Sep 10, 2018 | Events, News
The legal profession plays a crucial role in ensuring access to justice for all, transparency and accountability of the state, Rule of law and the respect for human rights.
Yet, instead of being perceived as a vital player to the justice sector, today lawyers are often targeted by the governments in many OSCE countries for seeking truth and justice. As a result, lawyers often face high risks of persecution, harassment as well as severe sanctions for doing their job.
This side-event aims to specifically discuss the situation of lawyers in Belarus, Russia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. The discussion will extend to consider the latest developments related to the rights of lawyers and their independence in the respective countries, and what impact this has on the overall rule of law and human rights situation.
This side event will take place on 12 September 2018, from 13.00 -15.00 at Hotel Bristol, Warsaw
Moderator: Jurate Guzeviciute, Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
Presentations and Discussions:
Independence of the legal profession and harassment of lawyers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia:
- Tajikistan: Dilrabo Samadova, lawyer, Tajikistan
- Azerbaijan: Nijat Mammadbayli, lawyer, Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan: Snezhanna Kim, lawyer, Kazakhstan
- Russia: Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists
- Belarus: Anne Souléliac, Head of the Human Rights section, Paris Bar Association
Organizers: Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the OSCE, Permanent Representation of France to the OSCE, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Paris Bar Association, International Commission of Jurists.
Poland-HDIM_Side event-News-event-2018-ENG (flyer of the event in PDF)
Sep 7, 2018
On 30 May 2018 the Government of Myanmar announced its latest “International Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) to investigate human rights violations in Rakhine State.
Its creation follows at least eight other special government inquiries and boards conducted since 2012 in Rakhine State alone.
In a five-page legal briefing, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) assesses the inquiry in reference to standards on the conduct of investigations.
The ICJ finds that the ICOE cannot reasonably be seen as having any chance of being independent, impartial, or making an effective contribution to justice or accountability for the crimes under international law. To the contrary, giving any recognition to it is likely to undermine and delay effective international measures for justice and accountability.
On 28 August the spokesperson for the Office of the President stated that:
“We have formed the Independent Commission of Enquiry to response [sic] to false allegations made by the UN Agencies and other international communities.”
Indeed, the Chairperson of the ICOE stated at a press conference, that:
“[T]here will be no blaming of anybody, no finger-pointing of anybody… saying you’re accountable.”
Such prejudicial statements confirm the conclusion of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission (IIFFM), that:
“The Government’s recently-created Commission of Inquiry will not and cannot provide a real avenue for accountability, even with some international involvement. The impetus for accountability must come from the international community.”
Crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed in Myanmar, and an investigation of evidence of the crime of genocide is warranted, according to the summary report of the UN IIFFM, published on 27 August 2018.
Throughout Myanmar the rule of law is severely undermined by a lack of accountability for perpetrators of rights violations; lack of access to remedies and reparation for victims; and persistent challenges to the independence of the justice system.
In current circumstances it is impossible to rely on any national courts, prosecution services, or commissions of inquiry in Myanmar to deliver justice or accountability of security forces in relation to human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The UN Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court or a similarly constituted international tribunal without delay.
The UN Human Rights Council should promptly establish a robust International Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) or similar mechanism, to collect and analyse evidence for future prosecutions; action should be taken by the Council at its September 2018 session – waiting for or deferring to the UN General Assembly to act would risk further delaying or denying justice for victims, including because key criminal evidence could be irretrievably lost, destroyed, or deteriorate in the meantime.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, Asia and the Pacific Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Legal briefing
Myanmar-COI cannot deliver justice or accountability-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Myanmar-COI cannot deliver justice or accountability-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-BUR (full text in Burmese, PDF)
Sep 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar et al v. Union of India and others, which effectively ends the threat to a large segment of the Indian population that they will be held criminally liable for exercising their human rights.
The Court has issued a long-overdue ruling that the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships under Section 377 violates the Indian Constitution, and is in breach of India’s obligations under international law. This long-awaited judgment testifies to the work of activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality.
“This judgment will not only have an impact in India. Its influence should extend across the world. The ICJ hopes that it will provide an impetus for other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth of Nations, to revoke similar provisions that criminalize consensual sexual relations,” ICJ Asia Pacific Director Frederick Rawski stated.
