Aug 30, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has presented information to the UN Human Rights Committee in preparation for the Committee’s examination of the eighth periodic report of Ukraine under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In this submission, the ICJ draws the Committee’s attention to the situation with the security and independence of the legal profession and Ukraine’s compliance with and implementation of its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 14 of the ICCPR, as well as the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
The ICJ stresses that attacks on lawyers are likely to lead not only to violations the rights of the individual lawyers concerned, but also to violations of the rights of the clients they represent, including the right to a fair trial (Article 14 ICCPR), the right to liberty (Article 9 ICCPR), the right to freedom from torture or other ill-treatment (Article 7 ICCPR), and the right to an effective remedy (Article 2.3 ICCPR) as attacks on lawyers may, in turn, hinder the provision of effective legal representation.
Ukraine-List of Issues-Advocacy-non legal submission-2019-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Jul 19, 2019 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Emerlynne Gil, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia-Pacific Programme.
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution expressing concern over the human rights situation in the Philippines. It specifically expressed grave concern over the killings and disappearances arising from the drug war of the current administration.
Since 2016, when the government began its campaign against illegal drugs, there have been reports of thousands of killings of people who were allegedly involved in the drug trade and drug use.
Furthermore, in the recent report of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), there have been more than 40 lawyers killed under the current administration.
The resolution was, in fact, restrained in tone and content. Human rights groups like the ICJ had hoped that it would establish an international mechanism to investigate the killings and other human rights violations.
However, the Council held back and merely urged the Philippine government to “take all necessary measures to prevent extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances”.
It also asked the Philippine government “to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights” and other international human rights mechanisms, and requested the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council for discussion in June 2020.
The Philippine government sent a big delegation to Geneva to lobby against the adoption of any resolution. During the informal consultations among States on this resolution, there were theatrics from the delegation, which walked out during the first consultation.
At the second consultation, nobody from the delegation attended, but former Ambassador Rosario Manalo, who also previously represented the Philippines in the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and is now a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, was present.
Purporting to speak as a ‘human rights defender’, she launched an angry tirade against Iceland as the sponsor of the resolution and the other States who supported it.
She also called the Filipino human rights defenders in the room who were seated right next to her as ‘treacherous’, and accused them of peddling lies about the country.
The theatrics in Geneva did not serve the Philippine government well. In the end, the Council voted to adopt the resolution.
Now that it has been adopted, what does this mean for Filipinos? The UN Human Rights Council, like any international human rights body, has significantly limited ability to directly protect human rights on the ground.
Thus, while it has adopted this resolution, the Council will not have the power to actually stop the unlawful killings and other human rights violations being committed. The Council will be unable to compel the implementation of the recommendations in any resolution it adopts, where a State is unwilling to cooperate.
Hence, the Philippine government still holds the discretion on whether or not to implement the recommendations made by the Council.
This is where ordinary Filipinos come in. The people – as the eyes and ears on the ground – are indispensable to the work of international human rights bodies like the Human Rights Council.
The effectiveness of the Council in protecting human rights on the ground greatly relies upon the extent to which the people on the ground – including human rights defenders – are able to engage and work with them.
The information provided by the general public regarding the situation on the ground is very important to the work of international human rights mechanisms like the Council. This information gives these mechanisms a clearer and more accurate picture of the human rights situation in the country.
We should thus not be silent. We should continue pressing the government to implement the recommendations in this resolution. The key recommendation is that the government should investigate extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and hold the perpetrators accountable.
In its formal statement to the Council after adoption of the resolution a few days ago, the representative of the Philippine government at the Council vigorously claimed that the country has ‘fully functioning domestic accountability mechanisms’, ignoring the fact that authorities have been unwilling or unable to conduct effective investigation or prosecutions for any of the numerous allegations of unlawful killings.
Hence, we should press the government to demonstrate that its claim that domestic accountability mechanisms are functioning is true, and that it should then use these mechanisms by investigating the killings and disappearances and punishing the perpetrators.
It is a welcome development that the Human Rights Council passed this resolution on the human rights situation in the Philippines.
