Feb 25, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ welcomes the comprehensive OHCHR report on Sri Lanka.
We share OHCHR’s observation that domestic initiatives for accountability have repeatedly failed to produce results, ‘more deeply entrenching impunity, and exacerbating victims’ distrust in the system.’ [A/HRC/46/20, pp. 52]
The ICJ has continuously observed that Sri Lanka’s incapacity and unwillingness to pursue accountability for crimes under international law is deep-rooted and longstanding.
The extensive militarization of civilian functions, the reversal of constitutional safeguards, the obstruction of the rare cases of domestic criminal accountability and the deteriorating human rights situation all point to a systemic culture of impunity that will only worsen in the years to come.
Sri Lanka’s failure to establish a hybrid accountability mechanism in the five years since the adoption of Resolution 30/1 demonstrates a complete lack of political will to hold perpetrators accountable. The rights of the victims of human rights violations cannot be ignored any longer.
The ICJ endorses all of OHCHR’s recommendations, particularly the call for international and external accountability processes, whether before the ICC or through the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other States.
We further call for enhanced monitoring and reporting on the ground situation and for the establishment of a mechanism for the collection and preservation of evidence for future prosecution.
Madam High Commissioner, how can OHCHR ensure that the victims’ call for accountability is effectively fulfilled?
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Feb 25, 2021 | News
The verdict of the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany, convicting a former Syrian official of crimes against humanity, is a significant breakthrough in the fight against impunity for the crimes committed in Syria over the last 10 years, the ICJ said today.
“For the first time since the beginning of the Syrian regime’s bloody, rampant and relentless repression, a Syrian official has finally been held to account for his participation in the regime’s crimes,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s MENA Programme. “While this may seem a small token for victims, it is a resounding warning for other Syrian officials that justice may soon catch up with them.”
On 24 February 2021, Eyad A. was found guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, including torture and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Among other things, his conviction is related to the detention of at least 30 Syrians after anti-government demonstrations erupted in March 2011.
“This is an important step in the fight for justice for victims and survivors of gross human rights violations in Syria,” said Bernabia.
Eyad A. was prosecuted together with Anwar R., the former director of investigations at Branch 251 — a Syrian intelligence branch in Damascus notorious for subjecting detainees to systematic torture and other ill-treatment.
Anwar R. was charged with supervising the systematic torture of over 4,000 people, which resulted in the death of 58 people between 2011 and his defection in 2012. His trial is still ongoing.
The proceedings against Eyad A. and Anwar R. were conducted under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows Germany and other States to prosecute an accused person for serious crimes under international law, even when such crimes have been committed abroad and neither the victims, nor the accused are nationals of that country.
“States must act individually and collectively to fill the accountability gap in Syria,” added Benarbia. “They must support United Nations accountability mechanisms, including the IIIM, and seek out, prosecute and punish those responsible for the atrocities committed in the country.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Download
Syria-Impunity-Statement-2021-ENG (in English)
Syria-Impunity-Statement-2021-ARA (in Arabic)
Feb 24, 2021
An opinion piece by Roojin Habibi, Benjamin Mason Meier, Tim Fish Hodgson, Saman Zia-Zarifi, Ian Seiderman & Steven J. Hoffman
In the COVID-19 response, leaders around the world have resorted to wartime metaphors to defend the use of emergency health measures . Yet, as the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has noted, States have seldom taken into account corresponding obligations under international human rights law when formulating their ‘call to arms’ against an elusive new enemy.
In assessing the appropriateness of health measures that limit human rights, human rights defenders, academics, international organizations and, most recently, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have all looked to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogations Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Developed in 1984 through a consensus-building effort among international law experts co-convened by the ICJ, the Siracusa Principles sought to achieve “an effective implementation of the rule of law” during national states of emergency, constraining limitations of human rights in government responses. The Siracusa Principles are aimed at ensuring that emergency response imperatives are taken with human rights protections as an integral component, rather than an obstacle. The Principles have since been incorporated into the corpus of international human rights law, in particular through the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee. They have come to be widely recognized as the authoritative statement of standards that must guide State actors when they seek to limit or derogate from certain human rights obligations, particularly in times of exception – including those states of emergencies that “threaten the life of the nation.”
