Dec 15, 2019 | News
On 15 December 2019, the ICJ joined 87 organizations and 11 individuals in a statement urging the Lao and Thai governments to investigate apparent cases of enforced disappearance and demanding that the Lao government finally reveal Sombath Somphone’s whereabouts and ensure justice for him and his family.
The statement was issued on the seventh anniversary of the disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone and called particularly for the establishment of an independent and impartial investigative body tasked with determining Sombath’s fate and whereabouts without delay, considering the Lao police’s protracted failure to effectively investigate his case. The new body should have the authority to seek and receive international technical assistance in order to conduct a professional, independent, impartial, and effective investigation in accordance with international standards.
Sombath Somphone was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street in Vientiane on the evening of 15 December 2012. Footage from a CCTV camera showed that Sombath’s vehicle was stopped at the police checkpoint and that, within minutes, unknown individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center. The presence of police officers at Sombath’s abduction and their failure to intervene strongly indicates state agents’ participation in Sombath’s disappearance.
Lao authorities have repeatedly claimed they have been investigating Sombath’s enforced disappearance but have failed to disclose any new findings to the public since 8 June 2013. They have met with Sombath’s wife, Ng Shui Meng, only twice since January 2013 – the last time in December 2017. No substantive information about the investigation has been shared by the police with the family, indicating that, for all intents and purposes, the police investigation has been de facto suspended.
The joint statement called on both Lao and Thai governments to promptly and impartial investigate all cases of suspected enforced disappearance in Laos and Thailand in line with international legal standards with a view towards determining the fate and whereabouts of apparent victims.
These include the cases of Od Sayavong, a Lao refugee living in Thailand who has been missing since 26 August 2019, and the cases of Ittiphon Sukpaen, Wuthipong Kachathamakul, Surachai Danwattananusorn, Chatcharn Buppawan and Kraidej Luelert, five Thai critics of the monarchy and the Thai government living in exile in Laos, who went missing between June 2016 and December 2018.
The statement further urged the Lao and Thai governments to promptly ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Laos and Thailand signed in September 2008 and January 2012 respectively; to incorporate the Convention’s provisions into their domestic legal frameworks, implementing it in practice; and to recognize the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of victims or other States parties.
The full statement is available here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and the Pacific Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Dec 11, 2019
Today, the ICJ released Practical Guide 1 on the adjudication of crimes under Tunisian and international law, the first guide in a four-part series on accountability for crimes under international law and the Tunisian Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC).
Practical Guide 1 addresses the application of Tunisian law governing the penalization of crimes and modes of liability, in relation to international law and standards.
The SCC were established in 2014 to adjudicate cases involving alleged “gross human rights violations” between 1955 and 2013 referred by the Truth and Dignity Commission.
“Tunisia has obligations under international law to ensure justice for victims and combat impunity for the egregious human rights violations that were committed in the past,” said Saïd Benarbia, ICJ MENA Programme Director.
“International law is directly relevant to the work of the SCC, particularly since the gross human rights violations over which the SCC have jurisdiction are either not defined in domestic law or are defined inconsistently with the definitions under international law binding Tunisia,” he added.
The Practical Guide sets out relevant international law and correlates it to related provisions of Tunisian law.
The Guide examines the principles of legality and non-retroactivity under international law and their application in the domestic system, and conducts an analysis of the definition of crimes under domestic law vis-à-vis international law for arbitrary deprivations of life, arbitrary deprivations of liberty, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, rape and sexual assault and crimes against humanity.
Although the transitional justice framework governing the SCC gives judges some tools to remedy the gaps and inconsistencies in domestic law, legislative reform is needed to ensure Tunisia is in compliance with its obligation to penalize crimes under international law and investigate, prosecute and remedy them whenever they are committed, whether pre- or post-2011.
“Tunisian legislators gave the SCC the mandate to adjudicate gross human rights violations but haven’t remedied all the gaps and inconsistencies in the domestic law the SCC were tasked with applying,” said Valentina Cadelo, ICJ MENA Programme Associate Legal Adviser.
