May 7, 2020
The Indian government has fallen short of its obligations to guarantee the right to housing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICJ said in a briefing paper released today.
Millions of people in India live in informal settlements with poor infrastructure and in overcrowded living conditions, which makes maintaining physical distance during the COVID-19 pandemic difficult, if not impossible. Internal migrant workers in particular have been stranded in informal settlements in urban locations far from their homes as has been previously highlighted by the ICJ. During most of the lockdown period from 22 March to 29 April, these workers could not travel home where they would have had easier access to food and other basic necessities. In a briefing paper on the Right to Food published on 27 April, the ICJ called on India to take immediate steps to guard against an impending “hunger crisis”.
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India International Legal Advisor says, “The right to housing and other human rights violations faced in particular by the poor due to the lockdown is massive. Its effects will be long-term. We urge the Government to take urgent steps to avert the housing crisis. The Government must prioritize housing with basic necessities in both rural areas and deprived urban areas. It must ensure basic necessities in quarantine facilities and shelter homes. Finally, the Government must guarantee that there are no undue restrictions on related human rights such as the right to movement and the right to livelihood among others.”
In a briefing paper, the ICJ answers the following questions in context of some of the human rights concerns that have arisen as a consequence of lack of access to adequate housing during the COVID-19 pandemic:
- What are the principal concerns regarding the right to housing in India?
- What are India’s legal obligations to guarantee the right to housing?
- What actions must the Government take to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to housing during COVID-19?
- What does the International Commission of Jurists recommend?
The ICJ calls upon India to undertake the following :-
- Direct provision and facilitation of accessing to housing
- Increase the number of shelters with appropriate facilities to accommodate homeless persons and informal sector workers who find themselves without accommodation during lockdown;
- Provide adequate emergency housing for homeless persons and daily wage workers who find themselves without accommodation, considering for instance use of vacant government buildings, community halls or other buildings with adequate space and services, including water, sanitation, and clean bedding; and
- Extend the rent moratorium at least until the lockdown ends, and take other measures such as providing financial assistance to landlords and property owners to ensure that the moratorium is implemented.
- Housing policy adjustments
- Immediately enact a moratorium on all forced evictions until at very least the end of the lockdown and other measures taken pursuant to the Disaster Management Act to combat COVID-19. No forced evictions of people from their homes should occur under any circumstances, regardless of who is being evicted or why.
- Legal enforcement of the right to housing
- Ensure that those labourers who are unlawfully evicted in violation of lockdown orders have recourse to legal remedies including compensation, reparation, and where necessary, provision of alternative adequate accommodation;
- Make public information about hotlines, shelter homes, and other mechanisms made available for domestic violence;
- Respond promptly and effectively to every case of domestic violence;
- Enforce applicable laws on domestic violence and non-discrimination in access to housing.
Infographic
Download the Right to Housing Infographic here.
Contact
Download
India-Right-to-Housing-COVID19-Briefing-Paper-2020-ENG (PDF)
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy
The ICJ, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), and the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre) today published a legal opinion by ICJ Commissioner Professor Sarah Cleveland, on compliance of Kazakhstan’s Draft Law on the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies, with the Republic of Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
“Excessive restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly in Kazakhstan have been of significant concern to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, and other human rights bodies for many years,” said Sarah Cleveland.
“Kazakhstan now has an important opportunity to bring its law into compliance with its international human rights obligations, but the draft law currently being considered does not achieve this.”
The Opinion finds that the proposed legislation includes of number of restrictions on freedom of assembly that are fundamentally contrary to Kazakhstan’s human rights obligations, including (1) excessive notification and approval requirements; (2) excessive authority to ban an assembly; (3) a prohibition on spontaneous assemblies; (4) restriction of assemblies to specific locations; (5) preferential treatment for assemblies organized by the government; (6) a prohibition against foreigners, refugees, stateless persons from organizing or participating in assemblies, (7) excessive obligations on organizers and participants; and (8) excessive sanctions for organizers and participants. The timing and process for adopting a law that so fundamentally impacts domestic compliance with core human rights obligations itself raises serious human rights concerns, given the limited ability of civil society organizations and the general public to participate in a robust public debate regarding the law during the quarantine.
