Nov 24, 2015 | News
The government and all political parties, along with the country’s neighbors and international supporters, must act immediately to end the increasingly violent political crisis in the southern Terai region said the ICJ today.
The associated border blockade that has imposed severe shortages of necessary commodities throughout the country must also be ended, the ICJ added.
Over the weekend, three individuals were killed and at least another 28 individuals, including 15 police officers, were injured during clashes following an apparent impasse in talks among political parties trying to end the crisis over the newly adopted Constitution.
“Nepali authorities should promptly investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators – be they security forces or protesters – of any unlawful killings and other acts of violence committed during the ongoing protests in the Terai, and ensure that security forces refrain from the use of excessive force against civilians,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
“At the same time, the Nepal government must address the severe shortage of commodities and the impact it has had on economic and social rights by prioritizing the most urgent needs while working to resolve the constitutional crisis,” he added.
The border blockade initiated nearly three months ago has had a deeply detrimental impact on the economic and social rights of the population countrywide, including the rights to food, water and sanitation, health and adequate housing, by causing severe shortages of essential commodities such as fuel, cooking gas and medical supplies throughout the country.
Madhesi groups have been demonstrating against Nepal’s new Constitution in the Terai since August 2015, protesting discriminatory aspects of the new Constitution that they argue would entrench marginalization, and have been staging a de facto blockade at the main border posts along the Nepal-India border since the Constitution was adopted on 20 September 2015.
India has been accused of imposing or collaborating in the blockade, an allegation which the Indian government has denied.
The ICJ has previously highlighted the lack of proper consultation in the drafting and adoption of the Constitution as well as the substantive human rights defects in its text, particularly the discriminatory provisions on the rights of women and some ethnic groups.
More than 45 persons, including 8 police personnel, have been killed during violent confrontations that have erupted between protesters and security forces since the demonstrations began, with allegations of excessive use of force by Nepali security forces as well as violent attacks by protesters against police personnel.
One Indian national was apparently killed by Nepali security forces at the Birgunj border last month.
“The Nepal government has a responsibility to protect the rights and security of its people and to re-establish the rule of law in the Terai,” said Zarifi. “However, Nepal must at all times respect the people’s right to peaceful protest and free assembly, and ensure that security forces exercise maximum restraint when responding to the demonstrations.”
The ICJ emphasizes that India and Nepal have an obligation to protect the human rights, including the economic and social rights, of persons impacted by their acts or the actions of those under their jurisdiction, and accordingly have an obligation to remove obstacles to the enjoyment of those rights.
“Nepal has an obligation to ensure that all available resources at their disposal have been mobilized to alleviate the human rights and humanitarian impact of the border blockade on the most vulnerable sections of the population,” Zarifi added. “The Nepal government must provide a clear plan to assess and address the impact of the blockade by prioritizing available supplies to the most urgently needed areas throughout the country, not just in Kathmandu.”
“The impact of the blockade is all the more acute because the country is still reeling from the 25th April earthquake and its ongoing aftershocks,” Zarifi said. “The international community, particularly neighboring India, should do all it can to ensure that urgent humanitarian assistance gets to the Nepali people.”
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Photo credit: HRW
Nov 24, 2015
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch have expressed concerns regarding the detention of non military persons in a military base facility and the deaths of two detainees held there.
In an open letter to the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations in Geneva, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch today raised their serious concern at the establishment of a detention facility holding non-military persons named the Nakhon Chaisri temporary remand facility (“the Facility”) inside the 11th Army Circle military base in Bangkok, and the recent deaths of two detainees who were held there.
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch concluded the letter by making six urgent recommendations to the Royal Thai Government, including to:
1. Immediately transfer all non-military persons detained at the Facility to an officially recognized civilian place of detention that complies with international law and standards and ensure no further non-military prisoners are detained at this Facility or any other similar facility; and
2. Carry out a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into the recent deaths of Suriyan Sucharitpolwong and Prakrom Warunprapa,prosecute and bring to justice any party found responsible, and ensure the victims’ families have access to effective remedies and reparation.
The letter was also copied to the Prime Minister of Thailand, the Director General of the Department of Corrections and the Minister of Justice.
Contact:
Wilder Tayler, Secretary-General, wilder.tayler(a)icj.org
Open letter:
Thailand-Detention-Advocay-OpenLetter-2015-ENG (English – in PDF)
Thailand-Detention_Advocacy-OpenLetter-2015-THAI (Thai – in PDF)
Nov 19, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should stay the imminent executions of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, the ICJ said today.
Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, were found guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in October 2013.
On 18 November 2015, the Supreme Court rejected their review petitions challenging their death sentences.
The only legal option available to them now is to seek a pardon from the President.
“The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims and survivors of the human rights violations committed during the 1971 war, and believes the perpetrators of these atrocities must be brought to justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “However, the death penalty, especially following a deeply flawed trial, amounts to nothing more than vengeance and does not serve the interests of justice.”
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT do not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the two previous executions in Bangladesh resulting from convictions by the ICT to date (Muhammad Kamaruzzaman in April 2015 and Abdul Qader Mollah in December 2013), the ICJ raised concerns about the serious procedural flaws in the ICT at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
UN agencies have also raised fair trial concerns with respect to how certain cases have been heard at the ICT.
