Dec 12, 2018 | Events, News
On 12 December 2018, the ICJ co-organized a panel discussion at Bangkok Art and Culture Center (BACC) in Thailand marking the 6th anniversary of the evident enforced disappearance of prominent Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone.
The panel discussion was co-organized with the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and Forum Asia.
On 15 December 2012, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage taken by police cameras near a police checkpoint in Vientiane, Lao PDR, appeared to show that Sombath Somphone was abducted at the checkpoint by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, agents of the State. He has not been seen since.
Six years after his abduction, Laotian authorities have repeatedly failed to provide meaningful information as to his fate or whereabouts, or conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation towards determining his fate. The last police report on his case was issued on 8 June 2013.
In light of the 6th anniversary, the panel discussion considered what further steps could be taken to continue advocacy on his case and spoke about regional implications and responses.
The panelists were:
- Ng Shui-Meng, Wife of Sombath Somphone;
- Edmund Bon, Lawyer, Malaysia’s Representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights;
- Premrudee Daoroung, Project SEVANA’s South-East Asia Coordinator;
- Charles Santiago, Malaysian Member of Parliament.
The panel was moderated by the Andrea Giorgetta from the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
Nov 25, 2018 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the formal declaration of the Gambia to allow individuals and certain non-governmental organizations with observer status access to complain of human rights violations against the Gambian State at the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights.
Gambia became the ninth African State to make the declaration to allow individual access the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights. The ICJ called on other States to follow suit rapidly.
“The Gambian government should be applauded, but more African States need to step up to reinforce their international human rights obligations by allowing victims of violations direct access to the Court and to empower the African Human Rights Court to do the work for which it was set up.” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ African Regional Progamme. “It is only through extensive depositing of article 34(6) by the majority of African states that the court can be truly an African Court”.
In addition to granting access to individuals, the Declaration made under article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights triggers the courts jurisdictional competency under article 5(3) to allow for a limited number of NGOS access.
“The promise of human rights protection under the African human rights system can only be realized when political leaders match rhetoric with such action as allowing individuals to seek an effective remedy by direct access to regional human rights mechanisms like the African Court,” added Arnold Tsunga.
The ICJ emphasized that despite the significant human and material resources invested in the Court since its establishment in 2006, the African Court has been unavailable to great majority of Africans, since very few States had so far entered the declaration recognizing its competency.
Other States that have previously made declarations include Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d´Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania and Tunisia.
Although, complaints of human rights violation can only be brought directly before the Court against the nine States that have made the declaration, victims of human rights violation of almost all African States can already bring claims against other states through the non-judicial communication procedure available at the African Commission on Human and Peoples´ Rights.
The ICJ stressed while access to the Commission’s procedures is important, it was not an adequate substitute for the kind of binding legal remedy that can be only ordered by a Court. The ICJ noted poor rate of compliance with decisions of the African Commission.
Contacts:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists C: +263 77 728 3248, E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists.C: +234 803492 7549, E: solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org
Nov 22, 2018
Under its Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, the ICJ has launched its 2018 update to Practitioners’ Guide No 2, outlining the international legal principles governing the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross human rights violations and abuses by compiling international jurisprudence on the issues of reparations.
The Guide is aimed at practitioners who may find it useful to have international sources at hand for their legal, advocacy, social or other work.
Amongst revisions to the Guide, the 2018 update includes new sections on terminology and on non-discrimination;updated sections on the notions of ‘collective victims’, ‘collective rights’, the rights of ‘groups of individuals’; additional references to the work of the Committeeon the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child; an updated section on remedies for unlawful detention, including references to the 2015 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Habeas Corpus; and updates on gender-based violence and on violations occurring in the context of business activities.
The Guide first recalls the States’ general duty to respect, protect, ensure and promote human rights, particularly the general duty of the State and the general consequences flowing from gross human rights violations (Chapter 1).
It then defines who is entitled to reparation: victims are, of course, the first beneficiaries of reparations, but other persons also have a right to reparation under certain circumstances (Chapter 2).
The Guide goes on to address the right to an effective remedy, the right to a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation and the right to truth (Chapters 3-4).
It then addresses the consequences of gross human rights violations, i.e. the duty of the State to cease the violation if it is ongoing and to guarantee that no further violations will be committed (Chapter 6). It continues by describing the different aspects of the right to reparation, i.e. the right to restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction (Chapter 7).
While the duty to prosecute and punish perpetrators of human rights violations is not necessarily part of the reparation as such, it is so closely linked to the victim’s right to redress and justice that it must be addressed in this Guide (Chapter 8).
Frequent factors of impunity, such as trials in military tribunals, amnesties or comparable measures and statutes of limitations for crimes under international law are also discussed (Chapter 9).
The guide is now also available in Turkish.
Download
Universal-Right to a Remedy-Publications-Reports-Practitioners’ Guides-2018-ENG (full text in English, PDF)
Universal-Right-to-a-Remedy-Publications-Reports-Practitioners-Guides-2018-TR [1] (full text in Turkish, PDF)
Universal-Right-to-a-Remedy-Publications-Reports-Practitioners-Guides-2018-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Nov 20, 2018
The ICJ said today that the Nepal Army’s petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn convictions of soldiers for the 2004 killing of 14-year-old Maina Sunuwar was riddled with legal flaws. Its success would be a blow to the fight against impunity in Nepal.
