Sep 21, 2023 | Advocacy, News
Between 18 and 20 September 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Access to Justice Knowledge Hub and the Andes University’s Programme of Action for Equality and Social Inclusion (Programa de Acción por la Igualdad y la Inclusión Social -PAIIS) jointly held a regional workshop in Bogotá, Colombia, on the discriminatory, disproportionate and often arbitrary use of criminal justice systems against marginalized individuals and groups in Latin America. The event brought together approximately 30 members of civil society organizations, justice actors, judges and representatives of government institutions. Participants came from a range of Latin American countries, including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru.
The workshop centred around the ICJ’s “8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty” (8 March Principles) as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities’ “International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities”. Participants agreed that the alarming worldwide trend of over-criminalization was evident in Latin America too. This trend hinders the advancement of human rights, especially the rights of marginalized individuals and groups, such as LGBTI+ persons, people living with HIV, women with disabilities and women living in poverty.
In his keynote presentation, ICJ Commissioner Rodrigo Uprimny discussed “the inevitability of criminal law”, describing it as “a bitter necessity for social coexistence”. Certain conduct, he argued, such as acts constituting human rights abuses, must inevitably be criminalized by States. Against this background, Uprimny also noted that there is tendency towards “penal populism” in Latin America, often resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory use of criminal law in various contexts, such as social protest, drug use and abortion. Commenting on the importance of the 8 March Principles in Latin America, he therefore said:
“Reality shows that the conduct addressed by the Principles is precisely the conduct where the discriminatory impact of criminal law tends to be very strong (…) on all grounds of discrimination: gender, race, disability, poverty, etc. (…). The Principles call for caution against the tendency toward over-criminalization. (…). overcriminalization is not only a matter of authoritarian right-wing governments in Latin America. In the human rights world, there is a movement towards retributivism. (…) [The use of criminal law] may sometimes be justified, but sometimes it can have perverse effects.”
The participants reflected on common predicaments and barriers that criminal justice systems impose against marginalized groups and individuals in Latin America, including in relation to the disproportionate impact of criminal law on women, homeless persons, persons living with HIV, people who use drugs and persons with disabilities.
A central element of the discussion was that human rights violations as a result of criminal proceedings involve the failure of a range of actors — including judges, prosecutors, police officers and other justice actors, but also of psychiatrists and social services — to understand and apply international human rights standards. In this regard, participants highlighted, inter alia, the lack of knowledge and application of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and of the jurisprudence of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to access to justice for persons with disabilities. As a result, persons with disabilities in Latin America, and particularly those with psychosocial disabilities, face serious obstacles in exercising their right to legal capacity in the context of criminal proceedings.
Participants committed to a common agenda for joint advocacy, including through the provision of workshops to justice actors, such as judges, in Latin America. In particular, more in-depth knowledge of international human rights law and standards in the criminal justice context, as well as disability rights, is needed.
Contacts:
Rocío Quintero M, ICJ Legal Adviser for the Latin America Programme, e: rocio.quintero@icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, e: timothy.hodgson@icj.org
Sep 21, 2023
An opinion piece by Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, Asia and the Pacific Programme, published on Tech Policy Press on 20 September 2023.
On January 9, 2023, former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen posted a video on Facebook where he threatened his political opponents with violence, which was escalated to Meta’s Oversight Board for its consideration. My organization, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), submitted a public comment to the Board on the case, highlighting the ongoing violence and crackdown by the authorities against perceived political opponents in Cambodia and the real risk of further human rights abuses and other harms if Meta did not take action.
The Oversight Board agreed and issued several recommendations, including that Meta suspend Hun Sen’s Facebook page and Instagram account for six months. However, Meta rejected several of the Board’s recommendations, including the recommendation to suspend the accounts, explaining that “suspending those accounts outside our regular enforcement framework would not be consistent with our policies, including our protocol on restricting accounts of public figures during civil unrest.”
