Jul 12, 2016 | News
The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision reiterating the importance of accountability for human rights violations by police and security forces, in particular where unnecessary or excessive force is alleged to have been used, is a welcome step and must be immediately implemented.
In the case of EEVFAM v Union of India, petitioners alleged that 1,528 killings by the police and security forces in the Indian state of Manipur had amounted to unlawful extrajudicial executions. Manipur is the site of a long-running armed insurgency.
In 2013, a court-appointed commission – the Santosh Hegde Commission – conducted an inquiry into six of the cases mentioned in the petition, and found all the six killings to be unlawful.
“This judgment is a strong signal from the Court that human rights violations by security forces will not be tolerated in the name of national security or anti-terror policies,” said Sam Zarifi, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Asia Director.
“It’s crucial for the government now to follow through on this ruling to bring the families of the victims of these and other extra judicial executions mentioned in this petition closer to truth, justice and accountability”.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use force, to cause death.
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, thus effectively shielding armed forces from accountability for human rights violations.
“These, and other allegations, of human rights violations under the AFSPA only reiterate the urgent need to repeal this draconian and undemocratic law,” Zarifi said. “The allegations in this case are evidence of the culture of impunity that the AFSPA has perpetuated”.
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court made some welcome observations:
- It emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, reiterating the principles laid down in previous landmark cases. It said “every death caused by the armed forces, including in the disturbed area of Manipur should be thoroughly enquired into if there is a complaint or allegation of abuse or misuse of power”.
- It dismissed the government’s argument that legal safeguards would not fully apply to anyone considered an “enemy” under Indian law. The Court held that at least all Indian citizens were equally entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, stating “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger”.
- It noted that it did not have sufficient information about each of the 1,528 cases mentioned in the petition. It has directed parties to present detailed information about the status of each case.
“This judgment references India’s obligations under international human rights law, which requires the government to respect and protect the right to life and ensure access to effective remedies,” Zarifi said. “Accountability for all human rights violations is a key aspect of these rights”.
The ICJ called for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all the cases mentioned in the petition, in line with international standards.
It said that persons responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials in civilian courts, and the family of victims should be accorded an effective remedy and reparation for any violations.
The ICJ will continue to follow the case, which will continue in four weeks. Several key issues remain to be addressed, which the court will look at in subsequent hearings.
First, how should the specific cases be investigated? The petitioners have asked for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to investigate the allegations, to ensure that the enquiry is fair, independent and thorough.
Second, in what forum should trials take place? The Indian Army Act allows for army personnel on active duty to be tried by a court martial (military court) instead of a civilian court for all offences, including gross human rights violations.
International standards call for military personnel accused of gross human rights violations to be put on trial before a civilian court. The Court has left this question open for the allegations in the present petition, stating: “The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court”.
Third, the Court will also consider the efficacy of the National Human Rights Commission; in particular whether its guidelines are binding or only advisory. Under Indian law, the NHRC has limited jurisdiction where human rights violations by the armed forces are concerned.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e:sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
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
Mar 29, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed serious concern at the apparent murder of lawyer Yury Grabovsky who was found dead on 25 March. The lawyer had been missing for two weeks and was reportedly found shot and buried near the Kiev-Odessa main route.
“The death of lawyer Yury Grabovsky must be investigated in a prompt, impartial and effective manner. Other lawyers who may be under threat should be urgently granted the necessary measures of protection”, said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Legal Adivser.
Yury Grabovsky was the managing partner of law firm “Garbovsky and Co”, as well as Deputy Chair of the High Qualification Disciplinary Commission.
He represented Aleksandr Aleksandrov, who along with Evgeniy Yerofeyev, was detained last May in the Lugansk Region in Eastern Ukraine and accused of terrorism and a number of other crimes.
The lawyer’s whereabouts had been unknown since 5 March after he had left for Odessa to stay at “Arkadiya” hotel.
He was apparently supposed to leave the hotel on 7 March but he never took his belongings from there.
On 9 March, a court hearing did not take place because the lawyer was missing.
Garbovsky’s colleagues reportedly doubted the authenticity of a post on his facebook account stated that he had left Ukraine.
On 10 March, the National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine informed the National Police that the lawyer had been missing.
The same day, the Odessa police opened a criminal case on “intentional murder”.
On 20 March, the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine, Anatoly Matios, stated that a suspect in the organization of the disappearance of Grabovsky had been apprehended.
On Friday, 25 March, Prosecutor Matios said that Grabovsky “was killed in a violent way and finished off with a firearm” which according to the Prosecutor was a “specially planned operation.”
The lawyer’s body was found shot and buried 138 km south of Kiev after one of the suspects had reportedly disclosed the place of burial.
The lawyer is said to have had an explosive bracelet on his leg, apparently intended to prevent him from escaping. The names of the suspects have not been made public.
It is the second killing of a lawyer in Ukraine this month, and the fourth such killing since January 2015, including, lawyers Alexandr Gruzkov, Yury Ignatenko, Viktor Loiko, and now Yuri Grabovskiy.