On the 12th Anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the ICJ released an analysis of the Nepal Army’s legal arguments in the petition to upend the convictions issued by the Kavrepalanchowk District Court for the killing Maina Sunuwar while in Army custody.
“The Nepal Army has sought to overturn the convictions of Maina’s killers by putting forth specious legal arguments that do not hold up under Nepali or international law, or in light of the past decisions of the Supreme Court,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
In the legal briefing, the ICJ sets out (i) Nepal’s obligations under international law and the Nepal Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of human rights violations; (ii) the impropriety of jurisdiction by a military court-martial in cases of serious human rights violations; and (iii) refutes the argument that the convictions violated principles of ‘double jeopardy’.
The briefing sets out international law and jurisprudence establishing the Government’s duty to prosecute serious human rights violations as distinct and separate from its obligation to establish the truth, including as part of a transitional justice process.
The briefing comes at a moment when the future of justice for conflict era crimes and human rights violations in Nepal is uncertain.
In July, a draft bill amending the existing legislative framework governing the transitional justice process was criticized by civil society, victim groups and human rights organizations – including in a joint analysis by the ICJ, Amnesty International and Trial International.
While a government panel elicited comments at consultations with victims and civil society, the government never produced a revised draft or conducted follow-up.
“How can the people of Nepal, and particularly conflict victims, have faith in government proposals to press forward on transitional justice when the Nepal Army continues to fight even minimal accountability with disingenuous legal arguments, such as in the case of Maina Sunuwar?” said Rawski.
“The foundation for any process moving forward must be the best interests of victims, a commitment to accountability, and respect for international human rights obligations. This has been affirmed many times over by the Supreme Court,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Background
Maina Sunuwar was subjected to enforced disappearance, torture and unlawful killing after a covert military operation, which included the involvement of then captain Niranjan Basnet on 17 February 2004.
The military refused to acknowledge Maina’s detention for many months.
After overcoming a number of procedural and political hurdles stretching over years, on 16 April 2017, the Kavre District Court sentenced three retired army officers to life imprisonment for Maina Sunuwar’s murder.
In September 2017, the Nepal Army filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Kavre Court on several grounds, including that military courts had proper jurisdiction over the original case, that the District Court convictions violated the principle of ‘double jeopardy’ because the defendants had already been tried by a court-martial, and that the court system no longer had jurisdiction over conflict-related cases following the establishment of transitional justice institutions.
Nepal-Petition to overturn convictions for Maina Sunuwar killing-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-ENG (Full Analysis brief, in PDF)
Nov 16, 2018 | News
The South Cairo Criminal Court’s conviction and sentencing on 11 November 2018 of Assistant Detective Mohamed Sayed Abdel Halim and Police Officer Mohamed Ahmed Salem to three years and six months’ imprisonment respectively for conduct involving the torture and killing of 22-year-old Mohamed Abdel-Hakim Mahmoud does not amount to justice for the crimes against him, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ called on prosecutors to consider options for appeal or new charges that could hold the perpetrators properly to account for serious crimes, with sanctions appropriate to the gravity of their conduct and in line with international law.
The two officers apparently unlawfully arrested Mohamed Abdel-Hakim Mahmoud, otherwise known as “Afroto,” on 5 January 2018 and subjected him to severe beatings and other torture, as a result of which he died.
The Court convicted Abdel Halim of “beating that led to death,” a crime that carries a sentence of three to seven years’ imprisonment under Article 236 of the Egyptian Penal Code, and Salem of “light beating.”
“The low sentences imposed by the Court are completely disproportionate to the conduct of the perpetrators, who beat Afroto, threw him into a cell and then beat him again when he complained he was unable to breath. The perpetrators should have been held accountable for their true criminal conduct, which included torture and murder in police custody,” said Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ MENA Programme.
“The Egyptian authorities’ consistent efforts to immunize public officials from real accountability denies the victims and their families their right to redress and reinforces the Egyptian people’s increasing lack of trust in the Egyptian government and judicial system,” she added.
The definition of torture under Article 126 of the Egyptian Penal Code only establishes liability for torture for the purpose of obtaining a “confession” against a suspect, falling far short of the standard required by the Egyptian Constitution and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which contemplate torture being undertaken for any number of purposes. The Penal Code also imposes penalties—hard labour and the death penalty—inconsistent with human rights, including for torture and murder.
“Egypt should amend the Penal Code to prohibit all forms of torture and abolish the death penalty and hard labour,” said Kate Vigneswaran.
“The authorities are obligated under international law to ensure effective justice for crimes committed by public officials by charging them with crimes and imposing sentences reflecting their criminal conduct. Legislative reform is needed to both ensure accountability for victims and uphold the rights of perpetrators,” she added.
Contact:
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, m: +31 624894664, e: kate.vigneswaran@icj.org
Egypt-Afroto Verdict-News-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
