On video: how can the UN respond effectively to crimes under international law in situations of crisis?

On video: how can the UN respond effectively to crimes under international law in situations of crisis?

The ICJ organized this side event today (Tuesday 18 September 2018), in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands, at the Human Rights Council.

https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/1005764152964172/

Background

Particularly when crimes under international law are perpetrated on a large scale in situations of crisis, there is an urgent need to preserve evidence for use in eventual criminal proceedings, whether at the International Criminal Court or other national or international tribunals

Too frequently, obstacles prevent immediate direct recourse to international courts and prosecutors. One response has been the creation of mechanisms to collect and preserve the evidence in the meantime. Examples include the International Independent and Impartial Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria, and the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

At the current session of the Human Rights Council, the Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar has called for establishment of an IIIM pending referral to the ICC or an ad hoc tribunal.

Opening Remarks:

Ambassador Monique T.G. van Daalen, Permanent Mission of the Netherlands

Moderator:

Saman Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists

Panelists:

  • Catherine Marchi-Uhel, Head, International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria
  • Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan
  • Sanji Monageng, former Judge/Vice-President of the ICC, and Commissioner of the ICJ
  • Stephen Rapp, Chair, Commission for International Justice & Accountability (CIJA), Distinguished Fellow, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice
  • Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Global Accountability), formerly with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Universal-ICJ-NL-Side event-News-events-2018-ENG (flyer of the event in PDF)

 

Myanmar: international accountability mechanism needed (UN statement)

Myanmar: international accountability mechanism needed (UN statement)

The ICJ today urged the UN Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to preserve evidence of crimes under international law occurring in Myanmar, with a view to eventual prosecution of those responsible.

The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN International Fact Finding Mission, read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has monitored justice and human rights in Myanmar for more than five decades. The ICJ has an established presence in the country supporting justice actors to protect human rights through the rule of law.

With this experience, the ICJ views the Independent International Fact Finding Mission’s conclusions as painting an authoritative picture of the general situation in Myanmar, particularly in its highlighting of the pervasive damage of military impunity upon human rights, rule of law and the nascent democratic process.

The rule of law cannot be established, let alone flourish, without accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations and redress for victims and their families.

The Fact Finding Mission’s findings of crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states, and the identification of alleged perpetrators, necessitate immediate action.

The Government of Myanmar is unwilling and unable to effectively and genuinely provide justice for crimes, particularly when perpetrated by security forces. International action must not be deterred or delayed by the latest government inquiry, which is incapable of providing accountability or redress and may promote impunity by undermining credible international justice mechanisms.

The ICJ calls for a unified Council resolution at this session to establish an International Impartial and Independent Mechanism. This is urgently required to preserve evidence before its further deterioration, and to demonstrate a commitment to justice. Failing to act now risks further denying justice for victims and emboldening perpetrators.

Violations against Rohingya constitute an egregious yet emblematic example of systematic persecution of minority groups that has persisted in Myanmar for decades.

The ICJ would like to ask the Fact-Finding Mission: how can the Council best ensure accountability for the full range of crimes under international law committed against minorities throughout Myanmar and prevent their continuation and recurrence?”

For more information see:

Myanmar: why an IIIM and Security Council referral are needed despite the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh

Myanmar: Government’s Commission of Inquiry cannot deliver justice or accountability

 

 

From Documenting Violations to Preparing for Prosecutions: How can the UN respond effectively to crimes under international law in situations of crisis? (UN Side Event)

From Documenting Violations to Preparing for Prosecutions: How can the UN respond effectively to crimes under international law in situations of crisis? (UN Side Event)

The ICJ will organize this side event, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands, at the Human Rights Council on Tuesday 18 September 2018 from 15:30 – 16.30 in Room XXII of the Palais des Nations.

Particularly when crimes under international law are perpetrated on a large scale in situations of crisis, there is an urgent need to preserve evidence for use in eventual criminal proceedings, whether at the International Criminal Court or other national or international tribunals

Too frequently, obstacles prevent immediate direct recourse to international courts and prosecutors. One response has been the creation of mechanisms to collect and preserve the evidence in the meantime. Examples include the International Independent and Impartial Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria, and the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

At the current session of the Human Rights Council, the Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar has called for establishment of an IIIM pending referral to the ICC or an ad hoc tribunal.

The various options for accountability, and how to take these and related initiatives forward will be discussed.

