Feb 28, 2018 | Uncategorized
The ICJ together with 22 civil society organisations and UN agencies call on EU decision makers in a joint statement not to use coercion against children in order to obtain fingerprints and other biometric data.
The new EURODAC proposal currently being considered by the European Commission, Council and Parliament expands the purpose of the current database of asylum applicants to facilitate the identification of “irregularly staying third country nationals” through the use of biometric data and it lowers the age at which a child must be registered from 14 to six.
The European institutions are discussing allowing national authorities to use coercion to obtain fingerprints and facial images of children.
The identification and registration of children contributes to their protection within and across borders.
This must be done in a child-sensitive and child protective manner and the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in such matters, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Coercion of children in any manner or form in the context of migration related procedures, violates children’s rights, which EU Member States committed to respect and uphold.
All children, no matter their age, should be exempted from all forms of coercion in the EURODAC Regulation, in full compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) states that every person below the age of eighteen years is a child (art. 1).
States Parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence (art. 19.1) and no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily (art. 37).
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has affirmed that “No violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children is preventable”, where violence includes both physical and mental violence (General comment No. 13).
It has equally clarified: “that the detention of any child because of their or their parent’s migration status constitutes a child rights violation and contravenes the principle of the best interests of the child”.
Both the UN CRC and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights state that child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children (art. 3 UN CRC, art. 24.2 EU Charter).
Feb 8, 2018 | News
A proposed new law regulating public assembly adopted by the Philippine House of Representatives would allow for unlawful restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, the ICJ said today.
On 5 February 2018, the House of Representatives passed on third reading House Bill 6834, which proposes to repeal the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
The law would prohibit persons below the age of 15 from organizing a public assembly and would subject participants or organizers to potential criminal liability for holding a peaceful assembly without the approval of local executives.
“This legislation deceives us into thinking that there is no more need to obtain prior permission to holding a public assembly,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“But in effect, organizers will still need to secure the approval of the local executive before holding a public assembly,” she added.
The proposed law states that any person or group intending to organize a public assembly will only need to serve notice to the city or municipal mayor at least three days prior to the assembly without having to secure a permit.
However, at the same time it prohibits the “holding of a public assembly at a time and place other than that approved by the city or municipal mayor.”
“The proposed law does not improve on the old one. It now increases the penalty for holding a public assembly without approval of local authorities to six (6) years,” Emerlynne Gil said.
“The law is also silent as to who may be penalized. Hence, the ICJ fears that organizers and participants alike could be held liable,” she added.
Under international standards, freedom of people to assemble should generally not require prior permission.
The law would also contravene the rights of children that are protected under the Philippines’ legal obligations.
“The provision incorporates into law the arcane and discredited attitude that ‘children should be seen but not be heard’,” said Emerlynne Gil.
“If children are prohibited from organizing a peaceful assembly, this prevents them from exercising their right to impart information freely,” she added.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children must be guaranteed the right to freedom of assembly.
The bill now goes to the Philippine Senate for its consideration.
The ICJ calls on lawmakers in the Philippines not to adopt the proposed law in its current form.
Any new legislation should conform to international standards, including on the right to freedom of assembly without prior permission and the rights of children to assemble freely, the ICJ adds.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Public assembly act 1985-News-Web stories-2018-ENG (Full story in PDF)
Dec 18, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Karabo Ozah and Charles Dinda talk about traditional justice systems in video interviews recorded at the 2017 ICJ Geneva Forum.
Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Lawyer and Professor at the Law Faculty of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, and founding member of the International Institute on Law and Society (IIDS), describes the survival and contemporary recognition of justice systems of indigenous peoples in the Americas, despite the history of colonial domination.
She argues that indigenous justice systems often already reflect many international human rights standards, and where there may be discrepancies change should be sought through respectful engagement and consultation rather than coercive imposition.
In contrast, Ms Karabo Ozah, Deputy Director of the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, argues that it is crucially important to ensure that customary and traditional courts respect domestic legislation and international standards on human rights.
Otherwise she warns, based on her experience, customary courts too frequently fail to protect the rights of marginalized groups, children, LGBTI, and women.
