Jun 28, 2018 | News
On 24-25 June, ICJ Commissioners from the Latin America region came together in Bogotá, Colombia, to consider and enhance ICJ strategies to combat past and resurging trends in extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances in the region.
The meeting was the first of its kind to bring together ICJ Commissioners on a regional basis: Carlos Ayala (Venezuela); Miguel Carbonell (Mexico); Gustavo Gallón (Colombia); Roberto Garretón (Chile); Juan Mendez (Argentina); Victor Rodriguez Rescia (Costa Rica); Alejandro Salinas Rivera (Chile); Mónica Pinto (Argentina); Belisário dos Santos Júnior (Brazil); and Wilder Tayler (Uruguay).
The meeting was followed by a preparatory mission (involving two Commissioners and the ICJ’s legal representative in Colombia) on the transitional justice mechanisms envisaged under the Havana Agreement, with a particular emphasis on the jurisdiction and operation of the ‘Special Jurisdiction for Peace’. A full high-level mission will follow in September, at which time the ICJ intends to identify minimum benchmarks for the effective operation and sustainable impact of those mechanisms.
In all regions of the world, recourse to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings continues; victims and their families (the overwhelming majority of whom are women, children and indigenous peoples from rural areas dominated by poverty and social and political exclusion, as well as trade unionists and human rights defenders) struggle to obtain prompt and effective remedies and reparation; and perpetrators enjoy impunity through inadequate or improper laws, ineffective institutional frameworks, selective recourse to accountability mechanisms and/or political interference in the functioning of those mechanisms.
The meeting confirmed that these challenges are particularly evident in Latin America, where there has been a resurgence in recourse to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in countries throughout the region and where violations of the past have in very many cases been inadequately addressed. By way of example:
- In Brazil, official statistics from 2016 attest to the occurrence of 62,000 violent deaths and potentially up to 22,000 enforced disappearances each year.
- 45 years after the coup d’état in Chile, about 800 people have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, but those figures belie the extensive occurrence and levels of responsibility for gross violations of human rights that occurred.
- In Colombia, more than 70,000 cases of enforced disappearance were documented by the Attorney General for the period 1970-2015 and there is general consensus that the number of missing persons likely exceeds 100,000. The wide and persistent extent of extrajudicial killings has been noted by UN and Inter-American experts and bodies as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
- In Guatemala, only 34 convictions for conduct involving conflict-era violations have been secured, despite the fact that the internal armed conflict of 1960-1996 involved massive and systematic human rights violations. Impunity has undermined redress and accountability and severely weakened the prevention of violations, with the National Civil Police having recorded more than 25,000 people ‘disappeared’ in 2003-2014, more than half of which were women.
- Peru’s internal armed conflict of 1980-2000 resulted in more than 69,000 people killed and ‘disappeared’, but less than 100 convictions have been secured under the judicial subsystem established in 2004 that specializes in accountability for gross human rights violations.
- In Venezuela, civil society reports at least 12,000 real or perceived political opponents having been arbitrarily detained between January 2014 and April 2018; and almost 6,000 alleged extrajudicial killings between 2012 and 2016.
In all the countries from which the Commissioners originate, several common factors were identified:
- The intrinsic risks to continuation of and lack of redress and accountability for gross human rights violations posed by executive action that undermines the rule of law;
- Also inherent to the rule of law, the critical need for independent and impartial judicial mechanisms and individual judges and lawyers to allow for transitional justice, in particular for victims and their families to access effective remedies and reparation and for the holding to account of perpetrators;
- A high level of correspondence between impunity for gross human rights violations and the corruption of public officials;
- The increased, and in some cases extensive, recourse to arbitrary and detention, which in many cases precede and allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances;
- A similar inter-relationship between enforced disappearances and the occurrence of torture and other forms of ill-treatment;
- The detrimental impact to ensuring accountability for violations of the past when omitting non-State and paramilitary actors from transitional justice processes; and
- The increase in highly conservative (political and popular) sentiments and movements within the region and the corresponding need to tailor responses depending on the democratic versus autocratic nature of government and its institutions.
Noting that the ICJ has long sought to combat extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, including through the development of UN and regional instruments and standards and through its action in Latin America and the globe, the ICJ’s Commissioners urged the ICJ to continue and expand its engagement. Noting also the increasing call by local civil society actors for support and intervention by the ICJ, the meeting considered the organization’s role in seeking redress and accountability for, and prevention of, gross violations of human rights.
Commissioners reinforced, and commented on the effective parameters of, the ICJ’s strategic and victim-centred approach to address and prevent gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. Having regard to the ICJ’s mandate and worldwide network of judges and lawyers, Commissioners emphasized the unique role that the organization has by grounding its work on the transformative role of the law, justice institutions and justice actors.
