Oct 21, 2019 | News
The ICJ has condemned the arbitrary arrest of at least 186 individuals – 24 of whom are still detained solely for their opinions publicly expressed against the Turkish intervention in northern Syria. The ICJ calls for their immediate and unconditional release and for all charges against them to be dropped.
At least 186 individuals had been arrested by Turkish authorities by 16 October after publicly criticizing Turkey’s military intervention in northern Syria.
They are accused of “provoking the public to hatred and animosity”, “carrying out propaganda for a terrorist organization” and “openly degrading the State of the Republic of Turkey” as prohibited by Articles 216, 220, 301 and 314 of the Turkish Penal Code and Article 7/2 of Prevention of Terrorism Law. Further such arrests are reportedly continuing.
Moreover, an investigation was launched against Istanbul MP Sezgin Tanrıkulu, a member of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), due to his social media messages and statements. HDP co-chairs and MPs were also investigated over “terrorism links” for their statements on the Peace Spring Operation.
“The Turkish Penal Code and Prevention of Terrorism Law in particular with their overly broad definition of terrorism, place excessively restrictive limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression protected under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution and give law-enforcement bodies sweeping powers to proceed to arbitrary arrests,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The ICJ is concerned that these arrests have been undertaken in contravention of the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), treaties to which Turkey is party.
In particular, these restrictions do not appear to be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate, as required by international law.
Detention ordered in breach of these rights is also inherently arbitrary and therefore not in line with Turkey’s obligations to respect the right to liberty under Article 9 ICCPR and Article 5 ECHR.
“These prosecutions violate the Turkish Constitution and international law and should be immediately dropped”, said Massimo Frigo.
“As a priority identified in its Judicial Reform Strategy, Turkey must also quickly abrogate these criminal provisions that cause undue and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression,” he added.
The ICJ recalled that the Venice Commission, in its 2016 report, concluded that the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code under which they are charged “provide for excessive sanctions and have been applied too widely, penalizing conduct protected” under international human rights law.
Similar issues were identified last July by Turkey’s Constitutional Court regarding prosecution for terrorism propaganda, of signatories of a petition calling for peace (the “Academics for Peace” petition) in the southeastern part of the country.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the criminal proceedings violated the right to freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t +32 476 974263; e roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Oct 15, 2019 | News
Today, ICJ called on Turkey to comply with its obligations under the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and international human rights law, immediately end its military operations in Syria, and protect and ensure the protection of the Syrian civilian population.
The ICJ also reiterated its call on all parties to the Syrian conflict to respect and comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
On October 9, Turkey initiated operation “Peace Spring” in Rojava, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-held territory in north-east Syria, with the stated aim of securing Turkey’s border, “fighting terrorism” and facilitating the return of refugees to Syria. Turkey claimed to be acting pursuant to its right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter, as well as UN Security Council resolutions on the fight against terrorism.
The ICJ recalled that none of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of armed force in violation of international law, and that the UN Charter prohibits the use of armed force by States, save when authorized by the UN Security Council or in self-defence.
Use of force in self-defence is lawful only when necessary to repel an armed attack and when proportionate to such attack. Military operations failing to abide by such requirements are in breach of the UN Charter.
“Turkey’s military operations violate the UN Charter and exemplify how the banalization of the illegal use of armed force continues to erode and dismantle the very fabric of the international legal order,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ MENA Programme Director.
He added, “Instead of standing by while international law is being violated, the UN Security Council must take swift, appropriate measures to address the situation and to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
While UN Security Council member States have failed to find an agreement on even a statement on Turkey’s military operations in Syria, Turkish military operations continue to have a devastating impact on the general population, including multiple civilian casualties, attacks against civilian objects, including medical facilities and water supplies and infrastructure, and the displacement of more than 150,000 people, mainly civilians.
Turkish forces and the Turkish-backed armed groups have allegedly been responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Members of one of these groups, the Ahrar Al-Sharqiya, have been accused of the extrajudicial execution of at least nine civilians, among whom is Kurdish politician and women’s rights activist Harvin Khalaf; torture and other ill-treatment; kidnapping; and looting and seizure of private property.
Turkey’s Defence Ministry said 595 “terrorists” were “neutralized” since the start of “Peace Spring.”
Under international humanitarian law, parties to an armed conflict must respect and protect the civilian population, and refrain from any direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attack against civilians and civilian objects. International human rights law also continues to apply during the conflict.
“Turkish authorities must investigate and prosecute unlawful killings committed in the context of operation “Peace Spring,” including extrajudicial executions amounting to war crimes,” Benarbia said.
He added, “If no action is taken by these authorities, States must act, collectively and individually, to hold to account all those responsible for such crimes.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Syria-Turkey operations-News-Press releases-2019-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
Syria-Turkey operations-News-Press releases-2019-TUR (Turkish version, in PDF)
Oct 4, 2019 | Advocacy, News
Reform of the 1959 Defence Services Act is a necessary step to address ongoing military impunity. The case of Ko Par Gyi’s killing should be reopened to satisfy the State’s international law obligations and deter repetition of serious crimes by soldiers.