In light of these serious human rights concerns, the IBAHRI, the ICJ and the CCPR Centre urge the Senate and/or the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan to halt consideration of the Draft Law, and to seek guidance from the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Assembly and Association, the Office of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, and/or the Venice Commission regarding how the current law on freedom of peaceful assembly might be revised consistent with Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
Kazakhstan-Assembly Law Opinion-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full text in PDF)
Apr 27, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ and Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) jointly submitted a legal brief (amicus curiae) to the Court of Appeal in criminal defamation proceeding against Thai journalist Suchanee Rungmuanporn (Cloitre).
The journalist is being charged after making a post on Twitter highlighting labour rights violations by Thammakaset Company Limited. The post detailed an order by Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases for Thammakaset to provide compensation to its 14 former employees from Myanmar, with the word “slavery” included in the post. This inclusion is the basis for defamation claim.
On 24 December 2019, Suchanee was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by Lopburi Provincial Court.
The intervention reviews the nature and scope of Thailand’s international legal obligations relating to the right to freedom of expression. It makes clear that the imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment has a “chilling effect” on the exercise of freedom of expression, which Thailand is bound to protect pursuant to its international legal obligations. It particularly undermines the work of journalists and human rights defenders seeking to bring to light these violations and whose activities must be protected.
The brief underscores that under international law and standards, criminal sanction involving imprisonment must never be imposed for defamation.
Criminal defamation, under sections 326 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum sentence of one year of imprisonment, a fine of up to 20,000 Baht (approx. USD 640) or both. Section 328 criminalizes defamation “by means of publication” with up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (approx. USD 6,400).
This case is one of 36 cases brought by Thammakaset against several individuals who have expressed views and conducted advocacy on or released information relating to labour rights violations alleged to have been committed by Thammakaset. These include criminal defamation complaints against human rights defenders, including Mr. Nan Win, Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri, Ms. Ngamsuk Rattanasatiean, Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, Ms. Puttanee Kangkun, and Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol.
Download
Legal brief (amicus curiae) to the Court of Appeal in Thai and English.
Apr 18, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ joined other legal organizations in condemning the arrest of 15 pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong for organizing and taking part in ‘unauthorized assemblies’ in 2019. The arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and the right to assembly in Hong Kong.
The joint statement reads:
The international legal community is seriously concerned by the arrest of 15 veteran pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong on Saturday 18 April 2020. In what appears to be a further clampdown on civil liberties and democracy following the 2019 protests, which began over the introduction of a controversial extradition bill, those arrested today include senior figures in the pro-democracy movement. These include lawmakers, party leaders and lawyers such as the democratic politician and legislator, Martin Lee QC who was also involved in the drafting of the Basic Law, the media owner, Jimmy Lai, and the barrister, Dr Margaret Ng. In October of last year, Margaret Ng and Martin Lee were jointly awarded the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Award for their lifelong defence of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
The arrests are purported to be based on suspicion of organising and taking part in ‘unauthorised assemblies’ on 18 August, 1 October and 20 October 2019, pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance. No explanation has been reported for the apparent delay between those protests and the timing of today’s arrests. The leaders of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement have long argued for their rights to peaceful assembly and protest to be exercised without the need for consent from the authorities.
The right to peaceful protest is protected under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. As part of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy, the Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees freedoms that are not available to those in mainland China until 2047. Hong Kong residents are guaranteed the rights to ‘freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration’. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised.” The Basic Law expressly preserves the ICCPR as applicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The State has a duty to protect and facilitate such protest, and the Public Order Ordinance must be implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
Following growing concerns of eroding civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong, the 2019 protests have been unprecedented in their scale and reach and have led to physical violence by authorities, as well as a regrettable violent response by a minority of demonstrators. Excessive crowd dispersal techniques have been used by the authorities, including the dangerous use of tear gas, water cannons, firing of rubber pellets, pepper spray and baton charges by the police to disperse pro-democracy demonstrations, and there is reliable evidence of violence upon arrest. No proper investigation into excessive force has taken place and indeed calls from the international community, including the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, have been rejected.
Today’s arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and right to assembly in Hong Kong. Indeed, we are gravely concerned that the arrests of senior lawyers and legislators who set out to protect human rights in a non-violent and proportionate manner, and pursuant to both rights granted in both domestic and international legal frameworks, represent an assault on the rule of law itself. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly expressed concern that charges of ‘unlawful assembly’ against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong risks violating human rights. The arrest of a prominent media owner also sends a chilling message to those whose journalism is vital to a free society.