The Court underscored that provisions of Section 377 contravened international law and standards on equality, privacy, non-discrimination and dignity guaranteed in international human rights treaties to which India is a party. These include the International Covenant Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
The Court also noted that the Yogyakarta Principles, which address sexual orientation and gender identity in international law, reinforce these protections. This is a vital jurisprudential recognition that LGBTI persons are entitled to full equality, and protection of their rights under India’s Constitutional and international human rights law.
In the judgement, which reverses the December 2013 Koushal decision, the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of fundamental rights to autonomy, privacy, equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It underscored that decriminalization of homosexuality is only the first step and that LGBTI persons are entitled to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. The Court also recommended that wide publicity be given to judgment to ensure de-stigmatization of identity through sensitization training on barriers to access to justice faced by LGBTI persons.
“Even a landmark decision by the Indian Supreme Court cannot alone end the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is time for the Indian Parliament to conduct wide-ranging review of existing legal framework, repeal discriminatory laws, and address other gaps in the law that prevent LGBT persons from fully exercising their rights,” Rawski added.
Background
For background, see the ICJ’s July 2018 Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, and its February 2017 report, “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Sep 6, 2018 | Communiqués de presse, Nouvelles
La CIJ s’est félicitée de l’arrêt rendu par la Cour suprême dans l’affaire Navtej Singh Johar et al v. Union of India and others. Cet arrêt met fin à la crainte d’une grande partie de la population indienne d’être tenue pénalement responsable de l’exercice de ses droits.
La Cour a rendu la décision, attendue depuis longtemps, que la criminalisation de relations consenties entre personnes du même sexe enfreint l’article 377 la Constitution indienne, et est contraire aux obligations de l’Inde envers le droit international.
Ce jugement tant attendu témoigne du travail des activistes et des avocats en Inde, qui ont démontré le pouvoir de la loi pour réaffirmer les droits de l’Homme ainsi que l’égalité.
«Ce jugement aura non seulement un impact en Inde mais son influence devrait s’étendre à travers le monde. La CIJ espère que cela incitera d’autres pays, en particulier ceux du Commonwealth, à révoquer des dispositions similaires qui criminalisent les relations sexuelles consenties », a déclaré le directeur de la CIJ pour l’Asie-Pacifique, Frederick Rawski.
La Cour a souligné que les dispositions de l’article 377 contrevenaient au droit international et aux normes internationales en matière d’égalité, de respect de la vie privée, de non-discrimination et de dignité garantis dans les traités internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’Homme auxquels l’Inde est partie prenante.
Il s’agit notamment du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques et du Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.
La Cour a également relevé que les Principes de Yogyakarta, qui traitent de l’orientation sexuelle et de l’identité sexuelle en droit international, renforcent ces protections.
Il s’agit d’une reconnaissance jurisprudentielle essentielle selon laquelle les personnes LGBTI ont droit à la pleine égalité et à la protection de leurs droits en vertu du droit constitutionnel indien et du droit international des droits de l’Homme.
Dans l’arrêt, qui annule la décision Koushal de décembre 2013, la Cour a estimé que la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle est une violation des droits fondamentaux à l’autonomie, à la vie privée, à l’égalité, à la dignité et à la non-discrimination.
Elle a souligné que la dépénalisation de l’homosexualité n’est qu’un premier pas et que les personnes LGBTI ont droit à une citoyenneté égale dans toutes ses formes.
La Cour a également recommandé qu’une large publicité soit accordée au jugement afin de garantir la dé-stigmatisation de l’identité sexuelle grâce à une formation de sensibilisation sur les obstacles à l’accès à la justice rencontrés par les personnes LGBTI.
«Même une décision historique de la Cour suprême indienne ne peut à elle seule mettre fin à la discrimination à l’égard des personnes en raison de leur orientation sexuelle ou de leur identité sexuelle. Il est temps pour le Parlement indien de procéder à un examen approfondi du cadre juridique existant, d’abroger les lois discriminatoires et de remédier aux autres lacunes de la loi qui empêchent les personnes LGBT d’exercer pleinement leurs droits », a ajouté M. Rawski.
