Mar 13, 2017 | Events, News
The ICJ and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan are convening a side event at the UN Human Rights Council, entitled “Rights vs Security? Protecting human rights while countering terrorism in South Asia”.
The event takes place 15 March 2017, 12:00-13:00, Palais des Nations, Room XXI
Many States in South Asia are responding to security risks posed by terrorism in a manner that erodes respect for the rule of law and human rights—and, as demonstrated around the world, can actually weaken the ability to counter terrorism. ICJ’s panel discussion featuring prominent activists and lawyers from the region takes stock of recent developments and considers a regional way toward countering terrorism while strengthening justice.
Panelists:
Mr I. A. Rehman: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (Pakistan)
Mr Adilur Rahman Khan: Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Mr Gehan Gunatilleke: Lawyer and researcher (Sri Lanka)
Ms Sanhita Ambast: Human rights lawyer (India)
Moderator:
Mr Massimo Frigo: International Commission of Jurists
A flyer may be downloaded here.
Jan 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ deplores comments made last night by the United States President Donald Trump, expressing approval for the practice of torture in counter-terrorism operations.
The ICJ is also alarmed at reports that the US administration is considering resurrecting the most abusive policies and practices during the early 2000s, including prolonged arbitrary detention in CIA-administered secret “black site” facilities, enforced disappearance, and rendition to other countries for torture and ill-treatment.
“These practices of torturing detainees and ‘disappearing’ them in black sites are serious crimes which must never be repeated,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Even President Bush, despite his administration’s appalling record, publicly denounced torture as being against the laws and values of the United States,” he added.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22 979 3837 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Background:
During an interview on US television last night, President Trump repeated his support for torture practices such as waterboarding (near-drowning) and declared that “torture works.”
A number of media reports have indicated that the Trump Administration may issue an Executive Order to review “whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States” and whether the CIA should be in charge of such a programme.
Counter-terrorism abuses during the Bush administration from 2001-08 involving torture, enforced disappearance, secret detention and rendition were widely condemned as unlawful, morally unacceptable, and ineffective, both internationally and in the US, leading to the abandonment of such practices.
A report by the Eminent Jurists Panel of the ICJ on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, issued in 2009 conducted after a four-year study concluded that “such practices are not a legitimate response to the threat of terrorism. Such practices are not only inconsistent with established principles of international law, and undermine the values on which free and democratic societies are based, but as the lessons of history show, they put the possibility of short term gains from illegal actions, above the more enduring long term harm that they cause.”
The Obama administration definitively abolished the practices of torture and secret detention upon taking office in 2009, although they had already been substantially wound down in the later years of the second Bush administration.
Jan 17, 2017 | News
Leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, have hailed a landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court to hold the UK Government accountable for its role in human rights abuses overseas.
The country’s highest court issued today a long-awaited judgment in the two joined appeals in Belhaj and Others v. Jack Straw & Others and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence and Another.
The Court ruled that the UK Government could not rely on the legal doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state to escape claims in the two cases alleging UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
The first case, brought by the former Libyan opposition leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj (photo) and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, alleges that UK Government officials were complicit in the couple’s kidnap and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured.
The second case was brought by Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained by UK forces in Iraq before being handed over to US forces and allegedly tortured and imprisoned without charge for over ten years.
The Government argued before the Supreme Court that the claimants’ cases should be dismissed because, under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state, the UK courts were not permitted to rule on the legality of acts by foreign governments.
The claimants argued in response that the doctrines only applied in certain limited situations, and that they did not extend to the circumstances in Belhaj and Rahmatullah.
The claimants’ position in Belhaj was supported by several prominent human rights organizations – the ICJ, Amnesty International, JUSTICE and REDRESS – who intervened in the case.
The intervening organizations submitted that dismissing the claims would effectively grant impunity for torture to UK officials, violating international human rights law and weakening international commitments to an effective remedy for torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights breaches.
The Supreme Court found unanimously in favour of the claimants and dismissed the Government’s appeal.
It ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply because the foreign governments were not parties to the cases and their legal interests were not affected by the claims put forward.
In respect of foreign act of state, while the judges differed in their reasoning, they agreed that the doctrine could not be invoked for such serious violations of law as torture, unlawful detention and enforced disappearance.
The Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases will now proceed to full trials, where the courts will examine the facts of the claims and determine whether the UK Government and its officials were complicit in the claimants’ torture and other human rights abuses.
“The UK Supreme Court has spoken forcefully in affirming that the public interest in ensuring access to justice for victims of serious human rights abuses is paramount,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Human rights are universal and their effective enforcement must not be blocked by misapplied juridical doctrine that contrives to deny victims a remedy,” he added.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22979 3800 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
UK-Belhaj case-News-press releases-2017-ENG (full version of press release, in PDF)
Jan 6, 2017 | News
As Pakistani military courts once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must urgently reform the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks must be brought to justice pursuant to fair credible trials and in accordance with due process, the human rights organization added.
The 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act 1952 are scheduled to lapse today, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expire. So far, the Pakistani Government has not proposed any legislation to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians, the ICJ says.
The Geneva-based organization has published an updated list of people convicted by military courts, the charges against them, and their alleged organizational affiliations.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly, there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively handle terrorism-related cases,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The National Action Plan envisioned military courts as a short-term “exceptional” measure to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
“The Pakistani Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to human rights protections,” Zarifi added.
Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials and bringing perpetrators to account, the ICJ says.
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 274 people for their “involvement” in terrorism-related offences, 161 of whom have been sentenced to death.
Twelve out of the 161 people sentenced to death have been hanged, 113 people have been given prison sentences. Details of only seven people given life imprisonment have been made public. The names, charges, and duration of prison terms for the remaining 106 people have not been disclosed.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also
Pakistan: stop military trials for civilians
Pakistan: ICJ urges Government not to extend oppressive counter-terrorism law
Additional information
At least 159 out of 168 people (95 per cent) whose convictions have been publicly acknowledged by the military had allegedly “admitted” to the charges, raising serious questions about the possibility of torture or other coercive measures being used to secure these confessions.
The ICJ’ 2009 global study on state responses to security threats examined in detail the dangers of the “exceptionalism doctrine”, which justifies a departure from the normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of the “exceptional” character of the threat.
In time, many of these measures became permanently incorporated into ordinary law, blinding governments to the actual reasons behind the lack of accountability for terrorism and serious crime.
Dec 5, 2016
Read the 107th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...
