Sep 23, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today drew the attention of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, to the Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective, in the context of a discussion of “Gender-responsive initiatives to accelerate gender equality”.
The oral statement read as follows:
“International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes this opportunity to share information on our ongoing work with women judges in many parts of the world, supporting them and their male colleagues to better ensure women’s access to justice and gender equality.
As part of these efforts, facilitated by the ICJ and UN Women, in 2016 judges from the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Timor Leste developed and adopted The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective.
Among many other provisions, the Guidance urges States to achieve gender parity in appointments to the bench.
The Guidance provides that: “Gender equality should be a principle that guides judicial appointments. Women and men must be equally represented on the bench as they bring a diversity of perspectives, approaches and life experiences to adjudication, which influence the interpretation and application of laws.”
It further recommends that “[i]f necessary, temporary affirmative measures – like quotas which should be consistent with requirements of integrity and high competency – should be implemented in order to assure that women are adequately represented in the judiciary” and that “[e]valuation panels for the appointment and promotion of judges should be composed of men and women.”
The Guidance builds on global standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ provisions on equality, non-discrimination, and equal access to public service; article 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, on non-discrimination in judicial selection processes; and related articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
We hope the Bangkok Guidance will be a useful reference both in considering how to improve gender parity within the Council’s mechanisms, and as a resource for the Council and its mechanisms to cite in their analysis and recommendations to governments and other stakeholders, on improving access to justice for women in Southeast Asia and around the world.”
Sep 10, 2019 | News
ICJ expressed concern over the decision given on 27 August 2019 by the Malaysian High Court that a fatwa issued against the women’s organization, Sisters in Islam, should be referred to the Syariah Court.
The High Court used as a basis Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, which states that secular courts do not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Islam.
The ICJ called on the Malaysian authorities to ensure that custom, tradition, and religion should not be used as a justification to undermine human rights, including women’s human rights.
In 2014, the Selangor Fatwa Council issued a fatwa declaring the Sisters in Islam a “deviant organization.” For many years, Sisters in Islam has been promoting more egalitarian interpretations of Islamic laws with the aim of ending discrimination against women and achieving equality in the Muslim family.
“For women to fully exercise their religious freedom, they must be able to retain or adopt the religion of their choice, and they must be able to continue belonging to this religion without being discriminated against within the religion,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
The ICJ stressed that under international law, States have an obligation to protect people who are prevented from exercising their religious freedom by private actors, such as their own religious communities.
“The Malaysian government, including the judiciary, has the obligation to protect groups like Sisters in Islam when they face persecution from within their religious communities for propounding alternative views about their religion,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Furthermore, the ICJ had previously underscored in a 2019 briefing paper on the challenges to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Malaysia, the tensions emerging from jurisdictional disputes between civil courts, which apply federal and state laws, and Syariah courts, which apply Islamic laws.
In 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in reviewing the performance of Malaysia, voiced its own concern over “the existence of a parallel legal system of civil law and multiple versions of Syariah law, which have not been harmonized in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).” The CEDAW Committee concluded that this “leads to a gap in the protection of women against discrimination, including on the basis of their religion.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, ICJ, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Aug 14, 2019 | News
Today, ICJ Commissioner and former Constitutional Court Justice Justice Yvonne Mokgoro delivered the Keynote Address on Women’s Socio-Economic Rights at an event organized by ICJ and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
The event, which marked Women’s Month in South Africa, was aimed at promoting the contributions of women human rights defenders and public interest lawyers in advancing women’s socio-economic rights in South Africa.
Justice Mokgoro, the first black women Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, called on human rights defenders, lawyers and judges to recommit to fighting the feminization of poverty in South Africa.
“The indignities suffered by women exposed to poverty in our country are graphic, trauma-inducing and all encompassing. The dire need of women in our patriarchal society must be addressed,” she said.
With reference to the South African Constitution, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Justice Mokgoro implored judges and lawyers in particular to “engender” the full range socio-economic rights by defining their content in a manner which takes into account the impact of human rights violations on women and girls.
The event featured a panel discussion , which included remarks by Tumelo Matlwa and Amelia Rawhani-Mosalakae, lawyers at CALS, who identified who a range of legal provisions and banking practices relating to matrimonial property have a disproportionate impact on women’s rights to property.