Temur Shakirov stressed that “in order to fulfil their function lawyers must be able to act without fear and free from fear of reprisals of any kind”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that“[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.”
The ICJ calls on the Government of Ukraine to investigate the case and bring those responsible to justice, including both anyone who directly carried out the killing and anyone who ordered the crime.
Urgent measures to guarantee the security of lawyers should be taken, which should include effective security measures against attempts on their lives and lives of their family members.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Mar 15, 2016 | News
Today’s acquittal of the only person facing charges for the killing of lands rights activist Chai Bunthonglek, highlights the urgent need for the Thai Government to protect human rights defenders in the country, said the ICJ today.
In addition to Chai Bunthonglek, a member of the Southern Peasant Federation of Thailand (SPFT), three other SPFT activists have been killed since 2010: Montha Chukaew and Pranee Boonrat in 2012 and Somporn Pattanaphum in 2010.
No one has been prosecuted for these three killings, reportedly due to insufficient evidence obtained by the police.
“The result in this case underscores the pressing need for the Department of Special Investigations to investigate the pattern of killings of land rights activists in southern Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
Chai Bunthonglek was killed on 11 February 2015. All four SPFT activists killed since 2010 had been advocating for the land rights of poor farmers who are in a dispute with the Government and a palm oil company operated by Jiew Kang Jue Pattana Co. Ltd.
“Today’s acquittal means that no-one has been held accountable for the killing of Chai Bunthonglek, representing another failure to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against human rights defenders and, in particular, those trying to uphold social and economic rights in Thailand,” said Abbott.
“The ICJ calls on the Thai Government to ensure justice and effective remedies for human rights defenders.”
On 15 March, the Viangsra Provincial Court acquitted Santi Wanthong, who was accused of driving the motorcycle from which Chai Bunthonglek, 61-years-old, was shot six times and killed in front of his family in Klong Sai Pattana in Surat Thani Province.
Two other suspects initially arrested for the crime were not indicted.
The DSI has the power to assume jurisdiction over “special” criminal cases including complex cases that require special inquiry, crimes committed by organized criminal groups, and cases where the principal suspect is “an influential person.”
The trial court held today that prosecution witnesses could not properly identify the defendant, and that a cap and gun collected from his house could not be positively identified as belonging to the man who had been involved in attacking Chai Bunthonglek.
Chai Bunthonglek’s family intends to appeal the verdict, the ICJ has been told. They have 30 days to file an appeal.
Witnesses in the case, as well as members of SPFT, have expressed their fear of further attacks. Suraphon Songru, member of the Steering Group of the SPFT, told the ICJ: “the perpetrators – which the community believe may be linked to the local authorities in the area – are still out there, which means another killing could take place.”
The ICJ called on Thai authorities to ensure the safety of all witnesses and ensure the safety of all human rights defenders, including members of SPFT, in Surat Thani.
Background
Santi Wanthong was formally indicted on the following charges: murder of another person (section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code); jointly premeditated murder (section 289 of the Thai Criminal Code); possession of a firearm without a permit (section 371 of the Thai Criminal Code); and possession of ammunition for a firearm without a permit (sections 7, 8 and 72 of the Gun, Ammunition, Explosive Substance, Firework and Artificial Gun Weapon Act).
SPFT was formed in 2008 and campaigns for the right to agricultural land in the Khlong Sai Pattana and Permsub area, in Surat Thani Province and other areas in the region.
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and had its review before the Committee of the ICESCR in June 2015, where the killings of land rights defenders was particularly noted. The Committee urged Thailand to “adopt all measures necessary to protect human rights activists, including those working to defend economic, social and cultural rights, from any and all acts of intimidation, harassment and killings and to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.” The obligation to protect the right to life and other rights of human rights defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights, and to take effective criminal proceedings in response to such crimes, is also an obligation of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is recognized in numerous UN standards on protection of human rights defenders.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Chai case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 3, 2016 | News
One of the leading indigenous activists and human rights defenders in Honduras, Berta Cáceres had worked jointly with the ICJ on several projects. She was shot dead by unknown attackers at her home today.
The ICJ urges the Honduran authorities to launch a rapid and independent investigation to identify who perpetrated and/or ordered the murder of Berta Cáceres and bring the person(s) responsible into court.
“We have lost a courageous and committed human rights defender,” said Ramón Cadena, ICJ’s Regional Director for Central America.
“It is essential that this crime does not remain unpunished. The government must send a strong signal and take immediately measures to effectively investigate this killing and hold those responsible to account,” he added.
A relentless defender of indigenous peoples rights to land and natural resources, Berta Cáceres had been awarded the Goldmann Environmental Prize in 2015 (photo).
It is a huge loss not only for her family, but also for the whole human rights movement in Honduras, the ICJ said.
Berta Cáceres had received repeated death threats from both state security forces and the company planning the Agua Zarca dam, which she had successfully fought against, together with residents of the Lenca Community.
She had been placed under the protection of the local police in La Esperanza, the area where she lived. Obviously this was not enough.
The situation of human rights defenders in Honduras is dire and has continuously deteriorated in the recent years, with their activities being systematically criminalized.
