Russian Federation: ICJ and ECRE intervened before European Court in case of extradition of a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity

Russian Federation: ICJ and ECRE intervened before European Court in case of extradition of a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity

The ICJ and ECRE intervened today before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the extradition of a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity back to his country of origin where he would be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment .

In their submissions, the ICJ and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) analysed thenon-refoulement obligations of the Russian Federation under international human rights law in relation to the consideration of evidence to assess the substantial grounds to believe that a concerned person will face real risk of a serious human rights violation; and the use of diplomatic assurances purportedly to protect against torture and other serious human rights violations in light of international law.

The two NGOs also provided the Court with an update on the legal framework governing extraditions from the Russian Federation to Central Asian States, in particular Kyrgyzstan, as well as Russia’s extradition practice. They concluded that the analysis of the law and practice revealed a number of critical human rights deficits.

They submitted that the lack of respect for the procedural aspect of the principle of non-refoulement, the consequent ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in this regard, in the Russian Federation, and the abysmal record of Kyrgyzstan in upholding its obligation to respect and protect the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment mean that extraditions from the Russian Federation to Kyrgyzstan entail a high risk of violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the principle of non-refoulement.

These submissions are an update of the third party intervention submitted by the ICJ before the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 2016. The Chamber had ruled that no risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement existed in the case but the judgment is now subject to the review of the Grand Chamber.

ECtHR-TK and others v Russia-GC-ICJECRE-Final (download the third party intervention)

Canada: Supreme Court affirms that Eritreans can seek redress against Canadian Company for human rights abuses

Canada: Supreme Court affirms that Eritreans can seek redress against Canadian Company for human rights abuses

The ICJ today welcomed the judgement of the Canadian Supreme Court in the Case of Araya v, Nevsun, which allows a civil lawsuit by a group of Eritrean plaintiffs to proceed against Canadian company Nevsun Resources Ltd. for its alleged involvement in forced labour, slavery, torture and other serious human rights abuses against plaintiffs.

The ICJ together with Amnesty International-Canada intervened in the case as a third party, arguing that Canada’s common law should be read in a manner consistent with the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations under international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This judgment is a landmark achievement for workers and other victims of human rights violations as well for international rule of law and justice,” said Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal adviser at the ICJ.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has shown that misapplied legal doctrine should not stand in the way of people’s right to effective remedy and reparations,” he added.

In the case, the Supreme Court of Canada  rejected the company’s contention that the “act of state doctrine” would preclude the case from going forward.

The Court concluded that this doctrine is not in fact part of Canadian law.

The company also contended that the allegations of breach of customary international law  could only be applicable to States and not to the company itself.

The Court, however, held that customary international law, including customary human rights law, is part of Canadian law and could apply to Nevsun as a corporate entity.

In a significant victory for the plaintiffs and other similarly situated alleged victims, the Supreme Court has allowed the case to proceed, dismissing jurisdictional and procedural objections from Nevsun.

The proceedings before the Supreme Court originated in an appeal by the defendant company Nevsun Resources Ltd against the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s judgment of 2017 which upheld the rights of claimants to sue in Canada.

The claim filed in 2015 argued that Nevsun Resources was involved in various ways in the practice of forced labour, slavery, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity at the Bisha mine (picture) against hundreds of Eritreans who were conscripted into the Eritrean National Service Programme and forced to working in the mine operated jointly by Nevsun and Eritrean State companies.

The claimants were allegedly forced to work in the Bisha mine and fled the country to find refuge in Canada, where they sued Nevsun.

Tajikistan: ICJ analysis and compilation of the UN Human Rights Committee Views concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment

Tajikistan: ICJ analysis and compilation of the UN Human Rights Committee Views concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment

Today, the ICJ published a compilation of cases (read the full document here) decided by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (articles 7 and 10).

