Mar 21, 2019 | News
In a letter to Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Andrew Gilmour, the ICJ, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) call on the UN to address a clear case of intimidation and threat of reprisal by U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
In remarks to the press on 15 March 2019, Pompeo explicitly threatened to revoke or deny visas to International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel who attempt to investigate or prosecute alleged violations committed by American nationals or against citizens of U.S. allies.
The ASG is mandated to lead efforts within the UN system to end all intimidation and reprisals against those cooperating with the UN on human rights. In keeping with this mandate, the ACLU, ICJ and ISHR call on the ASG to take urgent action, including by publicly denouncing the comments, and urging U.S. representatives to refrain from adopting any legislation, policy or practice that has the effect of undermining unhindered access to and communication with the ICC and other international bodies.
The letter states that ‘The purpose of the visa restrictions is to block and deter legitimate criminal investigation into serious crimes under international law. Not only might they have a chilling effect on ICC personnel and others advocating for accountability, but they will set a dangerous precedent with serious implications on the overall fight for impunity, especially the right of victims and their legal representatives to seek justice and reparations without fear of retaliation.’
A similar communication has also been sent to three UN experts – the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The experts are similarly called on to publicly denounce the comments and send a formal communication to the U.S.
“The policy announced by Pompeo is part and parcel of a concerning attack by the current U.S. administration on multilateralism, international rule of law, and global and regional bodies mandated to monitor and investigate human rights violations and fight impunity,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
Pompeo’s announcement comes on the heels of threats made by U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton in a 10 September 2018 speech to the Federalist Society.
In that instance, Bolton explicitly threatened ICC judges, prosecutors, and personnel if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence forces in Afghanistan, as well as any company or state that assists the ICC.
“This is an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well-documented war crimes. It reeks of the very totalitarian practices that are characteristic of the worst human rights abusers, and is a blatant effort to intimidate and retaliate against judges, prosecutors, and advocates seeking justice for victims of serious human rights abuses,” said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program.
The letter cites Human Rights Council Resolution 36/21 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which reaffirm the right of everyone, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies.
“This latest attack by the US demands the strongest response from the UN, which until now has remained silent on the US’ bullying of the ICC,” said Madeleine Sinclair, Legal Counsel and New York Director of ISHR.
“Pompeo’s threats are a blatant violation of the right to cooperate with the ICC, undermine the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility, and amount to an attack on the international system itself,” she added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, International Commission of Jurists, e: sam.zarifi@icj.org ; t: +41 22 979 38 00
Abdullah Hasan, American Civil Liberties Union, e: ahasan@aclu.org, t: +1-646-905-8879
Madeleine Sinclair, International Service for Human Rights, e: m.sinclair@ishr.ch, t: +1-917-544-6148
Mar 19, 2019 | News
The ICJ in partnership with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) convened a two day training workshop to build the capacity of Chief prosecutors and Senior management to effectively investigate corruption cases.
The training workshop took place at the Wild Geese Lodge, Harare on 18 – 19 March 2019.
The new government under President Mnangagwa, saw a shift in government priorities evidence of this is the launch of the Transitional Stabilisation Programme in October 2018. The Transitional Programme seeks to propel the country towards stabilisation and economic development as well eradicate corruption.
Through this programme, the government has established institutions to deal with corruption, this has seen the establishment of Special Anti-Corruption Courts, which has resulted in an increase in high level arrests on corruption charges. Additionally a new Anti-Corruption Prosecution Unit was established within the Office of the President and Cabinet to improve efficiency in the fight against all forms of graft and to strengthen the effectiveness of national mechanisms for the prevention of corruption.
This anti-corruption training workshop therefore becomes relevant in the government’s fight against corruption. The main objective of the workshop is to enhance the capability of prosecutors to handle corruption cases effectively.
Presentations focused on understanding corrupt practices; defining white collar crime and financial crimes in Zimbabwe; domestic, regional and international framework on corruption; seizure, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of corruption; and the practical steps to combatting corruption. It is hoped that at the end of the two day meeting, prosecutors will effectively implement legal frameworks and policies in the prosecution of corruption cases.
Prosecutor General Hon K. Hodzi in his opening speech remarked that the NPA is proud of their partnership with the ICJ in their fight against corruption. He was grateful for the continued support from the ICJ. The Prosecutor General noted that corruption is a lived experienced by everyone in this country because it has direct impact on the socio-economic welfare of the people of Zimbabwe. He noted that this was an important workshop which would serve as a toolkit that would help renew the NPA’s approach to in the prosecution of corruption in this country.
The Prosecutor General hoped that the workshop would enable the prosecutors to share knowledge and experience as well meaningful discourse bordering around challenges in the prosecution of corruption cases. This approach would enable the NPA to contribute to effectively eliminating corruption in the improvement of justice in Zimbabwe. He urged prosecutors to show that corruption does not pay and can be defeated.
