Nov 5, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the Israeli Government to reverse its decision to deport Omar Shakir, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) Israel and Palestine Director, and ensure that he, HRW, and other human rights defenders are able to carry out their human rights work without intimidation.
The ICJ fears that the decision will have a chilling effect on human rights defenders in the country, who the Israeli authorities are bound to protect and not intimidate or persecute.
The deportation decision is based on a 2017 amendment to the “Entry into Israel Law”, which allows authorities to deny foreigners a permit for entry to and residence in Israel “if he or she, or the organization or the body for which he or she operates, has knowingly published a public call to engage in a boycott against the State of Israel or has made a commitment to participate in such a boycott.”
An appeal against the deportation decision was rejected by the Jerusalem District Court in April 2019, and by Israel’s Supreme Court today.
Israel’s Supreme Court seems to have accepted the Government’s claim that Shakir’s work at HRW, which entailed calling on businesses to cease operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as required by international law, constitutes a call for the boycott of Israel.
The ICJ noted that the move to deport Omar Shakir constitutes an unjustifiable infringement on his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a State party to the Covenant, Israel has an obligation to respect and protect this right.
The Human Rights Committee already expressed its concern with regard to Israel’s anti-boycott legislation and called on the Israeli authorities to “ensure that individuals fully enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and association and that any restrictions on the exercise of such rights comply with the strict requirements of article 19.”
The deportation would also contravene the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which affirms the duty of States to promote and facilitate the work of human rights defenders, while scrupulously protecting their fundamental freedoms.
Nov 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern at the conduct of police forces in their enforcement of a court order to remove refugees and asylum seekers from the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Cape Town on October 30.
Police appeared to be using excessive and unlawful force, resulting in injuries to some protestors.
The ICJ called for a prompt independent, impartial, and through investigation into the police conduct, with a view to holding account officials responsible for any ill-treatment and to prevent such methods of policing to recur.
While trying to remove largely peaceful protestors from the premises, police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades against refugees who were protesting in the streets of Cape Town last week. A video clip widely shared on social media showed police ripped a baby from a woman.
The court had granted an interdict to remove the group in Cape Town on October 18 at the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court following an application by the building landlord to evict the group. More than 100 protestors were arrested and released on warnings.
“The way refugees were treated in Cape Town on Wednesday is shameful. South African authorities should be acting to protect migrants from the xenophobic violence and threats they have been experiencing, not to perpetuate them,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa regional director.
Refugees and asylum seekers had staged a sit-in outside the UNHCR offices in Cape Town and Pretoria for four weeks now, pleading to be resettled outside of South Africa, claiming that they felt unsafe. They said that recent attacks on foreign nationals left them feeling unsafe in South Africa. (Read the ICJ statement on the attacks here.)
In a statement, the UNHCR said the organization had received concerns of personal safety, access to documentation, challenges accessing services, and lack of job opportunities from the asylum seekers and refugees who had been camping outside of its offices.
The statement also indicated that some of the protesting group had demanded resettlements, which were only available for a limited number of vulnerable refugees. The UNHCR said it had been engaging with the refugees and asylum seekers since the protests began, encouraging them to participate in constructive dialogue to address their grievances and find a peaceful resolution to the situation.
“We call on South African authorities the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to urgently address migrants’ concerns in a constructive and amicable manner before the situation escalates further,” Tsunga added.
Background
South African law and international law forbid the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force and protect people from ill-treatment. .
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Standards provides that law enforcement officials must use restraint and may use force only where only where strictly necessary, and any such force must be proportionate to the legitimate object, such as making a lawful arrest and protecting the lives and safety of others.
South Africa is party of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guaranteed from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including that resulting from unlawful use of force.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga (Director): c: +26 37 7728 3249 e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim (Media Officer): c: +27 71 670 6719 e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
Nov 4, 2019 | Advocacy, News
On 4 November, the ICJ and 16 other organizations called on Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to postpone consent to the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) and the Investment Protection Agreement (IPA) until the Vietnamese government seriously tackles the deteriorating human rights situation in the country.
The letter was addressed to the President of the European Parliament, Chair of the International Trade Committee, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee, Chair of the Development Committee and all Members of the European Parliament.
Noting that the Vietnamese government had, in recent years, intensified its crackdown on human rights defenders, members of civil society, religious groups and individuals who express opinions deemed critical of the government, continued to strictly curtail the rights to free expression, opinion, association and assembly, and tightly control the press, civil society and religious groups, the organizations expressed regret that negotiations for the EVFTA and the IPA had not led to more explicit and tangible human rights commitments from the Vietnamese government.
Vietnam currently benefits of unilateral trade preferences through the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), and the country’s failure to uphold its numerous human rights obligations under the scheme has yet to incur substantial pushback by the EU.
The organizations urged MEPs to ask the European Commission to set up an independent monitoring and complaint mechanism to address the human rights impacts that the EVFTA and IPA may have.
Joint Letter
Frederick Rawski, Director, ICJ Asia and the Pacific, email: Frederick.Rawski(a)icj.org
Nov 3, 2019 | News
Bangkok, Thailand – From 1 to 2 November 2019, ICJ in collaboration with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, hosted a consultation on gender and the right to freedom of religion or belief with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed.
The primary objective of the consultation was to provide a forum for human rights defenders, particularly women and human rights defenders belonging to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) minorities to share their perspectives on laws, practices and anti-rights strategies based on religion or belief that discriminate against women and SOGI groups and individuals in Asia. The consultation was attended by at least fifty-two (52) human rights defenders from all over Asia.
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, in her opening address, emphasized that gender equality and the right to freedom of religion or belief should not be viewed as inimical to each other. She said, “Women and individuals belonging to sexual orientation and gender identity minorities should also be able to being to a faith or religion of their choice, or religion into which they are born and they should continue to belong to the religion or belief without being discriminated against by the faith or religious community.”
The consultation included discussions on the domestic contexts and legal frameworks in relation to freedom of religion and the rights of women and SOGIESC minorities, including in relation to the right to health. The participants considered challenges faced by women and SOGIESEC minorities when religious leaders act as justice actors were also discussed. The consultation, while highlighting the good practices in advancing the rights of women and SOGIESC minorities, also explored existing challenges and tensions in respect of achieving gender equality.
At the conclusion of the consultation, Dr. Shaheed noted the diversity of the participants in the room, who came from all over Asia. He emphasized that “in order to engage more effectively and strategically, it is imperative that we improve our literacy in relation to the human rights framework and of religion in order to better understand its intersectionality.”
Contact
Sushmitha Thayanandan, National Legal Advisor, Sri Lanka (ICJ) e: sushmitha.thayanandan(a)icj.org
Nov 1, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper on the enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey.
This briefing paper, entitled Restricted at discretion: The enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey during and after the State of Emergency, reports on the law and practice of Turkish authorities relating to governors’ powers to restrict freedom of movement and assembly in the country.
During the state of emergency many restrictions on meetings and demonstrations were based on broad and vague decisions with insufficient reasoning to meet standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, including the banning of LGBTI events.
The ICJ and IHOP concluded that the current Law on Provincial Administration does not provide a sufficient basis of restrictions of these rights as the governors’ powers are not sufficiently well described in law to be foreseeable or to prevent arbitrary, disproportionate or discriminatory application.
Download
Turkey-FoMA brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-FoEA-Advocacy-analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