The particular means by which this role can be achieved by the ICJ were discussed against the background of recent and planned activities in the region and beyond. Commissioners overwhelmingly supported these plans and the Secretariat is now poised to continue implementation of its strategies in its current programmes of work and in the development of future projects.
Jun 24, 2018 | News
The proposed amendments to the Philippines’ Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) would, if adopted, give government authorities a license to commit human rights violations, said the ICJ in its submission today to the House of Representatives.
The ICJ strongly urged the House of Representatives to reconsider these proposed amendments and in the interim to allow more time for full consultation and debate on revisions of the law.
In its submission to the House of Representatives’ joint Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Committees of Public Order and Safety and National Defense and Security, the ICJ stressed that certain proposed amendments to the HSA are clearly incompatible with international human rights.
It is also incompatible with laws and standards that prohibit unfettered surveillance power and arbitrary deprivation of the right to liberty and protect the rights to privacy, information, redress, and freedom of opinion and expression.
The ICJ also expressed deep concern that the law also gives military personnel responsibility in countering terrorism, specifically to conduct surveillance on, arrest, and detain persons who are suspected of acts of terrorism.
“The proposed amendments do not address the existing flaws of the HSA. For instance, the definition of acts of terrorism under the HSA is vague and ambiguous and the proposed changes do not in any way remedy that,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser with the ICJ.
The ICJ also pointed out that the proposed amendments are likely to lead to violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The proposed amendments would also impermissibly lengthen to thirty (30) days the period within which an individual may be detained without judicial warrant.
“This is clearly incompatible with the Philippines international legal obligations and constitutes arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” said Gil.
The ICJ proposes to reduce the detention period to forty-eight (48) hours or less, in compliance with international human rights laws and standards.
“The Philippine government has the undeniable duty to protect people from acts of terrorism committed by non-State actors, but it cannot use as a pretext the serious nature of terrorist acts to avoid its obligations under international human rights law,” Gil added.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Cover Letter ENG (PDF): Philippines-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-Cover Letter-June-2018-ENG
Full Submission ENG (PDF): Philippines-Proposed-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-non-legal-Submission-June-2018-ENG
Jun 19, 2018
On 18 June 2018, the ICJ submitted an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) Brief to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICJ submitted the Amicus pursuant to the Prosecution’s Request (ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18) for “a ruling on the Court’s jurisdiction under article 12(2)(a) — specifically, to verify that the Court has territorial jurisdiction when persons are deported from the territory of a State which is not a party to the Statute directly into the territory of a State which is a party to the Statute”.
The Prosecutor made the Request following the alleged deportation of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people from Myanmar into Bangladesh.
In summary, the ICJ submitted that:
(1) The crossing of an international border is a fundamental constitutive element for the crime of deportation. This position is supported by customary international law, international human rights law and is reflected in the domestic laws of Bangladesh; and
(2) The Court has territorial jurisdiction over the crime of deportation. This position is supported by international principles of territoriality, which are also reflected in the domestic laws of Bangladesh.
The Amicus was filed in light of the ICJ’s global mandate to seek the progressive development of international law with a view to ending impunity and ensuring accountability for gross human rights violations.
The ICJ regularly intervenes in judicial proceedings in domestic, regional and international jurisdictions around the world in an amicus curiae or other third party capacity.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +66 (0)94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Myanmar-Amicus observations-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (full amicus brief, PDF)
Jun 8, 2018 | News
The ICJ strongly condemns the draft bill of the Congressional Commission on Legislation and Constitutional Affairs to propose reforms to the Law of National Reconciliation (Congressional Decree 145-96) and grant amnesty in cases of gross human rights violations.
“The amnesty included in this draft bill is unconstitutional and flagrantly violates Guatemala’s international obligations. It seeks to place more obstacles in the way of victims of serious human rights violations in their search for justice and truth,” said Ramón Cadena, Director of the Central American Office of the ICJ.
“Justice must be delivered in these important cases because it is the basis for political stability, the rule of law and democracy. Guatemalan authorities should demonstrate that they have an unquestionable commitment to the struggle against impunity. Unfortunately, this draft bill demonstrates the exact opposite,” he added.
This decision flagrantly contravenes Guatemala’s international obligations to prosecute and punish those responsible for gross violations of human rights and guarantee the rights to justice, truth and reparation for victims of these crimes.
International bodies, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in numerous judgments, have condemned Guatemala for gross human rights violations; and on repeated occasions have stated that it is prohibited to grant amnesties in cases of gross violations of human rights and international crimes, such as crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.
