Guatemala: ICJ conducts workshops on the investigation and prosecution of unlawful death and enforced disappearances

Guatemala: ICJ conducts workshops on the investigation and prosecution of unlawful death and enforced disappearances

The ICJ convened two workshops in Guatemala City from 11 to 13 February for more than 30 lawyers and more than 30 representatives of victims’ organizations on the international law and standards that apply to the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.

The workshops were conducted as part of the project under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative entitled, Promoting justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, and supported by the EU European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The project promotes accountability of perpetrators and access to effective remedies and reparation for victims and their families in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

The workshop for lawyers was inaugurated by the President of the Board of Lawyers of Guatemala, Ovidio Orellana. The workshop with representatives of victims organizations was inaugurated by the Chief of Cooperation of the European Union Alberto Cortezón.

Participants in the workshops emphasized that the Guatemalan public authorities must respect and effectively impolement the the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death,  and that there was a need to reinforce advocacy strategies for the respect of the Protocol by the Guatemalan Human Rights Institutions.

The Presidential Commission on Human Rights (COPREDEH) and the Ombudsman´s Office participated during the workshop with victims’ organizations.  They committed themselves to take the necessary actions to incorporate into their work the principles and content of the Minnesota Protocol, as a complementary tool to other conventions and binding law.

Contacts:

Ramón Cadena, Regional Director of ICJ’s Central America Office, email: ramon.cadena@icj.org

Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, email: kingsley.abbott@icj.org

Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America, and Regional Coordinator of the Project, email: carolina.villadiego@icj.org

ICJ submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Tunisia

ICJ submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Tunisia

The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Tunisia’s sixth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In its submission, the ICJ highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the ICCPR, including in relation to:

  • Tunisian authorities’ implementation of the transitional justice law, particularly on issues pertaining to criminal accountability for gross human rights violations;
  • Judicial independence and accountability, particularly on issues pertaining to the development of a Judicial Code of Ethics, and
  • Tunisia’s failure to establish a Constitutional Court.

The submission is relevant for the Committee’s evaluation of Tunisia’s implementation of the State’s obligations and related Covenant rights under articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the ICCPR.

The Human Rights Committee will examine Tunisia’s sixth periodic report during its 128th session, which will be held in Geneva from 2 March to 27 March 2020.

Tunisia submitted its sixth periodic report to the Committee in June 2019 according to the approved simplified reporting procedure and in response to the list of issues identified by the UN Human Rights Committee in April 2018. Among these issues, the Committee requested Tunisia to provide information in relation to: the Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented; transitional justice; and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Download

Tunisia-ICJ-Submission-UNHRC-Advocacy-Non-Legal-Submissions-2020-ENG (full submission, in PDF)

Human Rights Day: South Asian States must end culture of impunity for torture

Human Rights Day: South Asian States must end culture of impunity for torture

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

 

Myanmar: legal briefing on upcoming hearing on provisional measures at the International Court of Justice

Myanmar: legal briefing on upcoming hearing on provisional measures at the International Court of Justice

Today, the International Commission of Jurists published a legal briefing on the hearing on provisional measures to be held at the International Court of Justice between 10-12 December 2019 in the case of The Gambia v Myanmar.

Questions answered include:

  1. What allegations does The Gambia make against Myanmar?
  2. What provisional measures has The Gambia requested?
  3. What are provisional measures?
  4. What is the process for requesting provisional measures?
  5. What factors are taken into account on a request for provisional measures?
  6. If the Court indicates provisional measures, are they binding on the parties?
  7. What is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s role in the proceedings?

 Download:

Myanmar-Provisional Measures Briefing-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (English)

Myanmar-Provisional Measures Briefing-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (Burmese)

Contact:

Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser and Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Translate »