ICJ joints NGOs to stand in solidarity with Venezuelan human rights defenders

ICJ joints NGOs to stand in solidarity with Venezuelan human rights defenders

Today, the ICJ joined several human rights NGOs to stand in solidarity with Venezuelan NGOs subject to threats, harassment, attacks, restrictions, reprisals and criminal proceedings by State authorities.

The joint statement reads as follows:

The recent, ongoing and unwarranted detention of five members of the Venezuelan NGO ‘Azul Positivo’ is one more event in a series of threats, harassment, attacks, restrictions, reprisals and criminal proceedings against Venezuelan civil society organizations and human rights defenders, which has been intensifying since November 2020.

In recent months and weeks, state agents have forcibly entered the offices of civil society organizations; public threats have been made against defenders who have been engaging with human rights mechanisms, NGO bank accounts have been frozen and arrest warrants issued for aid workers.

Venezuelan civil society operate in a context of serious legal and administrative obstacles with domestic laws used to target human rights defenders, such as the ‘Law Against Hate’, or having the effect of limiting the operations of NGOs and restricting their access to funding, essentially blocking the work of many organizations vital for Venezuelans in need.

In a public statement, a number of UN independent human rights experts and regional experts have described threats and measures taken against Venezuelan civil society since November 2020 as amounting to ‘systematic persecution and stigmatization.’

It is essential that humanitarian and human rights organizations responding to the grave humanitarian and human rights crises in the country, pushing for accountability for violations and abuses and the return of guarantees provided by democratic institutions and processes are able to do their work without fear or hindrance.

Human rights defenders are critical, constructive and essential to democracies and the functioning of the rule of law. Attempts to silence and cow them are counterproductive and shameful.

We urge the Venezuelan authorities to ensure that harassment and threats against Venezuelan defenders stop and for all international legal guarantees to be respected.

We call on all states and UN bodies and agencies to actively support civil society organizations, defenders and activists and to speak up loudly and consistently for the right to defend human rights in Venezuela and globally.

We are inspired by the daily commitment and courage of Venezuelan human rights defenders and humanitarian workers and stand in solidary with our Venezuelan partners and friends.

Signatories:

  • Amnesty International
  • Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
  • CIVICUS
  • Civil Rights Defenders
  • Conectas Diretos Humanos
  • Freedom House
  • Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
  • Human Rights Watch
  • International Commission of Jurists
  • International Service for Human Rights
  • People in Need
  • Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Singapore: ICJ Submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Singapore: ICJ Submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

On 12 October 2020, the ICJ made a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of the Human Rights Council’s review of Singapore in May 2021.

In its submission, the ICJ expressed concern about the following issues:

(i) Freedom of expression online;

(ii) The death penalty;

(iii) Corporal punishment; and

(iv) International human rights instruments.

The ICJ further called upon the Human Rights Council and the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to recommend that Singapore ensure, in law and in practice, the right to freedom of expression online, the right to life and the absolute prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and become a party to core international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as well as the existing Optional Protocols to some of these treaties.

The submission is available in PDF here.

Accountability in Libya; Independence of lawyers in Ukraine (UN statement)

Accountability in Libya; Independence of lawyers in Ukraine (UN statement)

The ICJ today highlighted the need for accountability for crimes under international law in Libya, and concerns for the independence of lawyers in Ukraine, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The oral statement, delivered in the general debate on technical cooperation and capacity building, read as follows:

“Madame President,

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the oral updates on Ukraine and Libya.

Technical assistance and capacity building objectives in Libya can only be achieved if the protection of human rights, entrenchment of the rule of law and pursuit of accountability are prioritized.

States should support the Fact-Finding Mission by extending its reporting mandate, increasing contributions to the UN budget necessary to establish the Mission’s secretariat, and fully cooperating with it.

States should also support the Berlin Process working groups, ensuring that the political and accountability pillars work in unison and making meaningful commitments to implement their recommendations.

Across all of Ukraine, lawyers continue to be associated with their clients and may face consequences for representing them by private individuals and also through abuse of legal proceedings. High-profile cases bear risks for independent lawyers who choose to diligently represent their clients.