Concerns have been raised with respect to Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid’s trials as well.
“There have been several problems about the fairness of the trials under the ICT,” Zarifi added.
“Instead of compounding injustice by executing people who have been found guilty through flawed trials, the Government of Bangladesh should commute these death sentences and abolish the death penalty.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal and sentenced to death in July 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in June 2015.
Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury was found guilty and sentenced to death in October 2013 for war crimes, including genocide. The Supreme Court on appeal upheld the decision in July 2015.
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
117 UN Member States, a clear majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Nov 11, 2015 | News
While welcoming the Maldives government’s revocation of the emergency yesterday, the arbitrary manner in which the emergency was first imposed and then suddenly revoked within the span of a week reflects a deeper erosion of the rule of law in the country, the ICJ said today.
On 10 November, a week after declaring a 30-day state of emergency, the Maldives lifted the emergency reportedly because authorities had arrested several people in connection with an alleged plot to “use dangerous weapons and explosives”, thereby neutralizing the purported national security threat cited as the grounds for the emergency.
Maldivian authorities have not provided any information as to who or how many individuals were arrested or the nature of the charges.
“The imposition of a state of emergency is not a political tool to be used willy-nilly as a matter of convenience to suspend human rights protections and suppress political opposition,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“A state of emergency that suspends constitutional rights is not to be declared lightly,” he added. “It has serious implications for human rights and the rule of law in the country, and must only be invoked in the most extreme situations and in accordance with international law.”
International law expressly permits derogations of certain human rights only in times of public emergency which threatens ‘the life of the nation’.
“Declaring a 30-day emergency and then suddenly lifting it a week later only reinforces the serious concerns previously raised as to the legitimacy of the emergency in the first place, and speaks to the larger rule of law crisis in the country,” Narayan said.
The emergency decree issued by the Maldives government last week suspended several constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and reduced the constitutionally mandated period for the vice president to respond to impeachment charges from 14 to 7 days.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had planned a public anti-government demonstration for 6 November, two days prior to which the emergency was declared.
Meanwhile, the vice president was removed from his post the day after the emergency decree, 5 November, in a swift and seemingly arbitrary impeachment hearing.
“The circumstances surrounding events in the Maldives this past week clearly suggest that the government was using the emergency as a ploy to prevent the planned opposition rally and to eliminate the vice president as a political threat,” said Narayan.
The emergency also granted sweeping powers of search, arrest and detention without warrant to the police, who reportedly raided several buildings and arrested an unknown number of individuals under its emergency powers over the past week.
“The Maldives government cannot flout international law by invoking emergency powers as a means to deny the due process rights of the vice president and others arrested or detained for alleged crimes,” added Narayan. “The government must ensure that the individuals arrested during the emergency are afforded their full fair trial and due process rights in accordance with international law.”
Additional Information:
The ICJ previously raised concerns that the alleged grounds for the emergency did not appear to establish a threat to the life of the as required by the high threshold set by international law, and could not in any event justify the complete suspension of constitutional rights.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Nov 5, 2015 | News
On the 15th anniversary of Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike, the International Commission of Jurists calls on the Indian government to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act without further delay.
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
“The AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational,” Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Director of the ICJ said. “It is a repressive and draconian law that should have no place in today’s India”.
Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”. These include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”. These and other vaguely framed provisions give armed forces broad powers that are inconsistent with the government’s obligations to respect the right to life.
In addition to leading to many unlawful killings in the areas in which it has been in effect, the provisions of the AFSPA have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances.
“The AFSPA has created a culture of impunity, shielding security forces from accountability in India for crimes under international law, and making it impossible for victims of human rights violations to access justice”, Sam Zarifi said.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court. Decisions regarding sanction take many years, and as yet, no member of the armed forces has been prosecuted in a civilian court.
The Indian government has often justified the need for the AFSPA as necessary to address terrorism and militancy in “disturbed areas”. “International law requires and experience shows that effective counter- terrorism measures must reinforce human rights, and not undermine and violate them,” said Sam Zarifi.
Calls for the repeal or amendment of the AFSPA –including from official bodies – have come from near and far for a number of years.
Several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended. These include the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (in 2013 and again in 2015), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2012), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), and the UN Human Rights Committee (1997).
In recent years, prominent Indian bodies have recognized the brutality of the AFSPA and echoed demands for repeal or amendment. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee set up by the Government of India to review the working of the AFSPA, has advocated its repeal. The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission seconded this recommendation.
The Verma Commission, set up by the government following the gang rape in Delhi in 2012, called for the repeal of sanction provisions under the AFSPA as they relate to sexual offences. In 2015, a High Level Committee on the Status of Women also reportedly advocated its repeal.
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victims Family Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) filed a petition at the Supreme Court of India, alleging that between 1979 and 2012, 1528 people were extra-judicially executed by security forces in Manipur.
A court-appointed fact-finding commission – popularly known as the Santosh Hegde Commission – studied 6 of these cases, and found that the deaths were not lawful.
In its report, the Hegde Commission agreed with the observation of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, that the AFSPA had become “a symbol of oppression, an object of hate, and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.”
The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Advisor (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; email: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
