Sep 26, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the steep decline for human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement, made during an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, read as follows:
“Mr President,
The findings reported by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (A/HRC/39/73; A/HRC/39/73/Add.1), detailing the steep decline for human rights and rule of law in Cambodia prior to and during the 2018 national elections, demonstrate the utter inadequacy of the Human Rights Council’s current focus on technical assistance and capacity-building in Cambodia.
The elections, neither free nor fair, resulted in the ruling party winning all seats in the National Assembly. Post-election, the Government continues to misuse laws to violate rights and harass journalists, human rights defenders, political opposition members and ordinary individuals, as evidenced by the following updates to cases highlighted by the Special Rapporteur.
Unjustified espionage charges hang over two journalists, who spent eight months in detention before being released pending trial.[1] A filmmaker, sentenced to imprisonment for alleged espionage after flying a drone over an opposition rally, was only released by royal pardon after more than a year in jail.
Days after release from two years in jail for conducting a peaceful protest, a land rights activist was handed a six-month suspended sentence for a politically-motivated charge from 2012.[2] Following his release after 18 months in prison for alleged defamation and incitement offences, a political commentator fled Cambodia when fresh politically-motivated charges were mounted against him.[3]
Treason charges remain active against Kem Sokha, leader of the now-dissolved main opposition party, now under house arrest.[4]
A barber and a school principal remain imprisoned for allegedly sharing information online in breach of a lese-majeste law.[5] A woman remains imprisoned for alleged insult and incitement offences for throwing a shoe at a ruling party billboard.[6]
Today, four senior staff from a prominent civil society organization and a National Election Committee official were convicted under politically-motivated charges and handed five-year suspended imprisonment sentences.[7]
Madam Special Rapporteur, what approach should the Council, governments and civil society take to ensure human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, given that technical assistance and capacity-building alone seem clearly not to be having the necessary effect?
Thank you.”
[1] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 42.
[2] A/HRC/39/73, para 13.
[3] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 35.
[4] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, paras 18 and 19.
[5] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 46.
[6] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 30.
[7] A/HRC/39/73, para 13; A/HRC/73/Add.1, para 35
Sep 18, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today urged the UN Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to preserve evidence of crimes under international law occurring in Myanmar, with a view to eventual prosecution of those responsible.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN International Fact Finding Mission, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has monitored justice and human rights in Myanmar for more than five decades. The ICJ has an established presence in the country supporting justice actors to protect human rights through the rule of law.
With this experience, the ICJ views the Independent International Fact Finding Mission’s conclusions as painting an authoritative picture of the general situation in Myanmar, particularly in its highlighting of the pervasive damage of military impunity upon human rights, rule of law and the nascent democratic process.
The rule of law cannot be established, let alone flourish, without accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations and redress for victims and their families.
The Fact Finding Mission’s findings of crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states, and the identification of alleged perpetrators, necessitate immediate action.
The Government of Myanmar is unwilling and unable to effectively and genuinely provide justice for crimes, particularly when perpetrated by security forces. International action must not be deterred or delayed by the latest government inquiry, which is incapable of providing accountability or redress and may promote impunity by undermining credible international justice mechanisms.
The ICJ calls for a unified Council resolution at this session to establish an International Impartial and Independent Mechanism. This is urgently required to preserve evidence before its further deterioration, and to demonstrate a commitment to justice. Failing to act now risks further denying justice for victims and emboldening perpetrators.
Violations against Rohingya constitute an egregious yet emblematic example of systematic persecution of minority groups that has persisted in Myanmar for decades.
The ICJ would like to ask the Fact-Finding Mission: how can the Council best ensure accountability for the full range of crimes under international law committed against minorities throughout Myanmar and prevent their continuation and recurrence?”
For more information see:
Myanmar: why an IIIM and Security Council referral are needed despite the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh
Myanmar: Government’s Commission of Inquiry cannot deliver justice or accountability
Sep 17, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ emphasised the importance of effective investigations capable of leading to truth and justice, highlighting recent developments in Manipur, India as an example.
The statement read as follows:
“Justice processes in situations of conflict or transition require fighting impunity and re-establishing public trust.[1] An example is the new prospects for justice in relation to 1528 alleged extrajudicial killings cases in Manipur, India, which would make an important contribution to a transition out of the long-standing conflict.
In July 2016, in response to a petition filed on behalf of the victims, the Indian Supreme Court stated that “there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial…”,[2] opening the door to ending impunity. As of August 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered 29 complaints against security forces.[3] Recent reports suggest that the Government is also considering amending the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to remove or restrict existing overbroad authorizations for use of lethal force.[4]
These are welcome developments. However, concerns remain, as the investigation status of the majority of the cases is unknown. Two UN Special Rapporteurs in July 2018 also affirmed that justice must be done in all cases.[5]
The ICJ calls on India to ensure independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all cases in Manipur, amend AFSPA, and to uphold the right to truth of victims and society about acts committed and the identity of perpetrators, in line with its international and national legal obligations, including as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
[1] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, A/HRC/39/53 (25 July, 2018), http://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/39/53.
