May 6, 2020 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La Comisión Internacional de Juristas apoyó la realización de una serie de conversatorios online acerca de los desafíos que enfrentan los sistemas de justicia latinoamericanos en el marco de la emergencia generada por la pandemia.
Estos conversatorios abordaron temas diversos, como los servicios esenciales de justicia, el impacto del teletrabajo en la judicatura, la innovación en la justicia en tiempos de emergencia, la búsqueda de las personas desaparecidas, la situación de personas migrantes y el uso del litigio estratégico como herramienta de defensa de derechos fundamentales.
Esta iniciativa fue organizada por un grupo de mujeres de América Latina que trabajan en temas de justicia en la región, y fue apoyada por la Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal (DPLF), la Fundación Construir, la Fundación Tribuna Constitucional, el Observatorio de Derechos y Justicia, y la Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático del Derecho.
Los videos de las sesiones que se realizaron están disponibles en español en los siguientes enlaces:
Conversatorio 1: Servicios esenciales de justicia en tiempos de emergencia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEW-GJ9J0Po
Conversatorio 2: Teletrabajo y la Judicatura: Juezas en la primera línea de la justicia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn7h41pGfp8&feature=youtu.be
Conversatorio 3: Innovando en la justicia en tiempos de emergencia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-2y9Ir_RE&feature=youtu.be
Conversatorio 4: La búsqueda de personas desaparecidas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfWj_gjxJbs&feature=youtu.be
Conversatorio 5: La protección de las personas migrantes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kDOjklinnw&feature=youtu.be
Conversatorio 6: ¿Como puede el litigio estratégico protegernos frente a los efectos de la pandemia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlwcZqq2CJ4&feature=youtu.be
Conversatorio 7: Experiencias nacionales de litigio estratégico frente al COVID-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd-J5pcEX7I&feature=youtu.be
Texto completo, en PDF: Videos-Sistemas-de-Justice-Press-Release-2020-SPA
May 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Publications
In a report published today, the ICJ called on the police and prosecutorial authorities in Myanmar to re-open the investigation into the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi in military custody in September 2014.
The report documented the many barriers that have prevented justice from being served in this case, as well as other cases of gross human rights violations in Myanmar.
The ICJ called on the Union Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act and other legislation that effectively provides immunity to military personnel accused of serious crimes. These and other barriers have been described at length in the ICJ’s 2018 report on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations.
“More than three years ago, the police abruptly ended their formal inquiry into the killing of Ko Par Gyi, without providing any justifiable legal rationale for its closure,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “In the intervening years, we have seen what happens when this culture of military impunity goes unaddressed.”
In the report, An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar, the ICJ evaluated the various investigations into the death and identified three key obstacles to justice in the case:
- the existence and operation of national laws like the 1959 Defence Services Act that shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, serving to deny victims and their families the right to truth about violations;
- sub-standard investigative practices that are vulnerable to political pressure and lacked independence, and simultaneous, separate and uncoordinated investigations that resulted in an unsystematic and ineffective approach to investigating the case; and
- a lack of transparency that denied the family their right to access information concerning the violations and accountability processes.
Ko Par Gyi was detained by police in Mon State and transferred to military detention on 30 September 2014. He died four days later in military custody. A deeply flawed inquiry carried out in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Defence Services Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. Those same provisions are commonly used to transfer cases involving military personnel from civilian to military court. Under international standards, military courts should not be used to try military personnel or others for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law.
“It is no surprise that an international investigative mechanism has been established to look into alleged serious human rights violations in Rakhine and elsewhere in Myanmar,” said Rawski. “Myanmar’s legal framework does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure independent investigation into and prosecution of serious human rights violations. What happened to Ko Par Gyi’s case illustrates that all too clearly.”
The UN Human Rights Council has established an Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) to collect evidence and prepare files for criminal prosecution of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011.
Key recommendations in the report include:
- To the Executive and the Union Parliament: amend the 1959 Defense Services Act to align it with democratic principles, the constitutional guarantee of equal legal protection, and the State’s international law obligation to protect the right to life, including by prosecuting serious violations.
- To the Tatmadaw: apply standards and procedures in military courts that conform to international law, ensure all crimes perpetrated against civilians are tried in the civilian judicial system, and reform rules of engagement to explicitly instruct soldiers to protect life, consistent with international law.
- To the Myanmar Police Force and the Union Attorney General’s Office: align investigative procedures and practices with international law and standards.
- To the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission: take an active and broad interpretation of the MNHRC mandate to address serious human rights violations including those which have gone before courts.
- To UN Member States and international organizations: ensure any organizational support to security forces is contingent on and enables demonstrable commitments to prevent and punish violations by its members.
This report was produced as part of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, which aims at combatting impunity and promoting redress for gross human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law
Download
An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar in English and Burmese.
Press statement with additional background information on Ko Par Gyi in English and Burmese.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 64 4781121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
May 1, 2020 | Адвокаси
Сегодня Международная комиссия юристов (МКЮ) совместно с Институтом по правам человека Международной ассоциации юристов (IBAHRI) и Центром по гражданским и политическим правам (Центр CCPR) опубликовали юридическое заключение комиссара МКЮ, профессора Сары Кливленд по вопросу о соответствии проекта закона Казахстана о порядке организации и проведения мирных собраний международным обязательствам Казахстана в области прав человека.
«Чрезмерные ограничения в отношении свободы мирных собраний в Казахстане на протяжении вот уже многих лет становятся предметом серьезной озабоченности Комитета по правам человека ООН, Венецианской комиссии Совета Европы и других органов по правам человека, – отметила Сара Кливленд. – Сейчас у Казахстана есть хорошая возможность привести свое законодательство в соответствие с его международно-правовыми обязательствами в области прав человека, однако рассматриваемый законопроект не способствует достижению этой цели».
