Cambodia: ICJ co-organizes workshop on the Universal Periodic Review of Cambodia

Cambodia: ICJ co-organizes workshop on the Universal Periodic Review of Cambodia

On 29 and 30 June, the ICJ co-organized a workshop for Cambodian civil society on the UPR.

The workshop was organized with the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, the Cambodia Country Office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UPR Info, and the Cambodian Human Rights Committee on the mid-point review of the Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Universal Review (UPR) of Cambodia.

The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) underwent its second UPR in January 2014.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

1. conduct a comprehensive mid-term assessment of the progress and challenges as of late June 2017 of the RGC’s implementation of those recommendations made during the second UPR cycle of Cambodia that the RGC had accepted with a view to informing advocacy around the September 2017 session of the HRC;

2. To take stock of the situation of UPR implementation to provide a basis for preparation of NGO shadow reports during the 3rd cycle of the UPR;

3. To discuss a specific set of UPR recommendations among relevant government bodies and civil society organizations in order to build relationships and raise awareness of the recommendations;

4. To advocate for the full implementation of the recommendations accepted during the second UPR cycle of Cambodia; and

5. To increase awareness of and demand among the Cambodian public for the implementation of the accepted UPR recommendations and to increase awareness of the HRC and UPR process.

Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia for the ICJ, moderated a panel discussion on “developing strategic advocacy plans​​ for monitoring the implementation of UPR recommendations” and delivered a presentation on “strategies to effectively implement recommendations and lessons learned from other countries” focusing on past UPR cycles of Thailand Lao PDR.

After a comprehensive review of the recommendations accepted by the RGC during the last UPR cycle it was determined that many of the recommendations had not been implemented.

Civil society agreed that it was important to further strengthen coordinated efforts to monitor and conduct advocacy around the UPR process, engage constructively with the RGC, and begin preparation for the third UPR cycle focusing on lessons learned from the last cycle and regional experiences.

Contact

Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Legal Professionals and the UN Universal Periodic Review: Joint NGO statement

Legal Professionals and the UN Universal Periodic Review: Joint NGO statement

The ICJ today joined an oral statement on the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, as well as the threats they face, and the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.

The statement, delivered by the Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, read as follows:

“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released this week its report on the ‘Role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’. The report assesses more than 38,000 recommendations made between 2008 and 2014 for references to the legal profession.

The report’s key findings include:

UPR recommendations still insufficiently address the role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, or the threats they face, as extensively documented by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Significantly, these recommendations often make no reference to relevant UN standards.

Recommendations relating to the independence of judges are often too vague to be an effective response to the shortcomings of any given jurisdiction. Serious issues in the appointment and removal of judges are mostly ignored.

The independence of lawyers was considered in fewer than 100 of the 38,000 UPR recommendations.

Prosecutorial independence is addressed in less than 10 per cent of the recommendations calling upon States to effectively investigate or prosecute rights violations.

Guarantees for legal professionals’ rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association are barely addressed. This fails to reflect the key role that self-governing organisations of legal professionals should play in upholding human rights and the rule of law, the independence of the legal profession and law reform processes.

As international organisations of legal professionals, we foster the engagement of the legal profession in UN human rights mechanisms and in monitoring the implementation of UPR recommendations.

We call upon the Human Rights Council, as well as States, to ensure that in the third cycle of the UPR, the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors receives the heightened attention that it is due, as recognised by the UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers and the UN Guidelines on the role of prosecutors.”

The following organisations endorsed the statement:

  • Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
  • Commonwealth Lawyers Association
  • International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
  • International Commission of Jurists
  • Judges for Judges
  • Lawyers for Lawyers
  • Southern Africa Litigation Centre

The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC31-JointOralStatement-UPRLegalProfessions-2016

The IBAHRI report on ‘The role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’ is available at : http://tinyurl.com/gr525sq

Myanmar: ICJ attends Universal Periodic Review Pre-Session in Geneva

Myanmar: ICJ attends Universal Periodic Review Pre-Session in Geneva

Myanmar’s human rights record for the past four and a half years will be under scrutiny at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC), as the country goes up for its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) review on 6 November 2015.

Myanmar will be assessed on developments based on information provided by the government, UN human rights experts, institutions and treaty bodies; and stakeholders including Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

The eleventh round of Pre-Sessions to discuss the human rights situations in Myanmar was held on 8 October 2015 and was organized by UPR-Info.

The event brought together various permanent missions and various Myanmar civil society organizations (CSOs) that presented their respective UPR recommendations.

This event also provided NGOs, including the ICJ, with an opportunity to contribute to the UPR process by informing several delegations at once about specific, actionable recommendations to the government to effectively address human rights violations and provide redress.

In its UPR stakeholder submission, the ICJ drew the attention of the HRC Working Group on the UPR, and that of the HRC itself, to the ICJ’s concerns about the independence of the judiciary and legal profession, the lack of legislation adequately protecting human rights and the environment, discriminatory laws targeting women and minorities, and the writ of habeas corpus in Myanmar.

The Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights referred to these issues in its summary to the HRC Working group on the UPR.

UPR discussions in Geneva led by NGOs reiterated that despite reforms, significant human rights challenges remain in Myanmar. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • During its first UPR in 2011, Myanmar had supported recommendations to consider signing and ratifying core human rights treaties, but has made no significant progress;
  • A recent parliament veto reserves the 25% of the seats in the legislative bodies for the military, thus continuing military impunity and preserving their hold over any constitutional or legislative amendment;
  • The Myanmar National Human Rights Commission suffers from low credibility due to its lack of autonomy from the government and failure to investigate egregious human rights violations;
  • The package of “race and religion protection” laws comes at a time of increasing ethnic and religious tension, and discriminates on grounds of gender and religion. Discrimination against religious minorities has led to mass displacement, deaths and rights violations;
  • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights are routinely violated;
  • The Environmental Conservation Law allowed government departments and private business abroad exemptions from environmental protection obligations;
  • Judicial independence is compromised as judges in some instances still render decisions based on orders coming from military and the government.

Contact:

Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser, Myanmar, t: +95-09250800301; e: vani.sathisan(a)icj.org

The ICJ’s UPR stakeholder submission for Myanmar can be found here

The OHCHR summary to the UN Working Group for the UPR can be found here

 

 

Translate »