Jun 20, 2017 | News
The Martin Ennals Foundation and the ten human rights organizations that make up the jury of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA), including the ICJ, today renewed their appeal to the UAE government to release immediately and unconditionally Ahmed Mansoor.
Ahmed Mansoor is the last remaining human rights defender in the UAE who had previously been able to criticize the authorities publicly, they say.
Ahmed Mansoor received the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015.
Three months ago today, in the pre-dawn hours of 20 March about a dozen security officers arrested Ahmed Mansoor at his home in Ajman, about 150 kilometres northeast of Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE.
“We urge the UAE government to end the incomprehensible three-month imprisonment of Ahmed Mansoor. This is really about the UAE failing to respect basic principles of justice,” said Dick Oosting, Chairperson of the MEA Board.
“The purported case against Ahmed Mansoor beggars belief. States have the duty to bring to justice those whom they suspect of having committed criminal offenses,” he added.
“Yet what is clear is that the UAE authorities have arbitrarily deprived him of liberty and taken him away from his family for peacefully exercising his human right to freedom of expression. The three-month lapse and total lack of transparency indicates, likewise, that the authorities merely wanted to silence him,” he further said.
On 20 March, the UAE authorities stated that Ahmed Mansoor was accused of using social media websites, including to “publish false and misleading information that harm national unity and social harmony and damage the country’s reputation,” under the UAE’s repressive 2012 Cybercrime Law, which authorities have used to imprison numerous human rights activists and which provides for long prison sentences and severe financial penalties.
On 28 March, a group of United Nations human rights experts called on the UAE government to release him immediately, describing his arrest as “a direct attack on the legitimate work of human rights defenders in the UAE.” They expressed their fear that his arrest “may constitute an act of reprisal for his engagement with UN human rights mechanisms, for the views he expressed on social media, including Twitter, as well as for being an active member of organizations such as the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, and an active supporter of others, including Human Rights Watch.”
The next day, the UAE authorities responded directly to the statement, disputing the allegation that Ahmed Mansoor’s detention was arbitrary, and stating that he “has the freedom to hire a lawyer and that his family has full access to the place of confinement and is allowed to visit him.”
The government has detained Ahmed Mansoor in Abu Dhabi.
It is too far from his home for regular visits from his family, who have only been able to see him once in the last three months.
The authorities appear determined to isolate Ahmed Mansoor from his own family.
Despite government assertions that he is able to do so, it appears that he has not been able to appoint an independent lawyer of his own choosing.
This is a necessary component of the right to a fair trial.
The right to see a lawyer is a basic right of anyone detained as outlined in article 16 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which the UAE has ratified.
The ten human rights organizations that make up the jury of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders reiterate their call to the UAE authorities to release Ahmed Mansoor immediately and unconditionally, since the charges against him relate solely to his human rights work and his right to freedom of expression.
In the meantime, he should be granted immediate and regular access to his family and a lawyer of his choosing. The UAE must end their harassment of human rights defenders and critics of the authorities.
Signatories
Organizations forming the jury of the Martin Ennals Award:
Agency for Diakonia and Development, Germany
Amnesty International
FIDH
Front Line Defenders
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Service for Human Rights
HURIDOCS
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
May 31, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to act immediately to repeal the law on civic associations.
The law was adopted by Egypt’s Parliament on 15 November 2016 and signed into law by President El-Sisi on 29 May 2017.
Until the law is repealed, the authorities should desist from enforcing it, the ICJ says.
The law effectively prohibits most Egyptian human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from registering and working in Egypt, stipulating that civic associations’ work shall take place in the fields of development and social welfare consistent with “the State’s plans and its developmental needs and priorities.”
Egyptian and international NGOs are also forbidden to advocate against any law or its implementation, as well as to carry out “political activities” or any that “harm national security, public order, public morals or public health.”
They are prohibited from conducting public surveys, research or reports without permission and approval of the results of such work must be given by the authorities prior to publication (articles 14, 87).
The law also provides for an entity to be formed by presidential decree from representatives of three security bodies, which will decide on all matters related to NGO funding, the registration and issues relating to the work of international NGOs, and cooperation between Egyptian associations and any foreign body.
“The law on civic associations, if implemented in its present form, would be tantamount to an official death certificate of independent civil society in Egypt,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Director.
“By signing it into law, President El-Sisi is silencing the very organizations that could act as a check on the abusive and arbitrary exercise of his power,” he added.
The adoption of this repressive law is just the latest measure in a sustained, relentless campaign by Egypt’s military and executive authorities aimed at dismantling Egyptian civil society through highly politicized judicial proceedings and arbitrary travel bans against NGOs and human rights defenders.
For instance, the foreign funding case taken against NGOs (no. 173/2011) saw leading Egyptian human rights organizations, such as the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) and the Hicham Mubrak Law Center (HMLC), subject to arbitrary investigations.
The grounds included “receiving funds to harm national interests and destroy the basic foundations of the state (the army, police, and judiciary),” “establishing an entity operating as a civic association without official registration,” and “income tax evasion.”