The decline in security of lawyers in and outside of courts, and the problem of threats, harassment, and attacks against lawyers, should be addressed as a matter of priority, including through technical cooperation. Measures should be taken to build the capacity of law enforcement agencies and court security personnel to ensure that lawyers and others involved in court proceedings can work in an atmosphere free from intimidation, harassment, and improper interference.

Thank you.”

Philippines: NGOs decry inadequate UN response

Philippines: NGOs decry inadequate UN response

The ICJ today joined other NGOs in expressing concern that the Human Rights Council is poised to fail to adequately respond to the human rights crisis in the Philippines, and urging stronger action.

The statement, which was delivered by the World Organization against Torture (OMCT) on behalf of the group of NGOs in a general debate on item 10, read as follows:

“On behalf of 15 organisations, including colleagues in the Philippines, we are deeply disappointed that the draft Item 10 resolution on the Philippines fails to reflect the gravity of the situation, including as documented in the OHCHR report.

Colleagues from the Philippines have tirelessly advocated for an international investigation, at great personal risk. The thousands of victims of killings and other violations and their families continue to be deprived of justice.

This is a collective failure by the States at this Council. We are shocked by the lack of support for a more robust response.

We acknowledge the rationale presented for constructive engagement with the Government of the Philippines. However, an approach based purely on technical cooperation and capacity-building has no realistic prospect of meaningful impact with a government that denies the true scale and severity of the human rights violations, has publicly endorsed the policy of killings, avoids independent investigations, and continues to crack down on civil society.

Despite the shortcomings of the resolution, it at least keeps the situation on the agenda for the next two years and allows for robust reporting by the OHCHR on the situation – including the implementation, or lack thereof, of OHCHR report recommendations. The Council must follow developments closely and be ready to launch an independent investigation if the killings and the crackdown on civil society do not immediately end and prosecution of perpetrators is not pursued.

I thank you.”

  • Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)
  • Amnesty International
  • Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  • CIVICUS
  • Ecumenical Voice for Human Rights and Peace in the Philippines (EcuVoice)
  • Franciscans International
  • Harm Reduction International
  • Human Rights Watch
  • iDefend
  • International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  • International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  • International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  • KARAPATAN
  • Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocate (PAHRA)
  • World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
NGOs defend independence of UN human rights experts

NGOs defend independence of UN human rights experts

At the Human Rights Council, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted with concern renewed attacks against the Council’s independent experts, aimed at interfering with their independence.

The oral statement was delivered by Amnesty International, in the general debate on human rights bodies, on on behalf of 14 NGOs. It read as follows:

“It is with great concern that we note the renewed attacks against the Special Procedures of this Council, through which certain states seek to interfere with their independence and impose political oversight over individual experts. While we welcome the outcome of the informal discussions, we would like to raise a few issues of concern.

As we noted in our letter to you Madame President, the states signatories of the letters rely on PRST 8/2 of 18 June 2008 on the Terms of office of special procedure mandate-holders, which was originally adopted in the specific context of Council discussions on the extension of the terms of mandate holders, and should not be regarded as a wider framework for assessing the performance of mandate holders. Furthermore, the groups of states appear to have ignored the existing Internal Advisory Procedure, instead proceeding directly to attempts to impose political oversight by this Council.

We also note with great concern that several of the signatory states launched wholly inappropriate attacks of a personal nature against Special Procedure mandate holders in the past.1

The allegations presented against the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in particular, seem little more than objecting to her being especially effective and proactive in doing exactly what this Council has tasked her to do, including monitoring and reporting on violations of the right to life and bringing these to the attention of the Council, and promoting respect for the right to life more generally.

We appreciate the efforts by the Coordination Committee to address broader issues related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, and welcome its willingness to work with the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy on issues related to methodology and programming of the six outstanding country reports.

The independence of the Special Procedures is absolute in nature, and any attempts to erode that status threatens the credibility and integrity of this Council.

Thank you.”

Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Center for Reproductive Rights
Child Rights Connect
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Geneva for Human Rights
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights
Privacy International
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

1 Amnesty International and ISHR: HRC 37: Item 5: Human rights bodies and mechanisms, 14 March 2018, Index number: IOR 40/8032/2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/8032/2018/en/

Translate »