Nov 9, 2016
The ICJ has called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt effective measures to ensure that the newly established Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) deliver meaningful justice for victims of human rights violations.
In a memorandum published today the ICJ stressed that the SCC had been given a critical role in holding all those responsible for such violations to account in line with international law and standards.
However, the ability for the SCCs to effectively fulfil that role would depend on the willingness of the Tunisian authorities to adopt a number of measures, as set out in recommendations contained in the memorandum.
The memorandum analyses the guarantees for the selection and appointment of the SCC judges; the SCC’s jurisdiction over gross human rights violations; and the legal and practical obstacles that may hinder the SCC’s capacity to deliver justice effectively.
The ICJ has recognized the importance of State initiatives to establish mechanisms and measures to address past human rights violations under the framework of “transitional justice”, such as the Instance Vérité et Dignité (IVD) in Tunisia.
“But mechanisms of this kind and particularly the SCC must not undermine justice and accountability and must be complementary to the ordinary justice system rather than a substitute for it,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The ICJ stressed that for the SCC to be effective, the authorities need to act to clearly set out the procedures before the SCC; ensure that such procedures are consistent with international fair trial rights; establish specialized investigation and prosecution services; and provide for witness and victims protection units in line with international standards.
Obstacles potentially impeding accountability efforts in Tunisia include flawed definitions of crimes and of superior responsibility in the Criminal Code; the application of limitation periods in cases of serious human violations, and uncertainty over whether victims have direct access to lodge complaints before the SCC.
The ICJ identified measures for adoption by the Tunisian authorities to eliminate these obstacles and to ensure the effective functioning of the SCC. These steps include:
- introducing a clear framework regulating the mandate of the SCC and their relation with the ordinary justice system institutions and the IVD;
- ensuring that all alleged human rights violations are investigated and prosecuted, including allegations that are not transferred by or submitted to the IVD;
- ensuring that impunity for gross human rights violations is not facilitated by the application of limitation periods;
- ensuring that Tunisian laws are not construed to allow an individual responsible for a gross human rights violation to rely on an order received from a superior officer or public authority to escape criminal responsibility; and
- ensuring that the SCC contribute to the full realization of the victims’ right to effective, prompt remedy and reparation in all its forms recognized under international law.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +96 170 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
tunisia-scc-memo-news-press-releases-2016-ara (full story in Arabic, PDF)
tunisia-memo-on-scc-advocacy-analysis-brief-2016-eng (full memo in English, PDF)
tunisia-memo-on-scc-advocacy-analysis-brief-2016-ara (full memo in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 27, 2016
In a briefing paper issued today, the ICJ presents its comments on three key procedural aspects of the Dublin IV Regulation proposed by the European Commission.
On 4 May 2016, the European Commission published a proposal (Dublin IV) to recast the current Dublin Regulation (Dublin III).
The ICJ submission focuses on the potential impact of the current proposal on the rights of asylum seekers in Europe, including the right to an effective remedy, the principle of non-refoulement and economic and social rights.
In the briefing, the ICJ raises concerns at the introduction of excessively short time-limits for people to access an effective remedy while under the threat of a transfer to another EU Member State deemed responsible to assess the asylum application under the Dublin Regulation.
The ICJ further opposes the limitation of the material scope of the remedy and express concern at the punitive measures imposed on asylum seekers, in particular when they lead to the loss of access to their rights.
The ICJ invites the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to take these concerns into account during their negotiations.
eu-dublin-iv-regulation_comment-advocacy-analysis-brief-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Aug 23, 2016
The ICJ released today a briefing paper on investigation of extrajudicial executions in the Philippines.
This document is meant to contribute to ongoing discussions, following a hearing conducted by the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the Philippine Senate, on the reported increase in the number of deaths of persons allegedly involved in the trade and sale of illegal drugs in the country.
The ICJ had previously written to President Rodrigo Duterte (photo), calling on him to unequivocally denounce extrajudicial killings, whether of alleged criminals or of any person in the Philippines.
The ICJ also urged the government to immediately conduct investigations into police operations that resulted in these deaths.
Philippines-EJK debate-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2016-ENG
Photo credit: Grig C. Montegrande/Inquirer.
