Nov 17, 2023
Photo by Amir Shiri on Unsplash
LEGAL BRIEFER: States’ Duty to Prevent Genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention
This legal briefer focuses on States’ duty to prevent genocide under international law. However, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) notes that there are credible allegations of other serious crimes under international law having been committed in the course of the ongoing hostilities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the Gaza Strip.
Given the scale and severity of Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza, reports that Israel has now killed over 11,000 civilians, including over 4,000 children, in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 and recent warnings, including by a group of independent United Nations human rights experts on 16 November that, “grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making”, the ICJ urges States to fulfil their international legal obligations, including in particular under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 (hereafter the Genocide Convention), and take immediate action to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.
Acts of Genocide
Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide outlining its two main elements:
(1) specific underlying acts, namely, the material elements of the crime; and
(2) specific intent, namely, the mental state required of the person committing the material elements of the crime.
The Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) outline the following five specific underlying acts, any one of which may be constitutive of the crime of genocide:
- Killing members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The ICC Elements of Crimes define the term “conditions of life” as including but not limited to “deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.”
The ICJ considers that the complete blockade of Gaza – coupled with depriving civilians of water, food, medicine, electricity and fuel – may constitute the specific underlying act of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, as per the genocide definition set out above.
Some of the underlying acts of the crime of genocide may also simultaneously constitute the material elements of certain war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Specific Intent
The distinguishing feature of genocide is that the perpetrator commits the specific underlying acts of the offence with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
The Palestinian people constitute a national group for the purposes of the Genocide Convention. The Palestinians of the Gaza Strip constitute a substantial proportion of the Palestinian nation.
The ICJ is concerned that certain statements by senior officials and politicians in Israel disclose evidence of what may be characterised as intent to destroy Palestinians of the Gaza Strip.
For example, on 9 October, the Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said, “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” On 10 October, the head of the Israeli Army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell”. On 13 October, the Israeli Defence Minister said: “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.”
The ICJ is concerned that such statements by officials responsible for Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza, with their expressed emphasis on siege on the Gaza Strip, on depriving the population of essential needs, on the total destruction and elimination of everything and everyone in the Gaza Strip and on evacuation – taken together with well-documented patterns of reported crimes under international law in Gaza, such as indiscriminate bombardment of densely populated areas, including airstrikes resulting in extensive civilian casualties, attacks on medical units, transports and personnel, refugee camps, evacuation routes, humanitarian corridors and other vital civilian infrastructure, collective punishment and the forced transfer of over one million Palestinians from northern Gaza to the south – disclose evidence sufficient to trigger the duty of each State to take reasonable action to seek to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.
The Duty to Prevent
Notwithstanding individual criminal liability for acts of genocides outlined above, under international law, States have a duty to prevent acts of genocide.
It is not necessary for a definitive determination that genocide is taking place. As the International Court of Justice (“the Court”) held in Bosnia v Serbia, a “State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.” The ICJ considers, based on the above, that such threshold has been reached in Gaza, triggering States’ duty under international law to take measures to prevent acts of genocide.
The totality of destruction by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, as documented in numerous open sources, should guide an assessment by the international community and individual States as to whether genocide is underway or whether there exists a serious risk of genocide, triggering the corresponding duty to prevent it. States’ legal obligation to prevent genocide is not a passive obligation, but rather, according to the Court in Bosnia v Serbia, “implies that each State party must assess whether a genocide or a serious risk of genocide exists”.
When the Court issued its order for provisional measures in The Gambia v. Myanmar in January 2020, it held that there was no requirement of demonstrating violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but rather that “the acts complained of … are capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention”.
The Genocide Convention imposes a minimum legal obligation on States to each take reasonable action to contribute toward preventing genocide, a duty that extends extraterritorially and applies regardless of whether any one State’s actions alone are sufficient to prevent genocide. The Court in Bosnia v. Serbia held that States with strong political links to the State concerned have a greater duty to use their influence in this regard, as the duty to prevent varies from State to State depending on its:
“capacity to influence effectively the action of persons likely to commit, or already committing, genocide. This capacity itself depends, among other things, on the geographical distance of the State concerned from the scene of the events, and on the strength of the political links, as well as links of all other kinds, between the authorities of that State and the main actors in the events”.
The Court also held that, “if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”. Third State responsibility may be incurred if a State manifestly fails to take all measures that are within its power to prevent acts of genocide, and that might contribute to preventing such acts.
Recommendations
In light of the above, the ICJ calls upon States who have a position of influence with the Government of Israel – particularly the United States – to take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide in Gaza, including by calling for a ceasefire, taking steps to ensure the lifting of the siege and preventing the displacement of Palestinians outside the Gaza Strip, and to discontinue any military assistance, including arms sales, that would enable or facilitate genocide, and other crimes under International law.
