Feb 27, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan Government’s announced “withdrawal” of support for the process under UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardane, formally announced the decision on 26 February at a High-Level Segment of the 43rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva.
“The Government of Sri Lanka’s refusal to implement effective measures for truth, justice, accountability and reconciliation, including as set out in the resolutions of the Human Rights Council, places it in violation of its obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable at the international level now appears to be the only real option – including referral to the International Criminal Court, the creation of an ad hoc international mechanism, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction.”
Gunawardane stated that the Government of Sri Lanka would instead “achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework.”
“It is the Sri Lankan Government’s failure to initiate a credible and comprehensive approach to transitional justice in the aftermath of the war that led to the intervention of the international community in the first place,” said Rawski. “Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unable to address systemic and entrenched impunity for crimes under international law perpetrated by the military and security forces,” he added.
Pronouncements by the President, on protecting military personnel from any accountability measures coupled with appointments to senior command positions individuals credibly accused of serious human rights violations indicate that the long history of impunity of security forces in Sri Lanka is set to continue.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the Government’s official refusal to implement the UN resolutions comes at a time when the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is rapidly deteriorating. It threatens to undermine even the meagre progress made over the past few years, which albeit slow and wholly insufficient, has been primarily due to the continued engagement of the Council, OHCHR and international community. The UNHRC process is also the only forum at the global level where Sri Lankan civil society and victim groups have had the opportunity to engage openly in dialogue with the Government and other States on human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.
The validity of adopted resolutions of the Council does not depend on their acceptance by the government concerned. Reporting and discussion of Sri Lanka’s implementation or failure to implement them will take place this year and in 2021 at the Council regardless of the Government’s position.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Feb 17, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has urged expert members of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to focus on the most direct and acute human rights issues, including a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, as the Committee prepares a report on “effects of terrorism on all human rights”.
In an oral statement to the Advisory Committee’s ongoing 24th session in Geneva, the ICJ expressed grave concern about the content of the latest draft of the report, and the potential negative consequences for human rights protection of the report in its current form, and urged the Advisory Committee:
- To substantially revise and refocus the report to include a clear recommendation to the Council that the exclusive focus of the Council’s work should remain on the most acute issues from a human rights perspective: violations in countering terrorism and a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, along the lines already established by successive holders of the Special Rapporteur mandate.
- To recommend against the Council entering into more diffuse macroeconomic issues such as diverting foreign direct investment, reducing capital inflows, destroying infrastructure, limiting foreign trade, disturbing financial markets, and negatively affecting certain economic sectors and impeding economic growth.
- To avoid making recommendations that simply repeat already-existing obligations or commitments to counter terrorism under various UN or other instruments.
- To affirm that the existing and longstanding normative and institutional framework on counter-terrorism and human rights is already sufficient to address relevant impacts of terrorism from a human rights perspective.
Prior to the session, the ICJ together with other NGOs had filed a written statement alerting the Advisory Committee to the highly sensitive context into which its report would be delivered at the Council, and urging the Committee to guard against its work being instrumentalized by Egypt and other States who seek to distort, distract and divert the limited resources and attention of the Council and its Special Rapporteur, away from the longstanding focus, achieved by years of Mexican leadership with consensus support of the Council, on human rights in countering terrorism, and the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The Advisory Committee’s report was requested by a 2017 resolution led by Egypt, which was not a matter of consensus, and is being drafted by a former Ambassador of Egypt who is now a member of the Committee.
Earlier at the session, several States including the EU, Switzerland, and Mexico had expressed concern or otherwise questioned particular aspects of the current draft of the report, and urged the Committee to substantially review and revise the draft. Egypt, China, Russia and several other States expressed satisfaction with the draft and urged the Committee to quickly finalize the report and send it to the Council.
The Advisory Committee report is due to be presented to and considered at the September 2020 session of the Human Rights Council, although some Committee members expressed the wish to finalize the report at the current Committee session.
