Jun 24, 2018 | News
The proposed amendments to the Philippines’ Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) would, if adopted, give government authorities a license to commit human rights violations, said the ICJ in its submission today to the House of Representatives.
The ICJ strongly urged the House of Representatives to reconsider these proposed amendments and in the interim to allow more time for full consultation and debate on revisions of the law.
In its submission to the House of Representatives’ joint Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Committees of Public Order and Safety and National Defense and Security, the ICJ stressed that certain proposed amendments to the HSA are clearly incompatible with international human rights.
It is also incompatible with laws and standards that prohibit unfettered surveillance power and arbitrary deprivation of the right to liberty and protect the rights to privacy, information, redress, and freedom of opinion and expression.
The ICJ also expressed deep concern that the law also gives military personnel responsibility in countering terrorism, specifically to conduct surveillance on, arrest, and detain persons who are suspected of acts of terrorism.
“The proposed amendments do not address the existing flaws of the HSA. For instance, the definition of acts of terrorism under the HSA is vague and ambiguous and the proposed changes do not in any way remedy that,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser with the ICJ.
The ICJ also pointed out that the proposed amendments are likely to lead to violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The proposed amendments would also impermissibly lengthen to thirty (30) days the period within which an individual may be detained without judicial warrant.
“This is clearly incompatible with the Philippines international legal obligations and constitutes arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” said Gil.
The ICJ proposes to reduce the detention period to forty-eight (48) hours or less, in compliance with international human rights laws and standards.
“The Philippine government has the undeniable duty to protect people from acts of terrorism committed by non-State actors, but it cannot use as a pretext the serious nature of terrorist acts to avoid its obligations under international human rights law,” Gil added.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Cover Letter ENG (PDF): Philippines-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-Cover Letter-June-2018-ENG
Full Submission ENG (PDF): Philippines-Proposed-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-non-legal-Submission-June-2018-ENG
Feb 11, 2018 | News
On 10 February 2018, the ICJ, in partnership with the National Law University, Delhi (NLU), organized a judicial dialogue on transformative jurisprudence on privacy and discrimination.
Participants included judges from the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and the District Courts of Delhi; ICJ Commissioners: Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, from India, who made the event possible through his support, Justice Kalyan Shrestha, from Nepal, Justice Adolfo Azcuna, from the Philippines; a Commissioner of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission; and lawyers and activists from India. The judicial dialogue examined the relationship between the right to privacy, the principle of non-discrimination, and the right to equality before the law, in the context of one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as well as in light of the jurisprudence of the Indian Courts.
It pursued the ICJ’s larger goal of addressing the need for sustained, ongoing engagement with the Indian judiciary on LGBTI rights, to facilitate better access to justice for the LGBTI community, with the help of a sensitized judiciary.
The discussions lent support to domestic advocacy efforts directed at other State and non-State actors to get them to better address and reduce discriminatory treatment and homophobic and transphobic attitudes towards LGBTI communities by challenging discriminatory laws and practices.
The dialogue underscored the different facets of the dynamic right of privacy in relation to the human rights of disenfranchised communities, and discussed sexual orientation and gender identity as essential attributes of one’s identity deserving of and entitled to protection.
The conversation touched upon emergent challenges in the privacy debate, in light of technological advances, critiquing the Indian Government’s unique identification project whereby the Government’s programme of issuing a 12-digit unique identity number to all Indian residents based on their biometric and demographic data, and which will be needed to access government and private sector services, is currently being contested in the Supreme Court on account of privacy concerns.
The speakers emphasized the importance of the right to be forgotten and the right to limit one’s audience as essential to a right to privacy, given the increasing importance of the internet.
The speakers also highlighted the need for the judiciary to uphold fundamental rights enumerated in the constitution instead of pandering to populist beliefs and mores
There was unanimous agreement among the judges and the extended legal community that Section 377, Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes “voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature” needs to be struck down, to facilitate progress in developing a rights framework for sexual minorities.
