Pakistan: blasphemy laws, military trials, and impunity (UN statement)

Pakistan: blasphemy laws, military trials, and impunity (UN statement)

The ICJ today delivered an oral statement at the UN calling on Pakistan to amend or repeal blasphemy laws, end military trials of civilians, and take effective measures against impunity.

The statement was delivered during the adoption of the Universal Period Review Outcome for Pakistan, at the UN Human Rights Council. It read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) regrets that Pakistan has not supported recommendations related to amending its blasphemy laws, ensuring its counter-terrorism measures are compatible with human rights, and combatting impunity for serious human rights violations.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are frequently misused; blatantly discriminate against minority religions and sects; infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression and religion; and give rise to serious fair trial concerns. The Government has failed to amend them in accordance with its international law obligations.

In January 2015, Pakistan empowered military courts to try people accused of terrorism-related offences. The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; and a very high number of convictions based on ‘confessions’ without adequate safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment.

The Government has also failed to take steps to combat impunity for serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture and other ill-treatment, which are facilitated by laws such as the Actions (in aid of civil power) Regulation and other national security legislation.

Despite repeated commitments to do so, Pakistan has also not enacted legislation to recognize torture or enforced disappearance as a distinct, autonomous offence in its penal code.

The ICJ therefore urges the Government to reconsider, accept and implement UPR recommendations to:

  1. Ensure that military courts have no jurisdiction over civilians, including for terrorism-related offences;
  2. Repeal or amend all blasphemy laws, in line with international standards; and
  3. Ensure all perpetrators of serious human rights violations – including enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings –are brought to justice.”

 

Video of the ICJ statement is available here:

 

Peru and the fight against impunity (UN Statement)

Peru and the fight against impunity (UN Statement)

The ICJ today spoke at the United Nations on impunity and the situation for human rights in Peru.

The oral statement was made during the discussion at the Human Rights Council of the Universal Periodic Review outcome for Peru. It read as follows (translation from the original Spanish):

“Mr President,

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recognizes the progress made by the Peruvian State in the field of human rights and its openness in relation to the recommendations made in the current cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.

The ICJ regrets, however, that the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the serious human rights violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict have not received the attention they deserve. On the contrary, the fight against impunity has receded with the granting of pardon and presidential grace to former president Alberto Fujimori who was serving a prison sentence for a series of crimes against humanity committed during his term. The presidential grace grants immunity from investigations and prosecutions in course or to be opened in the future.

One of the recommendations (111.97) that Peru accepts with qualifications refers to investigations and reparations to the thousands of women who suffered forced sterilization during the Fujimori administration. The measures of pardon and grace granted would exonerate Fujimori from investigation and punishment for this and other serious crimes. The ICJ urges the Peruvian State to implement the recommendations of the international community with full respect for international standards that prohibit impunity for serious violations of human rights.

Thank you Mr President.”

 

The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.

Tunisia: Specialized Criminal Chambers to hear enforced disappearance case, a first step towards accountability

Tunisia: Specialized Criminal Chambers to hear enforced disappearance case, a first step towards accountability

The ICJ today welcomed the first referral of allegations of gross human rights violations to the recently constituted Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) at the Tribunal of First Instance of Gabés.

On 2 March 2018, the Truth and Dignity Commission (“Instance Vérité et Dignité”, IVD) transferred a case concerning 14 suspects and the crime of enforced disappearance to the SCC, established to bring justice and accountability for the legacy of serious human violations allegedly committed in Tunisia from 1 July 1955 to 31 December 2013.

“The IVD’s decision is an important first step in the process of ensuring accountability and dismantling the structural impunity that has prevailed over cases of gross violations of human rights in Tunisia,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.

“We call on the responsible Tunisian authorities to fully support this process and remove the obstacles that continue to impede the IVD’s work, including by ensuring its full, rapid and unimpeded access to archives and to information related to the conduct of police and security forces under the former regime,” he added.

The ICJ also reiterated its previous call on the Tunisian authorities to remove the legal and practical obstacles that may hinder the SCC’s capacity to deliver justice effectively.

In two memos addressing the jurisdiction and the procedures to be applied by the SCC, the ICJ identified such obstacles and formulated recommendations for amendments and reform.

“The Government must reform the legal framework and procedures to be applied by the SCC so that they can effectively exercise their jurisdiction, establish the truth about past violations, hold those responsible to account, and deliver meaningful justice and reparation for victims,” Benarbia said.

Contact

Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org

Background

The SCC were formally established by Decree No. 2014-2887 of 8 August 2014 and have been set up within the Tribunals of First Instance of thirteen Courts of Appeal.

Under article 8 of the 2013 Transitional Justice Law, the SCC have jurisdiction over cases related to gross violations of human rights, as defined in international treaties applicable to Tunisia and in the provisions of the 2013 Law, involving “murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, enforced disappearances, and death penalty without fair trial guarantees”.