Present at the training workshop was the Prosecutor General of NPA, senior prosecutors and senior management, representatives from the Judicial Service Commission, Solomon Mhlanga from Office of the President and Cabinet, Mr. Shana from the Judicial College of Zimbabwe, Mr. Zowa from the Law Development Commission representatives from Transparency International Zimbabwe, and representatives from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. There were a total of 45 (forty-five) delegates; 29 (twenty-nine) male and 16 (sixteen) female delegates.
Contact:
Brian Penduka, e: brian.penduka(a)icj.org, t: +263772274307
Vimbai Mutandwa, e: vimbai.mutandwa(a)icj.org, t: +263773517733
Mar 7, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ is proud to join in presenting the documentary film The Long Haul, to be screened during the UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva.
Inspired by the life of the late Nigel Rodley—one of the principal architects of the modern human rights framework— the documentary The Long Haul addresses the current backlash on human rights and how best to respond.
Sir Nigel’s remarkable life story is an inspiration to stand up against wrongdoing and to continue fighting for equality and justice. At the same time, his family history is a reminder of the WWII tragedies that gave birth to the modern human rights regime and what could happen if we fail to honour these basic rights.
Nigel Rodley dedicated his career to the protection of those most at risk, including as Amnesty International’s first legal adviser and later as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as then as a member and eventually Chair of the Human Rights Committee. He had a longstanding association with the ICJ as Commissioner and in other roles, and was President of the ICJ at the time he passed away.
The film will be screened at a side event to the UN Human Rights Council session, at 13h00 on Thursday 7 March, in Room XIV (UN Cinema) of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Access is available only to those who already hold grounds passes for the UN in Geneva, or accreditation for the Council session.
The event is organised by the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom in Geneva, with participation of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Amnesty International, the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), and International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).
For more information contact un(a)icj.org
A flyer for the event can be downloaded in PDF format here: Events-NigelRodleyFilm-2019-En
Mar 7, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ joined a list of 77 civil society organizations to call on relevant authorities in Myanmar to drop spurious charges against journalist Ko Swe Win, to decriminalize defamation, and to release human rights defenders currently imprisoned under repressive criminal defamation laws.
The statement reads:
On the second anniversary of the defamation charges brought upon Ko Swe Win, editor at online newspaper Myanmar Now, we, the undersigned 77 civil society organisations, call on the relevant authorities to drop the case against him. Spurious defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law were filed against him on 7 March 2017 by ultranationalists intent on suppressing free speech. The Government of Myanmar must take concrete steps in parliament to decriminalise defamation, repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law and drop the charges and release all activists and human rights defenders currently in prison and being charged under this repressive legislation.
Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law of 2013 was amended in 2017, but notably, defamation is still criminalised and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kyat or both. The law is still frequently used to stifle free speech in Myanmar and silence critics. To date, a reported 173 cases have been filed under Article 66(d) since its enactment.
The UN Human Rights Committee has called on all states to decriminalise defamation, indicating that imprisonment for defamation is a penalty that can never be appropriate or compatible with the right to freedom of expression. In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that defamation should be treated as a matter of civil rather than criminal law, stressing that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. In the case of Article 66(d), Myanmar law allows for agents of the offended party to file charges for defamation and initiate criminal proceedings on their behalf. In effect, this means that powerful organisations and individuals can operate via proxies to target those that they consider disturbing, a form of judicial harassment with severe implications for the individuals who are accused.
Ko Swe Win was charged with defamation under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law for sharing a story by Myanmar Now on Facebook. The story quoted a senior monk who said that well-known ultranationalist monk U Wirathu’s actions could be cause for him to be expelled from the monkhood as they violated the tenets of Buddhism. U Wirathu, notorious for using Facebook to agitate against Muslims, had previously expressed support for and thanked U Kyi Lin – the recently convicted gunman who shot and killed prominent lawyer U Ko Ni in January 2017. U Ko Ni was an expert on constitutional law and was working to change the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The plaintiff, a follower of U Wirathu, brought the charges in March 2017 and the court proceedings started in July 2017.
Since then, Ko Swe Win has had to travel regularly to the courthouse in Mandalay, where the charge was filed, from his home in Yangon and back – a distance of over 1,200 kilometres. The court hearings, now totaling 55, have been ongoing for almost two years, but the court has still only heard the plaintiff’s side, which has consistently been stalling the process. On some occasions, Ko Swe Win has travelled from Yangon only to find that the plaintiff or witnesses have failed to appear in court and that the proceedings have been postponed. The plaintiff himself was arrested in August 2017 and has since been detained, which has caused significant delays to the process.
U Wirathu has been summoned twice but failed to appear. On the first occasion, his lawyer informed the court that U Wirathu could not make the hearing because he was attending a donation ceremony. On the second occasion, U Wirathu’s lawyer requested that the hearing be held at his monastery compound. That request was denied by the township court, but U Wirathu appealed to the higher district court, which also denied the request. While the district court considered the request, no hearings could be held in the township court. Ko Swe Win however, was still required to make an appearance every two weeks before the township court judge just to be informed of the next date he was due to appear in court. This procedure, which required him to travel from Yangon to Mandalay, was typically over in a matter of minutes.