[2] Para 163, Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129/2012.
[3] TNN, “Army Major named in FIR for killing 12-yr-old in fake Manipur encounter”, Times of India, August 3, 2018, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/imphal/army-major-named-in-fir-for-killing-12-yr-old-in-fake-manipur-encounter/articleshow/65252258.cms.
[4] “In AFSPA, Government Considering Crucial Changes”, NDTV, September 13, 2018, available at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-afspa-government-considering-crucial-change-sources-1915706.
[5] Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, “India: UN experts call for urgent progress in investigation of hundreds of ‘fake encounter’ killings” (4 July 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23323&LangID=E .
Sep 13, 2018
The ICJ today issued a briefing note following the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh.
Fact-Finding Mission identifies crimes, calls for ICC referral and IIIM
On 27 August 2018, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) released a report finding that members of Myanmar’s military should be investigated and prosecuted for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, and for genocide in the north of Rakhine State.
The FFM identified that many of the same kinds of crimes committed against the Rohingya in Rakhine State, were also being committed by the same or linked military authorities against other minorities in Kachin and Shan states.
While the FFM focused on the situations in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States since 2011, it noted “serious allegations have also arisen in other contexts, meriting further investigation.”
The FFM concluded by recommending among other things that:
- the UN Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or create an ad hoc international criminal tribunal; an
- until the Security Council acts, the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council should create an independent evidence gathering mechanism, similar to the IIIM for Syria.
ICC ruling on jurisdiction re: Bangladesh
On 6 September 2018, an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that the Court could exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation (as a crime against humanity) of the Rohingyas from Myanmar into Bangladesh, since one element of the crime (crossing a border) took place in Bangladesh, which is a State party to the Rome Statute.
The Chamber noted that the same rationale could apply to other crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court “if it were established that at least an element of another crime … or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a State Party,” citing persecution and other inhumane acts as possible examples in this case. The crime of genocide was not directly addressed.
The ruling did not address other crimes allegedly committed against the Rohingya, or crimes against other minorities elsewhere within Myanmar, including in Shan and Kachin States.
The proceeding is still at an early, pre-investigation, phase. If at the conclusion of a preliminary examination the Prosecutor assesses that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, she must first seek authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber.
The preliminary examination phase has been known to take from less than a week (Libya) to more than 14 years (Colombia).
Need for an IIIM or similar independent evidence gathering mechanism
An independent evidence gathering mechanism, with functions similar to those of the IIIM for Syria, should be created by the Human Rights Council as a matter of urgency.
- The passage of time increases the chances that critical evidence will deteriorate or be lost entirely, reducing the possibility of effective prosecution.
- An IIIM mechanism would ensure that evidence is collected, preserved and analyzed to a standard and methodology facilitating its use in national, regional or international courts.
- The delay and uncertainty associated with referring the question of creation of a mechanism to the General Assembly mean the Council should establish the mechanism at this session.
The ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh does not reduce the need for an IIIM:
- The limited scope of the ruling relating to Bangladesh creates a high risk that the existing ICC proceeding will not cover all crimes under international law against the Rohingya, or other crimes against other minorities elsewhere in Myanmar, including Kachin and Shan states.
- At best, the ICC will only be able to prosecute a fraction of the crimes identified by the FFM, and an even smaller fraction of the perpetrators, leaving an impunity gap. An IIIM will preserve evidence to enable that gap to be filled now, or later, by national courts or other tribunals.
- The work of an independent evidence gathering mechanism would be complementary to and cooperate with any ICC investigation and prosecution (or that of an ad hoc tribunal).
Referral of Myanmar to the ICC
States should continue to call for Security Council referral to the ICC despite the jurisdictional ruling relating to Bangladesh.
- With a Chapter VII referral, the ICC would assume jurisdiction over all crimes listed in the Rome Statute that may have been committed after the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 either in the territory of Myanmar or elsewhere by a Myanmar national.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser (Global Accountability), kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Sep 10, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will host the side event “Gross human rights violations in Myanmar: options for international criminal accountability” at the Human Rights Council on Thursday 13 September 2018 from 12:00 – 13.00 in Room XXVII of the Palais des Nations.
It is organized by the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in cooperation with ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).
The issues of documenting violations, possible evidence-gathering mechanisms and the role of the International Criminal Court will be discussed.
Speakers:
- Justice Sanji Mmasenono Monageng, Commissioner of the ICJ and former judge of the International Criminal Court
- Param-Preet Singh, Associate Director of the International Justice Program, Human Rights Watch
- Laura Haigh, Myanmar Researchers, Amnesty International
Moderator:
Saman Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists
Myanmar side event 13 Sept flyer (flyer of the event in PDF)