Confused after reading Meta’s response? Me too. Meta’s explanations are perplexing and peppered with jargonistic references to its different policies. In essence, what Meta is saying (or at least, from what I understand) is:
- Meta does not think that Cambodia was/is in a situation of crisis under its so-called Crisis Policy Protocol. Thus, the company’s policy on restricting accounts of public figures during civil unrest will not apply.
- Using Meta’s ordinary rules, there is no basis to suspend Hun Sen’s account.
- Meta also refused to update the policy on public figures and civil unrest such that it may apply to Cambodia, where there is a long history of state violence and human rights violations. According to Meta, applying the policy to these situations could lead to indefinite suspensions for public figures.
Meta’s decision has drawn sharp rebuke from human rights groups. For instance, colleagues at Access Now underscored that Meta’s decision “sends a dangerous signal that [Hun Sen’s] rights-abusing speech will be tolerated on its platforms.”
I share these sentiments. Meta’s decision creates the expectation that there will be no accountability for Hun Sen’s longstanding abuse of Meta’s platforms to threaten and incite violence against his real or perceived opponents. Meta has indicated that continued violations of its policies will result in restrictions, but what about the abuse that has already occurred?
Meta’s decision ultimately points to a fundamental issue of how its rules are, in the first place, constructed with overly expansive language, granting Meta significant latitude to do as they please on an ad hoc basis, unencumbered by consistent application of normative constraints. Furthermore, this decision illustrates how the enforcement of Meta’s Community Standards is, like in many other instances, shrouded in secrecy.
De facto impunity for sustained human rights violations
Meta’s decision now creates two separate enforcement regimes for when a public figure incites or threatens violence online. If this happens during what Meta considers to be a situation of sudden civil unrest and violence, Meta may restrict accounts for longer periods of time. However, if this has been going on for an “indeterminate period of time” – which, arguably, makes the situation far more serious than a one-off instance of violence – then Meta’s ordinary rules apply, with a far laxer restriction framework (e.g., ten or more strikes will result in a 30-day restriction). Is Meta effectively encouraging authoritarian regimes to engage in a “history of state violence or human rights restrictions” for an “indeterminate period of time” by allowing them to escape suspension?
In applying Meta’s ordinary penalty framework, it is not apparent why Hun Sen’s repeated violations have not attracted stricter sanctions beyond just removing the January 9 video, irrespective of whether suspension might be deemed a disproportionate and unnecessary measure. Hun Sen’s January 9 video that threatens and incites violence clearly should qualify as violating Meta’s “more severe policies” and attract stricter penalties. The violation should be seen as one of particular egregiousness given that it was not an isolated incident: the Oversight Board’s decision noted at least four instances of content being posted on Meta’s platforms containing threats, including threats of violence. It was also reported that Hun Sen reposted the January 9 video, which Meta removed but without “any visible repercussions.” Evidence suggests these violations resulted in offline physical violence.
Meta claimed that it applied “appropriate account-level penalties associated with that action.” Still, we have no idea what these penalties are and how they may be proportionate sanctions for Hun Sen’s actions. Optics matter, and this failure to explain the penalties, assuming there were any, has contributed to the impression that prominent figures using Meta’s platforms to threaten and incite violence will enjoy impunity and face no consequences for their conduct. Critically, without public knowledge of the penalties, what should be a main function of Meta’s regulatory regime, i.e., deterrence of such misconduct on its platforms, is effectively nullified.
Opaque enforcement and design of Meta’s rules
Meta’s decision also demonstrates a broader pattern of a lack of transparency in enforcing its rules. We do not know what “appropriate account-level penalties,” if any, have been imposed on Hun Sen and the reasoning behind them. We do not know why there is “currently not any basis to suspend Hun Sen’s account under [Meta’s] policies.” We do not know why and how Meta determined that Cambodia did not meet the “entry criteria threshold for crisis designation,” despite the multitude of submissions pointing in the opposite direction, including in the Board’s decision and the ICJ’s public comment to the Board.