The many irregularities of this case highlight the lack of independence of the Myanmar judiciary. It appears that the authorities are determined to target those that are working to expose troubling truths and terrible crimes, rather than those who commit them. Those responsible for spreading dangerous speech and inciting violence face no consequences, while those who criticise such dangerous actions continue to be prosecuted. In a recent parallel case, also fraught with controversies, two Reuters reporters – Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo – were convicted to seven years in prison for exposing a mass killing of Rohingya men and boys carried out by the Myanmar military in northern Rakhine State.
In Myanmar, high-ranking military commanders, some of whom are accused by UN investigators for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide, remain at large, while journalists who expose the truth and report on human rights violations in the country are charged under repressive laws. This inverted idea of justice needs to come to an end if Myanmar is to continue its path towards democracy.
As long as Article 66(d) remains, people in Myanmar, especially those who criticise powerful individuals, officials and government policies online, will be at risk of being imprisoned for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
In light of the above, we call on the Government of Myanmar and its relevant authorities to:
- Drop the defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law against Ko Swe Win and other activists and human rights defenders and release those currently imprisoned under this repressive legislation;
- Repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, or at a very minimum, amend it to ensure that:
- defamation is no longer criminalised by deleting references to “defamation” as well as vague language such as “disturbing”;
- only a government prosecutor can file a criminal complaint under Article 66(d);
- where recognisably criminal acts such as “extortion” and “threats” occur in the law they are clearly and narrowly defined in line with international human rights law, to ensure it is not used to criminalise the peaceful expression of views.
Download
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-BUR (full statement in Burmese, PDF)
Mar 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a joint oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures to repress human rights defenders and other civil society actors, and highlighting deep concerns about possible moves to allow Egypt a significant role over the UN’s independent expert on human rights and counter-terrorism.
The statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The ICJ made the statement jointly on behalf of Amnesty International, Article 19, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Privacy International.
The organisations had earlier sent a joint letter to all States’ delegations to the Council in Geneva, highlighting Egypts appalling record of abuse of counter-terrorism measures, and urging States to strongly oppose any attempts to weaken the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, whether by diluting or distorting it by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the Mexican-led resolution for its renewal, or any moves by longstanding leader Mexico to share co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with Egypt or other States with such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
The joint oral statement to the Council read as follows (check against delivery):
“Madame Special Rapporteur,
Our organizations welcome your report on the impacts of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures against civil society and human rights defenders (A/HRC/40/52).
We strongly concur with your findings regarding the deliberate and targeted abuse of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism and violent extremism to criminalize and otherwise suppress human rights defenders and other civil society actors. We also appreciate your highlighting the need to prevent indirect impacts on civil society.
Among those States with a particularly appalling record of deliberate and targeted abuse, Egypt, which is mentioned in your report (paras 53 and 56), is a prominent example. As Human Rights Watch recently stated: “Using counterterrorism as a guise to crush all forms of dissent could be Egypt’s hallmark of 2018… There’s simply not much room left to peacefully challenge the government without being detained and unfairly prosecuted as a ‘terrorist’.”[1] Other examples from the reports before the Council include Turkey (para 53), Saudi Arabia (A/HRC/40/52/Add.2 paras 21-29), and China particularly as regards Uyghurs and Kazakhs (paras 55 and 57).
We share your concern about the elements lost from the previous Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” in their March 2018 merger with the deeply flawed Egyptian-led initiative on “effects of terrorism” (para 29). We reiterate our call from March 2018 for future versions of the resolution to address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.[2] We strongly oppose any attempts to dilute your mandate, including by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the resolution for its renewal, or any sharing of co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with States that have such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
Madame Rapporteur, beyond the particular cases mentioned in your report (para 53), what are your views on the broader situation within Egypt in terms of abuse of counter-terrorism measures and what can States, the United Nations, civil society, and other stakeholders do to stop such abuses in the name of counter-terrorism in Egypt and other egregious situations?
Thank you.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/egypt-new-moves-crush-dissent (17 January 2019). See also among others: Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/egypt; EuroMed Rights, Egypt – Finding Scapegoats: Crackdown on Human Rights Defenders and Freedoms in the Name of Counter-terrorism and Security (Feb 2018) https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EuroMed-Rights-Report-on-Counter-terrorism-and-Human-Rights.pdf; Joint NGO Statement, Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat (23 June 2016) https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Egypt-Advocacy-JointNGOStatement-2016.pdf.
[2] Joint NGO end-of-session statement (23 March 2018) https://www.icj.org/hrc37-endofsession/.”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-JointOralStatement-SRCTHR-2019-EN
For more information email un(a)icj.org.
