commission on Human Rights, and to abandon or fundamentally revise the draft Anti-Terror Law. In the absence of clear, effective and measurable progress on accountability at the national level, this Council must stand ready to establish an independent international investigation (para 88(iii)).
Thank you.”