The ICJ urges other States to immediately act under article VIII of the Genocide Convention, by calling on the competent organs of the United Nations, including the UN Security Council, and particularly the UN General Assembly, to take urgent action under the UN Charter appropriate for the prevention and suppression of any acts of genocide in Gaza, including calling for an immediate ceasefire.
The ICJ also calls on UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, and the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, to rapidly expand their investigations in relation to the situation in Palestine to include genocide.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org
Katherine Iliopoulos, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: katherine.iliopoulos@icj.org
Nov 7, 2023
Yesterday, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Amnesty International (AI) jointly submitted an amicus curiae legal brief to the Bangkok South Civil Court in a class-action lawsuit filed by two residents of Cambodian villages, representing at least 23 families out of a potential class of more than 700 affected families in the Oddar Meanchey Province, Cambodia, against Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation Ltd., a Thai company.
This lawsuit, based on Thai and Cambodian tort laws, alleges human rights abuses committed by Mitr Phol’s apparent subsidiary in Cambodia, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd.
In 2008, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd. was granted an economic land concession to operate an industrial sugar plant in Oddar Meanchey Province. The complaint alleges that after the concession was granted, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd. colluded with local authorities to forcibly seize land held by individuals from local communities, resulting in the destruction of their houses, the burning of villages and crops, and physical harm to some villagers.
This marks the first-ever class-action lawsuit filed in Thai courts by plaintiffs from another country for abuses committed by a Thai company outside of Thailand.
Today, the Court held a session to examine the list of evidence submitted by both parties. The next appointment date will be on 27 March 2024 for the examination of evidence, after which the court will set the witness examination date.
The ICJ/AI amicus brief sets out the principal applicable international human rights law and standards, and comparative jurisprudence for the Thai court to consider in resolving this case. The organizations submit that the human rights responsibilities of a parent company, such as Mitr Phol, extend beyond its own conduct to include the activities of subordinate entities. To this end, Mitr Phol has a duty to exercise due diligence in monitoring and controlling their subsidiaries in Cambodia, whose conduct they may influence. Failure to carry out this due diligence should result in liability as a consequence of the actions of their subsidiaries.
The brief also highlights that under international standards, business enterprises have a responsibility to respect all internationally recognized human rights wherever they operate, such as the right to adequate housing.
The Thai court itself also has a duty that extends beyond the national borders of Thailand to ensure access to justice, effective remedy, and reparation for individuals from communities living in proximity to the operations of Thai companies and their subsidiaries in other countries when their rights are violated.
The need to apply international human rights standards is recognized by the government of Thailand, as evidenced in the adoption of its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, and is also recognized by Mitr Phol through the company’s Code of Conduct.
Background
Victims of corporate human rights abuses face multiple barriers in holding companies to account and securing access to justice.
Although this case is the first of its kind in Thai courts, in recent years, other cases involving human rights abuses committed by Thai state-owned enterprises abroad were brought to Thai courts by Thai citizens, but they ended with limited success. These cases included an unsuccessful lawsuit brought by Thai villagers against Thai governmental agencies regarding the construction of the Xayaburi Dam in Lao PDR and its transboundary environmental destruction affecting communities in Thailand.
The limitations identified encompass the legal nature of corporations, evidentiary challenges, conflict of laws, and statutes of limitation.
Despite calls from CSOs to initially address the weak implementation of the first NAP, Thailand’s Second National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2023-2027) was endorsed by the Thai Cabinet on 25 July 2023.
The NAP identifies ‘cross-border investment and multinational enterprises’ as one of the four key priority issues in the NAP. The Second NAP includes an action point that requests the Ministry of Justice to “study and recommend amendments to the laws or propose measures to ensure access to justice and effective civil, criminal and administrative remedies for local and overseas communities within the areas where companies or Thai state-owned enterprises operate and are affected by such operations.”
The submission in English can be downloaded here
The submission in Thai can be downloaded here
Further reading
Thailand: Barriers persist in access to justice for victims of human rights abuses involving Thai transnational corporations abroad – ICJ report
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Oct 25, 2023
On 5 October, in response to a call for input from the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing and the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) filed a submission on the decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty.
The ICJ’s submission is based, in part, on “The 8 March Principles”, a new set of legal principles elaborated by jurists for a human rights-based approach to criminal laws, including criminal offences proscribing conduct associated with sex, reproduction, drug use, HIV, homelessness and poverty, which the organization published earlier this year.
In this regard, the ICJ submission focuses, in particular, on Principle 21 on the criminalization of “life-sustaining activities in public places and conduct associated with homelessness and poverty”. In addition, the submission draws on the ICJ’s analysis of legal frameworks, including criminal laws, and practices that are at odds with general principles of criminal law, and that continue to violate the human rights of marginalized and disadvantaged persons, including in India, Malawi, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
The submission outlines various examples of laws criminalizing poverty or homelessness either explicitly or as result of their enforcement. Among those, the ICJ has recommended the repeal of:
- Laws criminalizing begging, public nuisance, soliciting and “living on the earnings of prostitution” in India.