Framing global health law to control public health emergencies, the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR) have long sought to codify international legal obligations to guide responses to infectious disease threats. The IHR, last revised in 2005 in the aftermath of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, bind states under global health law to foster international cooperation in the face of public health emergencies of international concern. This WHO instrument, which in general terms must be implemented with “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons,” seeks to prevent, detect, and provide a robust public health response to disease outbreaks while minimizing interference with international traffic and trade. Yet, the agreement that is legally binding on 194 states parties has been all but forgotten amid the biggest pandemic in a century, with its legal limitations exposed in this time of dire need.
The lack of certainty regarding the scope, meaning and implementation of international human rights obligations during an unprecedented global health emergency has enabled inappropriate and violative public health responses across nations. As the world’s struggle against the coronavirus stretches on, we must begin to consider how global health law and human rights law can be harmonized – not only to protect human dignity in the face future global health crises, but also to strengthen effective public health responses with justice.
The necessarily multi-sectoral response to COVID-19 reveals the distinctive nature of interpreting human rights limitations in a global health emergency that (1) is an international (compared to a national) phenomenon; (2) endangers not only civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, but a broad range of health-related human rights, including the right to health itself; and (3) challenges governments to assess proportionate public health responses in situations of scientific uncertainty.
Global health emergencies raise the imperative for global solidarity
It has proven challenging to ensure that States comply with international standards for permissible human rights limitations amid an emergency that extends across all nations. As a set of standards that primarily guides State conduct in response to national threats to public welfare and security, the Siracusa Principles do not fully contemplate and provide for today’s lived experience in which an international emergency has infiltrated every continent. Similarly, although the IHR make explicit the international duty to collaborate and assist in addressing global health threats, a lack of textual clarity and general failing among states parties to operationalize this obligation render the provision devoid of meaning.
Global solidarity through international cooperation is both a human rights imperative and a global public health necessity. Breakdowns in the international commitment to hasten the supply of COVID-19 vaccines to all States, however, portend future struggles in achieving unity among nations against a common danger. As a number of UN Human Rights Council experts warned in late 2020, “[t]here is no room for nationalism or profitability in decision-making about access to vaccines, essential tests and treatments, and all other medical goods, services and supplies that are at the heart of the right to the highest attainable standard of health for all.” In the coming decades, the world will inevitably face increasing, intensified, and interconnected planetary health threats, including not only the emergence of new infectious diseases, but also the evolution of highly drug-resistant microbes, environmental degradation, climate change, and biological weapons proliferation. Since no country can face these perils alone, overcoming them will require robust, science-based and enduring international cooperation within the framework of “a social and international order in which rights can be fully realized.”
Global health emergencies call for dedicated focus on health-related rights, including the right to health
Nearly all governments have resorted to physical distancing policies to control the spread of disease. While ostensibly adopted to protect public health, such interventions have rarely been accompanied by social relief programmes, such as income support and debt suspension, that are necessary to avoid collateral damage to economic and social rights, including the rights to health, social security, work, and housing. Instead, responses to the pandemic have largely magnified the fault lines of racial, socioeconomic, disability, gender and age inequalities, intensifying the suffering of those already at greatest risk and falling short of State obligations to ensure that responses to public health emergencies do not have discriminatory impacts. However, neither the Siracusa Principles nor the IHR give sufficient attention to the breadth of health-related human rights imperilled by an emergency response. The Siracusa Principles are expressly addressed to limitations of civil and political rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the IHR never mentions the right to health or economic, social and cultural rights, despite WHO’s constitutional mandate to advance the right to health – including the social determinants of health – being central to global health governance.