This compilation draws together the views of the HRC in all individual communications adjudicated on the merits in respect of Tajikistan, concerning Article 7 and Article 10 of the ICCPR from 1999 to 2019.

This compilation provides a resource for lawyers, judges, civil society and other stakeholders working to protect against torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan. The cases in this volume demonstrate how the UN Human Rights Committee has applied the principles of its jurisprudence on torture and other ill-treatment to the particular legal and factual context of Tajikistan. These authoritative interpretations of the ICCPR by the Committee can help to inform consideration of these issues in the national courts, as well as in legislative reform and policy making.

In addition, by drawing together and analysing the facts of individual communications to the Committee from Tajikistan, this compilation also serves to identify underlying systemic issues which Tajik authorities and the national justice system fail to address. An introduction to the compilation highlight of the main issues which have been identified by the Committee in almost 20 years of its practice on Tajikistan. Several patterns regarding the actual functioning of the Tajik criminal justice system can be drawn from the Committee’s decisions. Together they represent an important evidentiary source to determine where the justice system fails in practice to protect human rights that are guaranteed by the ICCPR and often by Tajikistan law and procedure.

While the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7 is the central point of this review, it logically includes some reference to other relevant Articles of the ICCPR, including Article 2(3) (the right to an effective remedy for violations of the Covenant rights) Article 6 (right to life), Article 10 (conditions of detention), Article 9 (the right to liberty) and Article 14 (fair trial rights). These rights are analysed only where they are pleaded by applicants in cases also involving allegations of violations of rights under Article 7 or 10 ICCPR.

This compilation of cases is published as part of ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, with a view to rendering accessible the cases of the Human Rights Committee related to torture and other ill-treatment to a wide range of different actors within and engaging with the justice system. It should be useful both for independent practitioners such as lawyers, human rights defenders and civil society organizations, and for the judiciary, but also the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Interior, under whose competence some of the issues may fall. The publication should be of equal interest to IGOs working in or with an interest in Tajikistan.

Human Rights Day: South Asian States must end culture of impunity for torture

Human Rights Day: South Asian States must end culture of impunity for torture

The pervasive practice of torture and other ill treatment can only be addressed if the States in the region ensure perpetrators are held accountable in line with international standards, said lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The call came at a regional conference on the investigation and prosecution of torture and other ill treatment in South Asia, organized by the ICJ ahead of Human Rights Day.

“Governments in South Asia have done very little to support the victims and survivors of torture and other ill treatment, or to ensure their rights to truth, justice and reparation,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.

“Despite the persistence of the practice, Governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” he added.

Torture and other ill treatment are prevalent in South Asia, and in some countries widespread and systematic, with perpetrators enjoying impunity for the crime.

According to the ICJ, States in the region continue to deny the pervasiveness of torture, use torture as a deliberate tool to control and punish dissent, fail to enact specific legislation to criminalize torture, and where a special law exists, fail to implement it in good faith.

Consequently, there have been few concerted efforts to hold perpetrators of torture and ill treatment to account.

All too often, perpetrators get away with only disciplinary sanctions, and even when prosecutions happen, they do not result in convictions and commensurate penalties.

Suspects are often lower or middle-ranking public officials rather than their superiors, who are charged with lesser crimes than torture, such as assault, battery, coercion or abuse of office that carry relatively low punishments.

Prosecutions frequently fail because of the difficulties to prove torture, including securing witnesses for the prosecution, inadequate or conflicting medical evidence as well as threats of reprisals influencing victims and witnesses.

Even when such hurdles are overcome, immunities that protect public officials from prosecutions allow perpetrators to escape accountability.

Furthermore, military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention, which facilitate the practice of torture and other ill treatment.

Under international law, States must ensure protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, States are required to investigate allegations competently, impartially, independently, promptly and thoroughly.

While a comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to prevent and combat torture and other ill treatment – ensuring accountability for perpetrators would be a first step, said the ICJ.

Contact:

Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org

 

Translate »