Oct 3, 2013 | News
Following Pakistan’s reinstation of its moratorium on the death penalty, the ICJ calls on the Government to make the moratorium permanent and to move to abolish the death penalty in national law.
“This is a step forward for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “It brings Pakistan closer to the regional and worldwide trend towards abolishment of the death penalty.”
Pakistan has had a moratorium on the death penalty in place since June 2008, with only the exception of Muhammad Hussain’s execution in November 2012 following a court martial.
The newly elected Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Government decided not to renew the moratorium when it expired in June 2013.
The ICJ and other human rights groups denounced the move and urged Pakistan to immediately adopt a moratorium on the death penalty, prompting the Government to reconsider its decision.
According to the Interior Ministry spokesperson, today’s decision was taken to meet Pakistan’s international human rights obligations.
Pakistani Taliban also warned the Government that they would launch retaliatory attacks if any of their members were executed.
“This brave move by the government should be the first step toward reestablishing the rule of law and providing accountability in Pakistan,” Zarifi added. “The Government should now ensure that members of armed groups like the Taliban who have carried out serious human rights abuses like extrajudicial executions and attacks on civilians are held to account.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty in all cases to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sep 19, 2013
The ICJ today called on Colombia to ensure accountability at the national and international levels through effective implementation of UPR recommendations and by reconsidering its rejection of other UPR recommendations.
In an Interactive Dialogue on the adoption of the second cycle Universal Periodic Review of Colombia (Item 6 of the Human Rights Council’s agenda), the ICJ stressed the importance for Colombia to implement in an effective manner recommendations accepted by it and called on Colombia to reconsider its rejection of recommendations for the Government to ratify international human rights treaties key to ensuring accountability and access to justice.
The Interactive Dialogue took place during the 24th regular session of the Human Rights Council (9 to 27 September 2013).
Colombia-HRC24-Item6-OralStatement-LegalSubmission-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
ICJ submission and advocacy on the Universal Periodic Review of Colombia
Sep 12, 2013 | News
Yesterday, during the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ and TRIAL (Swiss Association against Impunity) jointly held a parallel event on promoting accountability through human rights mechanisms in Geneva.
The event was co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Switzerland, Estonia and Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
A corresponding report produced by ICJ and TRIAL was also launched at this event in two versions, one aimed at civil society and another aimed at States.
Panellists at this event included Ian Seiderman of the ICJ, Gabriella Citroni of TRIAL and Theo van Boven, former Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ICJ Honorary Commissioner.
Mona Rishmawi of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) chaired the event.
The main topic of this event was the ICJ-TRIAL report, which reviews the legal framework for promoting accountability and suggests possible action by civil society and States to engage with the human rights mechanisms in Geneva to better promote and achieve accountability for human rights violations.
The role of national mechanisms, such as national human rights institutions, working in cooperation with the UN mechanisms was also highlighted.
The report focuses specifically on the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the special procedures mechanisms.
OHCHR’s role was further emphasised in regards to sharing best practices as well as ensuring follow-up to issues of accountability as they come to the attention to the UN.
Sep 11, 2013
TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) and the ICJ presented a new publication on the potentials of Geneva-based human rights bodies in the fight against impunity and in promoting accountability of individuals responsible for crimes under international law and gross human rights violations.
The publication Promoting Accountability through the Human Rights Bodies in Geneva focuses on bodies such as the Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies.
The report proposes initiatives through which States, civil society and other stakeholders can better engage the Human Rights Council and other Geneva-based human rights mechanisms promoting better accountability. They include:
- Ensuring that the Human Rights Council focuses more consistently on accountability, for instance through the introduction of a periodic resolution on international justice and accountability and with greater attention given to international criminal law and the International Criminal Court;
- Ensuring that accountability-related action points are systematically taken up by the Human Rights Council in thematic and country-specific resolutions, as well as in recommendations made within the UPR mechanism;
- Ensuring that Special Procedures and Commissions of Inquiry engage on a deeper basis with accountability-related issues, formulating appropriate recommendations and conducting studies where needed and appropriate.
“Although the UN human rights system has made great strides over the years in the promotion and protection of human rights, one area in which it has fallen short of its potential is in the area of combating impunity,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal & Policy Director. “As long as perpetrators of gross human rights violations avoid facing justice, human rights can never be fully realized.”
Gabriella Citroni, TRIAL’s Senior Legal Adviser added: “promoting and mainstreaming issues related to the fight against impunity requires cooperation between all stakeholders, in particular States and civil society organizations. The publication aims at fostering joint efforts to make accountability a key issue in the discussions and activities undertaken by Geneva-based human rights bodies.”
Contacts
Gabriella Citroni, Senior Legal Adviser, TRIAL,: +41 22 321 61 10 ; email: gabriella.citroni(a)trial-ch.org
Ian Seiderman, Director, Legal & Policy, ICJ, t: +41 22 979 3837; email: ian.seiderman(at)icj.org
Universal-ICJTRIAL-Geneva bodies-impunity-Publications-report-2013 (full text of version for States in pdf)
Universal-ICJTRIAL-Geneva bodies-impunity-Publications-report.2013 (full text of version for NGOs in pdf)
Photo: UN/Jean-Marc Ferré
Sep 2, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called on the Bangladesh authorities to immediately withdraw the contempt of court notice issued against the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.
The charges are in response to well documented concerns by Human Rights Watch that the trial of Ghulam Azam (photo), former head of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami Azam’s trial was “deeply flawed” and failed to meet international fair trial standards.
“Silencing voices that highlight the shortcomings of the International Crimes Tribunal impede rather than advance the enormously important task of ensuring that those responsible for committing atrocities during Bangladesh’s war of liberation are brought to justice in a process that complies with international law and standards”, said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.
On 2 September 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh issued a show cause notice asking Human Rights Watch to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against it for its allegedly ‘biased’, ‘scandalous’ and ‘inaccurate’ statements about the ICT. Human Rights Watch has to respond within three weeks, or possibly face trial and conviction in absentia.
“Assessing the conduct of administration of justice in judicial proceedings, including where it entails criticism of judicial performance is an important means of ensuring accountability,” said Conte. “Judges and prosecutors should defend the right to freedom of expression, not use their discretionary powers to muzzle criticism”.
Contact:
Alex Conte, Director, International Law & Protection Programmes, t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Additional information:
The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct clarify that “since judicial independence does not render a judge free from public accountability, and legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability subject to law, a judge should generally avoid the use of the criminal law and contempt proceedings to restrict such criticism of the courts”.
The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government also stress that “criminal law and contempt proceedings should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions”.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.
The Declaration also highlights that human rights defenders have the right to “freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to hold opinions and draw public attention to the observance of human rights.