Feb 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Tunisia’s sixth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In its submission, the ICJ highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the ICCPR, including in relation to:
- Tunisian authorities’ implementation of the transitional justice law, particularly on issues pertaining to criminal accountability for gross human rights violations;
- Judicial independence and accountability, particularly on issues pertaining to the development of a Judicial Code of Ethics, and
- Tunisia’s failure to establish a Constitutional Court.
The submission is relevant for the Committee’s evaluation of Tunisia’s implementation of the State’s obligations and related Covenant rights under articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee will examine Tunisia’s sixth periodic report during its 128th session, which will be held in Geneva from 2 March to 27 March 2020.
Tunisia submitted its sixth periodic report to the Committee in June 2019 according to the approved simplified reporting procedure and in response to the list of issues identified by the UN Human Rights Committee in April 2018. Among these issues, the Committee requested Tunisia to provide information in relation to: the Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented; transitional justice; and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Download
Tunisia-ICJ-Submission-UNHRC-Advocacy-Non-Legal-Submissions-2020-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Jan 16, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has submitted information and recommendations for the upcoming review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, emphasising the need to strengthen the role of human rights in the framework and implementation of the strategy.
The submission was prepared in response to a call for civil society input, from the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT).
It summarizes recent ICJ activities relevant to implementation of the strategy, and urges among other things:
- removal of impediments to civil society participation in certain UN or other global policy-making processes;
- recognition that not only is violation of human rights in the context of countering terrorism, whether through arbitrary application or deliberate abuse, in itself unlawful and unacceptable, it also undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the struggle against terrorism;
- better recognition and implementation of the human rights of victims of terrorism;
- mainstreaming of human rights throughout the text and implementation measures for the Strategy as a whole;
- establishment of an independent human rights oversight entity within the UN counter-terrorism architecture;
- creation of a Civil Society Unit within UNOCT;
- increased resources for the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;
- increased engagement of the UN counter-terrorism architecture with OHCHR and with other UN Special Procedures;
- benchmarks and indicators for assessing States’ compliance with human rights obligations in implementation of the GCTS.
The complete submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-Advocacy-GCTStrategy-2019
For more information contact un(a)icj.org
Dec 20, 2019 | Advocacy
Today, the ICJ published a compilation of cases (read the full document here) decided by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (articles 7 and 10).
This compilation draws together the views of the HRC in all individual communications adjudicated on the merits in respect of Tajikistan, concerning Article 7 and Article 10 of the ICCPR from 1999 to 2019.
This compilation provides a resource for lawyers, judges, civil society and other stakeholders working to protect against torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan. The cases in this volume demonstrate how the UN Human Rights Committee has applied the principles of its jurisprudence on torture and other ill-treatment to the particular legal and factual context of Tajikistan. These authoritative interpretations of the ICCPR by the Committee can help to inform consideration of these issues in the national courts, as well as in legislative reform and policy making.
In addition, by drawing together and analysing the facts of individual communications to the Committee from Tajikistan, this compilation also serves to identify underlying systemic issues which Tajik authorities and the national justice system fail to address. An introduction to the compilation highlight of the main issues which have been identified by the Committee in almost 20 years of its practice on Tajikistan. Several patterns regarding the actual functioning of the Tajik criminal justice system can be drawn from the Committee’s decisions. Together they represent an important evidentiary source to determine where the justice system fails in practice to protect human rights that are guaranteed by the ICCPR and often by Tajikistan law and procedure.
While the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7 is the central point of this review, it logically includes some reference to other relevant Articles of the ICCPR, including Article 2(3) (the right to an effective remedy for violations of the Covenant rights) Article 6 (right to life), Article 10 (conditions of detention), Article 9 (the right to liberty) and Article 14 (fair trial rights). These rights are analysed only where they are pleaded by applicants in cases also involving allegations of violations of rights under Article 7 or 10 ICCPR.
This compilation of cases is published as part of ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, with a view to rendering accessible the cases of the Human Rights Committee related to torture and other ill-treatment to a wide range of different actors within and engaging with the justice system. It should be useful both for independent practitioners such as lawyers, human rights defenders and civil society organizations, and for the judiciary, but also the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Interior, under whose competence some of the issues may fall. The publication should be of equal interest to IGOs working in or with an interest in Tajikistan.
