Jul 12, 2016 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has issued a joint statement condemning increasing acts of harassment and intimidation against journalists in Lesotho.
The joint statement expresses concern about a number of incidents threatening freedom of expression, exemplified by the recent shooting of the editor of the Lesotho Times newspaper, and have called on Lesotho Authorities to ensure the right to freedom of expression is protected.
In addition to the ICJ, the statement has also been signed by: amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism; Amnesty International; Freedom of Expression Institute; Institute for Democracy; Lawyers for Human Rights; Lawyer for Human Rights (Swaziland); Media Institute for Southern Africa – Zimbabwe Chapter; Media Monitoring Africa; Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa; PEN Afrikaans; PEN South Africa; Rights 2 Know Campaign; SOS Coalition; Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network; Southern AFrican Litigation Centre; Transformation Resource Centre; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum; and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.
Lesotho-Joint statement-Freedom of expression-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Jul 12, 2016 | News
The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision reiterating the importance of accountability for human rights violations by police and security forces, in particular where unnecessary or excessive force is alleged to have been used, is a welcome step and must be immediately implemented.
In the case of EEVFAM v Union of India, petitioners alleged that 1,528 killings by the police and security forces in the Indian state of Manipur had amounted to unlawful extrajudicial executions. Manipur is the site of a long-running armed insurgency.
In 2013, a court-appointed commission – the Santosh Hegde Commission – conducted an inquiry into six of the cases mentioned in the petition, and found all the six killings to be unlawful.
“This judgment is a strong signal from the Court that human rights violations by security forces will not be tolerated in the name of national security or anti-terror policies,” said Sam Zarifi, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Asia Director.
“It’s crucial for the government now to follow through on this ruling to bring the families of the victims of these and other extra judicial executions mentioned in this petition closer to truth, justice and accountability”.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use force, to cause death.
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, thus effectively shielding armed forces from accountability for human rights violations.
“These, and other allegations, of human rights violations under the AFSPA only reiterate the urgent need to repeal this draconian and undemocratic law,” Zarifi said. “The allegations in this case are evidence of the culture of impunity that the AFSPA has perpetuated”.
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court made some welcome observations:
- It emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, reiterating the principles laid down in previous landmark cases. It said “every death caused by the armed forces, including in the disturbed area of Manipur should be thoroughly enquired into if there is a complaint or allegation of abuse or misuse of power”.
- It dismissed the government’s argument that legal safeguards would not fully apply to anyone considered an “enemy” under Indian law. The Court held that at least all Indian citizens were equally entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, stating “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger”.
- It noted that it did not have sufficient information about each of the 1,528 cases mentioned in the petition. It has directed parties to present detailed information about the status of each case.
“This judgment references India’s obligations under international human rights law, which requires the government to respect and protect the right to life and ensure access to effective remedies,” Zarifi said. “Accountability for all human rights violations is a key aspect of these rights”.
The ICJ called for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all the cases mentioned in the petition, in line with international standards.
It said that persons responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials in civilian courts, and the family of victims should be accorded an effective remedy and reparation for any violations.
The ICJ will continue to follow the case, which will continue in four weeks. Several key issues remain to be addressed, which the court will look at in subsequent hearings.
First, how should the specific cases be investigated? The petitioners have asked for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to investigate the allegations, to ensure that the enquiry is fair, independent and thorough.
Second, in what forum should trials take place? The Indian Army Act allows for army personnel on active duty to be tried by a court martial (military court) instead of a civilian court for all offences, including gross human rights violations.
International standards call for military personnel accused of gross human rights violations to be put on trial before a civilian court. The Court has left this question open for the allegations in the present petition, stating: “The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court”.
Third, the Court will also consider the efficacy of the National Human Rights Commission; in particular whether its guidelines are binding or only advisory. Under Indian law, the NHRC has limited jurisdiction where human rights violations by the armed forces are concerned.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e:sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jun 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ urged the diplomatic community in Myanmar to assist, and assess, the new government’s efforts to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in the country at a diplomatic dialogue today.
