Mar 24, 2020 | Articles, Nouvelles
L’ICJ et 39 autres organisations ont exprimé aujourd’hui leur inquiétude par rapport à la situation de la population carcérale des pays du Moyen-Orient et d’Afrique du Nord face à la pandémie du coronavirus.
À la lumière de la pandémie de COVID-19 − qualifiée « d’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale » par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) − nous, les organisations soussignées, exprimons notre vive inquiétude quant à la situation des détenu·e·s et des prisonnier.e.s dans la région du Moyen-Orient et de l’Afrique du Nord (MENA).
Si certains États de la région ont pris des mesures positives pour protéger la population dans son ensemble, la population carcérale reste particulièrement exposée à la propagation du virus.
Plusieurs pays de la région MENA ont déjà des systèmes de santé surchargés, certains considérablement affaiblis par des années de conflit armé. Dans ces pays, les prisons et les centres de détention sont souvent surpeuplés, insalubres et souffrent d’un manque de ressources ; en conséquence, les détenu·e·s se voient régulièrement refuser un accès adéquat aux soins médicaux. Ces difficultés ne font que s’aggraver en période d’urgence sanitaire, exposant les personnes privées de liberté à des risques accrus, tout en accentuant la pression sur des infrastructures de santé en prison déjà fragilisées. De plus, les personnes en détention interagissent régulièrement avec les gardien·ne·s de prison, les policier·e·s et les professionnels de la santé qui sont en contact avec le monde extérieur. Ne pas protéger les prisonnier·e·s et le personnel pénitentiaire contre le COVID-19 peut avoir des conséquences négatives pour le reste de la population.
En vertu du droit international relatif aux droits humains, tout individu a droit au meilleur état de santé physique et mentale susceptible d’être atteint. Les États ayant l’obligation de garantir la réalisation de ce droit sont tenus de veiller à ce que les détenu·e·s et les prisonnier·e·s soient traité·e·s humainement dans le respect de leur dignité et ne soient pas soumis·e·s à des traitements cruels, inhumains et dégradants. Les Règles Nelson Mandela exigent le respect du principe d’équivalence des soins, ce qui signifie que les personnes placées en milieu pénitentiaire doivent pouvoir bénéficier de soins de santé équivalents à ceux mis à disposition de la population civile générale. Cela ne change pas en période de pandémie.
Bien que des restrictions, notamment sur les visites en prison, puissent être imposées pour freiner la propagation de maladies infectieuses comme le COVID-19, elles doivent respecter les principes de proportionnalité et de transparence. Toute mesure, y compris les libérations de prisonnier·e·s, doit être prise conformément à des critères clairs et transparents, sans discrimination.
À la lumière de ce qui précède,
Nous appelons les gouvernements de la région MENA à:
(1) Rendre publiques les politiques et directives spécifiques à leur pays et, le cas échéant, les politiques et lignes directrices mises en place pour empêcher la propagation de COVID-19 dans les centres de détention, les prisons et les commissariats de police.
(2) Partager leurs plans d’interventions d’urgence et dispenser une formation spécifique au personnel et aux autorités compétentes afin de garantir un accès suffisant et durable aux soins de santé et à l’hygiène.
(3) Procéder à un examen approfondi de la population carcérale et, en conséquence, réduire leur population carcérale en ordonnant la libération immédiate:
- des détenu·e·s et prisonnier·e·s « à faible risque », y compris celles et ceux qui ont été condamné·e·s ou placé·e·s en détention préventive pour des infractions non violentes, les personnes placées en détention administrative ainsi que toute personne dont la détention continue ne peut être justifiée;
- des détenu·e·s et prisonnier·e·s particulièrement vulnérables au virus, y compris les personnes âgées et les personnes présentant un état médical sous-jacent grave, tel que des maladies pulmonaires et cardiaques, le diabète ou encore des maladies auto-immunes.
(4) Permettre aux personnes actuellement en liberté surveillée de s’acquitter de leurs obligations depuis leur domicile.
(5) Garantir que les personnes qui restent en détention:
(a) voient leur droit à la santé effectivement respecté en ayant pleinement accès aux soins médicaux nécessaires;
(b) aient accès au test du COVID-19 et à une assistance appropriée selon le principe d’équivalence des soins;
(c) disposent de moyens de communication et de possibilités d’accès au monde extérieur lorsque les visites en personne sont suspendues ;
(d) continuent de jouir de leur droit à une procédure régulière, y compris, sans s’y limiter, le droit de contester la légalité de leur détention, et leur droit de ne pas subir de retards qui rendraient leur détention arbitraire.
Nous appelons l’Organisation mondiale de la santé, le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et les titulaires de mandat au titre des procédures spéciales du Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations unies à publier des déclarations publiques et des directives mettant en évidence les recommandations et les meilleures pratiques à l’attention de tous les gouvernements en matière de détention et d’emprisonnement en période de pandémie.
Organisations signataires:
ACAT – France (Action by Christians Against Torture)
Access Now
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
ALQST for Human Rights
Arab Network for Knowledge about Human rights (ANKH)
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
ARCI (Associazione Ricreativa Culturale Italiana)
Association of Detainees and Missing in Sednaya Prison
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bahrain Centre for Human Rights
Bahrain Transparency Society
Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales
CIVICUS
Committee for Justice
Democratic Transition and Human Rights support (DAAM Center)
Digital Citizenship Organisation
DIGNITY – Danish Institute Against Torture
Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms
Egyptian Human Rights Forum
El Nadim Center
HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual
Human Rights First
Initiative franco-égyptienne pour les droits les libertés (IFEDL)
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Kuwaiti Transparency Society
Lebanese Centre For Human Rights
medico international e.V., Germany
MENA Rights Group
Mwatana for Human Rights
Physicians for Human Rights – Israel
Project on Middle East Democracy
Reprieve
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Syrian Center For Legal Studies and Researches
Syrian Network for Human Rights
Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
UMAM Documentation & Research (MENA Prison Forum)
Women’s March Global
World Organisation Against Torture
PDF: MENA-Covid-19-Prisons-Advocacy-2020-FRA
Mar 23, 2020 | News
The ICJ called today on the Parliament of Hungary not to approve a Government bill that would extend indefinitely the emergency powers of the executive to counter the Covid-19 pandemic.
