Sep 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News
From 1 and 2 September 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, Clément Nyaletsossi VOULE, and lawyers and trade union representatives met and discussed challenges faced in Southeast Asia on exercising the right to freedom of association of workers.
The event was organized by the ICJ together with Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), and supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
At the meeting’s conclusion, the participants reached a consensus to work for the development regional guidelines on freedom of association of workers in the ASEAN and agreed to form a Working Group that would be tasked to develop these guidelines. The Working Group nominated by the participants is composed of trade union representatives at the national level, lawyers, among other experts.
In his keynote speech, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that freedom of association is a fundamental right for all workers without which they lack the power to fight discrimination and injustice in the workplace. He also explained the link between the rights to freedom of association and expression, “Freedom of association is closely related to freedom of expression as they both represent opening up of space for dialogue and an enabling environment where unions can participate freely.”
The participants at the meeting were practicing lawyers from Southeast Asia focusing on labor and employment and trade unions leaders and representatives. Other participants included representatives from human rights organizations addressing business and human rights and the right to freedom of association; the ASEAN Secretariat; the International Labor Organization (ILO), the ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
“Shrinking political and civic space combined with inequality and social marginalization are key challenges at the heart of business-related human rights violations in Southeast Asia,” said Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Regional Representative for UN Human Rights. “Governments must implement their obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights in relation to business activities. It is equally critical to ensure that businesses meet their responsibilities to respect human rights.”
During the meeting, the participants also discussed the role of women in labour organizing and the additional challenges women face when they exercise the right to freedom of association in the workplace. Betty Yolanda, Asia Regional Manager of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC) said: “Women workers face multiple forms of discrimination and challenges. They are fighting for their rights as workers in the company and at the same time they are also fighting the patriarchy.”
The participants identified common challenges confronted in the region where workers’ rights to freedom of association face legal and physical limitations. Migrant workers, women workers and workers in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were identified as being particularly at risk in exercising their rights.
“It is crucial that we discuss these challenges openly and with all stakeholders, particularly issues that affect those who work in the informal sector, and other vulnerable communities such as migrant workers. Special investment frameworks, special economic zones and other government-led initiatives meant to attract foreign investment potentially create new opportunities to increase transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, they are more often used to justify lowering human rights standards, or impose new restrictions that act to limit workers and communities abilities to express their grievances or exercise their rights to association,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Contact:
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Jul 17, 2019 | News
On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found Russia’s refusal to register associations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to violate the rights to freedom of association and to be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Court’s judgment was informed by a third party intervention submitted jointly by the ICJ, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and ILGA-Europe on 29 July 2016.
The cases were brought by Russian individuals and non-profit organizations (Rainbow House, Movement for Marriage Equality and Sochi Pride House) (Zhadanov and others v. Russia).
The organizations’ registration requests were refused by the authorities and the domestic courts because of formal irregularities in their applications and because their aim was to promote LGBT rights.
In a unanimous judgment, the Court reiterated the importance for individuals to be able to join together to act collectively and establish legal entities. Rejecting as “unconvincing” the Government’s assertion that the applications were refused on procedural grounds, the Court found that in order to obtain registration the organizations would have had to renounce their aims of promoting LGBT rights: “Those grounds touched upon the very core of the applicant organisations and affected the essence of the right to freedom of association”.
Referring to Russia’s submission that the organisations were refused registration to prevent social or religious hatred and disorder, the Court reminded States that they have a positive duty to guarantee the proper functioning of associations, even when they annoy or give offence.
In the present case, rather than taking steps to enable the organizations to carry out their activities without fear of violence, the authorities instead “decided to remove the cause of the tension and avert a risk of disorder by restricting the applicants’ freedom of association”.
The Court therefore found the refusal to register the organizations was not necessary in a democratic society (in breach of Article 11 ECHR).
Having found that the decisive ground for refusing the organizations’ applications for registration was their aim of promoting LGBT rights, the Court held that the applicants had suffered a difference in treatment based on their sexual orientation which could not be reasonably or objectively justified (in breach of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 11).
EHRAC, ILGA-Europe and ICJ’s joint intervention, drafted by Jeremy McBride QC of Monckton Chambers (UK), focused on the extent of legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of association for the protection of morals, arguing that it was impossible to protect individual rights if citizens were unable to create associations to defend common interests and needs.
It submitted that any restrictions on this right should be strongly justified and legitimate aims which permitted interference should be interpreted narrowly.
