Sep 15, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Failure to assert the rule of law in the transfer of suspects across borders perpetuates violations of human rights in cases where national security is invoked, a new ICJ report finds.
Released today, the ICJ report Transnational Injustices – National Security Transfers and International Law documents laws and practices in the OSCE region involving transfer of national security suspects by all possible means without regard to national law or States’ international legal obligations.
“This report demonstrates that, under different guises, some States still continue to abuse extradition and expulsion procedures and sometimes even to resort to abductions and renditions in cases related to counter-terrorism or national security,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS Programme.
“This has pernicious consequences for the respect of human rights and the rule of law,” she added.
“In some states, such as in Russia and Central Asia, existing national legal procedures to protect against abusive transfers have been bypassed or ineffective,” Pillay said.
She added: “We need to put judges and human rights law at the heart of extradition procedures to ensure their effectiveness and to prevent arbitrary and extra-legal transfers of suspects.”
Lack of accountability in cases where suspects’ human rights have been violated fuels further abuses, the report finds.
“With the closure of the US programmes, renditions were thought to be over,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The almost complete lack of accountability for US renditions has provided a blank check of legitimacy to any countries trying to bend or break the rules at the expenses of the basic safeguards of one’s human rights,” he added.
Background
Practices in a number of States in recent years have highlighted the serious implications for human rights and the rule of law of transfers of people based on national security and criminal cooperation grounds in the Russian Federation, Central Asia and beyond.
Extraditions, expulsions and, sometimes, transfers occurring outside of the legal framework have triggered international reactions and rulings of international courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
The ICJ report Transnational Injustices – National Security Transfers and International Law is based on research of these practices, documenting illustrative cases, and the applicable legal framework.
The report analyses extradition, expulsion and informal transfers in the Russian Federation, Central Asian countries and EU Member States, as well as the rendition practices in the United States and assesses the situation against international human rights law.
The report offers concrete recommendations for change based on the comparative experiences of selected EU member States.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Europe-Transnational Injustices-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (Full report in English, PDF)
Europe-Transnational Injustices-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-RUS (Full report in Russian, PDF)
Europe-Transnational Injustices-ExecSummary-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (Executive Summary in English, PDF)
Europe-Translational Injustices-ExecSummary-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-RUS (Executive Summary in Russian, PDF)
Sep 13, 2017 | Advocacy, News
As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.
India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.
India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.
In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.
India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.
Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.
The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.
Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download the Q&A:
India-ICJ Q&A Jadhav case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
May 11, 2017 | Advocacy
Today the ICJ presented its views on counter-terrorism, security and human rights in Europe, to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament, as part of a hearing on the EU’s Comprehensive Assessment of EU Security Policy.
The exchange of views, Chaired by the Chair of the LIBE Committee, Claude Moraes, included contributions by Commissioner Julian King of the European Commission, as well as representatives of national parliaments, civil society organisations and MEPs.
The ICJ presentation by Róisín Pillay (photo), Director of the ICJ Europe Programme, emphasised the need to make human rights and the rule of law central to EU security policy, to the development of EU legislation and its implementation at national level.”
The full text of the presentation can be downloaded here: Europe-Presentation LIBE-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
More on LIBE
Mar 4, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement on the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia, for today’s interactive dialogue at the Human Rights Council with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The statement could not be delivered in the limited time available for civil society statements; its text is set out below:
ICJ Oral Statement in the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mr. Michel Forst
SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN MALAYSIA
3 March 2016
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The work of human rights defenders is particularly under challenge in States where governments have conferred on themselves sweeping powers to restrict human rights on grounds of national security. One example, as reflected in the Special Rapporteur’s “Observations on communications” (UN Doc A/HRC/31/55/Add.1), is the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia.
The ICJ welcomes the Attorney General’s decision to drop sedition charges against law lecturer Dr. Azmi Sharom; however, the Sedition Act and the Peaceful Assembly Act are still being abused to harass human rights defenders and others. Most recently, the High Court of Malaysia sentenced activist Hishamuddin Rais to nine months in jail for sedition, for calling for peaceful protest against the results of the 2013 general election on the basis that it was not transparent. Maria Chin Abdullah and Jannie Lasimbang, organizers of the Bersih 4.0 peaceful assembly calling for good governance, were charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act for allegedly omitting to inform the police about the assembly. There have reportedly been at least 91 cases of arrests, charges or investigations for sedition during 2015, and more than 30 cases of arrests under the Peaceful Assembly Act since 2013. Most, if not all, of these people are human rights defenders, including Eric Paulsen, the Director of Lawyers for Liberty, Adam Adli, a human rights activist, and Mandeep Singh, the Secretariat Manager of Bersih.