The arbitrariness in Meta’s enforcement of its rules is directly linked with how the design of the rules themselves are overbroad and ambiguous, thus granting significant discretion when making decisions. These concerns extend to the ordinary enforcement framework, its newer policies on public figures and civil unrest, and its Crisis Policy Protocol. Ironically, the latter were updated in response to the case on former President Trump’s suspension from Facebook and were presumably aimed at introducing further transparency and consistency.
It is a general principle of law, known as the principle of legality, that rules must be formulated with sufficient precision in order to not grant unfettered discretion to those charged with their implementation – a principle that Meta’s rules patently fail to conform with. For instance, what are considered Meta’s “more severe policies” under its ordinary penalty regime? How is the risk of “imminent harm” under its Crisis Policy Protocol assessed, and what other factors determine what constitutes a crisis?
It is hard not to conclude that the jargon contained in these policies is being used as ex post facto justifications and conceptual smokescreens for inconsistent and opaque decisions.
The newsworthiness allowance
However, not all hope is lost, as Meta is still mulling over the feasibility of the Board’s recommendation to clearly state that “content that directly incites violence is not eligible for a newsworthiness allowance, subject to existing policy exceptions.” The ICJ had made an identical call in our public comment, in line with article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires the prohibition of incitement to violence, hostility, or discrimination.
At present, Meta’s newsworthiness allowance currently allows Meta to keep offensive content that violates its rules if it decides that the public interest value of keeping the content outweighs the risk of harm. This allowance was also a central tenet of the Board’s case, as Meta had been unsure whether Hun Sen’s violent speech should qualify as “newsworthy” and thus be left up.
It bears repeating that one of the very few limitations that is mandatory under international human rights law is the prohibition of incitement to violence. Meta’s current newsworthiness allowance allows for a loophole in this prohibition, which is, as above, exacerbated by the ambiguity and opacity in which the policy is currently constructed and enforced. If not applied with additional protections, this allowance would eviscerate the protection provided by human rights law against expression inciting violence. Meta’s decision to reject the Board’s recommendations to clarify its policy on public figures sets a dangerous precedent going forward.
However, there is still an opportunity for it to at least take some positive steps towards abiding by its human rights responsibility to respect human rights, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, by revising its newsworthiness allowance in line with human rights law and standards. Having an unequivocal carve-out to its newsworthiness allowance for incitement to violence would at least allow Meta to be consistent when adjudicating similar violent content in the future, even if the rest of its rules and standards leave much to be desired.
First published on Tech Policy Press here.
Sep 18, 2023
Del 11 al 15 de septiembre de 2023, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas (CIJ) celebró tres seminarios sobre la rendición de cuentas por muertes ilegítimas y torturas. El primero fue realizado para víctimas y representantes de las víctimas (11 de septiembre), el segundo para jueces (12 y 13 de septiembre) y el último fue para fiscales e investigadores (14 y 15 de septiembre). Los seminarios tuvieron lugar en Bogotá, Colombia y resaltaron la importancia de garantizar el cumplimiento de las normas internacionales para abordar la impunidad.
Los talleres fueron inaugurados por el secretario general de la CIJ, Santiago Cantón, quien destacó la importancia de la independencia judicial para mantener la democracia que hoy existe y la que se está perdiendo, especialmente en algunos países latinoamericanos.
Los seminarios tenían como objetivo capacitar a las y los participantes sobre las normas internacionales de derechos humanos que se aplican a las investigaciones penales en casos de muertes ilegítimas y tortura, con miras a garantizar que se respeten los derechos de las víctimas y otros participantes en los procesos penales.
Los seminarios abordaron estándares de derechos humanos a nivel internacional e interamericano. María Clara Galvis, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Externado, destacó la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en materia de investigaciones penales. Además, mencionó que la Corte Interamericana ha desarrollado estándares para las investigaciones y juicios penales a partir de las violaciones de derechos humanos encontradas en los casos que la Corte ha decidido.
