Immigration detention of children is unlawful according to international law and States are obliged to implement alternatives to detention. One of the best solutions for unaccompanied children is their placement into mainstream child protection systems, which already works well in some countries in the EU, an ICJ webinar was told.
Today, the International Commission of Jurists made a submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) in view of its forthcoming review of Nepal’s implementation of and compliance with its obligations under CEDAW in light of the State party’s sixth periodic report under Article 18 of the Convention.
In its submission, the ICJ focused on the transitional justice processes in the country, and noted that the Government of Nepal has failed to effectively address human rights violations experienced by women during the armed conflict that ended in 2006.
The submission highlighted the failure of the authorities to ensure criminal accountability for serious crimes, including rape and other forms of sexual violence during the conflict, and to ensure effective and meaningful participation by women in political and public life.
In its submissions the ICJ urged the authorities of Nepal to implement a number of recommendations with a view to ensuring that the above-mentioned concerns be effectively addressed in a manner that complies with the country’s obligations under the CEDAW and other relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ’s full submission is available here: Nepal-CEDAW Report on Nepal-Advocacy-Non Legal Submission-2018-ENG
The ICJ strongly condemns the draft bill of the Congressional Commission on Legislation and Constitutional Affairs to propose reforms to the Law of National Reconciliation (Congressional Decree 145-96) and grant amnesty in cases of gross human rights violations.
“The amnesty included in this draft bill is unconstitutional and flagrantly violates Guatemala’s international obligations. It seeks to place more obstacles in the way of victims of serious human rights violations in their search for justice and truth,” said Ramón Cadena, Director of the Central American Office of the ICJ.
“Justice must be delivered in these important cases because it is the basis for political stability, the rule of law and democracy. Guatemalan authorities should demonstrate that they have an unquestionable commitment to the struggle against impunity. Unfortunately, this draft bill demonstrates the exact opposite,” he added.
This decision flagrantly contravenes Guatemala’s international obligations to prosecute and punish those responsible for gross violations of human rights and guarantee the rights to justice, truth and reparation for victims of these crimes.
International bodies, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in numerous judgments, have condemned Guatemala for gross human rights violations; and on repeated occasions have stated that it is prohibited to grant amnesties in cases of gross violations of human rights and international crimes, such as crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.
This draft bill could open the doors to allow impunity to continue, at a time when the judicial system is fighting against impunity in historic cases of gross human rights violations and international crimes and in so doing provide guarantees for the victims’ rights to justice.
The ICJ considers that the administration of justice in cases of gross violations of human rights and international crimes by independent judges in cases of “transitional justice” should be supported, not only by the Legislature but also by the Executive Branch, as well as, self-evidently, by the Judicial Branch itself.
The Supreme Court of Justice has the obligation to support independent judges that through their rulings are proving to be impartial, objective and independent and should take the necessary measures to protect judges from any interference or attack that affects the smooth exercise of their duties.
The ICJ recalls that it is a State’s inalienable obligation under international law to investigate gross violations of human rights and international crimes and to prosecute and punish those responsible.
A joint statement calls on members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines to stop further attempts to reintroduce the death penalty and to block any legislation that subverts human rights.
On 29 November 2016, the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms of the House Committee of Justice approved a bill restoring the death penalty in the Philippines by railroading the proceedings in the committee and ignoring important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for the legislation or its urgent passage.
The full statement can be downloaded here:
philippines-joint-statement-death-penalty-news-web-story-2016-eng (PDF)
Pakistan’s decision to fully reinstate the death penalty puts at imminent risk of execution more than 500 people on death row who have exhausted all avenues of appeal, with another 8000 facing death penalties, said the ICJ today.
“The total abandonment of the moratorium on the death penalty is a disaster for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director. “We fear a major acceleration in the flow of executions we have seen over the past few months—none of which do anything to protect the rights of the Pakistani people.”
25 people have been executed since 16 December 2014, when Pakistan lifted a moratorium on executions in cases of capital punishment related to terrorism. The decision to partially lift a six-year unofficial moratorium on executions was in response to an attack on a school in Peshawar, killing 150 people, almost all of them children. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
In January, Pakistan also amended the Constitution and the Army Act, 1952, empowering military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences.
“The Pakistani people face a very real threat from terrorist attacks, but there is no indication that the death penalty will decrease this threat,” said Zarifi. “Instead, the government is targeting hundreds of people on death row whose convictions had nothing to do with terrorism-related offenses.”
In Pakistan, capital punishment is prescribed for 27 different offences, including blasphemy, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, kidnapping or abduction, rape, assault on the modesty of women and the stripping of women’s clothes, smuggling of drugs, arms trading and sabotage of the railway system. Many of these crimes do not meet the threshold of ‘most serious crimes’ stipulated by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010. Article 6 of the ICCPR, guaranteeing the right to life, requires that states restrict capital punishment to only the ‘most serious crimes’. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has clarified that in the context of the death penalty, the definition of the ‘most serious crimes’ is limited to those cases in which there was an intention to kill, which resulted in the loss of life.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, that emphasizes that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and that calls on countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. An overwhelming majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of the call for a worldwide moratorium on executions, as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Pakistan should reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to definitively abolishing the practice in law,” said Zarifi.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org