Mar 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a joint oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures to repress human rights defenders and other civil society actors, and highlighting deep concerns about possible moves to allow Egypt a significant role over the UN’s independent expert on human rights and counter-terrorism.
The statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The ICJ made the statement jointly on behalf of Amnesty International, Article 19, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Privacy International.
The organisations had earlier sent a joint letter to all States’ delegations to the Council in Geneva, highlighting Egypts appalling record of abuse of counter-terrorism measures, and urging States to strongly oppose any attempts to weaken the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, whether by diluting or distorting it by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the Mexican-led resolution for its renewal, or any moves by longstanding leader Mexico to share co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with Egypt or other States with such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
The joint oral statement to the Council read as follows (check against delivery):
“Madame Special Rapporteur,
Our organizations welcome your report on the impacts of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures against civil society and human rights defenders (A/HRC/40/52).
We strongly concur with your findings regarding the deliberate and targeted abuse of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism and violent extremism to criminalize and otherwise suppress human rights defenders and other civil society actors. We also appreciate your highlighting the need to prevent indirect impacts on civil society.
Among those States with a particularly appalling record of deliberate and targeted abuse, Egypt, which is mentioned in your report (paras 53 and 56), is a prominent example. As Human Rights Watch recently stated: “Using counterterrorism as a guise to crush all forms of dissent could be Egypt’s hallmark of 2018… There’s simply not much room left to peacefully challenge the government without being detained and unfairly prosecuted as a ‘terrorist’.”[1] Other examples from the reports before the Council include Turkey (para 53), Saudi Arabia (A/HRC/40/52/Add.2 paras 21-29), and China particularly as regards Uyghurs and Kazakhs (paras 55 and 57).
We share your concern about the elements lost from the previous Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” in their March 2018 merger with the deeply flawed Egyptian-led initiative on “effects of terrorism” (para 29). We reiterate our call from March 2018 for future versions of the resolution to address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.[2] We strongly oppose any attempts to dilute your mandate, including by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the resolution for its renewal, or any sharing of co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with States that have such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
Madame Rapporteur, beyond the particular cases mentioned in your report (para 53), what are your views on the broader situation within Egypt in terms of abuse of counter-terrorism measures and what can States, the United Nations, civil society, and other stakeholders do to stop such abuses in the name of counter-terrorism in Egypt and other egregious situations?
Thank you.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/egypt-new-moves-crush-dissent (17 January 2019). See also among others: Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/egypt; EuroMed Rights, Egypt – Finding Scapegoats: Crackdown on Human Rights Defenders and Freedoms in the Name of Counter-terrorism and Security (Feb 2018) https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EuroMed-Rights-Report-on-Counter-terrorism-and-Human-Rights.pdf; Joint NGO Statement, Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat (23 June 2016) https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Egypt-Advocacy-JointNGOStatement-2016.pdf.
[2] Joint NGO end-of-session statement (23 March 2018) https://www.icj.org/hrc37-endofsession/.”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-JointOralStatement-SRCTHR-2019-EN
For more information email un(a)icj.org.
Mar 1, 2019 | News
On 28 February and 1 March, the ICJ met with senior officials of the Myanmar Police Force (MPF) and the Union Attorney General’s Office (UAGO) in Nay Pyi Taw.
The purpose of these talks was to promote the conduct of effective investigations into potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance in accordance with international human rights law and standards, particularly the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Deaths (“Minnesota Protocol”).
Under customary international law, the right to life, and the right to be free from torture and other ill treatment, is not to be restricted even during an armed conflict or declared public emergency. All States are obliged to investigate, prosecute and punish acts that constitute violations of the right to life, and to provide effective remedies and reparations to victims.
Published by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Minnesota Protocol provides guidance to authorities on investigating acts amounting to human rights violations, including when State actors may have been involved. Drawing upon international law and standards, including in relation to the rights of victims and their families, the Protocol includes detailed guidelines on crime scene investigation, interviews, exhumations and autopsies.
Since December 2017, the ICJ has co-hosted four regional workshops in Thailand focused on this topic. Attendees have included lawyers, academics and State authorities from Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, India and Myanmar.