Los casos que han llegado a la Corte [Interamericana de Derecho Humanos] de Colombia o México sobre falta de investigación con perspectiva de género, le han permitido a la Corte desarrollar estándares y decirles a las autoridades investigativas del continente cuáles son los pasos que deben seguir, como, por ejemplo, no tomar los testimonios de las víctimas (de tortura) más de una vez”, explicó Galvis.
Los seminarios también abordaron la importancia del aspecto forense en las investigaciones y de garantizar que los familiares de las víctimas de muertes ilícitas y torturas participen en las pruebas forenses que se realicen. Pablo Gallo, asesor del Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense, destacó la importancia de la participación de la sociedad civil, familiares y víctimas en los procesos judiciales y de investigación:
La sociedad civil y los familiares [de las víctimas] han pasado por distintas etapas, por distintos tipos de violaciones en sus derechos y tienen la experiencia para poder monitorear, controlar y ser, de alguna manera, agentes del control de calidad de las investigaciones que se hacen”, señaló el asesor argentino de la EAAAF.
Las sesiones sobre el Protocolo de Minnesota y el Protocolo de Estambul (protocolos que brindan orientación práctica sobre la realización de investigaciones sobre muertes ilegítimas y torturas y que son fundamentales en la lucha contra la impunidad) fueron centrales en los seminarios. Luciano Hazán, coordinador del Programa contra la Violencia Institucional de la Defensoría General de la República Argentina, afirmó:
Estas herramientas son muy fuertes, porque de alguna forma le dan un espacio que hasta hace unos años no tenían los investigadores forenses. Si se hace un trabajo forense serio, se pueden romper las barreras de impunidad. Una autopsia hecha oportunamente y de manera transparente puede traer información muy valiosa en términos de la responsabilidad o de lo que ocurrió (…) Tenemos estos manuales que recomiendan iniciar las investigaciones tempranamente, documentar los hechos tempranamente para conocer a los posibles responsables y darle información a los familiares de las víctimas sobre lo que ocurrió”.
Morris Tidball-Binz, Relator Especial de la ONU sobre ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, habló sobre la importancia del Protocolo de Minnesota en la investigación de muertes potencialmente ilícitas para tener resultados confiables en las investigaciones y asegurar verdad, justicia y reparación a las víctimas. El Relator de la ONU también instó a los Estados a comprometerse a cumplir con sus obligaciones internacionales bajo el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, el derecho internacional humanitario y el derecho penal internacional.
Para hacer efectiva la prohibición absoluta y universal de toda muerte arbitraria se debe asegurar, en todo caso, que cuando sucede una de estas muertes sea investigada fehacientemente y de manera confiable, pronta, expeditiva, con debida diligencia y con la trasparencia que exige el Protocolo. Que los Estados cumplan con ello es fundamental”, concluyó Tidball-Binz.
Finalmente, los seminarios también resaltaron las barreras de acceso a la justicia para personas pertenecientes a grupos históricamente discriminados, como las personas con discapacidad. Al respecto, Diana Sheinbaum Lerner, socia fundadora y Coordinadora del Programa de Discapacidad y Justicia de Documenta, explicó que las principales barreras que enfrentan las personas con discapacidad están relacionadas con los estereotipos de discapacidad, que asumen que las personas con discapacidad carecen de la capacidad de testificar y plenamente participar en procesos penales.
Los seminarios se realizaron con el apoyo de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad del Rosario y el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Finlandia.
- Obstáculos que enfrentan las víctimas de violaciones de derechos humanos cuando buscan justicia. Disponible aquí.
- Falta de voluntad investigativa, dilaciones y corrupción como obstáculos en el acceso a la justicia. Disponible aquí.
- Herramientas necesarias para llevar a cabo investigaciones y enjuiciamientos rápidos y eficaces. Disponible aquí.
- Medidas para proteger a las víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humano. Disponible aquí.
- Rendición de cuentas a nivel internacional en casos de violaciones a los derechos humanos. Disponible aquí.
