Sri Lanka: implement Task Force recommendations to deliver justice for victims of human rights abuse

Sri Lanka: implement Task Force recommendations to deliver justice for victims of human rights abuse

The Sri Lankan government must deliver on the clear demand for justice from Sri Lankans nationwide by implementing the Consultation Task Force recommendations without further delay, the ICJ said today.

Among these recommendations, the calls for a special court with international judges and a bar against amnesties for crimes under international law are of particular importance, the ICJ added.

The Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF), a panel of 11 independent eminent persons appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in January 2016, publicly released its final report on 3 January 2017.

The report, reflecting the views of people across the country gathered through island-wide public consultations on transitional justice, highlights the lack of public confidence in the justice system’s capacity and will to deliver justice for victims of Sri Lanka’s nearly 30-year armed conflict that ended in 2009.

“The CTF report highlights a widespread lack of trust among Sri Lankans across the country, regardless of region, ethnicity, religion or language, in the ability of the criminal justice system in its current form to address serious human rights abuses stemming from the conflict,” said Nikhil Narayan, the ICJ’s South Asia senior legal adviser.

The report also calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to take necessary steps to ensure a credible transitional justice process in line with the October 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 that it co-sponsored.

“If the Sri Lankan government wants to restore public confidence in the system, it must seriously consider victims’ voices and implement the CTF recommendations on truth, justice and reparation consistent with the commitments it voluntary undertook at the Human Rights Council,” Narayan added.

Importantly, the CTF report reiterates the commitments pledged in HRC resolution 30/1, calling for active international participation in a special judicial mechanism established to deal with accountability for human rights abuses committed during the conflict by both sides, and for a bar against amnesties for international crimes.

According to the ICJ, the Sri Lankan government took an important first step towards reconciliation when it adopted the UN resolution and later established the CTF to carry out public consultations to hear a cross section of voices on transitional justice.

“Unfortunately, since then, it has been disappointing in its lack of urgency in implementing much of those stated promises and in its apparent disregard for the CTF recommendations,” Narayan said.

Several members of the government have dismissed the CTF’s recommendations, especially with regard to the inclusion of at least one international judge on every bench of the special judicial mechanism.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently spoke of the need for “an independent and credible domestic mechanism” without alluding to any international participation, as has been reiterated by those seeking redress as a crucial element to ensure faith in the justice mechanism.

The ICJ has in the past highlighted Sri Lanka’s culture of impunity in the justice system looking at a number of emblematic cases, and called into question the State’s capacity and political will to use the criminal justice system and other ad-hoc measures to deliver justice and accountability to victims and survivors of serious human rights abuses.

“As the situation of Sri Lanka comes before the UN Human Rights Council again this March, the Sri Lankan government is in a position to demonstrate both to the UN Member States but more importantly to its own people at home its seriousness in pursuing truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence for conflict victims who have been waiting for justice for decades. It must seize this opportunity before it is one more of many missed opportunities,” Narayan added.

Contact:

 Nikhil Narayan, ICJ South Asia senior legal adviser, t: +91-8939325204 (Chennai); +94-758898067 (Sri Lanka); +1-562-261-3770 (Whatsapp) ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org

Download the full text with additional background info, in PDF:
Sri Lanka-CTF recommendations-News-Press release-2016-ENG 

Nepal: after a decade, still time to provide justice

Nepal: after a decade, still time to provide justice

Ten years after the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) ended Nepal’s bloody civil war, Nepali authorities must renew their commitment to ensure truth, justice and reparation for victims of the conflict who are still waiting for redress, the ICJ said today.

The CPA, signed by the Government of Nepal and the country’s major political parties, including the then Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on 21 November 2006, called for a credible transitional justice process that would ensure victims’ rights to truth, justice, reparation and effective remedy in accordance with Nepal’s international human rights obligations.

“The hope and promise to conflict victims towards fulfillment of their rights to truth, justice and reparation that came with the signing of the CPA and the end of the conflict ten years ago have yet to be realized,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia director.

“Over the last ten years, various governments from all the different parties have blocked or hindered the transitional justice process, ignoring rulings by the Supreme Court that demanded compliance with international law and standards,” he added.

The full statement can be downloaded here:

nepal-statement-cpa-anniversary-advocacy-2016-eng (full text in PDF)

Who judges the judges? UN Human Rights Council side event on judicial accountability

Who judges the judges? UN Human Rights Council side event on judicial accountability

Who judges the judges?
Accountability for judicial corruption and judicial complicity

Side Event Tuesday 14 June 2016, 14:00 – 16:00

Room XXIII, Palais des Nations, Geneva.