But the work does not end there. There is a symbiotic relationship between the actions of the people on the ground and the work of international human rights mechanisms like the Council.
It is now left to us to press our government for the implementation of the recommendations in the resolution.
Jul 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the raids on 11 July by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the homes and offices of Anand Grover and Indira Jaising, two lawyers prominent for frequently challenging the Indian government’s failures to respect and promote the rights of all people in India.
Grover and Jaising are both Supreme Court lawyers and co-founders of the Lawyers Collective, a non-governmental organization.
These raids were reportedly conducted pursuant to CBI’s registration of criminal charges into alleged violations of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), a much criticized law frequently used to target human rights defenders and critics of the Indian government.
“This raid seems designed to harass and intimidate two tireless advocates of Constitutional and international rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary-General of the ICJ.
“The Indian government must immediately cease harassment of the Lawyers Collective and its founders Anand Grover and Indira Jaising,” he added.
The CBI raids appears to be based on a 2016 Ministry of Home Affairs report, now under appeal in the Bombay High Court, and without any material change in circumstances since its release.
The raid has also been conducted notwithstanding a National Human Rights Commission statement seeking a status report from the CBI by 21 July 2019 to ensure that the investigation is “non-discriminatory and to avoid arbitrariness”.
The attack is emblematic of a broader pattern of official threats to and harassment of Indian civil society in general, and the Lawyers Collective in particular.
Lawyers Collective’s FCRA license was cancelled in November 2016, a decision that is under appeal in the Bombay High Court. The action relied upon overly broad and vague legal provisions of the FCRA that violate India’s legal obligation to respect and protect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
“The repeated use of the FCRA to target civil society including Lawyers Collective has had a devastating chilling effect on public comment about the government,” said Zarifi.
“The law should be repealed, or substantially amended to include safeguards against arbitrary use of its provisions, and to protect freedom of expression and association,” he added.
The ICJ supports the 2016 call by three United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the Indian Government to repeal FCRA, which decried the FCRA’s use to “silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government”.
Jun 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Zimbabwe government to stop using the highly criticized offence of “subverting a constitutional government” to punish human rights defenders for the exercise of fundamental freedoms protected under international and Zimbabwe Law.
George Makoni, Tatenda Mombeyarara, Gamuchirai Mukura Nyasha Mpahlo, Farirai Gumbonzvanda, Rita Nyamupinga, and Stabile Dewa, referred to by the media as the “Zimbabwe 7”, have been charged under section 22 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and will face a bail hearing, due to be heard at the High Court in Harare on 6 and 7 June 2019.
“The Zimbabwean authorities need to desist from the growing practice of abusing the offence of subverting a constitutional government as an instrument to persecute human rights defenders through abuse of the legal system,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
“The oppressive and retaliatory use of law by government violates the rule of law and human rights as guaranteed in the Zimbabwean Constitution as well as in regional and global human rights treaties to which Zimbabwe is a State party,” he added.
The ICJ has previously shown that the law of subversion in Zimbabwe has been used often against HRDs who peacefully exercise their fundamental freedoms, with no single conviction to date.
The law violates the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (both of which Zimbabwe is a party to), including the rights of persons to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; article 19 ICCPR), freedom of assembly (article 11 ACHPR; 21 ICCPR) article, freedom of association (article 10 ACHPR; article 22 ICCPR), and the right to political participation (article 25 ICCPR).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly, requires that States afford particular protection to human rights defenders (HRDs) who exercise these rights.
HRDs charged with this offence can face a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and have often been denied bail for some periods, in contravention of international law, which provides that charged persons should generally not be held in pre-trial detention. Such prolonged pretrial detention effectively serves as pre-trial punishment of suspects.
