Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum highlighted today concerns on freedom of association and assembly in Zimbabwe, on the occasion of discussion by the Human Rights Council of a report of the relevant UN expert’s visit to the country.
The statement was prepared for delivery in an oral interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly on his reports to the Human Rights Council, including the report of his visit to Zimbabwe in September 2019.
The statement could not actually be read aloud due to the limited time for civil society statements in the dialogue.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“ICJ and the Forum welcome the report by the Special Rapporteur which acknowledges the continued restrictions on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in Zimbabwe.
The report mentions the use of excessive and lethal force by security forces; the use of military forces in managing protest; and the subsistence of repressive laws that curtail the enjoyment of the rights to Freedom of assembly and association.
ICJ and the Forum agree with the findings by the Special Rapporteur that the use of disproportionate and excessive force by the security has resulted in massive violations against protestors. In January 2019 following the “shutdown protests”, the Forum documented at least 1800 violations including 17 killings, 16 cases of rape and 81 victims were treated for gunshot wounds while ICJ documented at least 77 incidences of violation of fair trial rights of protestors.
The Maintenance of Peace and Order Act [Chapter 11:23] (MOPA) was enacted into law in November 2019 to repeal the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). MOPA reveal common similarities with POSA and maintains problematic provisions that do not guarantee the right to peaceful assembly.
ICJ and the Forum wish to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the ongoing violations which have escalated in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown enforcement and the declining economic and social situation in Zimbabwe. While public health measures are crucial, these must be advanced in ways that do not unduly infringe on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
The government of Zimbabwe must be encouraged to comply with International human rights standards and guidelines such as the Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa; the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and firearms by law enforcement officials and the 10 principles for the Proper Management of Assemblies developed by the mandate in 2016.
ICJ and the Forum would to like to ask the SR what follow up he will do to monitor whether the Government of Zimbabwe complies with its international human rights obligations?”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC44-statement-SRFoAA-2020
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Nepal’s human rights record in January-February 2021.
In the submission, the ICJ, Advocacy Forum – Nepal (AF), Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD Alliance) & University of Passau, provided information and analysis to assist the Working Group to make recommendations to the Government of Nepal to take measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment; to implement a human rights compliant legal framework for accountability and remedy and reparation for victims; and institute other measures to comply with its international obligations, including ratification of international human rights instruments.
In light of the concerns set out above, the ICJ, AF and THRD Alliance call upon the UPR Working Group and the Human Rights Council to recommend the following to Government of Nepal:
- Ensure that the law criminalizing torture is consistent with international law, through the passage of an anti-torture law, and/or through amendment to the current Penal Code, including that the:
-
- Definition of torture in national law is in line with the CAT and other international treaty provisions;
- Statutory limitation or prescription periods for the filing of complaints or cases of torture or other ill- treatment be removed;
- Penalties for torture are commensurate to the gravity of the offence;
- Definition of reparation encompasses restitution, compensation, rehabilitation (including medical and psychological care, as well as legal and social services), and guarantees of non-repetition;
- Independent mechanisms for the regular monitoring of places of detention are established, or existing mechanisms adequately supported.
- Ensure that all allegations of torture are registered, investigated and prosecuted by an independent and impartial investigative body;
- Ensure that all detainees have access to legal representation;
- Collect and publicize data on allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including prosecutions and any measures, including disciplinary measures, taken against perpetrators;
- Establish an independent police service commission or equivalent body to ensure fair and transparent appointment, promotion, transfer of police officers and to oversee disciplinary complaints against the police;
- Establish a consistent system of documentation in each police station and at any detention facilities, in particular, concerning the entry into and release of detainees from custody, as well as the procedure during interrogations;
- Systematize human rights education and training in police training programmes, including medico-legal training (based on Istanbul Protocol);
- Ensure that victims are adequately involved in criminal proceedings, in accordance with international standards developed for this purpose;
- Ratify OPCAT and establish a national preventative mechanism that complies with its requirements; become a party to other core human rights treaties to which Nepal is not yet a party;
- Accept the requests to visit Nepal from UN special procedures, including the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Download
Nepal-UPR-Submission-2020-ENG (PDF)
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Myanmar’s human rights record in January-February 2021.
The ICJ stressed the lack of accountability and redress for victims – and the resulting continued culture of impunity – for widespread gross human rights violations constituting crimes under international law in Myanmar, particularly those involving members of Myanmar’s Defence Services.
Certain provisions under the 2008 Myanmar Constitution as well as national laws such as the 1959 Defence Services Act and 1995 Myanmar Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions in civilian courts. Closed court martial proceedings also deny victims and their families the right to truth about human rights violations.
The Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC), Myanmar’s national human rights institution with the mandate to investigate allegations of human rights violations, has not initiated any substantive or credible investigation into allegations of widespread and systematic human rights violations perpetrated in recent years by soldiers against persons from ethnic minorities, despite being recorded in detail in the reports of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
Rather than strengthen the role of civilian courts and the MNHRC, Myanmar has set up ad hoc commissions of inquiry to investigate such incidents. However, these inquiries have a recommendatory mandate and an unclear relationship with the judiciary. The full report of the findings of these commissions are generally not publicly disclosed. Against this backdrop, Myanmar has ceased cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur for Myanmar and rejected other UN and international accountability mandates.