This draft bill could open the doors to allow impunity to continue, at a time when the judicial system is fighting against impunity in historic cases of gross human rights violations and international crimes and in so doing provide guarantees for the victims’ rights to justice.
The ICJ considers that the administration of justice in cases of gross violations of human rights and international crimes by independent judges in cases of “transitional justice” should be supported, not only by the Legislature but also by the Executive Branch, as well as, self-evidently, by the Judicial Branch itself.
The Supreme Court of Justice has the obligation to support independent judges that through their rulings are proving to be impartial, objective and independent and should take the necessary measures to protect judges from any interference or attack that affects the smooth exercise of their duties.
The ICJ recalls that it is a State’s inalienable obligation under international law to investigate gross violations of human rights and international crimes and to prosecute and punish those responsible.
Jun 6, 2018 | Artículos, Noticias
Después de más de 30 años de búsqueda de justicia por parte de la familia Molina Theissen, el Tribunal de Mayor Riesgo C emitió sentencia condenatoria , cometida en octubre de 1981, durante el conflicto armado interno.
Por la desaparición forzada del niño Marco Antonio Molina Theissen (de 14 años), así como por la detención ilegal, tortura y violación sexual de su hermana Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen, fueron condenados el 23 de mayo de 2018, los militares de alto rango (en retiro) General de Brigada Benedicto Lucas García, Coronel Hugo Ramiro Zaldaña Rojas, Coronel Manuel Antonio Callejas y Callejas y Coronel Francisco Luis Gordillo Martínez.
En esa misma sentencia, el Tribunal absolvió al coronel Edilberto Letona Linares.
La CIJ observó todo el desarrollo del juicio público.
Como resultado de esta labor de observación, la CIJ considera que, una vez más, se pudo comprobar, que para lograr romper con la impunidad que existe en estos casos de la llamada “justicia transicional”, se requiere indispensablemente que el Sistema de Justicia esté integrado por jueces independientes, imparciales, competentes, idóneos y de incuestionable integridad moral.
Asimismo, de su observación del juicio y estudio de la Sentencia, la CIJ puede concluir que la defensa de los militares procesados llevó a cabo un litigio de mala fe, que buscó apartar del juicio al Juez Pablo Xitumul, Presidente del Tribunal, por medio de recusaciones abusivas y sin ninguna base legal.
Este tipo de prácticas atentan contra una recta administración de justicia y constituyen una violación de la obligación que tienen los abogados de mantener el honor y la dignidad de su profesión y de actuar de conformidad con las normas éticas reconocidas que rigen su profesión, como lo prescriben los Principios Básicos sobre la Función de los Abogados, de las Naciones Unidas.
La CIJ expresa su rechazo por este tipo de estrategias de defensa, que ya han sido implementadas en otros casos de “justicia transicional” en el pasado y que, además, se están haciendo evidentes en casos recientes vinculados a la lucha contra la corrupción.
Además, durante el juicio, la CIJ pudo constatar las siguientes situaciones:
- Presiones y campañas de difamación de diferente naturaleza, que atacaron y cuestionaron la independencia de las y los juzgadores, su idoneidad e imparcialidad;
- Ataques, estigmatizaciones, difamación y cuestionamientos infundados contra la familia Molina Theissen, por sectores cercanos al Ejército de Guatemala; y
- Ataques y estigmatizaciones contra de las organizaciones de derechos humanos y de los abogados y abogadas de la Familia Molina Theissen, así como en contra del Ministerio Público.
La CIJ se permite recordar que:
- La familia Molina Theissen buscó justicia infructuosamente durante más de 30 años, acudiendo a las autoridades judiciales guatemaltecas;
- Ante la denegación de justicia, la familia Molina Theissen tuvo que recurrir al Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos; y,
- La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en Sentencia de 4 de Mayo de 2004, condenó al Estado de Guatemala por violaciones a los derechos humanos y le ordenó investigar, procesar y castigar a los responsables de dichos crímenes.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica expresó: “Apoyamos al Presidente del Tribunal Juez Pablo Xitumul, a los otros dos jueces que integran el Tribunal de Mayor Riesgo C y a todos los jueces independientes, imparciales, idóneos e íntegros de Guatemala, que con su trabajo tratan de devolverle la credibilidad al Organismo Judicial.”
“Nos complace esta sentencia, ya que sienta un precedente para que una práctica sistemática tan grave, como la desaparición forzada de personas, no vuelva a repetirse en Guatemala. Existen en Guatemala más de 40,000 personas detenidas desaparecidas y el Ejército de Guatemala debería demostrar voluntad política, proporcionando información veraz, para que los familiares encuentren a sus seres queridos, desaparecidos desde hace más de 30 años, durante el conflicto armado interno,” concluyó Ramón Cadena.
