Myanmar: Implement “provisional measures” order of the International Court of Justice without delay

Myanmar: Implement “provisional measures” order of the International Court of Justice without delay

The ICJ welcomes today’s Order of the International Court of Justice (Court) in the case of The Gambia v Myanmar indicating provisional measures to protect the rights of the persecuted Rohingya minority under the Genocide Convention and calls on Myanmar to implement the Order without delay.

“The Order is a significant step towards justice for the Rohingya as it imposes specific, legally-binding, obligations on Myanmar to take critical steps to protect their rights under the Genocide Convention,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists, currently in Yangon, Myanmar. “It is now incumbent on the whole international community, including States, civil society and UN agencies, to urge and assist Myanmar to fulfil its obligations under the Order.”

In its Order, delivered orally, the Court found it had prima facie jurisdiction over the case and indicated a series of provisional measures, including that Myanmar must:

  • take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of the definition of genocide set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention;
  • ensure that its military as well as any irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, and any organizations or persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence do not commit acts of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide;
  • take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of any evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention; and
  • submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to the Order within four months as from the date of the Order and thereafter every six months until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court. Every report will be communicated to the Gambia which will then have the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.

Provisional measures are orders the Court has the power to make aimed at preserving the rights of the Parties to a case pending the final decision of the Court in order to avoid irreparable damage to the rights which are the subject of the dispute, in this case the rights of the Rohingya.

A hearing on the merits of the case will be heard at a later date.

The role of the Court is to settle disputes submitted to it by States in accordance with international law – its role does not extend to determining the criminal responsibility of individuals for perpetrating serious human rights violations.

“As Myanmar is unwilling and unable to conduct investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions of serious human rights violations domestically which meet international law and standards, the various processes underway around the world directed towards criminal accountability- including the investigation of the International Criminal Court – remain necessary and urgent,” added Zarifi.

In 2018, the International Commission of Jurists issued a baseline study of the obstacles to accountability for serious human rights violations in Myanmar identifying “systematic impunity” within the country as a result of the “lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations; lack of access to effective remedies and reparation for victims; and ongoing challenges with the independence and accountability of justice actors.”

International processes underway around the world directed at criminal accountability for serious human rights violations in the Myanmar situation include:

To download the full statement with background information, click here.

Contacts

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t: +41 79 726 4415; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org

Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Libya: Berlin Peace Conference must prioritize accountability for crimes under international law

Libya: Berlin Peace Conference must prioritize accountability for crimes under international law

The 19 January 2020 Berlin Peace Conference should prioritize accountability for crimes under international law committed in Libya and ensure that any resulting Political Agreement (PA) lays the foundations for the rule of law to be established and for human rights to become firmly entrenched in Libya, the ICJ said today.

Upholding of international human rights and humanitarian law is one of the six baskets of activities provided for by the Berlin process to end the conflict in Libya.

The other baskets relate to the Libyan-led political process; the implementation of the arms embargo, security and economic reform; and, most immediately, securing a ceasefire.

Earlier this week, efforts to end nine months of armed conflict between the Government of National Accord (GNA) and the National Libyan Army (LNA) failed to materialize, with the LNA leader refusing to sign a ceasefire.

“The Berlin Conference must send an unequivocal message to all parties that impunity will not be the price of peace,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.

“Peace can only be achieved when State officials and members of armed groups responsible for past and ongoing human rights atrocities are held to account, and when the States that have systematically violated the United Nations-imposed arms embargo are also held to account,” Benarbia added.

The ICJ calls on all those involved in the Berlin process to ensure that any resulting PA include provisions on the right to truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, including commitment to institutional reforms to secure accountability and victims’ rights.

The process should also support calls by civil society organizations, the UN Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Libya, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the establishment of an accountability mechanism for Libya at the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council.

“Accountability is a key, not an obstacle to the establishment of the rule of law in Libya,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Senior Legal Adviser.

“The Berlin Conference should support the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism with a mandate to document human rights violations and abuses in the country, identify those responsible for them, and collect and preserve evidence for use in future criminal proceedings,” she added.