Unless repealed or drastically revised, these laws will continue to facilitate sweeping and arbitrary repression of freedoms of expression, assembly and association of human rights defenders, under the flag of national security. This contravenes the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and numerous other resolutions of the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, including General Assembly resolution 70/161, adopted by the General Assembly in December with Malaysia voting in favor. Among other things, resolution 70/161 urged States ensure that human rights defenders are able to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, which are essential for the promotion and protection of human rights; and it emphasized that national security measures must not hinder the work and safety of individuals engaged in promoting and defending human rights.
In this context, the ICJ would like to ask the Special Rapporteur to comment on the obligations of governments to repeal or amend legislation that allows for abusive arrest or prosecution of human rights defenders on grounds such as “national security”, “sedition” or for not giving prior notice of assemblies.”
Dec 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ condemned the passage of the National Security Council bill by Malaysia’s House of Representatives today. The passage of the bill underlines the need to establish reforms in the lawmaking processes in the country, the Geneva-based organization says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to undertake these reforms immediately.
The bill, hastily tabled at the House of Representatives on 1 December 2015 by the Government, was passed by a vote of 107 in favour and 77 against the proposal.
Members of the ruling party, Barisan Nasional, voted overwhelmingly in its favor.
The vote took place despite repeated calls from Malaysian civil society, opposition lawmakers, and human rights advocates to delay consideration to allow for extensive debate and adequate consultations on the draft legislation.
The ICJ deplored the manner in which the government steamrolled the bill to passage.
“The same rushed maneuvers occurred when the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and amendments of the Sedition Act were hastily passed in parliament earlier this year,” observed Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“There seems to be a disturbing pattern of avoiding deliberative care on legislation that is both addressed to serious security concerns that have the greatest implications for human rights,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the poorly conceived legislation gives overbroad powers to the Prime Minister and the security forces which is inconsistent with the rule of law and could lead to serious human rights violations
The bill establishes a National Security Council (NSC) that will be the central authority in the government on matters pertaining to national security.
The NSC will be headed by the Prime Minister and composed of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Communication and Multimedia, Chief Secretary, the Commander of the Armed Forces, and Inspector-General of Police.
Under the bill, the Prime Minister is granted the power to declare any part of Malaysia as a “security area” if it is found by the NSC that such area is under serious threat from any person or entity that could harm the general public, the economy, infrastructure or other national interests.
Any part of the country may be declared a “security area” by the Prime Minister for up to six months and the declaration may be renewed an infinite number of times.
A Director of Operations is also to be appointed to oversee the operations over the “security areas”.
The specific powers of the Director of Operations are left vague, but they are overbroad and therefore prone to abuse.
They apparently include authority to prevent any person from entering these “security areas”, to transfer persons out of these areas, to impose curfews, and at least temporarily, to take possession of any property necessary in the interest of national security or for the accommodation of the security team.
The security team under the Director of Operations will have the power to conduct warrantless arrests and warrantless searches and seizures.
There are no processes specified by which affected persons may challenge such actions, either before a court or administrative body, nor are there other procedural safeguards.
Any members of the security team would be authorized to “use any amount of force against a person or entity to the extent that is reasonable and necessary within the circumstances to protect national security”.
The ICJ notes that under international law, lethal force may only be used to the extent strictly necessary to protect life.
Finally, the draft law provides immunity from any legal proceeding for members of the NSC, the Director of Operations, the security team, and other government staff involved in the administration of the “security area” for carrying out their duties and functions under the law.
There is no exception even in cases involving serious violations of human rights and crimes under international law, for which immunity is not permitted.
“The wide ranging powers conferred to members of the NSC and the security team clearly lack any form of safeguards and will inevitably lead to arbitrary exercise of authority, in contravention of the rule of law. This bill could very likely be used to further restrict freedom of expression and opinion and other rights in the country,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Vague and overbroad language in laws are inconsistent with the rule of law, contravening the principle of legality, the ICJ says.
This poses particular hazards in respect of national security legislation.
The bill will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, the Malaysian King will have to assent to it so that it becomes law.
The ICJ expects the bill to be passed by the Senate and assented to by the King without thorough deliberations.
Nevertheless, it still calls on both the Senate and the King to reject the present draft, with a view to returning it the House to make necessary reforms in line with the rule of law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
