The UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish an international investigation into allegations of human rights violations and abuses committed by both sides in Sri Lanka’s civil war gives hope to tens of thousands of victims who continue to be denied truth and justice.
The ICJ spoke at the UN Human Rights Council on the lack of progress in Nepal on ending impunity.The oral statement was delivered during the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Nepal has failed to take concrete action to implement key UPR recommendations, including those crucial to implementing the right to an effective remedy and reparation, creating effective mechanisms for transitional justice and ending impunity.
The Government continues to try to force through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is not human rights complicant and has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Nepal.
Nepal has also failed to take meaningful measures to investigate human rights violations and abuses that arose during the armed conflict.
The ICJ called on Nepal to take specific measures towards ending impunity.
The full written statement can be downloaded, in PDF format: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-Nepal-OralStatement-2103214
The representative of Nepal exercised the right of reply in response to ICJ’s oral statement.
Video of the oral statement, and Nepal’s statement in reply, via the official UN webcast.
Thailand’s caretaker government must remove emergency measures throughout the country following the lifting of the Emergency Decree in the capital Bangkok and its surrounding provinces this week, the ICJ said today.
On 18 March, the caretaker government voted to lift the Emergency Decree (effective 19 March) that had been in place in Bangkok and surrounding provinces since 21 January 2014 in response to protests led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).
At least 20 people have died in protest-related violence and hundreds have been injured.
The Emergency Decree was replaced by the Internal Security Act (ISA), which also does not fully comply with international standards, but provides better remedies for victims of human rights violations than the Decree.
“The imposition of the Emergency Decree creates an environment conducive to abuse of power and human rights violations such as arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and enforced disappearance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Lifting the Emergency Decree in Bangkok is a positive step, but it is crucial that the authorities remove the Emergency Decree and other measures of emergency rule, including martial law, that are in force in all or parts of at least 30 of Thailand’s 77 provinces.”
These measures should be replaced by law and action that are consistent with international human rights standards, Zarifi said, adding that martial law should not be used as a political tool.
The caretaker government must respond to demonstrations, unrest and emergencies in a manner which complies with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other international standards, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in 1990.
These standards set out the circumstances in which resort to necessary and proportional force may be lawfully exercised. Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms states that “exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”
In order to safeguard the rule of law and enhance the protection of human rights in Thailand, the ICJ calls on the caretaker government to repeal the Emergency Decree and other emergency measures including martial law, and to ensure accountability for violent acts through the thorough and effective investigation of criminal acts and prosecution of those reasonably suspected of committing them, in the course of fair, human rights-compliant criminal proceedings.
CONTACT: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
For further reading on ICJ’s work on emergency laws in Thailand see: Thailand’s Internal Security Act, Risking the Rule of Law? (2010) https://www.icj.org/thailands-internal-security-act-risking-the-rule-of-law/ Implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree (2007) https://www.icj.org/thailand-implementation-of-thailand%C2%B4s-emergency-decree/ More Power, Less Accountability: Thailand’s New Emergency Decree (2005) https://www.icj.org/more-power-less-accountability/
The ICJ made an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, during the session with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, concerning failures to protect the civilian population and the need for justice and calling for referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court.The ICJ underscored that for more than three years, the international community has failed to respond in a meaningful or effective manner to serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and other human rights abuses committed in the context of the Syrian conflict, to ensure that perpetrators on all sides are held accountable, and to implement concrete measures towards justice for victims.
The statement called on the Human Rights Council to request the Security Council to take effective measures, in accordance with the UN Charter, to protect the civilian population, bring an end to the conflict, and restore and maintain peace and security in the region.
The ICJ said that states, including the member States of this Council, should also act to provide urgent humanitarian relief to refugees, IDPs, and those trapped in besieged areas.
The statement emphasised that as the armed conflict continues to escalate, government forces and opposition groups have both been responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other crimes under international law, including murder, hostage-taking, torture and other ill-treatment (including rape and other sexual violence), enforced disappearance, recruiting and using children in the hostilities, and disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian objects.
To address the pervasive and structural culture of impunity, the ICJ called on the Council to request the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. States, individually and collectively, must also comply with their obligations under international law to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity and to exercise all grounds of jurisdiction at their disposal to investigate and prosecute anyone suspected of responsibility for such crimes.
The full statement, in PDF: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-Syria-OralStatement-032014
The ICJ prepared an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in response to a report on armed drones presented to the Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, on 11 March 2014.
The ICJ expressed appreciation at the focus of the report on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations, and particularly with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that the single greatest obstacle to an evaluation of the impact of drone strikes is lack of transparency. Lack of transparency creates an accountability vacuum and prevents effective access to justice.
In addition to sources of a legal obligation of transparency, the ICJ refers to the Tshwane Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information.
The ICJ stressed that a number of attacks documented in the report occurred outside of the context of any armed conflict, and thus were fully subject to international human rights law with no role for the special and potentially more permissive rules of international human applicable in situations of armed conflict.
The ICJ agreed a number of points raised in the report of the Special Rapporteur were matters of controversy between states, but at the same time recalled that a lack of consensus did not necessarily mean that international law did not already provide definite answers to the issues.
The ICJ further suggested that principles and guidelines on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations should be based on legal analysis, framed from the perspective of ensuring States’ compliance with international law; and justice and redress for victims of human rights violations and/or violations under international humanitarian law.
Due to the very limited time allocated to non-governmental organisations during the Interactive Dialogue on the Report, the ICJ was not able actually to read out its oral statement, but is making it public and has communicated its contents to the Special Rapporteur.
The oral statement can be downloaded in PDF here: ICJ-HRC25-SRCT-OralStatement-Drones.
The Report by the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For further information please contact: Mr Alex Conte (alex.conte(a)icj.org), ICJ International Law and Protection Programmes
South Africa: Constitutional Court’s affirmation that principles of judicial independence are fully applicable to military courts is a welcome step forward
EU: Lawyers and civil society call for mandatory humanitarian clause in anti-smuggling directive
EU: Access to a lawyer in juvenile justice proceedings remains a key concern in several EU Member States