Four of these organizations and six NGO directors/board members have been subjected to asset freezes.
In the last two months, many NGO staff and directors have been summoned for interrogation by investigative judges, including ICJ partners Mustapha El-Hassan, Director of HMLC, Gamel Eid, Founder and Director of ANHRI, and Mohamed Zaree, CIHRS’ Programme Director and short-listed candidate for the Martin Ennals Award 2017.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian authorities have used the justice system as a repressive tool in their efforts to silence many of those suspected of opposing them.
“Egyptian authorities must comply with their obligations under international law and put an immediate end to their campaign to silence human rights defenders and NGOs. A first step in that direction would be the immediate repeal of the law on civic associations,” Benarbia said.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 17: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-NGO Law-News-Press release-ARA (Press release in Arabic, PDF)
May 25, 2017 | News, Op-eds
An opinion editorial by Daniel Aguirre, ICJ Legal Adviser in Myanmar.
Burma’s 2016 Investment Law and the implementing Investment Rules issued in April 2017 create space for the government and civil society to facilitate responsible investment and exclude investors that have track records of environmental destruction and human rights abuses.
This means that affected individuals and communities must now test Burma’s commitment to the rule of law.
There are new opportunities for civil society to use law to hold them accountable. In this regard, both international law and Burma’s constitution guarantee access to justice for rights abuses.
The Investment Rules instruct the Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) to consider whether investors have demonstrated a commitment to responsible investment. In considering the good character and reputation of the investor, the MIC may study whether the investor or any associate with an interest in the investment broke the law in Burma or any other jurisdiction.
The rules explicitly mention environmental, labor, tax, anti-bribery and corruption or human rights law.
What this means is that if an investor is determined to have committed a crime, has violated environmental protection standards or was involved with human rights abuses, the MIC should not grant it a permit.
If such a company applies for an investment permit, civil society should bring its record to the attention of the MIC and advocate for the rejection of a permit.
Successive governments in Burma have focused on increased investment to develop the country and improve its people’s standard of living.
At the same time, human rights and environment proponents from civil society have opposed many investment projects, citing the impact on the environment and human rights of local communities.
They complain that land rights are not adequately protected, that environmental impact assessments are not implemented and that they lack access to justice for corporate human rights abuses.
There are challenges to using the law to protect human rights in Burma.
Disputes related to business activity are often considered sensitive political matters in which the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene.
They are reluctant to review crucial decisions of administrative bodies or to hold rights abusers accountable.
But community activists, human rights defenders and lawyers have increased opportunities to pressure the courts to apply the law and should do so.
Lawyers have an important role in protecting human rights by representing local communities.
Courts must become a venue to challenge administrative decisions that allow for irresponsible investment that does not comply with national law, and where appropriate, obtain remedies and reparations for victims of human rights violations.
The Investment Law and its rules, which govern both local and foreign investment except within special economic zones, provide legal guarantees for investors to access information and protections against expropriation including compensation and access to due process if changes in regulation affect their business.
Investors can also access long-term rights to use land.
Civil society should help to ensure that only responsible investors benefit from these protections.
According to the law, the MIC is the gatekeeper that issues permits and endorsements for many would-be national and international investments likely to cause a large impact on the environment and local community.
In order to ensure that the protective aspects of the law are effective, courts must have some power of review, at least to ensure that administrative bodies, such as the MIC, are acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, while respecting and protecting human rights.
If the MIC grants permits for companies that do not meet the requirements outlined in the Investment Rules, their decisions must be subject to review by the judiciary.
Burma’s courts have the authority to review administrative decisions, particularly through the application of constitutional writs.
Lawyers can use the writs of mandamus and certiorari to secure the performance of public duties and quash an illegal order already passed by public bodies such as the MIC.
This would help ensure the MIC uses its mandate to prevent irresponsible investment.
Likewise, investors that fail to respect human rights or unlawfully cause damage to the environment must be held accountable; but there are few options to do so in Burma.
Criminal prosecutions against companies, actions imposing administrative sanctions, and civil suits face a variety of procedural hurdles, particularly if involving joint ventures with state run enterprises.
For example, a negligence civil suit brought by villagers against the Heinda tin mine in Dawei District was unsuccessful because the 1909 Limitations Act demands complaints to be brought within one year of damage.
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code requires prior notice and the names of plaintiffs to be given to the government two months before filing a suit against the government and allows small procedural defects to preclude a claim.
Lawyers are sometimes unfamiliar with these procedures and communities are reluctant to put their names to such cases fearing reprisals.
Clearly there are significant challenges to ensuring that investment in Burma does not adversely affect human rights.
To overcome these, civil society and lawyers must engage the administration—the MIC—to ensure only responsible investments is permitted and start to use the judiciary to review its actions.
Likewise, cases must continue to be taken against investors that abuse human rights and harm the environment.
Powerful investors must be constrained by the confines of the law, including human rights law.
Unless civil society and lawyers can use the legal framework to address these concerns, Burma’s judicial system is unlikely to develop; lawyers will not gain valuable experience and the public will remain distrustful.
