Mar 10, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ made a joint statement on the report of the Open-ended intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises.
The intervention was made at the United Nations Human Rights Council on behalf of Franciscans International, International Commission of Jurists, Colombian Commission of Jurists and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH). All are members of the civil society coalition: “Treaty Alliance”.
The statement read as follows:
Our organizations welcome the report on the second session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to human rights.
We are encouraged by the growing participation of States and other stakeholders in interesting and constructive discussions but remain concerned by the failure of some States to truly engage constructively with the process.
Civil society groups documented in these years countless cases of business involvement in human rights abuses. This demonstrates that existing mechanisms could be useful but are not sufficient and that a new binding instrument at the global level is needed.
The treaty should address all business enterprises and give States the tools to tackle the particular challenges posed by transnational corporations, providing the necessary protection to victims of human rights abuses, including Human Rights defenders who are targeted for their work and opinion.
Access to effective remedy and reparations remain problematic at the domestic and cross-border levels. In order to achieve the effective protection of human rights from business related abuses, the treaty should build on and go beyond existing international human rights standards and instruments.
We call on the Chair-Rapporteur to present a draft elements paper in accordance with the mandate of the Open ended Working Group. This paper should be as detailed as possible and reflect the discussions of the first two sessions, in order to facilitate the start of meaningful negotiations at the third session in October 2017.
We urge all stakeholders, especially States, to engage in constructive and substantive discussions on the content and scope of this instrument in the perspective of the third session.
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC34-Joint Statement-IGWG Transnational Corporations-Advocacy 2017
Mar 7, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council the ICJ expressed concerns about violence and other wrongs against children in times of armed conflict and peacetime.
The ICJ statement was delivered during an interactive dialogue with the Special Representatives of the Secretary General on Violence against Children and for Children and Armed Conflict.
The ICJ thanked the Special Representatives for their annual reports (Violence against Children UN doc.A/HRC/34/45-ENG and Children and Armed Conflict UN doc.A/HRC/34/44-ENG) and then continued as follows:
We welcome the renewed commitment of States, via the Sustainable Development Goals (in particular SDG 5.2 and 5.3 and SDG 16.2 and 16.3), to eliminating violence against children and ensuring access to justice for everyone by 2030.
However, as the Special Representative for Violence against Children’s report noted, we must ensure that protecting children from violence is not simply an ideal but is realized in practice.
The ICJ is concerned about systemic problems where States agree in principle to protect children from violence but disagree on fundamental definitions of ‘children’ and ‘violence’.
We agree with the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict’s assessment that States must close any legal lacunae that fail to implement the almost universally accepted definition of ‘child’ as everyone below the age of 18.
We ask that all forms of violence against children be condemned even where some violent practices, such as child marriage or female genital mutilation, were once considered culturally acceptable.
We welcome efforts undertaken to prevent violence against children and protect children in armed conflict to ensure their human rights are protected.
However, rights protections are meaningless without accountability and so we would like to ask which measures should be put in place to eradicate impunity and ensure access to justice for children who have suffered violence and other wrongs in times of armed conflict and otherwise?
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC34-OralStatement-violence against children+children armed conflict-Advocacy-2017
Feb 23, 2017 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ joins South Sudanese, regional and other international non-governmental organizations in a joint letter urging the Human Rights Council to renew and strengthen the mandate and capacity of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
Action is needed to address the continued lack of accountability for severe, widespread and on-going crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses, many of which amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, during the upcoming 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC).
South Sudan-letter HRC34-Advocacy-Open letters-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Feb 13, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) have made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in view of its forthcoming review of the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Thailand.
In their submission, the ICJ and TLHR have brought to the Committee’s attention their concerns in relation to the following issues:
- Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented;
- States of emergency;
- Right to life and prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- Right to liberty and security of the person, treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, right to a fair trial and independence of judiciary; and
- Freedoms of expression and association and right to peaceful assembly.
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Feb 9, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today welcomed the indefinite suspension of the hearings on the death penalty bills by the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Committee’s Chairman, Senator Richard Gordon, indicated the suspension was needed until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
That instrument requires the Philippines to maintain its abolition.
“Abolitionist States may not return to the use of the death penalty generally under the ICCPR, and States that become party to the Second Optional Protocol assume very specific obligations to that effect,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “There really is no inconsistency between the Second Optional Protocol and the Philippine Constitution.”
“As a general rule, the Philippine Constitution prohibits the death penalty except for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. But in no way does it mandate that the death penalty be put into effect,” she added.
By ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippines has voluntarily chosen to be bound by an international obligation not to impose the death penalty – which it might otherwise have had the option to do under the Constitution.
As the ICJ explains in a memorandum on this issue, this is the very essence of treaty making.
“To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which Philippines is a party,” Gil said.
“This would contradict the most basic foundations of the international legal system and would lead other countries to view the Philippines as virtually incapable of making a reliable international legal agreement,” she added.
The ICJ emphasized that if the Philippines brings back the death penalty into its domestic laws, it would also be in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR, which effectively prohibits States from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
The Philippines cannot withdraw from Second Optional Protocol, which has no denunciation or withdrawal clause, the ICJ says.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted because once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Second Optional Protocol, they shall not be deprived of such protection.
Background
On 7 February 2017, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights held its first hearing on the proposed measure reintroducing the death penalty for illegal drugs and other crimes.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty is also currently being debated in plenary at the House of Representatives.
At the Senate hearing, senators opposing the proposed measure recalled that the Philippines is a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol, and thus, it is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.
Senator Richard Gordon, who chairs the Committee, thereafter, called for the indefinite suspension of the hearings on this matter until there could be clarity on the ramifications on the Philippines if it breaches its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Memo OP2 and Const-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
