Mar 5, 2015 | News
The ICJ calls for the prompt and thorough investigation into the killing of Gilles Cistac, a prominent academic and human rights defender.
Gilles Cistac served as a Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane in Mozambique.
His death, at the hands as of yet un-indentified gunmen in Maputo, Mozambique, on Tuesday 3 March 2015, follows his involvement in the debates on the sensitive issues of decentralization of power and establishment of autonomous provinces in Mozambique.
It is also reported that he was the subject of recent attacks on social media by a person who used a pseudonym and called Gilles Cistac a spy and a traitor, and accused him, along with others, of subverting the country.
“Demonstrating its commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights, which were central to Gilles Cistac’s work, the government must fulfill its obligation to investigate the killing of Professor Cistac, promptly and effectively, and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice in fair proceedings,” said Arnold Tsunga the Africa Director of the ICJ.
These obligations arise as part of the government’s duty to protect the right to life including under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international human rights treaties to which Mozambique is a party.
The government must also take steps to ensure protection of those, including human rights defenders, who exercise their right to freedom of expression.
Arnold Tsunga also called on the authorities in Mozambique to heed the message of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Human rights defenders are not violent seditionists, criminals, nor bloody revolutionaries, as so many governments like to portray them. They are the best of us, all of us. And they have a message. (…) Understand the message, talk to them about it, be persuaded or persuade, without violence, instead of silencing them, punishing them, their families, and their communities.”
The ICJ will continue to monitor is the investigation of this deadly attack as part work to promote enhanced respect for human rights and in defence of human rights defenders.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, t +27 716 405 926 ; e arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Mar 2, 2015 | Events
A major side event at the Human Rights Council, featuring current and former UN Special Rapporteurs together with human rights defenders from Swaziland and Zimbabwe, will discuss national security and human rights defenders, on 10 March.
The ICJ joins Article 19, FIDH, ISHR, and OMCT, in supporting the side event.
The panel discussion will feature:
- Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
- Tanele Maseko, campaigner for the release of her detained husband, Swaziland lawyer Thulani Maseko (pictured – see recent submission on his case here)
- Jimena Reyes, Director of Americas Desk, FIDH
- Hina Jilani, Pakistani human rights lawyer and former UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders (and member of the ICJ Executive Committee)
- Roselyn Hanzi, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
- Gerald Staberock, Director, World Organisation against Torture
The side event will take place Tuesday, 10 March, from 15h00 to 16h30, at Palais des Nations, Geneva, Room XI.
Feb 19, 2015 | News
The ICJ and other rights groups welcome the decision Africa’s main human rights treaty body has made which recognizes Sudan’s obligation to protect human rights defenders and to ensure that their work promoting and protecting the rights of others is not hindered or frustrated.
The ICJ, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) and REDRESS hail the important decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), published on 13 February 2015, which called on Sudan to effectively investigate and prosecute the security and intelligence officers alleged to be responsible for the arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment of three prominent human rights defenders; to reopen and unfreeze the bank accounts of a human rights organization shut down in connection with the case and to pay them compensation.
Human rights defenders Monim Elgak, Amir Suliman and the late Osman Hummaida were targeted for their supposed cooperation with the International Criminal Court in a pending case against the President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir (photo) arising from international crimes committed in Sudan’s Darfur region.
The three human rights defenders were arrested on 24 November 2008 by Sudan’s National and Intelligence Services (NISS) and subjected to torture and ill-treatment for three days.
After their release, they were effectively forced to flee Sudan because of their fear of further persecution, given the impunity enjoyed by the security and intelligence services and the inaction of the Sudanese government.
Suliman was Director of the Khartoum Centre for Human Rights and Environmental Development (KCHRED), which in 2009 was shut down by the Sudanese authorities and had its bank accounts frozen.
Hummaida, an ardent advocate for human rights who founded the Khartoum Centre and set up the ACJPS in Uganda, after his release, to ensure continued reporting of the human rights situation in Sudan, died in 2014.
The complainants turned to the ACHPR in 2009. The Commission found their complaint admissible in 2012, agreeing that the Sudanese justice system prevented them from obtaining redress in Sudan.
OMCT and FIDH intervened on their behalf at the ACHPR and the complaint was supported by the ICJ, ACJPS and REDRESS.
Reacting to the decision, Amir Suliman, Legal Programme Coordinator of ACJPS and complainant in the case, said: “The African Commission’s decision is an important recognition of the harm caused not only in our own case but the daily harm caused to the Sudanese people through the actions of the security and intelligence services. It also highlights the lack of effective safeguards against torture and remedies for victims.”
Monim El Jak, complainant in the case and Acting Chairperson of the Commission for the Protection of Civilian and Human Rights in the conflict zones of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, said: “We hope this decision will make the Sudanese government stop and reflect on its ongoing crackdown on civil society groups and human rights activists and also helps to put an end to other human rights violations.”
The UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration establishes that states must take effective measures to facilitate the work of human rights defenders and protect their rights.
Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General, added: “The ruling sends a powerful message against torture and for the protection of those who fight torture and impunity in Sudan and in Africa. Sudan has now to fully implement and comply with this ruling providing reparations. It is time for all to recognize the vital role human rights and anti-torture activists play for the benefit of their societies.”
Karim Lahidji, the FIDH President, said: “The decision of the African Commission is significant and comes in a context where Sudanese human rights defenders continue to work in an environment that is marked by extreme insecurity and rampant impunity. Sudan must ensure that reprisals against those advocating for justice and fundamental rights and freedoms are no longer tolerated and unpunished.”
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director, said: “The Government of Sudan must now expeditiously comply with the findings of the African Commission to provide reparation to the victims, as well as to ensure guarantees of non-repetition.”
Lutz Oette, REDRESS Counsel, added: “Human rights defenders continue to be harassed, arbitrarily arrested, detained, and prosecuted in Sudan, or driven into exile. The African Commission’s decision is a timely reminder of Sudan’s obligations to protect human rights defenders, and to put a stop to its current practice.”
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director, t +27 73 131 8411, e arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Dec 13, 2014 | News
The ICJ condemned decision of the People’s Supreme Court on 12 December 2014 affirming the unfair convictions of human rights defenders Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh respectively to three, two-and-a half and two years imprisonment.
Nov 27, 2014 | News
The ICJ today strongly condemned the decision by Prime Minister Najib Razak to retain and even strengthen the country’s 1948 Sedition Act despite having made a commitment in 2012 to repeal the Act.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed its concern that the Sedition Act has been used to stifle and criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression and to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, among others.
The ICJ considers the Act as it stands to be incompatible with international human rights standards and to be made still more repugnant by the politically loaded manner in which it is typically applied.
In early September, the ICJ denounced the use of sedition against two members of the legal profession, Dr. Azmi Sharom (photo) and N. Surendran for commenting on questions of law and public policy.
On 20 September 2014, Edmund Bon a prominent human rights and constitutional lawyer, was questioned by the police regarding comments made in a based on the decision of a Malaysian Federal Court.
On 30 September 2014, Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari, a law professor at the University of Selangor, was summoned for a police interview over comments made about the selection process of the new Chief Minister by the Sultan of Selangor.
Background:
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