The 2013 Law attributes a leading role to the IVD with respect to how cases are brought before the SCC. According to article 42 of the 2013 Law, the IVD refers to the Office of the Public Prosecutor (OPP) “cases where gross human rights violations are proven”. As of 15 June 2016, the deadline for victims to submit files, the IVD has received over 60000 cases.

Tunisia-SSC disappearances-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)

Transitional justice, prevention, and the obstacle of impunity: the example of Nepal (UN Statement)

Transitional justice, prevention, and the obstacle of impunity: the example of Nepal (UN Statement)

The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on transitional justice, prevention and impunity, highlighting the continuing problem of impunity in Nepal.

The statement, which was made during a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remains deeply concerned by continuing impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world, which undermines the potential for transitional justice to contribute to prevention as outlined in the Joint Study (A/HRC/37/65).

For example, in Nepal, more than ten years after the civil war, political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability. There has been near absolute impunity for those responsible for serious crimes under international law.

Transitional justice mechanisms – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CoID) – have fallen short of international standards, both in their constitution and their operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to enforce the standards.

The Commissions’ deeply flawed mandates, among other problems, allow them to recommend amnesties for gross human rights violations. In addition, their non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.

The Government continues to flout its obligation, both pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders and under international law, to enact domestic legislation to criminalize serious crimes in accordance with international standards.

As highlighted by in the Joint study, turning a blind eye on past atrocities signals that some perpetrators are above the law, which further discredits State institutions and “breeds a (long-standing) culture of impunity in which atrocities may become ‘normalized’, rendering prevention significantly more difficult.” (para 43)

That, indeed, is the experience in Nepal: continuing impunity for gross human rights violations perpetrated during the conflict is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in the country. Ending impunity is essential to preventing further violations.”

Video of the statement is available here:

 

The delegation of Nepal exercised its right to reply later in the day. Its reply is here:

 

 

The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.

Nepal: justice proving elusive – human rights NGOs 

Nepal: justice proving elusive – human rights NGOs 

The one-year extensions of Nepal’s two transitional justice mechanisms without necessary legal and institutional reforms ordered by the Supreme Court and the UN are insufficient to comply with international standards, the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.

The three organizations warned that the mere extension of the terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) is likely to prolong the justice process without meaningfully improving the chances that victims will have their demands for justice, truth, and accountability met.

“The net worth of these two bodies has now been tested by the victims in Nepal who are deeply dismayed and disappointed at not having been served truth and justice—even after years of delay,” said Biraj Patnaik, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

On February 5, 2018, the Government of Nepal extended, for the second time, the mandates of the TRC and CIEDP by one year without taking any measures to ensure their credibility and human rights compliance, and to increase the capacity of the Commissions as demanded by victims, civil society groups, and the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC).

On the same day, the NHRC called on the government to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014, in line with international standards and the judgements of the Supreme Court of Nepal.

The TRC and CIEDP have fallen short of international standards, both in constitution and operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Among other flaws, the current legal framework allows for the possibility of amnesties and effective impunity for gross human rights violations amounting to grave crimes under international law, and the broad authority to facilitate reconciliation, including without the informed consent of the victims and their families.

In addition, a non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.

Where the Commissions have made efforts to work effectively, they face problems due to a lack of sufficient human and financial resources.

“Families and victims of Nepal’s decade-long civil war have waited far too long for answers, and cynical government attempts such as extending the mandate without broader reform as directed by the highest court is a further slap in the face,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“The two commissions have gathered a lot of documentation, but the authorities seem more committed to protecting perpetrators than ensuring justice in the process.”

Despite flaws in the law, and questions of legitimacy and capacity, victims and their families have given the benefit of the doubt to these bodies, and submitted thousands of complaints.

As of February 2018, the TRC has received 60,298 complaints of human rights violations, and the CIEDP has received 3,093 complaints of enforced disappearance.

Though the Commissions have stated that they have initiated investigations into some of these cases, there are serious concerns about the quality of these investigations, and to date, not a single case has been recommended for prosecution.

“Now a member of the UN Human Rights Council, the international community has high expectations of the government of Nepal,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Director of the International Commission of Jurists.

“It needs to commit to ensure that these institutions function independently and free from political interference, and in accordance with international standards that prohibit impunity for gross human rights violations. Merely extending their mandates without addressing the underlying problems is not adequate.”

Contacts

 Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org

Meenakshi, Ganguly, South Asia Director, Human Rights Watch, e: gangulm@hrw.org

Omar Waraich, Deputy Director, Amnesty International South Asia, t: +94 72 737 5467; e: omar.waraich@amnesty.org

Background

The TRC and CIEDP were established on 10 February 2015 through the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014.

The two-year mandates of the TRC and CIEDP expired on February 9, 2017.

The government extended the mandates for one year.

On 20 January 2018, the President approved an Ordinance extending the mandate of the two Commissions.

On the basis of the Ordinance, the Council of Ministers, on 5 February 2018, extended the mandates of these bodies for an additional year.

 

Translate »