Frederick Rawski, Director for Asia and the Pacific, Sean Bain, Legal Adviser, and Ja Seng Ing, Legal Researcher, composed the ICJ delegation in Myanmar’s capital.
Frederick Rawski proposed opportunities to continue these discussions on international standards into investigative procedures and processes. The ICJ Team also provided updates about related activities undertaken regionally and in Myanmar.
The ICJ has worked with the UAGO since 2014 to provide assistance on prosecutorial independence and human rights in the context of Myanmar’s broader democratic and legal reforms. This was the third meeting with the MPF over the last twelve months to discuss the conduct of investigations inline with international human rights law and standards.
Members of UAGO and MPF received copies of the Minnesota Protocol and indicated these would be shared with officials involved in the conduct of investigations or in setting the standards for them under national law in Myanmar.
Feb 28, 2019 | Events, News
This event will address progress in implementing Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and required steps, in the format of presentations from human rights defenders from Sri Lanka and testimonies.
Date: Thursday, 28 February 2019
Time: 13.30 – 14.30
Venue: Room XXVII, Palais des Nations
Chair: Mr. Budi Tjahjono, Franciscans International
Speakers:
- Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)
- Ms. Shyamala Gomez, Centre for Equality and Justice (CEJ)
- Mr. Senaka Perera, Committee for Protecting Rights of Prisoners
- Representative of the North East Coordinating Committee (NECC)
Testimonies:
- Ms. Sandya Eknaligoda, Wife of the disappeared journalist
- Dr. Kasipillai Manoharan, Father of the victim of ‘Trinco 5’ killings
Sponsors:
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Amnesty International
- CIVICUS
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
- Franciscans International
- Human Rights Watch (HRW)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Movement Against all forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Feb 28, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ made a submission to Mr. Léo Heller, the United Nations Special Rapporteur (Special Rapporteur) on the human rights to water and sanitation, in response to a call for submission in advance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2019 Human Rights Council Report on the human rights to water and sanitation in spheres of life beyond the households, in particular in public spaces.
The ICJ’s submission focuses on the status and the impact of inadequate access to water and sanitation on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals (LGBTQ), and more specifically on transgender persons and non-binary persons, in India.
ICJ’s submission draws on its ongoing work on the human rights of LGBTQ persons in India, where from 2017 to date, the ICJ has studied LGBTQ persons’ access to and enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, focusing on access to adequate housing, decent work, and public spaces and services including water and sanitation. The goal is to reveal, address, and reduce discriminatory treatment against LBGTQ persons in accessing economic, social and cultural rights as a result of discriminatory laws and practice through advocacy with the Indian State and with the United Nations.
Read the full submission here.
Feb 26, 2019
The ICJ has joined with other NGOs in a letter urging States to ensure that the UN Human Rights Council adopts a resolution that provides for a time-bound plan for the Government of Sri Lanka to implement its obligations and commitments for reconciliation, accountability and human rights in the country.
The letter reads as follows:
“February 25, 2019
Your Excellency,
Sri Lanka: Need for time-bound plan for implementation of commitments to the Human Rights Council
We write to seek your support in ensuring that the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC or Council) adopts a resolution at this 40th session to maintain scrutiny of Sri Lanka’s progress towards implementation of its commitments, including, at minimum, regular reporting to the Council and a time-bound plan, developed in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to implement its pledges.
In October 2015, the Council adopted resolution 30/1 by consensus in which Sri Lanka, through its co-sponsorship, committed to 25 key undertakings across a range of human rights issues. A core commitment was to set up four transitional justice mechanisms to promote “reconciliation, accountability and human rights” in the country. These included an accountability mechanism involving international judges, prosecutors, investigators, and defense lawyers; a truth and reconciliation mechanism; an office of missing persons; and an office for reparations.
While some positive steps have been taken by the government to date, both the current and former High Commissioners in their reports have expressed concern at the slow rate of progress.
The UN High Commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, noted in her September 2018 update that Sri Lanka has “moved too slowly towards meaningful implementation of the transitional justice agenda.” She reiterated concern at the “lack of sufficient progress, particularly towards truth seeking and accountability” during the recent intersessional dialogue with HRC members and observers on February 4, 2019, noting that this created “significant obstacles to reconciliation.”
