May 13, 2016 | News
Nepal’s leading political parties should not bargain away justice for victims of serious human rights abuses as part of an agreement to form a new coalition government, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International said today.
A new agreement between the ruling parties threatens to entrench impunity for those who planned and carried out killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and other crimes in Nepal’s civil war, just as the country’s long delayed transitional justice process is finally about to get under way.
On May 5, 2016, presumably in a bid to retain the support of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) for the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) coalition government of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, the two ruling coalition partners agreed to a nine-point deal containing provisions that aim to shield perpetrators of abuses in Nepal’s decade-long civil war.
Provision 7, which directs the authorities to withdraw all wartime cases before the courts and to provide amnesty to alleged perpetrators, is particularly problematic.
“This political deal between the ruling parties is extremely damaging to the credibility of an already deeply politicized and flawed transitional justice process in the eyes of Nepal’s victims,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“Moreover, it flies in the face of Nepal’s international human rights obligations and the rulings of its own Supreme Court by trying to wash away the crimes of the conflict by attempting to coopt pending criminal cases and provide blanket amnesty to alleged perpetrators,” he added.
The Supreme Court of Nepal has in several instances reaffirmed the principle under international law that amnesties are impermissible for serious international crimes.
However, Nepal authorities have consistently ignored the orders from the country’s highest court.
Nepal has an obligation under international law to investigate and, where sufficient evidence exists, prosecute crimes under international law, including torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both treaties to which Nepal is a party – require states to ensure the right to an effective remedy and reparation for victims of human rights violations.
“The political deal by the ruling parties to grant amnesty to those responsible for conflict-era human rights abuses is a callous attempt to disregard Nepal’s international treaty obligations by violating victims’ right to an effective remedy,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Nepal’s political deal jeopardizes the war victims’ last best hope for justice and accountability.”
The applicability of this international obligation under Nepali law was reaffirmed by the Nepal Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in the Suman Adhikari case, striking down provisions of the Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014 (TRC Act) that it ruled were inconsistent with international law and ordering the government to amend the TRC Act, the May 2014 legislation creating the two transitional justice mechanisms, the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (COID) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The Supreme Court ruled in the same decision that criminal cases already before the judiciary could not be transferred to the two commissions, confirming that the judiciary and not the commissions had the authority to determine the criminality of conflict-era human rights violations.
“Nepal’s ruling parties cannot bargain away victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation by using the commissions as a substitute for their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute human rights abuses through the criminal justice system,” said Champa Patel, South Asia Regional Office Director at Amnesty International.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, along with Nepali civil society, victims’ groups, the United Nations, and the international diplomatic community, have consistently called for the Nepal government to amend the TRC Act in line with Nepal’s international obligations as well as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, in order to ensure a credible transitional justice process that safeguards victims’ rights and conforms to rule of law principles.
In a flagrant display of deliberate disregard for the rule of law, however, the ruling parties’ deal to amend the TRC Act by attempting to reinforce the same amnesty provision that has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court ignores both the country’s international legal obligations and the binding judgments of its own apex court, and further threatens the prospects for post-war justice and accountability in Nepal.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International therefore call upon the Nepal government to take immediate and effective steps to safeguard victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation through a credible transitional justice process that is free of any political interference or any forms of pressure or intimidation.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-318-7821 (mobile); e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Apr 5, 2016 | News
Thailand must immediately revoke National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 13/2016 which confers sweeping powers on the Royal Thai Armed Forces in contravention of human rights and the rule of law, said today the ICJ and other human rights groups.
On 29 March 2016, pursuant to Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Head of the NCPO, issued Order 13/2016 which provides appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons.
“The implementation of Order 13/2016 will almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and the rule of law and must be revoked immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“We have observed a steady erosion of human rights protections in Thailand since the military coup of 22 May 2014 and this Order signifies another, jarring, movement in the same direction,” he added.
The Order raises numerous human rights concerns say the ICJ, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), and Fortify Rights (FR). These concerns include:
1. Grants a form of immunity from prosecution to those acting under the Order, leading to impunity contrary to the principle of accountability required by the rule of law.
“Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic rule, the Thai junta has broadened its powers to do almost anything it wants, including committing abuses with total impunity,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Repression becomes a daily reality as Thailand descends further into military dictatorship.”
2. Actions taken under the Order are not subject to judicial review, contrary to the rights to effective remedy, to judicial control of deprivation of liberty, and to a fair trial, as for instance recognized under Articles 2, 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The Order is yet another example of the pernicious removal of powers from the judicial system to review the military’s actions, to the detriment of rights protection and the rule of law,” said Champa Patel, Interim Director, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Amnesty International.
3. Provides untrained military officials with broadly and ambiguously worded powers of law enforcement likely to lead to abuse, inconsistent with human rights standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
“The Order provides law enforcement powers to military officials who do not have law enforcement experience or protocols to summon, search, and arrest persons,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.
“This makes the absence of judicial oversight all the more concerning. The fact that this may lead to an abuse of power and the disproportionate use of force by military officials in violation of international laws and standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is very worrying. There is a real risk the Order may be used to restrict the legitimate rights of people such as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” she added.
4. Authorizes the deprivation of liberty of persons for up to seven days in unrecognized places of detention, without judicial oversight, which increases the risk of further human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearance.
“Despite its pretense to suppress criminal activities, this Order is likely to result in the commission of very serious crimes that are prohibited under human rights instruments that Thailand has either signed or ratified,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.
5. In practice, the Order is open to abuse to repress and silence those perceived as dissenters, including human rights defenders, in violation of international human rights law and standards.
“This Order stands to fuel the fire of retaliation against human rights defenders in Thailand,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Thailand has an obligation to protect human rights defenders, but this Order could easily be used to target and obstruct their legitimate work.”
Contact
Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +41 (0) 229793800 ; e: wilder.tayler(a)icj.org
Thailand-NCPO Order-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text, in PDF, Thai version)
Thailand-NCPO Order unof trsl-Advocacy-2016-ENG (unofficial translation of the Order, PDF)
Mar 31, 2016 | News
A Delhi Court acquitted human rights defender Irom Sharmila of an “attempt to commit suicide” charge. The government of Manipur must in turn immediately drop the charges against her, said the ICJ today.
Irom Sharmila, was charged under section 309 the Indian Penal Code.
She has been on a continuous hunger strike for over 15 years, demanding repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
“This order is a welcome recognition that Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike is a form of peaceful dissent and protest protected by the right to freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
This week, Iron Sharmila was acquitted of the charges against her in Delhi. The case against her in Manipur is, however, still on-going.
The decision of the Delhi court is not binding on the courts in Manipur, but the charges are analogous, and similar reasoning should prevail, the ICJ says.
“The government of Manipur should drop the other charges under section 309 against her, and release her immediately and unconditionally,” said Zarifi.
On at least two occasions previously, courts in Manipur have directed that Irom Sharmila be released, saying that charges under section 309 were not applicable.
“The use of section 309 against Sharmila highlights the outdated and absurd nature of this law,” Zarifi said.
“The government should expedite the repeal of 309 and, instead of criminalizing Irom Sharmila’s protest, focus on the reason behind it and repeal the AFSPA,” he added.
The AFSPA gives armed forces a range of “special powers” in “disturbed areas”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”.
Furthermore, under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court.
These provisions are inconsistent with a range of human rights, including the right to life and right to remedy.
They have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances in areas where operational, the ICJ notes.
“This law is inconsistent with India’s human rights obligations, and has led to human rights violations, wide-spread impunity, and immense grief and suffering in the areas where it operates”, Zarifi said.
“It is high time that it was taken off the books”.
Background
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
She was arrested by the Manipur government in 2000 under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits an “attempt to commit suicide”.
Irom Sharmila has been in custody almost continuously since her initial arrest, and has continued her hunger strike.
She is fed through a nasal tube at the Jawaharlal Nehru hospital in Imphal where she is usually held.
The Delhi government also charged her on similar grounds with respect to an incident from 2006, when she held a protest in their jurisdiction.
In 2014, a Manipur court quashed charges under section 309 against Irom Sharmila, saying “The agitation of Irom Chanu Sharmila is a political demand through lawful means of repealing a valid statute. … she may continue with the fast till her demand is met politically by the Government”.