“This judgment reaffirms the vital importance for individuals to be able to group together and organize themselves around shared causes. States must act positively to ensure that this right is meaningful, particularly when people belong to vulnerable or marginalised minority groups or hold unpopular views,” said Joanne Sawyer, Lawyer, EHRAC.
“We are very pleased with European Court’s pioneering judgment confirming the vital right to freedom of association for those promoting rights of LGBTI people. This judgment sends a key message to LGBTI activists in Russia and other countries across Europe who are facing similar discriminatory restrictions – refusal to register associations cannot be justified on the ground of protection of morals,” said Arpi Avetisyan, Senior Litigation Officer, ILGA-Europe.
“The ICJ welcomes the Court’s conclusion that Russia’s refusal to register associations established to promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people cannot be justified on the grounds of protecting moral values or the institutions of the family and marriage,” added Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
Apr 24, 2019 | News
Egypt is hosting an Africa human rights summit meeting beginning April 24, 2019, while its government is presiding over the worst human rights crisis in the country in recent decades.
The 64th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the African Union’s top rights body, will take place from April 24 to May 14 in Sharm al-Sheikh.
In addition to its systematic failure to respect and protect human rights at home, Egypt has also led efforts to undermine the Commission’s independence. The Commission should strongly raise Egypt’s human rights abuses at the meeting.
“Egypt is trying to appear like a country open for human rights delegates and summits while, at the same time, crushing all dissenting voices and its once-vibrant human rights community,” said Michael page, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
“We know that many Egyptian and international organizations are not allowed to work freely in Egypt and cannot voice concerns without severe retaliation from the government,” he added.
The commission should ensure that all government and non-government delegations are able to participate freely in the summit. It should also make clear that it will strongly address any measures of reprisals by the Egyptian authorities against criticism of its practices.
A senior staff member of a leading Egyptian rights organization told Human Rights Watch that only three Egyptian human rights groups were considering participating in the summit because most of the groups were concerned about retaliation by the government.
In recent years, the Egyptian authorities have relentlessly cracked down on non-governmental organizations, issued the 2017 draconian law that effectively bans all independent work by nongovernmental groups, and prosecuted scores of staff workers of Egyptian organizations.
It has also frozen the assets of the most prominent human rights defenders in the country and their organizations and issued travel bans against scores of them.
In April 2018, the government said it would repeal the abusive 2017 NGO law but the government has not made a new draft law public.
The Egyptian authorities have also taken reprisals against human rights defenders and activists for cooperating with regional and international human rights monitors, including United Nations agencies and experts.
In late 2018, Egyptian authorities detained several citizens who met with the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing during her official mission to Egypt, as well as demolishing their houses and banning their travel. The government denied any wrongdoing and accused the UN High commissioner on human rights and other UN officials of breaching UN standards and adopting the “lies” of “terrorist” organizations.
In September 2017, officials stopped Ibrahim Metwally, a lawyer and co-founder of the Associations of the Families of the Disappeared, from traveling for meetings with UN officials in Geneva. Security agencies arrested him at the airport and held him incommunicado for a few days. He is still held in “pretrial detention” for farcical charges.
The Egyptian government has tried to undermine the independence of the Commission through spearheading the adoption of African Union’s Executive Council’s Decision 1015, paragraph 5. The provision, which was passed in June 2018, undermines the Commission’s independence by subjecting its work to control by the African Union member countries.
The Egyptian government has ignored decisions and resolutions the Commission and its experts have made addressing several violations and abuses including the crackdown on civil society, restrictions on freedom of religion, unfair trials and mass death sentences, arbitrary arrests, and sexual violence.
The ACHPR session comes at a time when the Egyptian authorities have been severely oppressing dissent and obliterating any space for peaceful expression or gathering before the public vote held between April 19-22 on highly draconian constitutional amendments that will strengthen the military control of public and political life and further undermine the already weak judicial independence.
Egyptian human rights organization have documented the arrests of over 160 people, often in mass arrests, since February in relation to the ongoing crackdown on dissidents and perceived critics.
These amendments, and several other laws that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has approved in recent years, such as new media laws and laws to expand the use of military courts to try civilians, violate international law standards including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Since al-Sisi secured a second term in elections that were largely neither free nor fair in March 2018, his security forces have escalated a campaign of intimidation, violence, and arbitrary arrests against political opponents, activists, and many others who have voiced even mild criticism of the government.