Opening Remarks:

Ambassador Monique T.G. van Daalen, Permanent Mission of the Netherlands

Moderator:

Saman Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists

Panelists:

  • Catherine Marchi-Uhel, Head, International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria
  • Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan
  • Sanji Monageng, former Judge/Vice-President of the ICC, and Commissioner of the ICJ
  • Stephen Rapp, Chair, Commission for International Justice & Accountability (CIJA), Distinguished
    Fellow, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice
  • Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Global Accountability), formerly with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Universal-ICJ-NL-Side event-News-events-2018-ENG (flyer of the event in PDF)

Myanmar: address root causes of violations against Rohingyas

Myanmar: address root causes of violations against Rohingyas

The ICJ today urged accountability for and the need to address the root causes of violations of human rights of Rohingya people in Myanmar, at the UN in Geneva.

The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on his oral update on the situation, at the Human Rights Council.

The statement read as follows:

“The Government of Myanmar is duty-bound to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of human rights violations. Yet impunity at domestic level necessitates international action: to secure criminal accountability, to provide redress and to deter repetition of crimes under international law.

In May, the government announced a new inquiry into rights violations in Rakhine State. Its mandate, composition and legal framework remain unclear – and there is no indication this will be more effective than previous national inquiries – which have not shed light on the facts, have rarely led to prosecutions and have failed to provide redress.

Justice cannot be further delayed. The International Commission of Jurists supports calls for establishing an international accountability mechanism.

It is also imperative to address the laws and practices discriminating against Rohingyas and other minorities, particularly the 1982 Citizenship Law, as recommended by the government’s Rakhine Advisory Commission.

As a UN Member State, Myanmar must fully cooperate with all UN organs. This includes allowing access to the Special Rapporteur, and permitting the UN Human Rights Office to establish in the country with a full mandate.

Quiet diplomacy and downplaying human rights concerns have failed to improve the situation for Rohingyas. UN organs and envoys present in Myanmar must engage in frank and direct dialogue with the Government about ongoing human rights violations – consistent with the UN Charter and the Human Rights Up Front initiative.

Human rights violations are the root cause of this humanitarian crisis. There can be no voluntary and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees without addressing the sources of human rights violations.

Thank you.”

Myanmar: Protection of Rohingya Minority, UN Special Session

Myanmar: Protection of Rohingya Minority, UN Special Session

The ICJ today addressed an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Myanmar, outlining key requirements for the protection of the Rohingya minority, including safe and voluntary return of refugees.The Special Session is expected to adopt a resolution to address “The human rights situation of the minority Rohingya Muslim population and other minorities in the Rakhine State of Myanmar.”

The ICJ statement read as follows:

“It is encouraging that the Governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar have recognized the right of displaced Rohingya to return to their places of residence.

However, any provisions for return must comply with international law, including as regards non-refoulement. Effective guarantees that all displaced persons will be able to return to their place of prior residence in a safe, dignified, voluntary and sustainable manner, without discrimination, are essential.

Rohingya refugees must also be provided with alternatives to return, including the option of seeking international protection. Anything short of this would amount to their forcible return and thus violate the non-refoulement principle.

It is of the utmost urgency that the gross and systematic violations that have given rise to the forced displacement are immediately brought to an end and that measures are taken to prevent their recurrence, including by holding perpetrators responsible.

No-one may be forcibly returned to the current circumstances that prevail in Rakhine State, and voluntary returns will only ultimately take place if and when refugees are satisfied they are not returning to further violations in Myanmar.

Any provisions for restrictions on freedom of movement upon return are also of concern, particularly given past experience, with internment camps housing tens of thousands of Muslims displaced in 2012 still in place. Such restrictions elsewhere in Rakhine State contribute to violations of, among other things, the human rights to life, to health, to food, to education and to livelihoods.

To ensure that the rights of refugees are respected and protected, Bangladesh and Myanmar should immediately seek to ensure that UNHCR is involved, and its guidance followed, in any discussion of repatriation processes.

The Government of Myanmar must cooperate with the UN-mandated Fact Finding Mission to independently establish facts and provide a proper foundation for effective responses to human rights violations and humanitarian crises in Rakhine State, as well as in Shan and Kachin States, whose populations also face related patterns of human rights violations by military and security forces.”

The Council adopted a resolution at the end of the session, which reflects many of the concerns raised by the ICJ and others: A_HRC_S_27_L1

 

Translate »