“Tunisian authorities must now take steps to reform the law to guarantee that all perpetrators of gross human rights violations can be held criminally responsible in any Tunisian court,” she added.
Practical Guide 1 aims to:
- Explain international law relevant to the SCC, including the application of the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, statutory limitations and crimes under international law, to guarantee justice for victims of gross human rights violations and hold perpetrators accountable, while meeting international fair trial standards.
- Correlate domestic definitions of crimes with the definitions of crimes under international law applicable at the time the alleged conduct occurred.
- Describe the requirement that penalties applied upon conviction be based in law and correspond to the gravity of the crimes.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Valentina Cadelo, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, t: +21671962287, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org , twitter: @ValentinaCadelo
Download
Tunisia-Accountability series-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2019-ENG (full report in English, PDF)
Tunisia-Accountability series-News-2019-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Accountability series-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2019-ARA (full report in Arabic, PDF)
Dec 10, 2019 | News
The pervasive practice of torture and other ill treatment can only be addressed if the States in the region ensure perpetrators are held accountable in line with international standards, said lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The call came at a regional conference on the investigation and prosecution of torture and other ill treatment in South Asia, organized by the ICJ ahead of Human Rights Day.
“Governments in South Asia have done very little to support the victims and survivors of torture and other ill treatment, or to ensure their rights to truth, justice and reparation,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Despite the persistence of the practice, Governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” he added.
Torture and other ill treatment are prevalent in South Asia, and in some countries widespread and systematic, with perpetrators enjoying impunity for the crime.
According to the ICJ, States in the region continue to deny the pervasiveness of torture, use torture as a deliberate tool to control and punish dissent, fail to enact specific legislation to criminalize torture, and where a special law exists, fail to implement it in good faith.
Consequently, there have been few concerted efforts to hold perpetrators of torture and ill treatment to account.
All too often, perpetrators get away with only disciplinary sanctions, and even when prosecutions happen, they do not result in convictions and commensurate penalties.
Suspects are often lower or middle-ranking public officials rather than their superiors, who are charged with lesser crimes than torture, such as assault, battery, coercion or abuse of office that carry relatively low punishments.
Prosecutions frequently fail because of the difficulties to prove torture, including securing witnesses for the prosecution, inadequate or conflicting medical evidence as well as threats of reprisals influencing victims and witnesses.
Even when such hurdles are overcome, immunities that protect public officials from prosecutions allow perpetrators to escape accountability.
Furthermore, military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention, which facilitate the practice of torture and other ill treatment.
Under international law, States must ensure protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, States are required to investigate allegations competently, impartially, independently, promptly and thoroughly.
While a comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to prevent and combat torture and other ill treatment – ensuring accountability for perpetrators would be a first step, said the ICJ.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Nov 25, 2019 | News
Nepal has made no real progress on questions of justice, truth and reparations for victims of gross human rights violations and abuses during its 10-year conflict, the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and TRIAL International said today.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement to end the war was signed on November 21, 2006.
While two commissions have been set up to address conflict-era atrocities, they have not been effective and impunity and denial of access to justice to victims remain prevalent. The four human rights organizations are particularly concerned about the recent moves that suggest that the government will go forward with the appointing of commissioners without making necessary reforms to the legal framework.
“Last week marked the 13th anniversary of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the conflict in Nepal. It is astonishing that so little progress has been made in responding to the clearly articulated concerns and demands of conflict victims,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “These demands have included a transparent and consultative process for the appointment of commissioners, and a genuine good-faith effort by political leaders and lawmakers to address serious weaknesses in the existing legal framework.”
On November 18, a five-member committee formed by the government to recommend names for commissioners to be appointed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearances published a list of candidates. Concerns have been raised by victims and civil society that the government will simply re-appoint past commissioners or make political appointments that will not be adequately impartial and independent.