“Criminal law must never be used as a means to silence opposition or persecute human rights defenders, which also necessarily has a chilling on others who perform critical human rights work. It is important that the police do not arrest to investigate but they must investigate before they arrest,” said Tsunga.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +27716405926 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background
Four human rights defenders, George Makoni, Tatenda Mombeyarara, Gamuchirai Mukura and Nyasha Mpahlo were arrested on 20th May 2019 upon arrival at Robert Mugabe International Airport, Harare from the Maldives where they had attended a workshop on human rights work. Law enforcement officials alleged in the charge sheet that,” during the workshop, the four had received training on the use of small weapons, how to mobilize citizens to turn against the government and to engage in acts of civil disobedience and or resistance to law during anticipated national protests. Law enforcement agents confiscated the HRDs’ laptops and cell phones. In similar fashion, Social Justice and Girls’ Rights advocate Farirai Gumbonzvanda was arrested upon arrival at the Harare airport on 21 May. Charged with the offence of subverting constitutional government as defined in section 22(2)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, all five persons remain in custody as their application for bail in the High Court of Zimbabwe has been postponed to 7th June 2019.
In related circumstances, Director of Female Prisoners Support Trust, Rita Nyamupinga and Stabile Dewa, Director of Women’s Academy for Leadership and Political Excellence were arrested on 28 May 2019 soon after they arrived at the Harare airport. They were taken to Harare Central Police Station without having an opportunity to consult their lawyers. Both women have also been charged with subverting constitutional government and have been remanded in custody since 29th May 2019 pending their bail hearing today.
May 24, 2019 | News
Following the decision of the Petropavlovsk Court to disbar Sergey Sizintsev the former Executive Director of the National Bar Association, the ICJ reiterates its concerns at the unjustified proceedings against him.
The ICJ calls on the relevant authorities to revise the decision to disbar Sizintsev, which is not issued in accordance with the law and may constitute retaliation for his open criticism of the problematic reform of the legal profession in Kazakhstan.
On 21 May, the Petropavlovsk City Court No. 2, in a hearing chaired by judge Larisa Krukova, approved the application of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan to revoke Sergey Sizintsev’s license to practice law.
The formal reason for the disbarment was that the lawyer practiced law while being the Executive Director of the Republican Bar Association from 2016 to 2018.
According to the complaint of the Ministry of justice, a member of the Bar Association was prohibited from “occupying a position in the public service or engaging in business activities or holding any other paid position” in accordance with article 33.11 of the “Law on Advocates Activity and Legal Aid”.
Sizintsev argued that the Ministry of Justice incorrectly interpreted the notion of “another paid position”, since the second sentence of the same article states that “A lawyer has the right to be elected to a paid elected or appointed position in the Bar Association, the Republican Bar Association and international public associations of lawyers”.
Also, the lawyer stated that he had previously addressed a request to the Ministry of justice asking about possibility of holding a position in the Bar Association and working as an advocate and the Ministry of justice in its official response stated that “Lawyers occupying elective or appointed posts in the territorial or Republican bar associations are not obliged to take any action to terminate their license to engage in advocacy, unless there are other grounds provided by law”.
It was also answered, “that in this connection, for the indicated reasons, the validity of the license for the right to engage in advocacy activity should not been suspended”. In addition, the Ministry of Justice previously voiced a similar position on its official web-portal in response to a request from another user.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that pressure on Sizintsev and other lawyers started after they had actively advocated against the law “On Advocates Activity and Legal Aid”, which attempted to interfere with the independence of the legal profession.
In that regard, the ICJ reiterates that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.
In particular, they have the right to take part in public discussion on matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights and to join or form local, national or international organizations and attend their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization. (Principle 23).
In cases of disciplinary action against lawyers, international standards provide that “[a]ll disciplinary proceedings shall be determined in accordance with the code of professional conduct and other recognised standards and ethics of the legal profession and in the light of [the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers]” (Principle29).
Therefore, the ICJ calls for the case to be reconsidered on appeal in accordance with the clear terms of Article 33.11 of the Law on Advocates Activity and Legal Aid, and in light of the rights of lawyers to exercise their freedom of expression and association including through participation in organisations of lawyers and through criticism of legislation affecting the profession.
The ICJ further calls on the Ministry of Justice to end pressure on the active members of the Bar Association for legitimate exercise of their rights and duties as lawyers in accordance with the national legislation and international human rights standards and law.