However, since she continued her hunger strike, she was immediately re-arrested on the same grounds.
In its 210th report, the Indian Law Commission has recommended that section 309 be repealed. In 2011, the Supreme Court said: “the time has come when [section 309] should be deleted by Parliament as it has become anachronistic.”
In 2014, the government announced that it was in the process of repealing 309.
The AFSPA applies to “disturbed areas” in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
An almost identical law is also applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
Mar 23, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council on the findings of the report of the OHCHR investigation mission on Libya.
It includes that violations of international law taking place throughout Libya “may amount to war crimes and other international crimes under international law.”
The statement continued as follows:
All sides to the conflict in Libya continue to perpetrate grave human rights violations and abuses. As highlighted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, these violations continue to take place with “complete impunity” amid the collapse of the domestic justice system.
Unless genuine accountability is provided for these ongoing crimes the cycle of violence in Libya will continue, and the peace process will likely become no more than a well-intentioned piece of paper.
In this context, this Council has a duty to remain seized of the human rights situation in Libya, ensure continued monitoring of the situation and act to strengthen international accountability for crimes committed in Libya if the national system remains incapable of fulfilling this role. We are deeply concerned that the current resolution before this Council falls short of that standard.
Additionally, all UN member states should ensure that the International Criminal Court has the capacity to fulfill the mandate provided to it by the Security Council and begin fully fledged investigations into past and ongoing crimes committed in Libya.
As highlighted by civil society in a letter to this Council: “It is critical that all parties to the conflict are put on notice that their actions are being monitored and that accountability for serious crimes is a real prospect rather than an empty threat. Failure to do so will likely embolden those committing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and will reinforce the endless cycle of impunity” in Libya.
The statement was on behalf of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, FIDH, and OMCT.
Feb 29, 2016 | News
El día 1 de febrero del presente año, el Juez Tercero de Primera Instancia Penal Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente desestimó la querella presentada por el Señor Ricardo Méndez Ruiz en febrero de 2015, en contra del Fiscal de Derechos Humanos Licenciado Orlando López.
Dicha querella pretendía afectar la labor que ha venido realizando el Fiscal Orlando López a favor de la lucha contra la impunidad, criminalizándolo y afectando su derecho a la libertad de expresión.
La CIJ celebra dicha resolución que reconoce la función de defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos, operadores de justicia, abogados y abogadas y a la sociedad guatemalteca.
En este caso, el Fiscal de Derechos Humanos tuvo que enfrentar una querella por casi un año.
Recientemente la Corte de Constitucionalidad denegó un Recurso de Amparo presentado por Ricardo Méndez Ruiz en contra del Procurador de los Derechos Humanos, por haber emitido dicho Procurador la resolución en la que declaró “la violación de los derechos a la dignidad, a la integridad, a la seguridad que constituyen una amenaza al derecho a la vida, a la igualdad, la libertad de accion y de asociación de los defensores de Derechos Humanos y los miembros de organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos…” y señaló como responsable de dicha violación al señor Ricardo Méndez Ruiz.
Finalmente, el Procurador de Derechos Humanos recomendó a Ricardo Méndez Ruiz “abstenerse de realizar señalamientos para criminalizar la labor de los defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos en Guatemala” y lo invitó a reflexionar sobre el “daño social que representa difundir masivamente el tipo de contenidos analizados” en dicha resolución, por medio de los cuales “no sólo agrede a personas, organizaciones o movimientos, representantes diplomáticos y Misiones Internacionales, sino también fomenta el odio y la confrontación social”.
Ante este amparo, la Corte de Constitucionalidad resolvió que “el acto señalado como objeto de reproche no genera agravio constitucional susceptible de ser reparado en amparo” y que “debe denegarse la protección constitucional solicitada” por Ricardo Méndez Ruiz.
La CIJ hace un nuevo llamado a las autoridades del Estado de Guatemala para que inicie una investigación exhaustiva e imparcial acerca de las actuales campañas contra defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos y que adopte las medidas necesarias de acuerdo a derecho con respecto a dichos actos.