More than 30 years ago, the HIV pandemic imparted crucial lessons to the world on the intricate linkages between health and human rights. These lessons reverberate once again in the current crisis, reinforcing the interdependence of all human rights as a foundation for global health. Bearing obligations to realize collective rights to public health in a pandemic response, how should States consider the impact of public health emergency measures on their indivisible obligations to realize economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to health and its underlying determinants? Given the rapid privatization of basic healthcare services and the interests that pharmaceutical companies hold over global vaccine distribution, what are the responsibilities of private actors in the context of public health emergencies? Global health law and human rights law must converge to account for limitations to economic, social, and cultural rights that underlie public health in the context of global health emergencies, and advance effective legal remedies to ensure accountability for the unjustified violation of all human rights in the public health response.
Global health emergencies challenge proportionality assessments in a moment of scientific uncertainty
Under the Siracusa Principles, public health emergencies allow for measures that restrict human rights only to the extent they are “necessary” – that is, measures responding to “a pressing public or social need,” in pursuit of “a legitimate aim,” and “proportionate to that aim.” Government responses to global health emergencies, however, are strained by high degrees of scientific uncertainty, especially at the outset of emerging disease outbreaks. The IHR, much like the Siracusa Principles, evaluates the proportionality of public health measures by requiring that they be no more restrictive of international traffic and no more invasive or intrusive to persons “than reasonably available alternatives,” but it further calls for their implementation to be based on “scientific principles,” “scientific evidence,” and “advice from the WHO.” However, even the IHR’s explicit consideration of scientific knowledge in the proportionality criteria have failed to guide policy actions in the pandemic response.
Selective travel restrictions, for instance, have become the prima facie response not only to the containment of the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, but also to its more transmissible and possibly more lethal variants – despite the discouragement of targeted travel bans under the explicit language of the IHR, mixed scientific evidence of their effectiveness in the absence of other non-pharmaceutical interventions, and historical lessons on their potential to disincentivize the reporting of future outbreak. Measures justified by public health concerns, of which travel restrictions are but one example, if improperly conceived and implemented, may lend themselves to politicization, ineffective or counterproductive public health impacts, discriminatory use, and human rights violations – fracturing the world and distracting from a united and sustainable response to common threats. Moreover, the scientific uncertainty that is inherent to global health emergencies is likely to challenge our conception of how long de jure or de facto national states of emergency may last, and by extension, how to maintain the rule of law, democratic functioning of societies, and realization of the right to health and health-related rights such as access to food, water and sanitation, housing, social security, education and information under such strained conditions.
To hold governments accountable for their management of prolonged global health emergencies, more nuanced normative guideposts are needed. Building on global appeals for public health responses that are anchored in transparency, meaningful public participation, and the “best available science,” careful consideration must especially be given to bridging understandings of “proportionality” under human rights law and global health law.
Harmonizing Approaches in Human Rights Law and Global Health Law: A Call to Action
The COVID-19 pandemic is a harbinger of the evolving nature of emergencies in the 21st century and beyond. Building on the Siracusa Principles and the IHR, any subsequent restatement of the law must take into account these changing circumstances. The pandemic provides an opportunity to clarify human rights law and develop global health law in step with pressing threats to human dignity and flourishment in the modern era. Processes to update, nuance and supplement the Siracusa Principles and IHR are important to this process – providing an opportunity to harmonize human rights assessments across human rights law and global health law.
Working together across legal regimes, the ICJ and the Global Health Law Consortium are developing a consensus-based restatement of principles, drawn from international legal standards, to ensure the harmonization of public health and human rights imperatives as world leaders reconsider the role of international law in guaranteeing rights-based approaches to the inevitable public health emergencies of the future. While the microbe is natural, public health is the product of human will, and in the words of Camus, “of a vigilance that must never falter.”
The ICJ-GHLC invites readers to submit their thoughts, suggestions and/or feedback on a set of principles for global health emergencies to feedback@globalstrategylab.org
Originally published in OpinioJuris on 24 February 2021 here.
Feb 23, 2021 | Editorial, Noticias
Una opinión editorial de César Landa, Comisionado de la CIJ
Desde el 2020 la pandemia del Covid-19 ha dejado millones de infectados y muertos en el mundo. Frente a ello, la rápida producción de las vacunas en algunos de los países centrales occidentales, su autorización de emergencia por sus gobiernos, y la inequitativa distribución a nivel internacional y nacional ha puesto en evidencia graves problemas al Estado de Derecho en la protección del derecho a la salud.