Five years after the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi, the ICJ calls on the Government of Myanmar to reform the 1959 Defence Services Act, which was used to shield soldiers from accountability for involvement in his killing.
“The case is emblematic of the 1959 Defence Services Act being used to enable impunity for human rights violations by soldiers throughout Myanmar, by transferring to military courts the authority to investigate and prosecute serious crimes against civilians,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Region Director for the ICJ.
“Impunity for Ko Par Gyi’s death is another example of this law being used to shield soldiers from accountability for serious crimes,” added Rawski. “Legislators should reform the 1959 law to enable the public criminal prosecution of soldiers for serious crimes in all circumstances, and take other steps to address the accountability gap.”
After being detained by police in Mon State and transferred into military detention on 30 September 2014, Ko Par Gyi died four days later in the custody of Tatmadaw soldiers. Unceremoniously buried in a shallow grave, Ko Par Gyi’s death was hidden from his family and the public for weeks. Nobody has been held accountable for his death and his family lacks access to redress, including their right to know the truth.
A deeply flawed inquiry carried out secretly in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. This effectively ended other efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable, including through an inquest at the Kyaikmaraw Township Court in Mon State. It also flouted the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission’s recommendation for a police investigation and public criminal trial to be undertaken by civilian authorities.
“Five years on, Myanmar authorities must finally initiate a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the killing of journalist Ko Par Gyi,” said Sean Bain, legal adviser for the ICJ. “The truth must be established and recognized, and those responsible for his apparently unlawful killing need to be brought to justice in fair trials,” he added.
Several provisions of the 1959 Act are used to facilitate a transfer of cases involving military personnel from civilian to military courts, including for serious crimes against civilians. This has been used as a tool to avoid accountability in cases throughout Myanmar, such as its use to justify the early release of soldiers who were convicted by a military court in the killing of ten Rohingya civilians in Rakhine State in 2017.
International legal standards prohibit the use of military courts to try military personnel for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law. The detention and prosecution of journalists, based solely on their lawful activities undertaken while doing their job, violates the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to seek, receive and impart information and to participate in public affairs.
Myanmar authorities have an obligation to reopen the case of Ko Par Gyi with a view to establishing the circumstances of his death, as with any potentially unlawful killing by either State or non-State actors.
“By empowering civilian courts to oversee such cases, the NLD Government would send a powerful message to all justice sector institutions, including police, prosecutors and judges, that they can and should review potential crimes involving the military with independence and impartiality, in line with the rule of law,” added Bain.
The National League for Democracy (NLD)-led Government has the legislative authority to immediately reform the 1959 Act to align it with international standards. The ICJ has called for reform of this law, including by allowing the prosecution of soldiers for serious crimes to be undertaken under the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
See also:
ICJ, “The investigation and prosecution of potentially unlawful death: ICJ Practitioners’ Guide no. 14,” 14 September 2019, available here.
ICJ, “Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar – a baseline study,” 16 January 2018, available here.
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ legal adviser, e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Full statement with additional information, in English: Myanmar-Ko Par Gyi killing-Press-Releases-2019-ENG (PDF)
Full statement, in Burmese: Myanmar-Ko Par Gyi killing-Press-Releases-2019-BUR (PDF)
Oct 1, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ published a Turkish translation of Practitioners’ Guide N°2 on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Human Rights Violations.
The translation has been funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Under its Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, the ICJ had 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 in Turkish is available here.
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the ICJ and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
Sep 26, 2019 | Events, News
Today, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in cooperation with the Civil Society Coalition Against Torture and Impunity in Tajikistan and the Union of Lawyers of the Republic of Tajikistan hold the final event within the framework of its Global redress and accountability initiative.
This event presents an opportunity to discuss measures to prevent impunity and ensure accountability for the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) in Tajikistan.
The findings of the research on the key challenges for effective investigation of torture and CIDT, carried out by the Coalition Against Torture under the initiative, will be presented at the event. The ICJ will launch its compilation of the cases decided by the UN Human Rights Committee concerning allegations of torture in Tajikistan.
Background information:
The ICJ’s Global redress and accountability initiative focused on seven countries (Cambodia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Venezuela) and it aimed to combat impunity and promote redress for gross human rights violations.
It concentrates on the transformative role of the law, justice mechanisms and justice actors, seeking to achieve greater adherence of national legal and institutional frameworks with international law and standards so as to allow for effective redress and accountability; more independent justice mechanisms capable of dealing with challenges of impunity and access to redress; and judges, lawyers, human rights defenders, victims and their representatives that are better equipped to demand and deliver truth, justice and reparation.
Agenda here.
