Jul 12, 2016 | News
The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision reiterating the importance of accountability for human rights violations by police and security forces, in particular where unnecessary or excessive force is alleged to have been used, is a welcome step and must be immediately implemented.
In the case of EEVFAM v Union of India, petitioners alleged that 1,528 killings by the police and security forces in the Indian state of Manipur had amounted to unlawful extrajudicial executions. Manipur is the site of a long-running armed insurgency.
In 2013, a court-appointed commission – the Santosh Hegde Commission – conducted an inquiry into six of the cases mentioned in the petition, and found all the six killings to be unlawful.
“This judgment is a strong signal from the Court that human rights violations by security forces will not be tolerated in the name of national security or anti-terror policies,” said Sam Zarifi, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Asia Director.
“It’s crucial for the government now to follow through on this ruling to bring the families of the victims of these and other extra judicial executions mentioned in this petition closer to truth, justice and accountability”.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use force, to cause death.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court, thus effectively shielding armed forces from accountability for human rights violations.
“These, and other allegations, of human rights violations under the AFSPA only reiterate the urgent need to repeal this draconian and undemocratic law,” Zarifi said. “The allegations in this case are evidence of the culture of impunity that the AFSPA has perpetuated”.
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court made some welcome observations:
- It emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, reiterating the principles laid down in previous landmark cases. It said “every death caused by the armed forces, including in the disturbed area of Manipur should be thoroughly enquired into if there is a complaint or allegation of abuse or misuse of power”.
- It dismissed the government’s argument that legal safeguards would not fully apply to anyone considered an “enemy” under Indian law. The Court held that at least all Indian citizens were equally entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, stating “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger”.
- It noted that it did not have sufficient information about each of the 1,528 cases mentioned in the petition. It has directed parties to present detailed information about the status of each case.
“This judgment references India’s obligations under international human rights law, which requires the government to respect and protect the right to life and ensure access to effective remedies,” Zarifi said. “Accountability for all human rights violations is a key aspect of these rights”.
The ICJ called for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all the cases mentioned in the petition, in line with international standards.
It said that persons responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials in civilian courts, and the family of victims should be accorded an effective remedy and reparation for any violations.
The ICJ will continue to follow the case, which will continue in four weeks. Several key issues remain to be addressed, which the court will look at in subsequent hearings.
First, how should the specific cases be investigated? The petitioners have asked for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to investigate the allegations, to ensure that the enquiry is fair, independent and thorough.
Second, in what forum should trials take place? The Indian Army Act allows for army personnel on active duty to be tried by a court martial (military court) instead of a civilian court for all offences, including gross human rights violations.
International standards call for military personnel accused of gross human rights violations to be put on trial before a civilian court. The Court has left this question open for the allegations in the present petition, stating: “The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court”.
Third, the Court will also consider the efficacy of the National Human Rights Commission; in particular whether its guidelines are binding or only advisory. Under Indian law, the NHRC has limited jurisdiction where human rights violations by the armed forces are concerned.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e:sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 7, 2016 | News
Following reports that Saif al Islam Gadhafi has been released from prison in Libya, the ICJ today called for him to be promptly arrested and surrendered to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Saif al Islam Gadhafi was convicted by the Tripoli Criminal Court in July 2015 and sentenced, along with eight other former officials of the Moammar Gadhafi regime, to the death penalty.
At the time, the ICJ expressed its concern that the trial had not been fair, expressed its opposition to the death penalty, and called on the Libyan authorities to surrender Saif al Islam Gadhafi to the ICC.
In 2011, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Gadhafi, who faces two counts of Crimes against Humanity including murder and persecution of civilians, allegedly conducted as part of an orchestrated campaign against demonstrators during the uprising in Libya in 2011.
Gadhafi was reportedly released from a prison in Zintan in April 2016, following instructions from the Minister of Justice to the city’s chief prosecutor. The instructions were reportedly based on a general amnesty law that was promulgated by the Libyan House of Representatives in August 2015.[1]
“Granting amnesty for crimes such as those for which Saif al Islam Gadhafi was allegedly responsible is totally incompatible with the rule of law, the right of victims to justice, and Libya’s international human rights obligations”, said Said Benarbia, Director of the MENA programme at the International Commission of Jurists.
“Instead of shielding him from accountability, the Libyan authorities should ensure that all those responsible for past and ongoing gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law are brought to justice in fair and effective criminal trials. A first step in this direction would be for the Libyan authorities to arrest Saif al Islam Gadhafi and surrender him to the ICC as a matter of urgency.”
The ICJ believes that impunity for gross human rights violations and war crimes, including impunity resulting from amnesties, is not conducive to peace, political stability and national reconciliation in Libya.
Indeed, such impunity may be perceived by those who continue to systematically violate rights and freedoms as a signal that they may never be criminally held to account.
At the same time, the ICJ absolutely opposes the death penalty, which it considers inherently to violate the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Gadhafi would not face the death penalty in any ICC trial.