20160614_141137

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the International Bar Association (IBA) organised a side event to the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council, on the topic of accountability for judicial corruption and judicial involvement in human rights violations.

The well-attended event considered the need for judicial accountability, and different options for effective mechanisms and procedures of accountability. Recommendations for ordinary situations were complemented with reflections on circumstances of transitions where the judiciary have been deeply implicated in the violations of the previous regime, as well as particular challenges in developing countries.

At the event the ICJ launched its new Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the IBA presented the recent report of its Judicial Integrity Initiative on Judicial systems and Corruption. Print copies of both publications were distributed.

A panel discussion also featured the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, as well as Thulani Maseko, a lawyer from Swaziland who was subjected to prolonged arbitrary detention and imprisonment by judges in Swaziland, for speaking publicly about judicial misconduct in the country.

Speakers:

  • Mónica Pinto Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
  • Thulani Maseko Lawyer, Swaziland
  • Jane Ellis, Director, Legal & Policy Research Unit, International Bar Association
  • Matt Pollard, Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, International Commission of Jurists

In addition to the ICJ and IBA, side event co-sponsors included:

  • The Permanent Mission of Hungary to the UN
  • Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
  • Commonwealth Lawyers Association
  • Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges), Netherlands
  • International Legal Assistance Consortium

The ICJ Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the research and consultations on which it is based, was made possible with the financial support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.

For more information, please contact Matt Pollard.

ICJ Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability

The ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability aims to help practitioners ensure accountability for serious judicial misconduct, such as corruption or complicity in human rights violations, while preserving the independence of the judiciary.

It focuses on international standards on accountability mechanisms and procedures, illustrated by practical examples. It addresses not only the accountability of individual judges, and the accountability of judiciary as an institution, but also State responsibility under international law, particularly in relation to harm caused to victims of violations by judges.

The Guide was greatly informed by discussions among eminent judges and lawyers from around the world, convened by the ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, in Tunisia in October 2015 , and in Geneva in December 2015.

Among the topics covered by the new ICJ Guide are:

  • The obligation to ensure an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary.
  • The forms of judicial accountability, including:
    • Remedy and reparation for victims,
    • The responsibility of the State,
    • Removal from office, disciplinary sanctions, and other administrative measures,
    • Criminal responsibility, and
    • The right to the truth.
  • The structure and elements of accountability bodies, such as:
    • Review of decisions through appeal or judicial review,
    • Judicial councils,
    • The ordinary courts,
    • Parliamentary procedures,
    • Ad hoc tribunals,
    • Anti-corruption bodies,
    • Civil society monitoring and reporting,
    • National human rights institutions,
    • Professional associations,
    • International accountability mechanisms.
  • Procedural issues, including:
    • Necessary powers for accountability mechanisms,
    • Procedural rights of the judge,
    • Procedural rights of complainants and victims,
    • Publicity and transparency,
    • Procedures for lifting judicial immunity,
    • Temporary suspension during proceedings, and
    • Selective enforcement for improper purposes.
  • Mechanisms in exceptional circumstances, such as transitions from undemocratic or authoritarian regimes, including:
    • Truth commissions,
    • Vetting, and
    • Mass removal and re-application.
  • Particular challenges in relation to developing countries.
Amnistia y la CIJ apoyan la creacion de una Comision de la Verdad sobre la complicidad corporativa en Argentina

Amnistia y la CIJ apoyan la creacion de una Comision de la Verdad sobre la complicidad corporativa en Argentina

AI y la CIJ apoyan la propuesta de creación de una Comisión Bicameral de la Verdad, la Memoria, la Justicia, la Reparación y el Fortalecimiento de las Instituciones de la Democracia en el país.

Esta comisión tratará de identificaciar las complicidades económicas y financieras en relación con violaciones de los derechos humanos y crímenes de derecho internacional cometidas durante la última dictadura militar, entre 1976 y 1983.

El trabajo de esta Comisión puede ser una contribución muy importante a la obtención de la verdad, justicia y reparación para las víctimas de la dictadura y sus cómplices económicos.

Sin embargo, esta iniciativa no debe reemplazar ni dilatar la actividad de la justicia ordinaria.

Argentina-Declaracion conjunta AI ICJ Complicidad economica-Advocacy-2015-SPA (full text in PDF)

Translate »