El acceso a las vacunas, al ser un bien escaso y con una alta demanda en el mundo, es mostrado como un logro nacional por los gobiernos latinoamericanos, como en el caso del Perú. Pero, es el caso señalar que desde los ensayos clínicos de la vacuna Sinopharm, la prensa peruana ha descubierto que, entre setiembre y enero, se han beneficiado de la vacunación de forma anticipada y en secreto, cerca de 500 personajes de la élite política peruana, como el ex Presidente Vizcarra, dos ministras, candidatos al Congreso, etc; autoridades de las dos universidades encargadas de los ensayos clínicos, y; la alta burocracia del Ministerio de Salud y la Cancillería, entre otros. Claro está, desplazando al personal médico y a las poblaciones vulnerables más necesitadas de la vacuna.
Lo cual pone en evidencia la necesidad de atender la cuestión de la vacuna como un medicamento esencial con un enfoque de derechos humanos, esto es de acceso universal y equitativo, como ha postulado la CIJ. Lo cual demanda de ciertos estándares en la compra de las vacunas –eficaces y seguras-. Por ejemplo, la compra a distintos proveedores; que las negociaciones sean transparentes –sin cláusulas de confidencialidad- para evitar diferentes prácticas de corrupción; que se garantice el acceso no discriminatorio a las vacunas para todas las personas, incluidas las más vulnerables –indocumentadas, presos, etc.-, y; se desarrolle instancias de control de los procesos de vacunación público y privado, con acceso a recursos judiciales efectivos en casos de violación del derecho del acceso equitativo a la vacuna.
La vacunación masiva contra el Covid-19, tanto en el hemisferio norte como en el hemisferio sur, es una de las medidas sanitarias principales para evitar la propagación de una siguiente ola del virus a escala mundial. Más aún, ayudará a revertir los graves efectos que la pandemia tiene para el pleno ejercicio de las libertades y derechos clásicos –libertad de tránsito, derecho de reunión, libertad personal, etc.-, como sobre todo para los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales –salud, trabajo, educación, etc.-, especialmente para las poblaciones más vulnerables.
Es imposible garantizar que todo el mundo tenga acceso inmediato a una vacuna contra la COVID-19. Pero, tampoco es posible que a la fecha más de 130 países no hayan recibido/adquirido alguna de las vacunas. Lo cual, en buena medida, es el resultado de que diez países han acaparado la adquisición del 75% del total de las vacunas en el mundo, según lo ha informado el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas.
La producción y distribución masiva de las vacunas implica enormes costos financieros, por ello, solo los países centrales occidentales pueden invertir en los laboratorios de las grandes corporaciones químico-farmacéuticas. Solo así, se han podido desarrollar en tiempo récord las vacunas que cuentan con consolidados procedimientos administrativos y sanitarios de control e incluso de emergencia para validarlas. También han entrado en competencia las vacunas de países en desarrollo como China, Rusia e India. Las cuales cuentan con procesos paralelos o autónomos de investigación, producción, validación y comercialización de sus vacunas.
De modo que, se presentan dos desafíos a ser resueltos en el marco de los derechos humanos universales. Uno, la implementación de un sistema internacional de protección de la salud que promueva la distribución de la vacuna a los países en desarrollo y más vulnerables que aún no han importado ninguna vacuna, utilizando el Mecanismo Mundial de Vacunas COVAX, respaldado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS).
Dos, la prioridad nacional para las primeras vacunas es al personal sanitario y a los trabajadores que prestan los cuidados de emergencia. Asimismo, tienen prioridad las personas que presentan mayores riesgos de desarrollar una afección grave si se infectan con el Covid-19. Esto cubre cualquier causa como la edad, la existencia de patologías previas y la pobreza. También incluye a los pueblos indígenas, las minorías raciales, los migrantes, los refugiados, los desplazados, los reclusos y otras poblaciones marginadas y desfavorecidas.