- Laws criminalizing begging, vagrancy and public nuisance generally and laws criminalizing similar conduct by transgender persons, in particular, in Pakistan.
- Laws criminalizing vagrancy, “living on the earnings of prostitution” and soliciting in public in Sri Lanka.
- Laws criminalizing poverty by extensively prohibiting broad swathes of conduct described as public nuisance and laws criminalizing homelessness by prohibiting a wide range of conduct associated with unlawful occupations of land in South Africa.
- Laws criminalizing vagrancy and informal traders’ efforts to making a living in Uganda.
In its submission, the ICJ has also expressed concern about laws implemented in a manner that criminalizes informal traders’ efforts to make a living in Malawi and Nepal.
The ICJ’s submission recalls how international human rights law and standards require States to address the root causes of homelessness and poverty and to provide support to those experiencing them. States’ failure to do so often amounts to violations of their international human rights law obligations to realize a range of human rights, including the rights to adequate housing, work and social security, for example, under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
Under international human rights law, States are legally obliged to address the plight of those experiencing homelessness and those living in poverty. Very often, however, States not only fail to comply with these obligations but, making matters worse, subject people experiencing homelessness and poverty to harsh criminal law sanctions solely for conduct that is critical to their survival. In this context, the ICJ is particularly concerned that in many national jurisdictions people commonly continue to be imprisoned if they are unable to pay fines for minor “criminal infractions”.
Overall, decriminalizing homelessness and extreme poverty is not only consistent with general principles of criminal law and States’ legal obligations under international human right law, but it also a necessary step to begin addressing the root causes of the violations of economic and social rights of particularly marginalized persons. The ICJ submission underscores that, instead of enacting and enforcing criminal laws with a disproportionate impact on such persons, under international human rights law, States are required to provide all people with the opportunity to rebuild their lives and fully integrate into society while respecting their dignity and human rights.
Download:
[Submission] ICJ’s submission to the UN Special Rapporteurs
Background
The ICJ is a member of the Campaign to Decriminalize Poverty and Status, which is a coalition of organizations from across the world advocating for the repeal of laws that target people based on poverty, status or for their activism and campaigning against the overuse and abuse of criminal law across the world in keeping with international law and standards.
The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty, recently published by the ICJ, offer a clear, accessible, and operational legal framework and practical legal guidance for a variety of stakeholders, including judges and legislators, on the application of criminal law to conduct associated with consensual sexual activities, such as consensual same-sex sexual relations and sex work (Principles 16 and 17); the criminalization of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (Principle 18); drug use (Principle 20); as well as homelessness and poverty (Principle 21). Principle 21, in particular, states that “no one may be held criminally liable for engaging in life-sustaining economic activities in public places[…] or on the basis of their employment or means of subsistence or their economic or social status…”
Additional resources:
- International Commission of Jurists, “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, February 2017, accessed at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/India-SOGI-report-Publications-Reports-Thematic-report-2017-ENG.pdf
- International Commission of Jurists, Sri Lanka’s Vagrants Ordinance No. 4 Of 1841: A Colonial Relic Long Overdue for Repeal, 2021, available at https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sri-Lanka-Briefing-Paper-A-Colonial-Relic-Long-Overdue-for-Repeal-2021-ENG.pdf
- International Commission of Jurists “The 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 2023), available: https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-March-Principles-Report_final_print-version.pdf
- International Commission of Jurists, Pakistan: Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 : A briefing paper (March 2020), available : https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pakistan-Transgender-Advocacy-Analysis-brief-2020-ENG.pdf
- International Commission of Jurists, Sri Lanka’s Vagrants Ordinance No. 4 of 1841: A Colonial Relic Long Overdue for Repeal : A briefing paper (December 2021), available: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sri-Lanka-Briefing-Paper-A-Colonial-Relic-Long-Overdue-for-Repeal-2021-ENG.pdf
Oct 2, 2023
Today, a coalition of international and Egyptian NGOs has submitted a detailed legal analysis to the UN Committee against Torture concluding that the Egyptian authorities’ use of torture is so widespread and systematic as to amount to a crime against humanity under customary international law.
The legal analysis forms the basis of the report, “Torture in Egypt: A Crime Against Humanity”, written by REDRESS in collaboration with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF), Dignity, the Committee for Justice (CFJ) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). It was submitted to the Committee against Torture ahead of its review of Egypt’s record under the UN Convention against Torture that will take place on 14 and 15 November.
The legal analysis concludes that the nature of torture in Egypt qualifies as a crime against humanity under customary international law, by which Egypt is bound, due to:
- A pattern in the methods of torture used by the Egyptian authorities, including beatings, electrical shocks, sexual violence, such as forced anal examinations and “virginity tests”, the denial of access to medical care and treatment, lack of family contact, and other acts that cause severe pain and suffering.