It is critical that authorities do not use their powers to encroach on fundamental human rights, and it is vital that legal systems continue to protect citizens from any abuse of power which may otherwise be unseen during the COVID-9 crisis in which the international community is submerged..
We strongly urge the Hong Kong authorities to immediately release the 15 individuals arrested and drop all charges against them. Moreover, we call on the authorities to discontinue such politicised and targeted prosecutions immediately and urge the Hong Kong government instead to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of the pro-democracy movement to foster a climate in which their legitimate concerns over democracy and human rights can be met.
To download the statement with more information and list of organizations, click here.
Apr 3, 2020 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
Miles de personas pertenecientes a los Pueblos Indígenas de Guatemala (Mayas, Garífunas y Xincas), corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de la pandemia COVID-19, si el Gobierno no les provee, de manera inmediata, la información necesaria y les asegura el acceso a un adecuado servicio de salud, sin discriminación, afirmó hoy la CIJ.
“Los Pueblos Indígenas de Guatemala, enfrentan el riesgo de sufrir los efectos destructivos de la pandemia COVID-19, debido a la discriminación histórica y sistemática en su contra; lamentablemente, en la actual crisis, los Pueblos Indígenas no tienen acceso a información clara y sencilla, para saber cómo protegerse de la pandemia y cómo ser protegidos durante la emergencia, por el Sistema de Salud”, afirmó Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica.
“Las comunidades indígenas que más podrían sufrir los efectos de la pandemia, son aquellas que sufren el abandono absoluto del Estado de Guatemala y viven en extrema pobreza en la frontera con México en el norte y occidente del pais”, añadió.
La CIJ requirió a las autoridades del Gobierno de Guatemala, que garanticen que fluya información clara sobre medidas concretas de salud pública, en los idiosmas Mayas (Ixil, Quiché, Mam, Q´eqchí, Kakchiquel, Canjobal, Chuj y otros), así como en los idiomas Garífuna y Xinca.
Durante la pandemia, el Estado de Guatemala no ha tomado en cuenta las dificultades (financieras, geográficas, tecnológicas y barreras lingüisticas) que enfrentan los Pueblos Indígenas, en lo que respecta al acceso a la información. Por el otro lado, la CIJ ha observado que la información sobre las medidas gubernamentales para enfrentar la pandemia, ha sido comunicada en forma muy limitada.
Los Pueblos Indígenas han sido excluidos del Sistema Oficial de Salud, por la discriminación de que son objeto y por la falta de recursos gubernamentales que se invierten en el Sistema de Salud, luego de los procesos de privatización de los servicios sociales, que se han venido implementando a partir de la firma de los Acuerdos de Paz.
“La debilidad del Sistema de Salud Pública, la prevalencia del racismo existente desde siglos atrás y la marcada desigualdad que sufren los Pueblos Indígenas, agravan aún más el impacto potencial que el Corona virus y la pandemia podrán tener en los Pueblos Indígenas”, afirmo Cadena.
La CIJ insta al Estado de Guatemala a tomar las medidas legislativas, administrativas y judiciales necesarias para preservar los derechos humanos de los Pueblos Indígenas durante la presente emergencia y específicamente, para preservar el derecho a la salud, a la alimentación y a la vivienda; asímismo, para garantizar una vida digna a los Pueblos Indígenas, libres de cualquier amenaza a sus derechos civiles y políticos.
“Todas las medidas que el Gobierno implemente para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia, deben ser estrictamente necesarias, legítimas, proporcionadas y temporales”, afirmó Cadena.
“Hay algunas garantías como el derecho a la Reparación y el Derecho de Acceso a la Justicia, que no pueden limitarse ni suspenderse en ninguna circunstancia, ya que son vitales para que las y los ciudadanos, incluidos los Pueblos Indígenas, puedan defender sus derechos. Tomando en cuenta que la presente pandemia afecta el Sistema Legal en diferentes formas, el Gobierno de Guatemala tendrá que tomar medidas específicas para evitar la discriminación en contra de los Pueblos Indígenas y para garantizar el Derecho de Acceso a la Justicia, durante la pandemia”, finalizó Cadena.