The process is long and arduous but necessary to protect human rights and the environment from irresponsible investment.
May 6, 2017 | News
The programme, launched today in Niamey, Niger, aims to enhance the capacity of civil society organizations to use AU mechanisms for human rights protection and promotion.
The three-year Africa-wide project on Consolidating Civil Society’s Role in the Transition from African Human Rights Standards to Practice is run by the ICJ, together with the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and the ICJ-Kenya Section.
The programme increases awareness of people in Africa about the AU human rights mechanisms for human rights implementation and compliance. It is directed at both national and community levels.
A further objective of the project is to strengthen national and regional responses to displaced persons and other groups at risk, including women and children.
The project will also provide an opportunity to human rights defenders, CSOs and journalists, who ordinarily have no means to access and attend the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to do so in order to increase their involvement in the AU human rights system and will provide advocacy and litigation support to them.
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme, noted that the African Union (AU) has developed an impressive body human rights law and standards.
He observed, however, that “one of the missing links is that of implementation and that unless human rights are effectively implemented, they may just remain standards on paper.”
The launch took place in the plenary of the NGO Forum preceding the 60th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).
Participants in the Forum strongly welcomed the opportunities that the project will create and many indicated that they would take advantage of the opportunity to broaden participation in the African human rights mechanisms.
The programme is supported by the European Union, which was represented at the launch by Mr. Basile Sallustio, Attaché to the Délégation in Niger.
Apr 28, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Honorary Member of the ICJ, Asma Jahangir, talks of her experiences as part of the ICJ’s ongoing profile series on women human rights defenders.
Asma Jahangir became interested in human rights legal work after having witnessed the frequent arrests of her father, an outspoken critic of military dictatorships, and seeing the courtroom as a place where justice could be accessed. From these early experiences, Asma identified the importance of rule of law but came to understand that this was something that went far beyond the courtrooms of Pakistan.
As a married women, her in-laws had concerns about her practicing law in a mixed firm so she co-founded Pakistan’s first all-female law firm. Initially the firm was viewed as a hobby but Asma and her other co-founders persevered and the firm still thrives today.
Ms Jahangir spoke about the challenges she faced as a female lawyer where courts and judges were at first patronizing towards her and then became angry at her as she continued to present them with cases that were challenging for them. She worked on a number of landmark cases including about whether women could get married without their fathers’ permission, be entitled to family maintenance and whether women should be judged according to religious or codified law.
Women in Pakistan face many issues in accessing justice, Ms Jahangir said. They lack resources, if they are able to access the courts they are frequently exploited by male lawyers and they encounter prejudice in their cases. In addition many laws are simply discriminatory, however women have been challenging these and will continue to do so.
There has been progress in family law in Pakistan, particularly in relation to the procedures if not the substance, yet Pakistan remains a long way from having equality in the family law framework.
Asma noted that it can be hard to engage men in women’s rights issues but commented that many men who had not considered giving certain rights to their wives had become a lot more conscious about women’s rights issues as their daughters had grown up. Many of her colleagues now ask for internships for their daughters at her law firm and admit how narrow-minded they had previously been in relation to women’s rights and equality.
From 2004 to 2010, Ms Jahangir served as the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and explained that she worked with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to address the delicate balance in managing freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is currently under threat around the world, Asma commented, and is being undermined in the name of a variety of reasons including security, religion and tradition or social norms. Asma said that freedom of expression is fundamental to basic human rights because stopping freedom of expression stops people from thinking.
“Self-censorship is a by-product of undermining freedom of expression and self-censorship by itself dis-informs people, brings out irrelevant issues, and suppresses the more relevant issues.”
Ms Jahangir told the ICJ that in the course of her work as a human rights activist she has been threatened, put under house arrest and imprisoned. However, rather than deterring her, Asma’s experience in jail made her stronger: “It made every woman who went to jail stronger and more resolute that we want rights.”
There was a particular case that had a strong impact on Asma, which was when she worked in defence of a child who had been accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death. The initial verdict against the boy knocked her confidence as a lawyer, but senior colleagues encouraged her and she continued with the case, taking this to appeal.
This was a very contentious case that attracted a lot of negative attention against Ms Jahanagir. People claimed she was anti-Muslim and, as she argued for the defendant, crowds gathered outside the court calling for her execution. At one point opposing lawyers asked the judges if they could simply close the case but the judges said that if Asma was prepared to keep arguing they were prepared to hear her arguments.
Asma explained that she was inspired to continue by the defendant himself, a boy of around 14 years of age, who, when given the opportunity to run away whilst on bail, decided to stay and continue the trial rather than risk others being harmed in retaliation if he were to flee. She felt that even if she had to give her life to defend this child then it would be worth it. Ultimately the case was decided in the boy’s favour and he was acquitted.
She advised young women interested in a career as a human rights lawyer not to label themselves as ‘human rights lawyers’ rather than simply ‘lawyers’ or they will not be taken seriously. Asma said that “I think that life where you don’t have dignity and where you don’t fight for people’s dignity is a wasted life.”
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
