Dec 10, 2019 | News
The pervasive practice of torture and other ill treatment can only be addressed if the States in the region ensure perpetrators are held accountable in line with international standards, said lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The call came at a regional conference on the investigation and prosecution of torture and other ill treatment in South Asia, organized by the ICJ ahead of Human Rights Day.
“Governments in South Asia have done very little to support the victims and survivors of torture and other ill treatment, or to ensure their rights to truth, justice and reparation,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Despite the persistence of the practice, Governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” he added.
Torture and other ill treatment are prevalent in South Asia, and in some countries widespread and systematic, with perpetrators enjoying impunity for the crime.
According to the ICJ, States in the region continue to deny the pervasiveness of torture, use torture as a deliberate tool to control and punish dissent, fail to enact specific legislation to criminalize torture, and where a special law exists, fail to implement it in good faith.
Consequently, there have been few concerted efforts to hold perpetrators of torture and ill treatment to account.
All too often, perpetrators get away with only disciplinary sanctions, and even when prosecutions happen, they do not result in convictions and commensurate penalties.
Suspects are often lower or middle-ranking public officials rather than their superiors, who are charged with lesser crimes than torture, such as assault, battery, coercion or abuse of office that carry relatively low punishments.
Prosecutions frequently fail because of the difficulties to prove torture, including securing witnesses for the prosecution, inadequate or conflicting medical evidence as well as threats of reprisals influencing victims and witnesses.
Even when such hurdles are overcome, immunities that protect public officials from prosecutions allow perpetrators to escape accountability.
Furthermore, military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention, which facilitate the practice of torture and other ill treatment.
Under international law, States must ensure protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, States are required to investigate allegations competently, impartially, independently, promptly and thoroughly.
While a comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to prevent and combat torture and other ill treatment – ensuring accountability for perpetrators would be a first step, said the ICJ.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Dec 10, 2019 | News
Today’s decision from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Turkish human rights defender Osman Kavala must be immediately complied with by releasing him from detention, the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the ICJ said today.
In the case of Kavala v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that the detention of Mr Kavala, in connection with his role in the Gezi Park protests of 2013, violated the right to liberty (Article 5.1) and the right to a speedy judicial review of detention (Article 5.4) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court also found that his detention involves a restriction on rights for an improper purpose (Article 18). As a consequence of these findings, the Court specifically held that ‘the government must take every measure to put an end to the applicant’s detention and to secure his immediate release’.
The Turkish government has a legal obligation to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The IBAHRI and ICJ urge the authorities to abide by their obligations under the ECHR by immediately releasing Mr Kavala.
Mr Kavala has been in detention since 18 October 2017 pending trial on charges connected to the Gezi Park protests. The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon grew into nationwide demonstrations. Police quelled the protest in Taksim Square with the use of tear gas and water cannons.
Mr Kavala’s trial, along with 15 other defendants, is ongoing before Istanbul 30th Assize Court. The defendants are charged under Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code (an attempt to overthrow the Turkish government or an attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury), crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136, and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863.
The IBAHRI and the ICJ have jointly sent international observers to attend all hearings of the trial. The organisations will jointly release a trial observation report upon conclusion of the trial.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Dec 10, 2019 | News
Part of the active ‘International Cooperation Initiative’ between the ICJ and the Geneva Bar Association, a full house conference, attended by Geneva Lawyers, took place tonight at the Palais de Justice of Geneva. The theme was the criminalization of helping migrants for humanitarian motives.
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme presented this complex issue with regard to the existing protocols of European directives and the reluctance of EU states to respect them.
The conference Le délit de solidarité en droit Suisse, européen et mondial was the first of many collaborations to come on subjects of common interest between the ICJ and the Geneva legal community.
Dec 7, 2019 | News
The ICJ called on the Indian government to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the apparently unlawful killings by Telangana Police of the four men accused of raping and killing of Dr. Priyanka Reddy on November 27, 2019.
The men had been in police custody for over a week at the time of the killings.
“The rape and killing of Dr. Reddy is a heinous crime, and sadly only the latest in a pattern of rampant sexual violence that plagues India. The perpetrators of such acts must be held accountable,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “However, the unlawful killing of suspects in custody helps no-one. It denies victims true justice, rewards unlawful behavior by the police, and generally undermines the rule of law.”
On November 27, Dr. Priyanka Reddy, a veterinarian, was returning home when she was gangraped. Her body was subsequently burned by the perpetrators. The next day, four suspects were arrested. According to the police, they remained in custody until Friday, 6 December, when all four were shot and killed after they allegedly attempted to take weapons from the police and tried to escape during a re-enactment at the crime scene. Details of the incident remain unclear, though it has the appearance of a custodial execution.
“The suspicious circumstances of these deaths in custody, and the history of the use of extrajudicial killings in India, demands a thorough, independent and impartial investigation,” said Rawski. “The nationwide alarm at the trend of sexual violence is completely warranted. However, celebrating the unlawful behavior of police will not ultimately protect women from sexual violence or address their lack of access to justice.”
Several Indian women’s rights activist groups have also condemned the killings. A statement by the All India Progressive Women’s Association’s statement pointed out that “This is not justice. This is a ploy to shut down our demand for accountability from the police, judiciary, governments, and justice and dignity for women.” The National Human Rights Commission of India has also called for an investigation into the circumstances of the killing.
According to international standards including the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, States have a duty to investigate allegations of extrajudicial executions with due diligence and good faith, regardless of whether or not there is a formal complaint. The investigation of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions must be thorough prompt, impartial and independent, towards establishing the crime committed and prosecuting those responsible for the crimes. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India, which has condemned encounter killings, and set out guidelines for their investigation.
The ICJ urges the Indian Government to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the killings by the police, in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions, and India’s constitution and international obligations. The ICJ calls upon the courts to ensure that police officials who conduct unlawful killings are held accountable. It also calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to address the lack of an effective response from police personnel to allegations of rape and sexual violence, and to take effective lawful measures to prevent the unacceptable attacks upon victims of rape and other sexual violence seeking a remedy in the courts.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Dec 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.
The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.
Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.
Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.
The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.
The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.
Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict
The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.
Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.
Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.
Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.
Download
Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)