Charles Dinda, Senior Legal Adviser with the Danish Institute for Human Rights in Zambia, points out that while traditional and customary justice institutions are the most easily accessible and in many respects most credible institutions for some populations, their decisions are too often inconsistent or unfair.
To avoid this, he insists on the importance of understanding and studying the way these systems operate and on the need to engage with them to learn about their practices and to build their capacities so that they have better knowledge of international human rights standards and indeed of the national laws in the countries where they operate.
Watch the interview with Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo
Watch the interview with Karabo Ozah
Watch the interview with Charles Dinda
NOTE:
The views expressed by the participants do not necessarily reflect those of the ICJ.
For more information about the 2017 Geneva Forum on Customary and Traditional Justice Systems, click here or contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org .
Nov 23, 2017 | Events, News
The 8th Geneva Forum brought together judges, lawyers, and other legal experts from around the world, and relevant UN representatives, to discuss the relationship between traditional and customary justice systems and international human rights, access to justice, and the rule of law.
The potential for improving access to justice
In many countries the majority of legal disputes, especially in rural areas, are resolved by traditional and customary justice systems that are not necessarily recognised by national law as a part of the official court system. The role of traditional and customary justice systems is therefore a key question for realization of “access to justice for all” and “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions” under Sustainable Development Goal 16.
Traditional and customary justice systems are often more practically and culturally accessible to local populations than is the official court system, and may be seen by local people as having greater legitimacy as well. Indeed, official recognition of the existence of traditional and customary courts in a country can be a positive reflection of the international human rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, or the particular rights of indigenous peoples, or cultural rights more generally.
For marginalized and disadvantaged rural populations in developing countries, traditional and customary courts may in practical terms be the only form of access they have to any kind of justice. Development agencies have increased their engagement with informal justice systems, and are considering much greater investment in capacity-building of such systems, noting their potential to reach large portions of the population who face significant obstacles to realizing access to justice in the official justice system.
The risks for human rights, particularly of women and children
At the same time, the composition, procedures, and outcomes of traditional and customary justice system mechanisms and processes can conflict with the human rights protections contained in international law and standards on human rights and the rule of law.
One key concern is in relation to the rights of women and children. Traditional and customary justice systems may be rooted in patriarchal systems and, as such, can reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and cultural assumptions that are inherently likely to discriminate against women and children and therefore negatively impact upon their rights.
Other concerns include consistency with the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law; respect for fundamental guarantees of fairness comprising the right to fair trial; accountability of judicial decision-makers in relation to corruption and other misconduct; and non-discrimination and equality before the law more generally.
Aims of the 2017 Geneva Forum
The discussions at the 2017 Geneva Forum (22-23 November 2017), together with ICJ’s broader global experience and expertise, will provide a foundation for the development by ICJ of legal, policy and practical guidance, including conclusions and recommendations on the role of traditional and customary courts in relation to access to justice, human rights and the rule of law.
The ICJ guidance will take into account the many variations and differences between different traditional and customary courts that exist around the world, while seeking to articulate conclusions and recommendations sufficiently universal to be applicable across the widest possible range of contexts. The focus of the Geneva Forum and the ICJ guidance is intended to be on traditional and customary courts of an informal character and, as such, the ICJ does not intend directly to address formal religious courts or the application of customary law by ordinary formal courts.
Available for download in PDF format:
Compilation of selected international sources on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice sytems, available here.
Final report of the 2017 Geneva Forum on traditional and customary justice systems, available here:
Universal-Trad Custom Justice Gva Forum-Publications-Thematic reports-2018-ENG
Several video interviews with participants are available to view by clicking here.
Information about the subsequent 2018 Geneva Forum on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia, is available here.
For more information, please contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org.
The 2017 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers was made possible with the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
- Photo: “Traditional leaders preside over a case in B-Court, Nyang Payam, Torit County, South Sudan”
- Photo Credit: UNDP South Sudan2016Angelique Reid ©2016 United Nations
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
On 13 September, the European Committee of Social Rights decided on the admissibility of the collective complaint submitted by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic.
The Committee assessed the admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee’s Rules and the Government’s objections on admissibility and declared the complaint admissible. The Czech Government has now two months to make written submissions on the merits of the complaint.
The complaint argues that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and FORUM submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-AdmissibilityDecision-2017 (download the Committee’s decision)