Saif al Islam Gadhafi’s lawyer has reportedly indicated that he will argue to the ICC that it should drop its proceedings, on the basis of article 20 of the Statute of the ICC, which addresses the circumstances in which a person who has already been tried for certain conduct by another court, may subsequently be tried by the ICC.
The ICJ stresses that any hearing to consider such arguments should not in any way suspend Libya’s obligation immediately to implement the ICC arrest warrant and to surrender Saif al Islam Gadhafi to the ICC.
“Libya should comply with its obligations under international law and dismantle the structural impunity that continues to prevail in the country, including by putting an end to politicized judicial proceedings and ensuring that prosecutors carry out their functions independently, impartially, and in defence of human rights,” added Benarbia.
[1] Law No. 6 of 2015
Contact
Doireann Ansbro, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 71 841 701, e: doireann.ansbro(a)icj.org
Libya-Saif al Islam Gadhafi-News-Press Releases-2016-ARA (full press release in Arabic, PDF)
Jun 22, 2016
In a briefing paper published today, the ICJ explained the legal issues and political context of the case against Colonel Kumar Lama, a Nepali Army officer.
Earlier this month, Colonel Lama’s trial on allegations of torture of two Nepali detainees in 2005 resumed in the United Kingdom.
“This case is one of the all too rare occasions when the principle of universal jurisdiction has been applied in judicial procedures in the UK, if not the world over,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The decision will have far reaching implications, not only for the victims in this case but for all victims of torture and other serious abuses around the world seeking justice.”
In January 2013, the UK exercised a form of “universal jurisdiction” to charge Colonel Lama on two counts of committing torture under Section 134(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988.
The charges are based on allegations that Colonel Lama was involved in the torture of two Nepali detainees in 2005, at the height of Nepal’s decade-long internal armed conflict. Colonel Lama’s trial began in February 2015 in London. After a few weeks, however, the trial was adjourned because there were problems with interpretation in court. The trial began afresh earlier this month.
The briefing paper addresses questions around the charges against Colonel Lama; the political context in Nepal when the acts of torture allegedly happened; the principle of “universal jurisdiction”; and procedural questions around such trials in the UK.
“The case comes at a time when an agreement between the ruling parties in Nepal is threatening to entrench impunity for those who planned and carried out unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, and other serious crimes in Nepal’s civil war,” added Zarifi.
“It is an important and long overdue opportunity to challenge the systemic impunity for conflict-era human rights abuses in Nepal.”
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nepal-Lama Q&A-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full paper in PDF)
Jun 22, 2016 | Advocacy
The ICJ and other human rights groups issued a joint statement on the 10th anniversary of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
It can be downloaded here: Universal-OPCAT+10 Joint Statement-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Jun 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ urged the diplomatic community in Myanmar to assist, and assess, the new government’s efforts to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in the country at a diplomatic dialogue today.
The ICJ shared its 14 General Recommendations to the new Government and Parliament, with ambassadors and high-level diplomatic representatives, and discussed specific, actionable recommendations to the Government to effectively address human rights violations immediately and in the long term and to provide redress to those whose rights have been violated.
Access to justice for victims of human rights violations has been severely curbed in Myanmar during decades of military rule.
Most of the population has been consistently denied access to the courts and effective remedies as a result of unfair and discriminatory laws and poor court decisions.
With an improper regulatory regime for investment and environmental protection, and an ineffective judiciary to enforce laws and provide access to justice, economic development has risked undermining human rights protection and negatively impacting on economic, social and cultural rights.
Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, stated that while the new government is more receptive than its predecessor to international human rights laws and standards, it should urgently establish a clear plan on strengthening rule of law reform and that all legislation must be guided by the principles of non-discrimination, greater accountability, transparency and justice.
Among the key recommendations the ICJ shared are:
- Supporting the committing of resources to the judiciary as well as the Attorney General’s Office to improve the state of legal education, court facilities, and safeguards to prosecutors to undertake investigations independently;
- Pushing for the passage of new land laws in consultation with civil society modeled on international standards and best practices;
- Ensuring that a new investment law conforms to the new land law that protects all forms of land tenure and provides access to justice when human rights occur;
- Seeking more clarity on the Government’s ability to monitor and regulate the conduct of businesses and their impacts on human rights;
- Supporting and strengthening the capacity of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission to undertake investigations on human rights violations independently and impartially;
- Repealing or amending laws that are abused to violate the right to freedom of expression and opinion; and
- Encouraging the Government to consult and engage more closely with civil society and the international human rights community.
The diplomatic dialogue aimed to provide the international human rights organizations with an opportunity to clarify their various policy guidelines and provide updates to assist the diplomatic community with their multilateral lobbying efforts in Myanmar with the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, and civil society.
The Embassy of Denmark hosted the event. Members of the diplomatic community included those from the EU, UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Australia, The Philippines and Bangladesh.
The ICJ was joined in a panel by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch.
