Aug 30, 2019 | News
On the occasion of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, Advocacy Forum-Nepal, the Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD), and the ICJ voiced their concern about the Government’s failure to provide justice for the victims of the country’s decade-long armed conflict, including victims of enforced disappearance.
The organizations also remembered the victims of enforced disappearances in Nepal and recognized the unceasing efforts of victims and their families and others advocating and campaigning for truth and justice for serious human rights violations in Nepal for over a decade.
Nepal faced a protracted internal armed conflict from 1996 to 2006. In the decade-long conflict, serious human rights violations and abuses were committed by both sides: the Government, including the Royal Nepal Army; and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Approximately 1,300 people were “disappeared” during the conflict. The fate of many of “disappeared” is yet to be known.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) put an end to the conflict on 21 November 2006, with both sides agreeing to hold perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses accountable and provide access to effective remedies and reparation to victims, including a commitment to publicize the fate or whereabouts of “disappeared”. However, nearly 13 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006, these promises remain unfulfilled.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, both established in February 2015, have failed to resolve the many thousands of complaints brought to them by victims and their families, and have yet to publicize their findings. Furthermore, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled the 2014 Act creating the legal framework for the Commissions to be unconstitutional, due in part to the inclusion of provisions that could be used to grant amnesty to perpetrators. In February 2019, the tenure of the commissions was extended to 2020, but the terms of the commissioners expired on 13 April 2019. As of August 2019, no formal replacements had been announced, though a committee to recommend appointments has been established. The ICJ and other organizations have called for a suspension of the current appointment process until amendments to the legal framework are made, and a more consultative and transparent process is initiated.
Nepal has also enacted a new Penal Code, with effect from August 2018. For the first time, the Penal Code recognized enforced disappearance as a distinct crime. While the intent behind this measure is commendable, the law does not meet Nepal’s obligations concerning crimes under international law. In particular, the definition of enforced disappearance falls short of international standards; the crime of enforced disappearance is not absolutely prohibited; provisions related to superior and command responsibility are inadequate; and the penalties for enforced disappearance are inconsistent with international standards. The provisions will apply retroactively to the more than 1,300 conflict era cases.
The organizations urged the Government of Nepal to:
- Amend the 2014 Transitional Justice Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights standards and Supreme Court rulings, including removing amnesty for perpetrators;
- Revise the criminal code to bring it in line with international standards. At the minimum, this should include:
- amending the definition of enforced disappearances to bring it in line with Nepal’s international obligations and the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED)
- revising the penalty provisions in the Criminal Code Bill to comply with relevant provisions of the CED and other international law and standards
- removing the statute of limitations for enforced disappearance cases
- Ratify International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances;
- Publicize the findings of the CIEDP; and
- Ensure that in Nepal’s legal system, the victims of enforced disappearance, including family members of “disappeared” persons, have the right to obtain reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation; and they can effectively exercise that right in practice.
Contact:
For the ICJ: Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background:
The International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances falls on 30 August every year. Nepal is bound by international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both of which it has acceded to – to investigate, prosecute, punish and provide remedies and reparation for the crimes of torture, other acts of ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance.
Nepal-International Day Enforced Disappearances-Press releases-2019-NEP (Story in Nepali)
Oct 2, 2017 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the apparently unlawful violence surrounding yesterday’s referendum in Catalonia, as Catalan authorities sought to hold a vote on the independence of the region. The Spanish Constitutional Court had ruled that the referendum was illegal.
The ICJ calls on all parties concerned to resolve the current crisis in accordance with international human rights law and in the framework of the rule of law.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at allegations of excessive use of force during police operations aimed at enforcing court orders to prevent the referendum being held.
International human rights obligations binding on Spain require that any use of force by agents of the State must be no more than is strictly necessary in the circumstances to meet a grave threat .
All aspects of police operations, including their planning and co-ordination, and the training, guidance and orders given to police officers on the ground, must be designed to minimize the use of physical force.
The ICJ calls for a thorough, prompt and independent investigation into the violence surrounding the referendum, and for those responsible for acts of violence in violation of human rights to be brought to justice.