Автор Мнения приходит к выводу о том, что предложенный законопроект предусматривает целый ряд ограничений в отношении свободы собраний, которые фундаментально не соответствуют обязательствам Казахстана в области прав человека, в том числе: (1) чрезмерные требования к уведомлению и согласованию; (2) чрезмерные полномочия для запрета собрания; (3) запрет спонтанных собраний; (4) ограничение проведения собраний «специализированными местами»; (5) преференциальный режим для собраний, организуемых правительством; (6) запрет иностранцам, беженцам и лицам без гражданства организовывать или участвовать в собраниях, (7) чрезмерные обязанности организаторов и участников; и (8) чрезмерные санкции в отношении организаторов и участников. Время и процедура принятия закона, который самым фундаментальным образом затрагивает соответствие внутреннего законодательства основным обязательствам в области прав человека, сами по себе вызывают серьезную озабоченность относительно соблюдения прав человека, принимая во внимание ограниченные возможности организаций гражданского общества и общественности в целом участвовать в активных публичных обсуждениях этого законопроекта в условиях карантина.
В свете этой серьезной озабоченности относительно соблюдения прав человека IBAHRI, МКЮ и Центр CCPR призывают Сенат и(или) Президента Республики Казахстан приостановить рассмотрение законопроекта и запросить рекомендации Панели экспертов БДИПЧ ОБСЕ по свободе собраний и ассоциаций, Управления Верховного комиссара ООН по правам человека и(или) Венецианской комиссии по вопросу о том, как настоящий закон о свободе мирных собраний может быть пересмотрен в соответствии с международными обязательствами Казахстана в области прав человека.
Kazakhstan-Assembly Law Opinion-Advocacy-2020-RUS
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy
The ICJ, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), and the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre) today published a legal opinion by ICJ Commissioner Professor Sarah Cleveland, on compliance of Kazakhstan’s Draft Law on the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies, with the Republic of Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
“Excessive restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly in Kazakhstan have been of significant concern to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, and other human rights bodies for many years,” said Sarah Cleveland.
“Kazakhstan now has an important opportunity to bring its law into compliance with its international human rights obligations, but the draft law currently being considered does not achieve this.”
The Opinion finds that the proposed legislation includes of number of restrictions on freedom of assembly that are fundamentally contrary to Kazakhstan’s human rights obligations, including (1) excessive notification and approval requirements; (2) excessive authority to ban an assembly; (3) a prohibition on spontaneous assemblies; (4) restriction of assemblies to specific locations; (5) preferential treatment for assemblies organized by the government; (6) a prohibition against foreigners, refugees, stateless persons from organizing or participating in assemblies, (7) excessive obligations on organizers and participants; and (8) excessive sanctions for organizers and participants. The timing and process for adopting a law that so fundamentally impacts domestic compliance with core human rights obligations itself raises serious human rights concerns, given the limited ability of civil society organizations and the general public to participate in a robust public debate regarding the law during the quarantine.
In light of these serious human rights concerns, the IBAHRI, the ICJ and the CCPR Centre urge the Senate and/or the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan to halt consideration of the Draft Law, and to seek guidance from the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Assembly and Association, the Office of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, and/or the Venice Commission regarding how the current law on freedom of peaceful assembly might be revised consistent with Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
Kazakhstan-Assembly Law Opinion-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full text in PDF)
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today condemned the recent decisions of the governments of the Republic of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their respective declarations that gave individuals and nongovernmental organizations the right to directly bring cases of human rights violations against those States, before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights.
The ICJ called on the authorities of both States to reconsider and rescind these decisions.
Coming after a similar withdrawal by Tanzania in November 2019, these withdrawal decisions serve to deprive the inhabitants of these countries access to a judicial remedy at the regional level for human rights violations, and undermine the effective of the African regional human rights system.
The ICJ stressed that withdrawal decisions serve to undermine Aspiration 3 of the African Union’s AGENDA 2063, by which the AU aims at “[a]n Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.”
Both States have offered vague and unsubstantiated rationales for their decisions, but their actions follow their dissatisfaction with the outcomes of particular cases against them. Responses of this kind are effectively an attack on the independence of the Court and can serve to undermine the integrity of the Court itself.
The ICJ recalls that in February 2020, the Executive Council of the African Union called on African States to accede to the Protocol Establishing the African Court and to make the declaration required under article 34(6) of the Protocol. These decisions of the governments of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their article 34(6) declarations fly in the face of this call by the Executive Council of the African Union and greatly threaten the progress that has been made towards protection of human rights in Africa.
Background
Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights requires that State Parties to the Protocol make a separate declaration in order to allow direct access to individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases against them before the African Human Rights Court. Benin which deposited its declaration on 8 February 2016 announced its withdrawal of the declaration on 23 April 2020. Benin claimed that its decision is based ‘dysfunctions and slip-ups’ it has increasingly observed in the work of the African Human Rights Court, allegedly resulting in the Court’s increasing departure from its mandate and core area of competence. Benin cited the earlier withdrawals of Rwanda and Tanzania as further justification for its decision.
Côte d’Ivoire, which deposited its declaration on 23 July 2013 and announced its withdrawal on 29 April 2020, says that its decision was based on what it considers to be ‘the serious and intolerable actions that the African Court has allowed itself’ and which ‘not only undermines the sovereignty of the state of Côte d’Ivoire … but are also likely to cause serious disruption to the internal legal order of states’.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, C: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 E: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa, C: +234 8034927549; E: Solomon.ebobrah@icj.org
Full text, in PDF: Ivory-Coast-Statement-Advocacy-ENG-2020