Aunque, por el momento, la vacuna es un bien esencial y escaso, ello no justifica a los gobernantes a garantizar la salud y/o vida de sus ciudadanos de manera exclusiva. La humanidad no puede retornar, incluso transitoriamente, a un estado de naturaleza hobbesiano, donde “el hombre es lobo del hombre”; sino que, precisamente en estas aciagas circunstancias para la salud y la vida de miles de millones de seres humanos, corresponde apelar a la solidaridad internacional basada en la dignidad humana.
Descarga la opinión editorial en Inglés y Español.
Feb 23, 2021
An opinion piece by César Landa, ICJ Commissioner from Peru.
Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of infections and deaths across the globe. In response to this crisis, there have been rapid development and production of vaccines in some countries of the global North and governments have approved and emergency use of the vaccines. However, vaccine distribution has been unequal at the national and international levels.
Since COVID-19 vaccines are scarce and much demanded goods, widespread access to them is treated as a national achievement by various Latin American governments, including Peru. In the case of Peru, it is important to note that since the introduction of the clinical trials of the Sinopharm vaccine, media sources have reported that, between September and January, approximately 500 people from the Peruvian elite have been vaccinated secretly. These individuals include politicians, including former President Vizcarra, two ministers and candidates for Congress, authorities of the two universities leading the clinical trials, and high-level public servants of the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These secret vaccinations were applied with a clear disregard for health workers and individuals in vulnerable conditions, who are most in need of the limited available vaccines.
The Peruvian case demonstrates the need to consider vaccines as an essential health product that requires the application of a human rights-based approach to guarantee universal and equal access to the vaccine, in line with international standards as argued by the International Commission of Jurists. A human rights-based approach requires some essential standards for the purchasing of effective and safe vaccines. These include, for example, the purchasing of vaccines from different suppliers; transparent negotiations, without confidentiality clauses, to prevent acts of corruption; access to vaccines for all without discrimination of any kind, including persons in vulnerable conditions, such as undocumented persons or prisoners; accountability mechanisms for public and private vaccination, which should include the access to effective judicial remedies in case of failure to provide non-discriminatory and equal access to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Equal access to vaccines is critical in both the global north and south. Mass-vaccination provides the singular, most effective measure to prevent a new global COVID-19 wave. Moreover, it will facilitate everyone’s ability to fully enjoy civil and political rights, which has been greatly compromised due to the pandemic. The rights impacted include the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of assembly and, the right to liberty. Critically, mass-vaccination will contribute to the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to health, work, and education, particularly, in the case of persons in vulnerable conditions.
Although it is impossible to ensure immediate access to COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, it is not acceptable that, to date, more than 130 countries have not been able to acquire or receive a single vaccine dose. This is mainly a result of the fact that ten countries have acquired 75% of all available doses, according to the United Nations Secretary-General.
Since the mass production and distribution of vaccines are enormously high in cost, only a few of the wealthiest countries of the global north have had the means to invest in development and supplies from large pharmaceutical corporations. Only through such measures has it been possible to develop vaccines in record-time and consolidate administrative procedures as well as health controls and emergency approvals. Furthermore, vaccines from developing countries such as China, Russia, and India have also entered the market with parallel autonomous research, production, validation, and commercialization processes.
In light of the above, two main challenges need to be solved using the universal human rights framework. First, the implementation of an international system for the protection of health to promote the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in developing and most vulnerable countries that have not acquired vaccine doses. To do so, the system should use the Global vaccine mechanism COVAX, supported by the World Health Organization.
Second, it should be ensured that the national vaccination plans prioritize health care workers and others who provide emergency care. Similarly, people at greater risk of developing serious illnesses from Covid-19 should be prioritized. This includes older persons, people with existing conditions that place them at risk, persons living in poverty, indigenous peoples, racial and ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees, displaced persons, prisoners, and other marginalized and disadvantaged people.
At the moment, COVID-19 vaccines are scarce goods. However, this should not be used as an excuse by Governments to only protect their inhabits’ right to health and right to life. Humanity cannot return, even temporarily, to a Hobbesian state of nature in which “man is wolf to man”. On the contrary, the current situation, with the life and health of billions of people are at risk, requires and appeal to international solidarity based on human dignity.
Download the Op-Ed in English and Spanish.