Background
Spain has obligations to respect the right to life and the right to physical integrity of any person under its jurisdiction under articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Standards in this regard are re-enforced by the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
Positive obligations under these provisions require that allegations of lethal or potentially lethal force, or force that could amount to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, be the subject of investigation that is independent and impartial, thorough and prompt.
The violence surrounding the referendum on Catalonia’s independence reportedly resulted in injuries to at least 844 civilians and 33 police offices.
Contacts:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jul 12, 2017 | News
The ICJ is alarmed at ongoing attacks on the rule of law in Poland.
On 12 July 2017, the Government tabled in Parliament draft bill no. 1727, that, if approved, would automatically dismiss all judges of the Supreme Court and let the Minister of Justice decide which judges are to be reinstated or newly appointed.
“This draft law is a direct blow to the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock of the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme.
“The security of tenure and conditions of service of individual judges are essential to judicial independence,” he added.
Draft bill no. 1727 follows another piece of legislation, recently approved by Parliament, by which the Parliament empowered itself to appoint the majority of the members of the National Council of the Judiciary, the body which selects and governs the judiciary.
That law gives political powers in the Polish legislature and executive, which have increasingly demonstrated deep disregard for human rights and the rule of law, undue influence over the judiciary.
Such deficiencies were also highlighted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE in May 2017.
“These series of legislative attacks to the independence of the judiciary in Poland must stop. These actions are inconsistent with the international obligations of Poland to ensure the independence of judges,” said Massimo Frigo.
“The European Union must intervene. A EU Member State that directly undermines the checks and balances of its own legal system threatens the founding values of the EU of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” he added.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
International standards
Particularly in a context like present day Poland, mass removal of all judges from a court, by another branch of government, without a fair and evidence-based individual process for each judge, is incompatible with international standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (See, ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13 on Judicial Accountability, pp. 99-104). The UN Basic Principles affirm, among other things, that:
1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
10. …Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. …
12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Similar mass removals with politicization of the procedure for reinstatement and new appointments have been condemned as violations of States’ international human rights obligations by, for instance, the UN Human Rights Committee acting under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is also party (see Busyo, Wongodi, Matubaka et al v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Doc CCPR/C/7878/D/933/2000 (2003), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see e.g. Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coelle et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 266 (2013) and Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 268 (2013).
Council of Europe standards, in the form of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, provide among other things as follows:
26. Councils for the judiciary are independent bodies, established by law or under the constitution, that seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges and thereby to promote the efficient functioning of the judicial system.
27. Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
44. Decisions concerning the selection and career of judges should be based on objective criteria pre-established by law or by the competent authorities. Such decisions should be based on merit, having regard to the qualifications, skills and capacity required to adjudicate cases by applying the law while respecting human dignity.
45. There should be no discrimination against judges or candidates for judicial office on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, disability, birth, sexual orientation or other status. A requirement that a judge or a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the state concerned should not be considered discriminatory.
46. The authority taking decisions on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the executive and legislative powers. With a view to guaranteeing its independence, at least half of the members of the authority should be judges chosen by their peers.
47. However, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary (without prejudice to the rules applicable to councils for the judiciary contained in Chapter IV) should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice.
48. The membership of the independent authorities referred to in paragraphs 46 and 47 should ensure the widest possible representation. Their procedures should be transparent with reasons for decisions being made available to applicants on request. An unsuccessful candidate should have the right to challenge the decision, or at least the procedure under which the decision was made.
49. Security of tenure and irremovability are key elements of the independence of judges. Accordingly, judges should have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age, where such exists.
50. The terms of office of judges should be established by law. A permanent appointment should only be terminated in cases of serious breaches of disciplinary or criminal provisions established by law, or where the judge can no longer perform judicial functions. Early retirement should be possible only at the request of the judge concerned or on medical grounds.
69. Disciplinary proceedings may follow where judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner. Such proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
May 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ has launched the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) in Thailand, together with the Thai Ministry of Justice, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the German Embassy in Bangkok.
