Jan 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the executions of 22 civilians during the past month, following death penalty cases before military courts in which fair trial guarantees appear to have been flagrantly violated.
The Egyptian authorities should establish an immediate moratorium and halt all pending executions with a view towards the total and permanent abolition of the death penalty, the ICJ added.
“The executions of these civilians constitute blatant, egregious violations of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Carrying them out based on military trials, which furthermore failed to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards, amounts to the arbitrary deprivation of life,” he added.
Based on information provided by the defendants’ lawyers and families, Egyptian NGOs have reported a litany of fair trial violations that marred these proceedings.
These included the case of a defendant who was convicted following one trial session, in the absence of his counsel.
It also included instances involving enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, some of which were documented in the prosecution reports.
In one case the defendants’ lawyers filed a motion to “review the case” under article 448 of the Code Criminal Procedure which should normally suspend the carrying out of any sentence of execution.
The executions were nevertheless carried out on 9 January, before the Military Court’s review, which was due on 28 February 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have brushed aside the most basic legal safeguards on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty,” Benarbia said.
“Because they cannot ensure respect of fair trial rights, they must impose an immediate moratorium on executions.”
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian judiciary fails to conform to these standards.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Executions-News-2018-ARA (Arabic translation in PDF)
Background
International standards recognize the particular concerns with judicial independence and impartiality that arise in relation to the trial of civilians by military courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to military personnel in cases of strictly military offences, i.e. alleged breaches of military discipline.
The above-mentioned cases involved civilians and allegations of ordinary offenses, including theft, rape, and murder (including murder of military officers).
Particularly in these circumstances, there could be no justification for these cases to have been adjudicated before military courts and the ICJ considers that this factor in itself renders the executions in violation of the right to life.
The ICJ furthermore opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation to the right to life and to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The cases in question were: Case No. 411/2013 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (15 executions in 26 December 2017), case No. 22/2015 before Tanta Criminal Military Court (4 executions in 2 January 2018) and case No. 93/2011 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (3 executions in 9 January 2018).
Nov 17, 2017 | News
Pakistan’s third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has drawn global attention to a number of serious human rights failures in the country, said the ICJ today.
On 16 November, the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council adopted a draft UPR outcome report for Pakistan. Pakistan received a total of 289 recommendations – a substantial increase from its previous UPR in 2012, when Pakistan received 167 recommendations. As many as 111 State delegations took the floor to make statements, and 14 States submitted their questions in advance.
“That well over a hundred delegations participated in the review indicates the global community’s interest in Pakistan’s human rights situation,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Key recommendations urge Pakistan to:
- Reinstate a moratorium on executions with the view to abolishing the death penalty;
- Repeal or amend “blasphemy laws” to bring them in line with international human rights law;
- Ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and a number of other human rights treaties;
- Ensure effective protection of the rights of religious minorities, human rights defenders, journalists and other vulnerable groups;
- Strengthen the National Commission for Human Rights;
- Ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigations of human rights violations and bring perpetrators to justice;
- Set 18 as the minimum legal age for marriage; and
- Ensure effective implementation of laws on violence against women.
“The States’ recommendations echo the concerns of dozens of civil society organizations and even the National Commission of Human Rights – who all agree that the Government must take urgent measures to address the downward spiral of rights in the country”, Rawski said.
Pakistan will now examine the recommendations and respond to the Human Rights Council at latest by the Council’s next session in March 2018.
Pakistan’s review comes at a time of serious concern about the rights situation in the country.
The Government lifted the informal moratorium on the death penalty and carried out nearly 500 executions in less than three years – among the highest execution rates in the world; Parliament enacted laws allowing military courts to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences in secret trials; and the authorities started a new wave of crackdowns on NGOs, journalists and human rights defenders, including subjecting them to enforced disappearance.
Persecution of religious minority communities also continues despite the Government’s claims that religious minorities “enjoy equal rights as equal citizens of Pakistan”. Last month, three Ahmadi men were sentenced to death for blasphemy for allegedly scratching anti-Ahmadi pamphlets that had the “Mohr-e-Nabbuwat” (seal of the Prophet Muhammad) printed on them. And earlier this week, the Islamabad High Court directed the Government to respond to a petition demanding a separate database for Ahmadis in the civil service to ensure they are not “posted in offices involving sensitive matters”.
“As a member of the Human Rights Council, Pakistan is expected to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, something it has clearly failed to do,” added Rawski.
“Pakistan should make use of this process by accepting the recommendations made during the review and adopting a concrete, action-based national human rights plan to ensure their effective implementation.”
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Pakistan-UPR-PressRelease-2017-eng (download the press release)
Additional information
UN Member States reviewed Pakistan’s human rights record for the third time on Monday, 13 November, through the UPR process.
The UPR is a unique mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council aimed at improving the human rights situation of each of the 193 UN Member States. Under this mechanism, the human rights record of all UN Member States is peer-reviewed every four to five years by the UPR Working Group, consisting of the 47 UN Member States of the Human Rights Council; however, any UN Member State can take part in the discussions and the dialogue during the UPR of the reviewed States. States then make recommendations to the country under review, which has the option of accepting or noting the recommendations.
Nov 10, 2017 | News
As Pakistan is set to undergo its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on 13 November, the ICJ has urged Pakistani authorities to meaningfully engage with the process to improve the human rights situation in the country.
“Pakistan’s past engagement with the UPR has been characterized by denial and defensive posturing,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“As a recently-elected member of the UN Human Rights Council, it is more important than ever for the Pakistan to show that it takes its human rights obligations seriously by engaging with the upcoming UPR in its true spirit,” he added.
During its second UPR in 2012, Pakistan received 167 recommendations, of which it rejected seven, noted 34, and accepted 126.