“It is deeply disappointing that the government has repeatedly attempted to appoint the commissioners without adequate consultation and transparency . The commissions will not gain the trust of the victims and the international community if the political parties continue to interfere in the appointment process,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International.
Importantly, the move suggests that the commissions will be re-constituted without amending the legal framework governing the transitional justice process and ensuring its compliance with Nepal’s international human rights law obligations, as directed by Nepal’s Supreme Court and demanded by civil society and victims.
Victims and civil society organizations have issued public statement making it clear that they oppose any appointments prior to the amendment of the legal framework. Notably, the National Human Rights Commission, in its statement commemorating 13th Anniversary of CPA, stated that “…the commission will not support any decision, work or activities that might hurt the sensitivity of the conflict victims…”.
“The government’s move has not only undermined victims’ role in the transitional justice process, but has also once again brought into question its commitment to uphold its international law obligations and ensuring justice for conflict-era crimes,” said Tomás Ananía, TRIAL International’s Nepal Program Manager.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and TRIAL International have repeatedly expressed concern that effective transitional justice mechanisms require strong legal foundations consistent with international law and good practices, and the political will to address the concerns of victims of the conflict. All four organisations reiterated their calls to amend the the 2014 Transitional Justice Act to make it consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings and international human rights standards, as well as for the initiation of a genuine consultative and transparent process for the appointment of commissioners.
Concerns raised about the existing, and proposed, legal frameworks include: disparities between the definitions of specific crimes under international law and human rights obligations and violations under national, and international law; inadequate provisions to ensure that serious crimes under international law are subject to criminal accountability (including punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes); and a reliance on compensation at the expense of other forms of reparation and remedy for conflict survivors and their families.
Under the principle of universal jurisdiction states may make it possible for their domestic criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute crimes such as torture, committed by any person, anywhere in the world.
This means that a citizen of any country, including Nepal, suspected of such crimes faces the risk of arrest and prosecution for these crimes in countries that apply universal jurisdiction. This is more likely if the Nepali authorities do not appear able and willing to prosecute those responsible for such crimes, the organizations said.
“After initial pledges to ensure truth, justice, and reparations for conflict victims, it appears that the government is once again determined to protect those responsible for the crimes,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The international community should remind Nepal that whitewashing egregious crimes will not help to dodge universal jurisdiction.”
Contact:
Download the complete press-release in English and Nepali. (PDF)
Nov 22, 2019 | News
On 20 November 2019, the ICJ and Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament, hosted a roundtable discussion in Brussels on the ICJ’s report Accountability for Crimes under International Law in Libya: An Assessment of the Criminal Justice System.
Panelists called for the establishment of a Human Rights Council mandated Commission of Inquiry on Libya and for States to refrain from entering or implementing agreements that could give rise to support for or complicity in violations of international law.
They also called for the intensification of monitoring of Libyan Coast Guard operations and publication of its key findings, and for the European Commission to ensure its cooperation with Libyan authorities is conditional on meeting concrete, verifiable and timebound benchmarks.
At the launch, Said Benarbia and Kate Vigneswaran, MENA Programme Director and Senior Legal Adviser respectively, discussed the findings and recommendations of the ICJ’s report examining the criminal justice framework in Libya. The report finds that investigations and prosecutions of crimes under international law have been limited to a handful of cases, and substantial reforms to the legal framework are required to ensure fair and effective justice in future cases.
In light of the report’s findings, Marwa Mohammed, Head of Advocacy and Outreach for Lawyers for Justice in Libya, discussed the arbitrary detention of thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Libya, systematic human rights violations and abuses being committed against them, and absence of options for protection, repatriation and return, including as a result of EU States’ policies.
Philippe Dam, Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, then discussed the engagement of the EU, European Commission and EU States with Libyan authorities, including in the context of violations and abuses committed against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard.
The panel was introduced by Karolina Babicka, Legal Advisor for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, and moderated by Tinneke Strik. It was attended by representatives of the European Commission, the EEAS, UNHCR, non-government organizations and independent persons