In a briefing published today, the ICJ also urged all parties involved in the Berlin process to ensuring that any resulting PA provide: for armed and security forces to be subordinated to civilian authorities; for any process of integrating officials and members of armed groups in the State’s armed and security forces to be conducted through adequate vetting standards and processes; for the right of all Libyans to participate in the conduct of public affairs to be enshrined and fully complied with; for the independence and accountability of the judiciary and the Office of the General Prosecutor to be secured; and for universally recognized human rights to be protected in Libya’s Constitution and laws.

Contact

Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org

Kate Vigneswaran, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +31624894664, e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org, twitter: @KateVigneswaran

Libya-ICJ recommendations-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2020-ENG (full briefing paper, in PDF)

 

 

 

Thailand: continuing delay in the enactment of the draft law on torture and enforced disappearance undermines access to justice and accountability

Thailand: continuing delay in the enactment of the draft law on torture and enforced disappearance undermines access to justice and accountability

On 20 December 2019, the ICJ submitted recommendations to the Ministry of Justice on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act (“Draft Act”), scheduled for public consultation between 4 and 31 December 2019.

The ICJ also expressed concern at the recurrent delays in the amendment and enactment of this important legislation which will be critical for ensuring accountability and justice for future victims of torture and enforced disappearance.

In October, the Ministry of Justice withdrew the draft Act from the Cabinet “for further revision”, an act which has served to further delaye the passage of essential legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances.

The ICJ also regretted that the latest Draft Act, after several rounds of revisions and public hearings, still has not addressed many of the principal shortcomings which the ICJ and other stakeholders and experts have indicated need necessarily be amended in order to bring the law into line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations, particularly under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).

As it stands, it is also inconsistent with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (“ICPPED”), which Thailand has signed and committed itself to ratify.

The key concerns include:

  • Incomplete definitions of the crimes of torture and enforced disappearance, as well as other key terms discordant with international law;
  • The absence of provisions concerning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT/P);
  • The inadequacy of provisions on the inadmissibility of statements and other information obtained by torture, CIDT/P and enforced disappearances as evidence in legal proceedings;
  • The inadequacy of provisions relating to modes of liability for crimes described in the Draft Act;
  • The inadequacy of provisions concerning safeguards against torture, CIDT/P and enforced disappearances; and
  • The absence of provisions concerning the continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance and statute of limitations for torture and enforced disappearance crimes.

Download the recommendations in English and Thai. (PDF)

Further reading

Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances

Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments

Philippines: court verdict on Ampatuan massacre a step forward for accountability and justice for victims

Philippines: court verdict on Ampatuan massacre a step forward for accountability and justice for victims

The ICJ said that today’s verdict by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on the “Ampatuan Massacre” is a first step in achieving justice for the victims and their families.

The court found guilty several of the principal accused, including Zaldy Ampatuan, who is a former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The Ampatuan Massacre involved the killing of 58 people, including 32 journalists. It became known as the single deadliest attack against journalists globally.

“The Ampatuan massacre was a human rights tragedy that demonstrated how ingrained impunity has become in Philippine society,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.

She added, “It clearly illustrated how respect for human rights has become a mockery in the Philippines, that it can be casually thwarted by a group of individuals who thought they can get away with the killing of 58 people, including journalists, in broad daylight.”

There are 197 accused named in this case, many of them members of the politically-powerful Ampatuan family. The principal accused, including Zaldy Ampatuan and several of his family members, were sentenced to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua (30 to 40 years) without parole. They were also ordered by the court to compensate the victims of the massacre.

The ICJ urged the Philippine government to use this case to now effectively address the culture of impunity in the country.

“The Philippine government should look to this case and use it more generally as a force for a comprehensive drive against impunity, which has been pervasive in unlawful killings, whether by State or private actors,” said Emerlynne Gil.