The presentation concluded that “poverty is a form of economic violence that has a disproportionate effect on women”.
Fatima Shabodien, Strategy Director at Raith Foundation, focused her presentation on sexual harassment faced predominantly by women in the public interest law sector in South Africa.
Quoting from Indian author Arundathi Roy, Shabodien observed that “there is no such thing as the voiceless only the deliberately silenced”.
Women, she added, “have not been silent in this sector they have been deliberately silenced”. She urged human rights defenders and public interest lawyers to take allegations of sexual harassment seriously.
Nonhle Mbuthuma, a community activist from the Amadiba Crisisis Committee described the difficulties of being a women human rights defender: “I am a human rights activist and it is a difficult task. You are called a lot of names for challenging the government.
All the names don’t scare me – my mother gave me only one name”, she said. Referring to a judgment of the High Court affirming her community’s right to free, prior and informed consent before the commencement of a mining development, she concluded: “I am very proud of the Constitution and judges who said we have the right to give consent to [whether] mining [can take place]. Not the government or big companies. The people.”
She emphasized that women were, and continue to be, at the forefront of the struggle for access to land in South Africa.
Jul 12, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports
In a report published today, the ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to prevent, address and ensure accountability for all forms of gender-based violence (GBV) against women and girls, including by adopting legislative, judicial and other appropriate measures.
The report Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies concludes that the persistence of GBV against women and girls in Lebanon is rooted in entrenched patriarchal norms and cultural stereotypes about the roles and responsibilities of women and men in society prevalent throughout the country, including within the judiciary and among other law enforcement officials.
Moreover, legal frameworks and ineffective procedures for the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of GBV fail to adequately protect women’s rights, the report says.
While steps taken by the Lebanese authorities to remedy some deficiencies in the legal framework are commendable, there is still a long way to go to dismantle the web of legal provisions, including in the Criminal Code, the Nationality Law and Personal Status Laws, which discriminate against women or fail to adequately protect their rights.
“Gender discrimination embedded in family laws and in practices is one root cause of violence against women and girls,” said Roberta Clarke, Chair of the ICJ’s Executive Committee.
“Discrimination and economic dependency act as barriers to women’s access to justice,” she added.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that discriminatory practices and bias against women continue to undermine criminal investigations and prosecutions in GBV cases.
“Lebanon should provide for gender-sensitive investigations and evidence-gathering procedures in order to enable women to report violence against them, and ensure that any case of gender-based violence is prosecuted effectively whenever warranted by the evidence, even where no formal complaint has been lodged or when a complaint is withdrawn,” said Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Based on an analysis of 30 judicial decisions related to GBV cases and other research, the ICJ found that stereotyping by justice system actors results in direct and indirect discrimination against women.
This, in turn, greatly diminishes the chance that judges granting remedies are both free from biased assumptions and effective, thereby undermining the justice system’s impartiality.
“Judges must decide gender-based violence cases based on the law and facts of the case, rather than pre-conceived cultural beliefs and social stereotypes that are biased against women,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Courts must not use ‘honour,’ ‘fit of fury’ and victim blaming to shield perpetrators of violence against women from accountability,” he added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia@icj.org
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran@icj.org
Additional information
This week, ICJ Commissioner Roberta Clarke led the delegation that met with Lebanese authorities and justice and civil society actors in Beirut to present the ICJ’s report and discuss its findings and recommendations.
The delegation met with Chief Justice Jean Fahed, President of the Lebanese Cassation Court and the High Judicial Council; Mrs. Claudine Aoun Roukoz, President of the National Commission for Lebanese Women; George Fiani, head of the Legal Aid Division of the Beirut Bar Association; representatives of the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Minister of State for Economic Empowerment of Women and Youth; members of the Internal Security Forces; a member of the National Human Rights Institution; and representatives of civil society and the United Nations.
Lebanon-Gender Violence-Publications (full report, English, in PDF)
Lebanon-Gender Violence-Publications-ARA (full report, Arabic, in PDF)
Lebanon-GBVReport2 launch-News-Press releases-2019-ARA (full story, Arabic, in PDF)
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
