South Asian States must criminalize enforced disappearances and give justice to thousands of victims

South Asian States must criminalize enforced disappearances and give justice to thousands of victims

Tens of thousands of enforced disappearances in South Asia can only be addressed if all the region’s governments immediately criminalize this serious human rights violation, said today lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The call came at a Conference on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, organized by the ICJ and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) on the eve of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.

South Asia has among the highest number of alleged victims of enforced disappearances in the world: tens of thousands of cases have been documented in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and India, and since 2009, there has also been a surge in enforced disappearances in Bangladesh.

“Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance and its pledge to criminalize the practice is a welcome step,” said I. A. Rehman, Secretary General for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

“Other States in the region should now follow suit and show that they are serious about their commitment to human rights by making enforced disappearance a specific crime in their domestic law,” he added.

Under international law, an enforced disappearance is the arrest, abduction or detention by State agents, or by people acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or by concealing the fate or whereabouts of the “disappeared” person which places the person outside the protection of the law.

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity”.

At present, enforced disappearance is not a distinct crime in any South Asian country, which is one of the major hurdles to bringing perpetrators to justice.

In the absence of a legal framework on enforced disappearance, unacknowledged detentions by law enforcement agencies are considered “missing persons” cases.

On the rare occasions where criminal complaints are registered against alleged perpetrators, complainants are forced to categorize the crime as “abduction” or “kidnapping”.

These categories do not recognize the complexity and the particularly serious nature of enforced disappearance, and often do not provide for penalties commensurate to the gravity of the crime.

They also fail to recognize as victims relatives of the “disappeared” person and others suffering harm as a result of the enforced disappearance, as required under international law.

“Despite thousands of cases of enforced disappearance across South Asia, the governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.

“South Asian governments have done very little to support the victims and survivors of enforced disappearance, or to ensure the rights of their family members to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.

Other barriers to bringing perpetrators to account are also similar in South Asian countries: military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention; members of law enforcement and security forces enjoy broad legal immunities, shielding them from prosecution; and military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military, even where these crimes are human rights violations.

Victims’ groups, lawyers, and activists who work on enforced disappearance also face security risks including attacks, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.

A comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to end the entrenched impunity for enforced disappearances in the region – criminalizing the practice would be a significant first step, said ICJ and the HRCP.

Contact

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org

Read also

ICJ Practitioners’ Guides No. 9 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction and No. 10 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: the Right of Family Members, which provide legal practitioners, activists and policy-makers with detailed and practical references on international standards on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.

South Asia-International disappearances day statement-News-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)

ICJ document analyses investigation of arbitrary killings in the Philippines

ICJ document analyses investigation of arbitrary killings in the Philippines

The ICJ released today a briefing paper on investigation of extrajudicial executions in the Philippines.

This document is meant to contribute to ongoing discussions, following a hearing conducted by the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the Philippine Senate, on the reported increase in the number of deaths of persons allegedly involved in the trade and sale of illegal drugs in the country.

The ICJ had previously written to President Rodrigo Duterte (photo), calling on him to unequivocally denounce extrajudicial killings, whether of alleged criminals or of any person in the Philippines.

The ICJ also urged the government to immediately conduct investigations into police operations that resulted in these deaths.

Philippines-EJK debate-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2016-ENG

Photo credit: Grig C. Montegrande/Inquirer.

India: withdraw and revise problematic transgender rights bill

India: withdraw and revise problematic transgender rights bill

Today, the ICJ released a briefing paper on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, asking that it be withdrawn and revised to be consistent with international human rights law, and directions of the Indian Supreme Court.

The briefing paper answers key questions about the history of this Bill, what measures it seeks to introduce, outlines the ICJ’s key concerns about the Bill as currently drafted – including key omissions – in light of directions of the Supreme Court and applicable international human rights law.

“It is important to have a law guaranteeing transgender rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia director.

“However, any such legislation must be consistent with the spirit and directions of the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA v UOI and with international human rights law”.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 was approved by the Cabinet last month.

It was introduced in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) on 2 August 2016 and is currently pending.

The Bill’s definition of who is “transgender person”, the process of gender recognition it outlines, as well as the lack of adequate provisions on employment, education, anti-discrimination measures, and penalties for offences committed, are deeply problematic and at odds with the Supreme Court’s directions in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA v UOI.

“While a comprehensive transgender rights bill is long overdue in India, the problems and omissions in the current Bill will undermine the progress made on transgender rights in India,” Zarifi said.

“The government must immediately withdraw the Bill, meaningfully consult with the transgender community, and substantially revise its provisions such that it comprehensively protects the rights of all transgender people in India,” he added.

Background

In 2014, in the case of NALSA v UOI, the Supreme Court affirmed transgender persons’ right to their self-identified gender, directed the government to grant legal recognition of the same, and to take specific steps to ensure equality and non-discrimination for transgender persons.

States and government departments have begun to take piecemeal measures to implement the directions in the NALSA judgment, however several aspects of the decision remain unimplemented. See ICJ Briefing Paper on the implementation of the NALSA decision .

In April 2015, the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of India’s Parliament) passed the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill 2014, which was a private member’s Bill. Simultaneously, the government was developing its own draft of a transgender rights bill, which has now been introduced in Parliament. For more details see here.

INDIA-TG BILL CRITIQUE-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2016-ENG (full text, PDF)

Translate »