Her predecessor, Zeid al Ra’ad Hussein, in his opening remarks to the Council on September 11, 2017, had called on the government to realize that its obligations are not a mere “box-ticking exercise to placate the Council but as an essential undertaking to address the rights of all its people.”
Yet, it appears that the Sri Lankan government continues with exactly that endeavor.
Thus far only the Office of Missing Persons has been set up, but progress was delayed. The commissioners were appointed only in February 2018 and making the office operational was marred with logistical difficulties. The commissioners have held both public and private consultations with the families of victims and are observing the ongoing excavation and exhumation of a mass grave in Mannar. However, in its interim report in September 2018, the Office of Missing Persons called for “active cooperation” of various relevant state institutions, which has not been entirely forthcoming. Families of the forcibly disappeared are still awaiting answers.
While President Maithripala Sirisena said that all military-occupied civilian land in the predominantly ethnic Tamil north would be released by December 2018, progress has stalled, hindered in part by broad military claims of national security and the lack of a transparent process. Nor has the government fulfilled its pledge to repeal the abusive Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). While the cabinet has apparently adopted draft legislation to set up a National Truth Commission, it has yet to be made public for civil society consultations. Sri Lankan civil society groups have expressed reservations about the proposed Office for Reparations Bill, calling for a fully independent mechanism.
There has been no discernible progress on establishing an accountability mechanism involving international judges, prosecutors, and investigators. Instead, Sri Lankan political leaders have repeatedly said that there will be no foreign judges, and that “war heroes” will be protected from prosecution. Importantly, a report issued by the government-appointed Consultation Task Force, which conducted extensive nationwide consultations on the transitional justice mechanisms, has not been given the attention it deserves. The Task Force report contains detailed recommendations, drawn from all affected communities including the security services, and provides an important blueprint for the way forward in addressing abuses by both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and government forces.
Numerous UN experts and special mandates have since 2015 highlighted the marginalization and misrepresentation faced by minority communities, as well as a trust-deficit between these communities and the government, due in significant part to a culture of impunity. This was exposed during the recent political and constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka that laid bare the volatility of the political environment and the imperative need for continued international engagement to support the government in protecting human rights and promoting reform, reconciliation and accountability.
The Human Rights Council has played a vital role in identifying the many steps needed to reconcile with the past, ensure justice and accountability, and implement necessary reforms. Its scrutiny has proved an important catalyst for the progress made to date.
At the upcoming HRC session, the High Commissioner will present a substantive report on the progress towards implementation of the resolution – and the many challenges remaining. It is crucial that the Council remain fully engaged with the process until the commitments Sri Lanka made to the HRC and its own people through its co-sponsorship of resolution 30/1 are met in full.
To maintain confidence in the process, states should engage meaningfully with the High Commissioner’s report, and ensure the Council adopts a resolution that, at minimum:
- welcomes the High Commissioner’s report (once available) and calls on the government of Sri Lanka to implement its recommendations;
- reaffirms resolution 30/1 and underlines the importance of the commitments therein being met in full;
- maintains reporting by the High Commissioner on the status of Sri Lanka’s progress towards implementation of its commitments, with opportunities for regular interim reporting through oral updates and interactive dialogues;
- expresses concern at the slow rate of progress and requests the government of Sri Lanka to collaborate with the OHCHR to develop a time-bound implementation plan for consideration by the Council in an interactive dialogue.
Given the insufficient progress to date, and rising frustrations that any accountability process seems stalled, a mere technical “rollover” resolution will be insufficient unless it includes provision for a clear timetable and framework for Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments.
States should also make clear that stronger measures are needed to assist in monitoring, implementing and fulfilling these commitments, such as an OHCHR field presence, Special Procedure and evidence-gathering, justice and accountability mechanisms.
Anything less would fall substantially short of the expectations of victims and their families, and risk undermining faith in the process long before the promises of reconciliation, justice and reform have been translated into reality. Sri Lanka’s long-term peace and stability hinges upon the international community’s willingness to support the government in addressing the past so that it may look to the future.
Sincerely,
Amnesty International
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
Franciscans International
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights
Sri Lanka Advocacy”
The ICJ also submitted a written statement on Sri Lanka, to the Human Rights Council session.