The launch on Thursday coincided with a parallel launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
The Minnesota Protocol is a companion document to the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), and sets a common standard of performance in investigating potentially unlawful death and a shared set of principles and guidelines for States, as well as for institutions and individuals who play a role in death investigations.
The launch was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Thai Police, the Office of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Defence, and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia and member of the Forensics and Legal Working Groups which assisted with the revision the Minnesota Protocol, opened the event for the ICJ by commending Thailand for hosting the first national launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol.
“Investigations play a key role in accountability by upholding the right to life which is guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand is a State Party,” said Abbott. “All over the world we witness impunity in cases of unlawful death because either investigations do not take place or are inadequate and non-compliant with international law and standards.”
“The Minnesota Protocol makes it clear that investigations must be prompt, effective and thorough, as well as independent, impartial and transparent, and we expect that the revised Minnesota Protocol will help Thailand and other States to meet that obligation,” added Abbott. “The ICJ wishes to take this opportunity to reaffirm our long-standing commitment to the Thai authorities to assist them in efforts to implement Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”
The other speakers at the launch were:
- Ms Pitikarn Sitthidech, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Ms Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Head, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Regional Office for Southeast Asia
- Prof. Stuart Casey-Maslen, Project Manager of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol, University of Pretoria
- Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, Adviser, Central Institute for Forensic Science (CIFC) and member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol
- Ms Angkhana Neelapaijit, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and Victim Representative
- Mr Kittinan Thatpramuk, Deputy Director General, Department of Investigation, Office of the Attorney General
- Pol.Lt.Col. Payao Thongsen, Commander, the Special Criminal Cases Office 1, Department of Special Investigation (DSI)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-ENG (PDF, English)
Universal-Minnesota-Protocol-Advocacy-2017-THA (PDF, Thai)
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-BUR (PDF, Burmese)
Nov 5, 2015 | News
On the 15th anniversary of Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike, the International Commission of Jurists calls on the Indian government to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act without further delay.
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
“The AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational,” Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Director of the ICJ said. “It is a repressive and draconian law that should have no place in today’s India”.
Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”. These include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”. These and other vaguely framed provisions give armed forces broad powers that are inconsistent with the government’s obligations to respect the right to life.
In addition to leading to many unlawful killings in the areas in which it has been in effect, the provisions of the AFSPA have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances.
“The AFSPA has created a culture of impunity, shielding security forces from accountability in India for crimes under international law, and making it impossible for victims of human rights violations to access justice”, Sam Zarifi said.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court. Decisions regarding sanction take many years, and as yet, no member of the armed forces has been prosecuted in a civilian court.
The Indian government has often justified the need for the AFSPA as necessary to address terrorism and militancy in “disturbed areas”. “International law requires and experience shows that effective counter- terrorism measures must reinforce human rights, and not undermine and violate them,” said Sam Zarifi.
Calls for the repeal or amendment of the AFSPA –including from official bodies – have come from near and far for a number of years.
Several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended. These include the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (in 2013 and again in 2015), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2012), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), and the UN Human Rights Committee (1997).
In recent years, prominent Indian bodies have recognized the brutality of the AFSPA and echoed demands for repeal or amendment. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee set up by the Government of India to review the working of the AFSPA, has advocated its repeal. The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission seconded this recommendation.
The Verma Commission, set up by the government following the gang rape in Delhi in 2012, called for the repeal of sanction provisions under the AFSPA as they relate to sexual offences. In 2015, a High Level Committee on the Status of Women also reportedly advocated its repeal.
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victims Family Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) filed a petition at the Supreme Court of India, alleging that between 1979 and 2012, 1528 people were extra-judicially executed by security forces in Manipur.
A court-appointed fact-finding commission – popularly known as the Santosh Hegde Commission – studied 6 of these cases, and found that the deaths were not lawful.
In its report, the Hegde Commission agreed with the observation of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, that the AFSPA had become “a symbol of oppression, an object of hate, and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.”
The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Advisor (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; email: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