There was criticism of other discriminatory laws, including draft legislation, such as the current Indian Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 for its denial of an individual’s right to self-identify one’s gender.
The speakers reiterated the need for a comprehensive effort from the Indian judiciary, and other State actors with a focus on judicial training and sensitization, as well as police reform, to ensure that India is able to fulfill its international and constitutional obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of the LGBTI community.
A common theme was the importance of comparative and international law in the development of Indian jurisprudence.
The speakers discussed the ‘Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Law in Relation to Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ at length, and the growing prominence of these Principles in Indian jurisprudence, as reflected in the Puttuswamy and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India judgments, both of which quoted the Yogyakarta Principles extensively.
The dialogue focused on the role of the judiciary, the need for sensitization regarding the human rights violations of the LGBTI community among the judiciary in India and South and South East Asia and, in that context, the importance of judicial dialogues.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Shrestha emphasized that South Asian judges have typically played a more important role than the legislature in advancing human rights.
He discussed the importance of judicial creativity in providing remedies, and emphasized that training programs must include best practices and that judicial training programs must be imparted regularly.
The dialogue stressed the importance of judicial trainings highlighting the role that Justice Cameron and Justice Kirby, both former ICJ Commissioners, have played in raising awareness about the relationship between human rights and issues of sexuality, HIV/AIDS and gender identity in India.
It reiterated the importance of judges being in touch with people’s lived realities, and thus the importance of encouraging judiciary’s interaction with the LGBTI community.
For more information: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Apr 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today warned that proposed amendments to Turkey’s Constitution to be voted on in the referendum of 16 April could irremediably compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The amendments would introduce significant changes to the institutional framework governing the Turkish judiciary, with far reaching consequences for the separation of powers.
The ICJ is concerned that the proposed constitutional amendments, if approved, would enshrine in Turkish Constitution measures that would be severely damaging the rule of law in Turkey for the long term.
The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental components of the rule of law.
Under the proposals, the President of the Republic would be empowered to appoint six out of thirteen members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, including four ordinary members as well as the Minister of Justice, (who would act as President of the Council) and the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
The remaining seven members would be appointed by the National Assembly.
None of the members of the Council would be appointed by judges or public prosecutors.
The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is the institution entrusted with the appointment, transfer, promotion, discipline and dismissal of judges and public prosecutors in Turkey.
It is the role of such a Council to act as a guardian of judicial independence and to protect the judiciary from interference by the executive and legislative powers.
The proposed Constitutional amendments are clearly contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary, which affirm that at least half of the members of a judicial council should be judges elected by their peers.
The amendments, if passed in the forthcoming referendum, would be enacted in a context where judicial independence has already been severely compromised.
Under the State of Emergency in place since the attempted coup of July 2016, approximately one fifth of the judiciary has been arbitrarily dismissed, and thousands of prosecutors and lawyers have been detained.
As the ICJ has previously highlighted, such measures have had a devastating effect on the independence of the judiciary at every level, compromising the courts’ ability to provide fair trials or an effective remedy for violations of human rights.
The ICJ understands that Turkey faced a serious threat to its democratic institutions in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Nonetheless, it stresses that measures meant to meet this threat must be undertaken within the framework of the rule of law and the country’s human rights obligations.
The ICJ reiterates its call on the Turkish authorities to lift the State of Emergency and the derogations from its international human rights law obligations that it has made as a matter of high priority.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
An ICJ briefing paper of June 2016, the Turkey: the Judicial System in Peril , raised concern at measures eroding the independence of the judiciary, prosecution, and legal profession in Turkey, with serious consequences for protection of human rights.
The Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, states:
- Not less than half the members of [councils for the judiciary] should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
Under international human rights law Turkey may derogate from certain human rights during a justified state of emergency only to the extent that derogating measures are strictly necessary to meet a current threat to the life of the nation.
Certain human rights, including freedom from torture, the right to life, and certain essential elements of the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy may never be restricted, even in an emergency situation.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