The ICJ shared its 14 General Recommendations to the new Government and Parliament, with ambassadors and high-level diplomatic representatives, and discussed specific, actionable recommendations to the Government to effectively address human rights violations immediately and in the long term and to provide redress to those whose rights have been violated.
Access to justice for victims of human rights violations has been severely curbed in Myanmar during decades of military rule.
Most of the population has been consistently denied access to the courts and effective remedies as a result of unfair and discriminatory laws and poor court decisions.
With an improper regulatory regime for investment and environmental protection, and an ineffective judiciary to enforce laws and provide access to justice, economic development has risked undermining human rights protection and negatively impacting on economic, social and cultural rights.
Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, stated that while the new government is more receptive than its predecessor to international human rights laws and standards, it should urgently establish a clear plan on strengthening rule of law reform and that all legislation must be guided by the principles of non-discrimination, greater accountability, transparency and justice.
Among the key recommendations the ICJ shared are:
- Supporting the committing of resources to the judiciary as well as the Attorney General’s Office to improve the state of legal education, court facilities, and safeguards to prosecutors to undertake investigations independently;
- Pushing for the passage of new land laws in consultation with civil society modeled on international standards and best practices;
- Ensuring that a new investment law conforms to the new land law that protects all forms of land tenure and provides access to justice when human rights occur;
- Seeking more clarity on the Government’s ability to monitor and regulate the conduct of businesses and their impacts on human rights;
- Supporting and strengthening the capacity of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission to undertake investigations on human rights violations independently and impartially;
- Repealing or amending laws that are abused to violate the right to freedom of expression and opinion; and
- Encouraging the Government to consult and engage more closely with civil society and the international human rights community.
The diplomatic dialogue aimed to provide the international human rights organizations with an opportunity to clarify their various policy guidelines and provide updates to assist the diplomatic community with their multilateral lobbying efforts in Myanmar with the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, and civil society.
The Embassy of Denmark hosted the event. Members of the diplomatic community included those from the EU, UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Australia, The Philippines and Bangladesh.
The ICJ was joined in a panel by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch.
May 31, 2016 | News
Myanmar’s Supreme Court engages in 2nd High Level Dialogue with the ICJ on Drafting and Implementing a New Judicial Code of Ethics and Accountability.
The ICJ, the United Nations Development Program and the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union (OSCU) held a High Level Dialogue on “Implementing a Code of Judicial Ethics” in Nay Pyi Taw on 30-31 May 2016.
This dialogue followed a commitment by the OSCU to draft a code and to ensure it is informed by and implemented in accordance with international best practice. The OSCU’s Judicial Ethics Review Committee, Supreme Court and High Court Judges and other senior court administrators participated in the dialogue.
Building on the previous dialogue’s focus on the contents of a code of ethics, the participants and their international counterparts from the ICJ and UNDP discussed international standards for accountability and implementation mechanisms to accompany a code of ethics.
In opening the dialogue, the Honourable Supreme Court Justice of the Union, U Mya Thien explained that the new code reflected international standards and would enhance public trust and promote accountability in the Judiciary.
In his opening remarks, ICJ Commissioner and Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, Azhar Cachalia, explained the importance of the code as a basis for legitimacy and independence.
He stressed that the judiciary must become accountable to the public.
“Myanmar has an historic opportunity to make decisions that will shape the judiciary for generations to come,” he said.
During the dialogue, the UNDP’s Elodie Beth outlined research on regional judicial accountability and its lessons for Myanmar.
Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director shared experience and international standards on implementing a code of ethics Zarifi explained that “in order for it to be effective, the Supreme Court must establish mechanisms and institutions to hold judges accountable to the code of ethics.”
All participants agreed that implementing a proper code of ethics would strengthen the accountability and independence of Myanmar’s judiciary.
Both the UNDP and the ICJ congratulated the OSCU for following its Strategic Plan for 2015-2018 and engaging in a dialogue designed to further this process.
Both expressed willingness to continue working with Myanmar’s judiciary on the issues of judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights.