The seven recommendations rejected by Pakistan relate to some of the most serious human rights violations in the country, including recommendations to adopt an official moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolishing capital punishment in law and practice, repeal blasphemy laws, and decriminalize adultery and non-marital consensual sex.
Even accepted recommendations have been largely ignored in the four years since the previous UPR, the ICJ notes.
Enforced disappearances are still not recognized as a distinct, autonomous crime; perpetrators of gross human rights violations continue to escape justice; there has been complete inaction to prevent abuse of so-called blasphemy laws; and freedom of expression is often restricted on vague grounds such as “national security” and “immorality”.
“Pakistan’s human rights situation has in many ways deteriorated since 2012,” Rawski added.
“Yet – as reflected by Pakistan’s national report for the upcoming UPR – the authorities apparently remain in a state of denial about the dire human rights implications of these new measures,” he said.
These measures include the lifting the informal moratorium on the death penalty and carrying out nearly 500 executions in less than three years – among the highest in the world; passing laws allowing military courts to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences; and a new wave of crackdowns on NGOs, journalists and human rights defenders, including retaliating against NGOs for presenting “a very bleak picture” of the country’s human rights situation to the UN.
“UN member states on Monday should urge Pakistan to end the dangerous downward spiral on rights by ending repression, respecting fundamental freedoms, and holding perpetrators of violations responsible,” Rawski said.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
The UPR is a unique mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council aimed at improving the human rights situation of each of the 193 UN Member States. Under this mechanism, the human rights record of all UN Member States is peer-reviewed every four to five years by the UPR Working Group, consisting of the 47 UN Member States of the Human Rights Council; however, any UN Member State can take part in the discussions and the dialogue during the UPR of the reviewed States. States then make recommendations to the country under review, which has the option of accepting or noting the recommendations.
Oct 16, 2017 | Advocacy
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are urging Pakistan to take immediate steps towards meeting “the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” following the country’s election to the Human Rights Council.
Today, the UN General Assembly selected 15 states to serve as members of the UN Human Rights Council from January 2018 to December 2020.
From the Asia-Pacific region, Nepal, Qatar, Afghanistan and Pakistan were selected out of five candidates.
To secure the UN Human Rights Council membership, Pakistan pledged its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, the pledge failed to address directly many of the most serious human rights issues facing Pakistan, including enforced disappearances, the use of the death penalty, blasphemy laws, the country’s use of military courts, women’s rights including the right to education, and threats to the work of human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists.
According to UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” The Resolution also provides that, “when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.”
Pakistan’s abuses have been highlighted by various national and international human rights organizations, UN treaty-monitoring bodies, and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council.
Pakistan has affirmed in its election pledge that it is “firmly resolved to uphold, promote and safeguard universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”
Given the pressing human rights issues in the country, the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch urge Pakistan to take the necessary action to fulfill these responsibilities.
Contact
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download
The full statement with additional information: Pakistan-ElectiontoHRC-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Oct 2, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined other NGOs in welcoming action by the HRC on Yemen, Burundi, and DRC, as well as on reprisals and intimidation against civil society and human rights defenders, and the death penalty, while expressing disappointment about lack of adequate action on other matters.
The full statement is as follows:
Joint statement by International Service for Human Rights on behalf of Amnesty International, Asian Forum on Human Rights and Development (Forum Asia), Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), CIVICUS, Human Rights House Foundation, International Commission of Jurists and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).
We welcome the adoption of the resolution intended to end acts of intimidation or reprisals. However, we regret that a small group of States – most of them regular perpetrators of acts of intimidation or reprisals – have tried to undermine the Council’s efforts to end reprisals. We thank the majority of the Council members for resisting these efforts.
We are concerned that there were attempts to dilute several resolutions at this Council with the insertion of so-called “sovereignty” clauses. While we welcome the fact that they were ultimately defeated, we are concerned that a significant number members seek to use the concept of Sovereignty to shield themselves and other States from international scrutiny.
We also welcome that the resolution on the death penalty urges States to not impose it as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations.
We applaud the creation by consensus of an international investigative body on Yemen, and the broad State leadership on this issue. It sends a message that the people of Yemen have not been abandoned, and that accountability for international crimes is urgently required. We call on all parties to the conflict to fully cooperate with this mandate.
On Burundi, we welcome the extension of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry (COI). This was the only credible response to the CoI’s concerns that crimes against humanity may have been committed, and the persistent non-cooperation of Burundi with both the COI and the OHCHR presence in the country. We urge Burundi to follow through on its promises to start cooperating with the UN system, in line with duties as HRC member, and – failing that – call on the General Assembly to take appropriate action.
On Myanmar, while we welcome the extension of the fact-finding mission’s mandate, we are disappointed that the Council did not do more to address the gravity of the situation on the ground, in particular acknowledging the disproportionate campaign of violence by Myanmar’s security forces in Rakhine State, which have forced around half a million Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh since 25 August. We urge States to use the ongoing UN General Assembly session to address what the High Commissioner for Human Rights described to the Council as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”
On Cambodia, while the Council missed an opportunity for robust scrutiny of the worsening situation, the pre-election reporting in March should put authorities on notice.
On the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), we welcome the Council’s decision to boost scrutiny of the human rights crisis for another year, which shows how horrific the situation has become. The DRC must now cooperate with all Council mechanisms, and the Council needs to keep its eyes on the country until all actors stop committing violations and abuses, and justice for victims has been obtained.
Finally, we regret the increasing effort spent on procedural tricks and manoeuvers by States in an attempt avoid scrutiny – including by abusing the privilege of being a member to seek to avoid scrutiny of their own situation – instead of spending diplomatic time and capital on ending human rights violations, which is the Council’s core mandate. A renewed commitment to addressing situations based on objective criteria is now more urgent than ever.