The Egyptian government and state media have framed this repression under the guise of combating terrorism, and al-Sisi has increasingly invoked terrorism and the country’s state of emergency law to silence peaceful activists.
In July 2013, the African Union Peace and Security Council suspended Egypt’s membership in all African Union activities following the forcible removal of former President Mohamed Morsy by the army, which was led by al-Sisi, then the defense minister. The suspension ended after al-Sisi was elected President in June 2014.
But Egypt has failed to effectively investigate or to hold any official or member of the security forces accountable for the mass killings of protesters in the summer of 2013 despite several national and international calls, including by the ACHPR, and despite incriminating evidence.
In August 2013, Egyptian security forces most likely killed at least 817 people in a few hours during its violent dispersal of the largely peaceful pro-Morsy sit-in in Cairo’s Raba’ Square. The killings likely amounted to crimes against humanity.
“Through such summits, Egypt is trying to whitewash its dire record of abuses,” George Kegoro, executive director of Kenya Human Rights Commission said. “The African human rights commission should take the opportunity of this meeting to vigorously engage the Egypt government on its own actions that threaten the rights, and the very lives, of many Egyptians.”
The co-signing organizations are:
Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-Violence Studies
Belady Center for Rights and Freedoms
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
Committee for Justice|
EuroMed Rights
Egyptian Front for Human Rights
Human Rights Watch
Kenya Human Rights Commission
The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms
The Freedom Initiative
The International Commission of Jurists
Egypt-African Rights Summit-News-2019-ARA (Press release, PDF, Arabic)
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s MENA Programme, t: +41-79-878-35-46 ; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Dec 13, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) welcome the decision of Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha, acting as the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to lift certain restrictions on political activities.
The organizations highlight, however, that much more is needed to fully reinstate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Thailand ahead of elections scheduled to be held on 24 February 2019.
This order repealed Article 12 of HNCPO Order No. 3/2558, which prohibited the gathering of five or more persons for a “political purpose”, lifting a ban which had carried a punishment of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding 10,000 Baht.
“The lifting of the ban on political gatherings is welcome – however, the new order only lifts one specific restriction imposed by HNCPO Order 3. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed by other articles of HNCPO Order 3, such as the granting of broad, unchecked powers to military officers to investigate, arrest and detain persons for up to seven days, remain in force,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“We reiterate our call for the Thai government to immediately amend and repeal all laws, HNCPO Orders, NCPO orders and announcements inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”
ICJ and TLHR also express serious concern that even as nine orders and announcements have been repealed by HNCPO Order No. 22/2561, Article 2 of the order clarifies that “prosecutions, actions or operations” already in effect by virtue of those orders will not be affected by the coming into force of the Order.
Cases brought before 11 December 2018 under HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 to penalize persons exercising their rights to free expression, assembly and association can therefore legally continue to be prosecuted in courts.
“Cases brought under the now-repealed section of HNCPO Order 3 should be dropped or withdrawn. They should have never been brought before the courts in the first place,” said Abbott.
“In the lead up to elections next year, the Thai government must take further steps to expand space for free expression, assembly and association. This new order is welcome, but it is certainly not enough.”
Further information is available in the full statement below
Thailand-Lifting political ban-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Thailand-Lifting Political Ban-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-THA (full statement in Thai, PDF)
See also
ICJ, ‘Thailand: Lift ban on political gatherings and fully reinstate all fundamental freedoms in Thailand’, 1 October 2018
Further reading
ICJ, TLHR and Cross-Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Joint Follow-up Submission to UN Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
ICJ and TLHR, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ made submissions today to the European Court of Human Rights in support of the right of association of Azerbaijan’s lawyers representing applicants before the Court and highlighting the situation of harassment of the legal profession in the country.
The ICJ intervened today in the cases of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan and Mustafayev and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan.
In these cases, lawyer Asabali Mustafayev and its NGO challenged the compliance of the freezing of their assets and criminal proceedings for financial offences as arbitrary interferences with their work as human rights defenders and in representation of clients before the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The ICJ has intervened to highlight the case-law regarding the right to individual application before the Court under article 34 ECHR and its application to the work of lawyers and legal NGOs.
It further examined the systemic practice in Azerbaijan of harassment of lawyers and of NGOs established by lawyers for the purpose of providing legal advice or representation, including representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, the ICJ analyzed the implications of such practices with regard to the State’s obligations under article 18 ECHR read together with article 11 ECHR.
Azerbaijan-icj-DHRRC&other-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Question to the parties: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184179