The proposed legislation would enable executive rule by decree, without parliamentary approval, and would impose harsh restrictions on freedom of expression.
“States of emergency, whatever the reason to invoke them, must never be allowed to become permanent,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Emergency measures that restrict human rights must be constantly reassessed to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. And even where measures are temporarily necessary, they should be subject to a “sunset clause” that ensure that it can be reviewed and will lapse if no longer justified ”.
The Hungarian emergency legislation includes offences of publishing false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or cause public alarm – offences which have the potential to significantly and unduly restrict freedom of expression.
International human rights law requires that any interference with freedom of expression must be in sufficiently clear terms to be adequately prescribed by law and must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim that it serves.
“This legislation is particularly worrying in a context where the Hungarian government has systematically undermined the rule of law and protection of human rights, including freedom of the media and civil society, and the independence of the judiciary in recent years,” Róisín Pillay added.
“The emergency powers are therefore particularly open to arbitrary or abusive application, without effective scrutiny by parliament or an independent judiciary.”
Background
The Bill on Protection against the Coronavirus (Bill T/9790) in the form of tabled by the Government will extend the state of danger that it had ordered by government decree from 11 March 2020.
The ICJ understands that the Bill will allow the government to rule by decree without Parliamentary scrutiny. The legislation would make it a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, to publish false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or that alarm or agitate the public, or to interfere with a quarantine or isolation order.
Under international treaties to which Hungary is a party, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States may take emergency measures to derogate from their international human rights law obligations in times of crisis, only the extent strictly necessary to protect the life of the nation. Derogating measures may only limit the scope of certain rights to the extent strictly necessary to meet a threat to the life of the nation, but they do not entirely suspend the applicability of any right in its entirety.
This necessity must be continually re-assessed so that the derogating measures apply for the shortest time possible. Certain human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, and the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy can never be restricted even in a state of emergency.
Mar 20, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the execution today of four men who were convicted of raping and murdering a 23-year-old student in December 2012.
The ICJ denounced the executions, and urged the Indian Government to abolish the death penalty. It called on the Government to introduce systemic changes to the legal system that would deter violence and improve access to justice for women.
“State-sanctioned executions are little more than public theatre that risk celebrating and perpetuating violence at the expense of the rule of law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “As heinous as these crimes were, the imposition of the death penalty – the deterrent effect of which has been widely debunked – does nothing to improve the lives of women.”
According to senior lawyer Vrinda Grover, a renowned Indian human rights defender, “In 2013, the criminal laws were amended; however seven years later the graph of rapes has not diminished.”
Instead of compelling the state to invest in plugging the gaps in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual crimes and formulating victim oriented processes, the clamour for execution of the convicts has hijacked the discourse. Seven years later, the power of the state to extinguish life stands entrenched, while women and girls in India continue to struggle to live a life of freedom, safety and dignity, as equal persons, ” said Vrinda Grover.
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “[t]he death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception as a violation of right to life and to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ called upon the Indian Government to join the large majority of States and take immediate steps to end the practice of capital punishment, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
To download the full statement with background information, click here.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Read Also
ICJ, Press Release, September 2013 – India: Executing perpetrators of Delhi Gang Rape Case ‘counterproductive to preventing sexual violence’
Mar 20, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations on strengthening Thailand’s Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law to the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice is tasked to conduct a “study on the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP,” in accordance with Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022) (NAP).
Articles 161/1 and 165/2, which are intended to implement the NAP, entered into force on 20 February 2019 and 21 March 2019. They were introduced to end SLAPP lawsuits or similar forms of harassment through the legal process against any individuals, including human rights defenders. NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.
The use of SLAPPs and similar procedures frequently undermine human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly and the right to political participation. These are protected under Thailand’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
In the letter, the ICJ expressed its concern that these laws were inadequate to prevent harassment through the legal process and SLAPP. The ICJ therefore called for the adoption of a comprehensive stand-alone law, or the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to protect human rights defenders and others from harassment through the legal process.
Background
In an effort to give effect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), on 29 October 2019, Thailand’s Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP sets out plans to be followed by public and private stakeholders to ensure that businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations – respect human rights, and that the government fulfils its duty to ensure remedy and reparation in cases of business-related human rights violations.
The Thai government has identified in the NAP its four key priority issues: (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting human rights defenders, including:
- to study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP;
- to push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of human rights defenders, for example with respect to witness protection laws;
- to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, and ensure their safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures;
- to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights, and preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders;
- to provide trainings and enhance capacity of lawyers;
- to urge businesses to ensure that human rights defenders will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected;
- to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system; and
- to increase access to justice of human rights defenders.
However, NAP’s effectiveness is yet to be assessed because it does not have the status of a law, and is merely a resolution by the executive branch of the Thai government. The NAP was adopted in the form of a Cabinet Resolution, which is considered a “by-law” in accordance with section 3 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).
Download the letter to the Ministry of Justice in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ and HRLA express concern about inadequate protections for human rights defenders in draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022)