- The methodical use of torture, both physical and psychological, as a political tool to stifle dissent and for discriminatory purposes by the Egyptian authorities.
- Widely available documentation of the prevalence of torture in Egypt, including decisions from regional and UN human rights bodies, NGOs and media reports, that establish that the highest spheres of State power know or should know that torture is being used widely against dissenters and others in Egypt. The report shows that State officials must have taken measures knowing that they were being committed as part of an attack against civilian dissenters, to advance a State policy.
The report documents how members of the National Security Agency and the National Police are directly responsible as perpetrators of systematic torture. Also implicated in torture are members of the Military Intelligence and General Intelligence Agencies. In addition, the judiciary and State prosecution services, including the Supreme State Security Prosecution directly contribute to these crimes by enabling an environment that facilitates the commission of torture and other ill-treatment.
The report argues that acts of torture in Egypt are part of a State policy enabled by Egypt’s emergency laws, “counter-terrorism” laws and policies, and the rampant impunity for the violations committed by State security and law enforcement officers.
Egypt’s history of torture stretches back four decades, going back to former President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year authoritarian regime, which normalised the use of torture and arbitrary detention under the guise of fighting terrorism. However, when he was deposed by a popular uprising in 2011, and replaced by Egypt’s first democratically elected president, President Mohammad Morsi, Morsi and his party, the Muslim Brotherhood, continued the use of torture against protestors. Military commander Abdel Fattah el-Sisi then carried on using systematic torture as a tool of repression against political dissidents and activists after coming to power through a coup in 2013.
The report notes that, in the last few years, there has been a spike in the targeting of activists and human rights defenders, who are tortured by police officers and security forces while in incommunicado detention before official charges are filed against them. Some minorities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, are also subject to torture because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
The report cites many cases, such as that of the lawyer Ibrahim Metwally, who was arrested in 2017 at Cairo International Airport when he was travelling to Geneva to speak about the enforced disappearance of his son before the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. He was then himself subjected to enforced disappearance, as well as torture and other ill-treatment, by NSA officers. Another case is the case of detained activist Alaa Abdel Fattah, whose lawyer Mohamed Al-Baker was arrested in 2019 while representing him before the Supreme State Security Prosecution. Al-Baker was subjected to ill-treatment and sentenced to four years in prison for “spreading false news using a social networking site,” before being released under a presidential pardon in July 2023.
Egypt is the only country to have been the subject of two inquiries by the Committee against Torture following receipt by the Committee of reliable information indicating that torture was being systematically practiced in the country. Both concluded, in 1996 and 2017, that the practice of torture was widespread and systematic in Egypt. In an unprecedented move in 2021, 31 States at the UN Human Rights Council expressed deep concern about Egypt’s application of “counter-terrorism” legislation against human rights defenders and others. In April 2023, the UN Human Rights Committee reiterated its concern on this same issue.
As the brutal crackdown on civil society continues to intensify in Egypt, the report calls on the Egyptian government to urgently act to end the systematic use of torture, to hold those responsible to account, and to repair the harm inflicted on victims, including by enacting law and policy reforms. In addition, the report urges the UN Human Rights Council to establish an investigative body, such as a Commission of Inquiry or a Fact-Finding Mission, or a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Egypt, tasked with monitoring, investigating and establishing the facts and circumstances of torture as a crime against humanity in Egypt, as well as other violations of human rights. The evidence collected by such a body would facilitate accountability efforts. All States should also ensure that perpetrators of torture in Egypt are held to account, including through universal jurisdiction cases, civil claims, sanctions, and other available avenues for accountability.
Rupert Skilbeck, Director of REDRESS, said:
“For decades, the Egyptian authorities have been given free rein to abuse their citizens through arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture. Torture is dismissed as merely isolated acts of misconduct instead of being seen for what it really is: a deliberate attack on Egypt’s citizens that is a crime against humanity. It is time to hold accountable those who perpetrate, tolerate, and cover up torture, including those in authority who turn a blind eye.”
Mohamed Lofty, Executive Director of ECRF, said:
“Through successive regimes, the Egyptian government has employed torture as a political tool to curtail dissent. Human rights defenders, minorities, journalists, academics, and opposition politicians have been disproportionately targeted as threats to the regime. State policy and laws, and rampant impunity, have perpetuated this cycle of torture.”
Sep 4, 2023
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF) submitted written legal comments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in relation to the Advisory Opinion requested by Mexico on “the activities of private companies engaged in the firearms industry and their effects in human rights”.
In their submission, the ICJ and DPLF set out some main tenets of international law and jurisprudence as developed by Inter-American human rights Court and Commission and the UN human rights treaty bodies.