- Rol de la comunidad jurídica y organizaciones civiles en casos de violaciones a los DDHH. Disponible aquí.
- Entrevista al Relator Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias. Disponible aquí.
Sep 18, 2023
From 11 to 15 September 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) held three seminars on accountability for unlawful deaths and torture for victims and victim representatives (September 11), judges (September 12 and 13), and prosecutors and investigators (September 14 and 15) in Bogotá, Colombia. The seminars highlighted the importance of ensuring compliance with international standards in addressing impunity.
The workshops were inaugurated by the Secretary General of the ICJ, Santiago Canton, who highlighted the importance of judicial independence in maintaining the democracy that exists today and the democracy that is being lost, especially in some Latin American countries.
The seminars aimed to train participants on international human rights standards that apply to criminal investigations in cases involving unlawful deaths and torture, with a view to ensuring that the rights of victims and other participants in criminal proceedings are respected.
The seminars addressed human rights standards at the international and inter-American levels. María Clara Galvis, Professor in the Faculty of Law at Externado University, highlighted the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on criminal investigations. Professor Galvis mentioned that the Inter-American Court has developed standards for criminal investigations and trials based on the human rights violations found in the cases that the Court has decided.
The cases that have reached the [Inter-American Court of Human Rights] (…) regarding the lack of investigation with a gender perspective have allowed the Court to develop standards and tell the investigative authorities of the continent what steps they should take, such as, for example, not taking the testimonies of the victims [of torture] more than once,” Galvis explained.
The seminars also addressed the importance of forensic investigations and ensuring that the relatives and victims of unlawful deaths and torture participate in forensic examinations. Pablo Gallo, advisor to the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, highlighted the importance of the participation of civil society, relatives, and victims in judicial and investigation processes:
Civil society and the relatives [of the victims] have gone through different stages, different types of violations of their rights and have the experience to be able to monitor, control and be, in some way, agents of quality control of the investigations,” said the Argentine advisor to the EAAAF.
Sessions on the Minnesota Protocol and the Istanbul Protocol – protocols providing practical guidance on the conduct of investigations into unlawful deaths and torture and that are fundamental in the fight against impunity – were central to the seminars. Luciano Hazan, coordinator of the Program against Institutional Violence of the General Defender’s Office of Argentina, stated:
These tools are very strong because (…) if serious forensic work is done, the barriers to impunity can be broken. An autopsy done in a timely and transparent manner can provide very valuable information in terms of responsibility or what happened (…) We have these manuals that recommend starting investigations early, documenting the facts early to know the possible responsible parties, and giving information to the families of the victims about what happened.”
Morris Tidball-Binz, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, spoke about the importance of the Minnesota Protocol in the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths to have reliable results in investigations and ensure truth, justice, and reparation for victims. The UN Rapporteur also urged States to commit to comply with their international obligations under international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law.
To make effective the absolute and universal prohibition of all arbitrary deaths, it must be ensured, in all cases, that when one of these deaths occurs, it is investigated reliably, promptly, expeditiously, with due diligence and with the transparency required by law. That States comply with this is essential,” concluded Tidball-Binz.
Finally, the seminars also highlighted the barriers to access to justice for people belonging to historically discriminated groups, such as people with disabilities. In this regard, Diana Sheinbaum Lerner, founding partner and Coordinator of the Disability and Justice Program at Documenta, explained that the main barriers faced by people with disabilities are related to disability stereotypes, which assume that people with disabilities lack the capacity to testify and fully participate in criminal proceedings.
The seminars were carried out with the support of the Faculty of Law of the Universidad del Rosario and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Sep 15, 2023 | Advocacy, Human Rights Council, News, Statements, Work with the UN
The ICJ welcomes the last report of Mr. Fabian Salvioli as he ends his 6-year tenure as the UN Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The report, presented to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) on 14 September 2023, compiles and analyses existing international standards under the five pillars of transitional justice: truth, justice, reparation, memorialization and guarantees of non-recurrence.