Aug 18, 2016
Today, the ICJ released a briefing paper on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, asking that it be withdrawn and revised to be consistent with international human rights law, and directions of the Indian Supreme Court.
The briefing paper answers key questions about the history of this Bill, what measures it seeks to introduce, outlines the ICJ’s key concerns about the Bill as currently drafted – including key omissions – in light of directions of the Supreme Court and applicable international human rights law.
“It is important to have a law guaranteeing transgender rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia director.
“However, any such legislation must be consistent with the spirit and directions of the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA v UOI and with international human rights law”.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 was approved by the Cabinet last month.
It was introduced in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) on 2 August 2016 and is currently pending.
The Bill’s definition of who is “transgender person”, the process of gender recognition it outlines, as well as the lack of adequate provisions on employment, education, anti-discrimination measures, and penalties for offences committed, are deeply problematic and at odds with the Supreme Court’s directions in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA v UOI.
“While a comprehensive transgender rights bill is long overdue in India, the problems and omissions in the current Bill will undermine the progress made on transgender rights in India,” Zarifi said.
“The government must immediately withdraw the Bill, meaningfully consult with the transgender community, and substantially revise its provisions such that it comprehensively protects the rights of all transgender people in India,” he added.
Background
In 2014, in the case of NALSA v UOI, the Supreme Court affirmed transgender persons’ right to their self-identified gender, directed the government to grant legal recognition of the same, and to take specific steps to ensure equality and non-discrimination for transgender persons.
States and government departments have begun to take piecemeal measures to implement the directions in the NALSA judgment, however several aspects of the decision remain unimplemented. See ICJ Briefing Paper on the implementation of the NALSA decision .
In April 2015, the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of India’s Parliament) passed the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill 2014, which was a private member’s Bill. Simultaneously, the government was developing its own draft of a transgender rights bill, which has now been introduced in Parliament. For more details see here.
INDIA-TG BILL CRITIQUE-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2016-ENG (full text, PDF)
Jun 26, 2016
Nepal’s new anti-torture bill is a welcome effort, but it must be revised to comply fully with international human rights law, the ICJ said in a briefing paper released today.
“Nepal’s anti-torture bill is a significant development, and has the potential to be an important step towards countering the systemic impunity for gross human rights violations in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“It is therefore crucial that the Bill be revised to fully comply with international human rights law,” he added.
In a 37-paged briefing paper released today, the ICJ has analyzed the Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Control) Bill, 2014 against relevant international law and standards, finding that several provisions of the bill are inconsistent with Nepal’s international obligations.
Major problems include the definition and scope of torture and other ill-treatment in the Bill, the existence of a limitation period for filing complaints, the disproportionately low severity of penalties imposed, and the failure to provide access to effective remedies and reparations for victims.
The briefing paper is released at a time when the United Kingdom is prosecuting a Nepali military officer, Colonel Kumar Lama, for allegations of torture and other ill-treatment during Nepal’s decade long internal armed conflict (photo).
“There are several other instances of torture and other human rights abuses during the conflict era that remain uninvestigated. It is high time that Nepal puts in place a strong anti-torture law that challenges entrenched impunity and enables victims to seek justice and accountability,” Zarifi said.
To this end, the ICJ has made a serious of recommendations in the briefing paper, which include:
- Revising the Bill to reflect the definition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment in a manner consistent with the Convention against Torture and other international instruments
- Increasing the maximum penalty provided in the Bill, and providing for enhanced punishment for the supervising officer when he / she is complicit in torture
- Removing the limitation period for filing complaints and lodging cases
- Removing any penalties for the alleged filing of “fake” complaints
- Ensuring the right to all forms of reparation, not only compensation, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture or ill-treatment has taken place, and irrespective of the existence or outcome of a judicial proceeding
- Including a provision enabling authorities in Nepal to prosecute individuals accused of torture and ill-treatment, irrespective of their nationality and where the crime was committed
- Revising the Bill to be fully consistent with the international principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the extradition, deportation, expulsion or removal in any other way of a person to a territory where there is a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment
- Placing obligations on specific State institutions to establish preventive programs for torture and monitoring their implementation.
Nepal-Torture Bill-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