In light of this, the ICJ recommended the following actions, among others:
- For the MNHRC to investigate all allegations of gross human rights violations, especially including crimes under international law;
- For the Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards and ensure that gross human rights violations and serious international humanitarian law violations perpetrated by soldiers can only be prosecuted in civilian courts;
- For the Union Government to publish the full report of the findings of ad hoc commissions of inquiry, such as that of the Independent Commission of Enquiry;
- For the Union Government to issue an open invitation to and cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism on Myanmar; and
- For the Union Government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.
The ICJ also called for Myanmar to become a party to key human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the State committed – yet failed – to accede to in its previous UPR cycle.
Download
Myanmar-UPR-Submission-2020-ENG (PDF)
Contact
Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 9, 2020
In a briefing paper published today, the ICJ called on the Libyan authorities to act to amend the country’s transitional justice law in order to allow it to serve its purpose in facilitating accountability, truth and reparation for past and ongoing gross human rights violations committed in the country.
To date, transitional justice in Libya has not been implemented due to the entrenched political instability and ongoing armed conflict.
International support for the transitional justice process has recently been expressed in the Berlin Conference Conclusions on 19 January 2020, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2510 (2020).
“Reconciliation in the country won’t be achieved unless accountability for gross human rights violations and justice to victims are guaranteed,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“To achieve these objectives, the transitional justice framework must be fully reviewed to conform to Libya’s obligations under international law.”
This framework, particularly Law No. 29 of 2013, fails to provide for jurisdiction over crimes under international law, including enforced disappearance, rape and other forms of sexual violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also fails to ensure that legal measures historically used by States to foster impunity – such as amnesties, immunities and statutory limitations – cannot apply to prosecutions for these crimes.
The independence, impartiality and competence of the Fact-Finding and Reconciliation Commission, established under the Law to conduct fact-finding into gross human rights violations and award reparations to victims, is not adequately guaranteed. The scope of its mandate is not sufficiently clear and its investigative powers are too weak to serve its purpose.
Law No. 29 of 2013 does not also adequately ensure the right to truth or lay the foundations for the public participation in, and the transparency of, the transitional justice process.
The Law also fails to provide for access to effective remedies and full and adequate reparations to victims of gross human rights violations or abuses, and their next of kin.
“Transitional justice in Libya must live up to the expectations of victims and their families,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Senior Legal Adviser.
“Libyans have the right to know the complete truth regarding all gross human rights violations perpetrated in Libya, and victims must be guaranteed full redress for the harm suffered.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Download
Libya-Transitional justice-Publications-Reports-thematic report-2020-ENG (full report, in PDF)
Libya-Transitional justice-Publications-Reports-thematic report-2020-ARA (full report in Arabic, PDF)
Jul 9, 2020
Today, the ICJ called on Chinese legislators to repeal the new National Security Law for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and in the interim for the authorities to suspend the implementation of provisions that are incompatible with the rule of law and the State’s international legal obligations.
In an 11-point Q and A format briefing paper, the ICJ assesses a number of procedural and substantive concerns with the Law and its enactment, including its implication for the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights, as well as the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong SAR.
The Law was passed by the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress (NPC) on 30 June 2020.
“The law’s creation of new security bodies with expansive powers, subject to little or no accountability or oversight, is a recipe for disaster. Given the recent history of police abuse in Hong Kong, we know that these provisions will be used to target human rights defenders and other activists, particularly those involved in the democracy protests,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“Arrests have already taken place in the few days since the law has come into effect. Without a right of appeal to an independent judicial body, and a near total lack of transparency, the threat of prosecutions under the law’s criminal provisions poses an existential threat to the rule of law.”
The briefing paper highlights the numerous ways in which it falls short of international law and standards, and raises concerns about its impacts on the protection of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
The ICJ stressed that the Law falls afoul of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region 1997. In addition, enforcement of the law would undermine the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed under Article 14 of the ICCPR. It is also inconsistent with the 1985 Sino-British Joint Declaration which stated that “the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.”
The ICJ is particularly concerned about the creation of a new national security body and a new police division with overly broad investigative and surveillance powers, but weak accountability mechanisms.
The briefing paper on the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region asks and answers the following questions:
Q 1. What is the historical context of Hong Kong’s special administrative status?
Q 2. What is the background to the national security legislation in the HKSAR?
Q 3. What are China’s human rights obligations in relation to the national security legislation?
Q 4. How is the new National Security Law structured?
Q 5. What are the key concerns regarding the procedural deficiencies in the law?
Q 6. What are the crimes and penalties under the new law and what are the key concerns?
Q 7. Is the right to a fair trial by an independent judiciary safeguarded in the law?
Q 8. What is the mandate of newly established security agencies?
Q 9. How does the law threaten to undermine freedom of expression in the HKSAR and abroad?
Q 10. What kind of powers do the police have under the new law?
Q 11. What does the International Commission of Jurists recommend?
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Download
Hong-Kong-National-Security-Law-Briefing-Paper-ENG-2020 (PDF)
See also