Pour plus d’informations (disponibles uniquement en anglais):
Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others (ICJ, July 2018)
Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (ICJ, February 2017)
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), conseillère juridique internationale de la CIJ en Inde, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Sep 5, 2018
The ICJ, together with more than 750 other non-governmental organizations, has written to the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights highlighting the important role of her office in speaking out for human rights and against governments that violate them.
The joint letter read as follows:
“As local, national, regional, and international civil society organizations from every corner of the world, we offer warm congratulations on your appointment as United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights.
We are committed to a world in which every person enjoys human rights and dignity and in which our communities are fair, just and sustainable. We consider that a strong High Commissioner, working in strategic partnership with independent civil society, can contribute significantly to the realization of this vision.
You take up office at a time when human rights are under attack and when we risk the reversal of many of the achievements of the modern human rights movement. We look to you in these troubled times to be an unwavering voice in the defence of human rights, and of victims, rights-holders and human rights defenders around the world.
On every continent, the rights of individuals, communities and peoples are being violated and abused by governments and non-state actors, often with complete impunity. Civil society, peaceful dissidents, and the media are often brutally silenced. The role of your Office in ensuring robust monitoring of, and reporting on, such situations is essential for curbing violations and deterring further abuse, as well as for ensuring justice and accountability. Technical-assistance and capacity building by the OHCHR is also critical and, to be effective, should be approached holistically alongside a rigorous assessment of the rights challenges in the country, including through key indicators to measure progress and assess the degree of engagement and cooperation by the State.
As High Commissioner, you have a unique role to play in bringing country situations of concern to the attention of the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies, particularly situations that may not be on their agenda or which receive limited attention, often because of political pressure. This role should extend to providing briefings to the Security Council on situations either on its agenda or that, if left unattended, could represent a threat to international peace and security. Monitoring missions and inter-sessional briefings to the HRC can be initiated at the High Commissioner’s prerogative, on the basis of your Office’s universal mandate, bringing attention to neglected country situations and contributing towards the achievement of the Council’s mandate to prevent human rights violations.
We are aware that the position of High Commissioner comes with its own challenges. Many States will insist you avoid “naming and shaming” and push you to engage in “quiet diplomacy” and to respect national sovereignty. Often, those most intolerant of criticism and most forceful in suppressing dissent will speak the loudest in seeking to mute your voice. Survivors, victims and defenders on the front line in countries where their rights are being violated will rely on you as a human rights champion, to have the courage and conviction to call out violators clearly and publicly, even when it’s challenging or unpopular with governments.
Globally, the rights essential to civic space are being systematically undermined. Civil society and human rights defenders face severe daily risks in their struggle to defend human rights on the ground, including imprisonment, asset-freezes, defamatory campaigns, torture, enforced disappearance, and even death. Risks are also present in the UN context, where individuals frequently face intimidation, harassment or reprisals for their engagement with the UN. We urge you to be a staunch defender of the rights of defenders both on the ground and at the UN, to publicly call out violators, and to undertake or push for investigations into attacks and reprisals. We also encourage you to take full advantage of the distinct, often innovative complementary role of civil society to the work of the OHCHR, and ensure the Office works closely with civil society as a strategic partner at the national, regional, and international levels.
Currently, the human rights framework itself is under unparalleled attack. Authoritarian populists are attacking the universality of human rights, disproportionately and unlawfully restricting rights in the purported interests of “national security,” often tacitly or openly encouraging attacks by their followers or vigilantes on rights defenders as well as the vulnerable and poor, while selectively interpreting human rights and seeking to co-opt or subvert human rights mechanisms to suit their political agendas. Safeguarding and strengthening universal human rights norms and mechanisms should be a core responsibility of the High Commissioner.
The current climate highlights the need for a strong public advocacy role for your mandate in the defence of international human rights law and the international human rights system, as well as a strong role internally within the UN to mainstream respect for human rights throughout the work of UN organs and agencies, and within the Sustainable Development Agenda.
Once again, we congratulate you on your new role, and stand ready to support you and your Office in the fulfilment of your vital mandate.”