Background

On 23 November 2009, Bai Genalyn Mangudadatu, wife of Esmael Mangudadatu, was accompanied by members of her family, lawyers, political supporters, and journalists to file the certificate of candidacy of her husband, Esmael Mangudadatu, for the upcoming elections. They were killed by men who later on were revealed to have been ordered by Andal Ampatuan Sr., Andal Ampatuan Jr., and several other members of the Ampatuan family. The Ampatuan family is the political rival of the Mangudadatus.

The convoy of vehicles accompanying the Mangudadatus was ambushed. Passers-by were also killed by the armed men. Their bodies and vehicles were buried in shallow graves nearby.

There were 58 people killed that day, including 32 journalists who were accompanying the Mangudadatus. This became known as the single deadliest attack against journalists globally.

There were 192 persons named as accused in this case, including members of the Ampatuan family and law enforcement officers who conspired with them.

The trial went on for ten years. On 19 November 2019, Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City rendered its decision finding guilty beyond reasonable doubt 28 people, including Zaldy Ampatuan, his brother Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr, and several other Ampatuan family members. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua (30 to 40 years) without parole.

Contact

Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists, t: +66 8409 235 75, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts workshop on extrajudicial killings in the context of ethnic and religious minorities

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts workshop on extrajudicial killings in the context of ethnic and religious minorities

On 17 December 2019, the ICJ co-hosted a discussion on extrajudicial killings in Thailand and the lack of progress in investigations of these killings, with an emphasis on the killings of ethnic, racial, or linguistic minorities or indigenous persons, including indigenous persons in Northern Thailand and ethnic Malays in Southern Thailand.

The discussion was held at the Faculty of Law of Chiang Mai University. The event bought together participants from the North and Deep South of Thailand who considered developing joint advocacy strategy to address the troubling practices.

The event commenced with panel discussions on extrajudicial killings in Thailand and obstacles in access to justice faced by minority communities. Panelists included family members of victims, civil society organizations, lawyers and academics. Affected persons shared their experience as victims of attempted extrajudicial killings or relatives of victims of extrajudicial killings. Other panelists shared information on the dire trend of killings in their regions; concerns regarding extra-judicial killings of unarmed suspects; barriers to access to justice, including financial barriers due to poverty, lack of legal information, lack of trust in the authorities, and language barriers for indigenous speakers. Several panelists expressed concerns that family members of the victims could not participate in the investigation process. Others spoke on the objection of authorities to carry out autopsies of suspected extrajudicial killings in the Deep South.

ICJ’s Legal Adviser Sanhawan Srisod highlighted that investigators and law enforcement officials need to take into account international law and standards. These include the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017; and the 1990 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Different standards of operation between the police and the military to make arrests, which make military officers prone to violate the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. She also spoke on the different types of firearms that security personnel use and how they affect the proportionality of force; and the lack of guidelines on the use of firearms in arrest operations that is in compliance with international laws and standards.

A theater performance by Lanyim Theatre took place after the discussion.

The first panel was moderated by Pranom Somwong, Thailand’s Representative for Protection International. The panel included affected persons of an alleged extra-judicial killing from Thailand’s Deep South; Maitree Chamroensuksakul, from Rak Lahu Group and relative of a victim of an alleged extra-judicial killing in Northern Thailand; Prof. Somchai Preechasinlapakun, Head of Law Research and Development Center, Chiang Mai University; and Yureesa Samah, Officer of Duay Jai Foundation.

The second panel was moderated by Nadthasiri Bergman, Director of Human Rights Lawyers’ Association. The panel included Preeda Nakpiew, Lawyer of Cross-Cultural Foundation; Anukul Awaeputeh, Lawyer and Head of the Pattani branch, Muslim Attorney Center Foundation; Sumitchai Hattasarn, Lawyer and Director of Centre for the Protection and Revival of Local Community Rights; and Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser of the ICJ.

The event was conducted in collaboration with Amnesty International Thailand; Cross Cultural Foundation; Human Rights Lawyers’ Association; Inter Mountain Peoples’ Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT); Legal Research and Development Center, Chiang Mai University; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South-East Asia; and Protection International.

Further reading

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts discussion on addressing extrajudicial killings

ICJ holds seminar at Chiang Mai University Thailand on the right to life and the duty to investigate

Translate »