Apr 7, 2021 | News
Victims of gross human rights violations must be provided with effective reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence by Tunisia’s Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), judges and prosecutors asserted during a workshop held by the ICJ and the Association of Tunisian Magistrates (AMT) on 3 and 4 April.
The workshop highlighted the need for the SCC to adopt restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction measures to achieve to the fullest extent possible reparation for material and moral damage suffered by victims of gross human rights violations in Tunisia.
Participants further emphasized that SCC decisions should include recommendations on guarantees of non-recurrence, including on legal and institutional reforms.
The workshop was attended by more than 25 Tunisian judges and prosecutors attached to the 13 Specialized Criminal Chambers. Discussions involved also international experts and ICJ representatives.
“It is important that the SCC, consistent with international standards, adopt a comprehensive notion of victims and persons entitled to reparation,” said Philippe Texier, ICJ Commissioner.
“In this respect, reparative measures should focus not only on direct victims, but also indirect victims, including the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims,” he added.
Federico Andreu-Guzmán, international expert, noted the non-derogable nature of the right to reparation under international law and that SCC should seek to ensure that all their decisions comply with this right.
“SCC decisions should include wide-reaching recommendations in order to guarantee that the violations will not be repeated,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The workshop also offered the opportunity to participants to discuss a set of recommendations targeting the High Judicial Council and its role in supporting the SCC.
The recommendations, which were developed by a group of SCC judges and prosecutors following the ICJ’s roundtable of 13-14 March, aim to find joint approaches to address ongoing procedural obstacles before the SCC and will be subject of future meetings and roundtable discussions organized by the ICJ and the AMT.
Contact
Valentina Cadelo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jan 20, 2021 | News
Justice for serious human rights violations requires more effective evidence collection and prosecution, said victims and experts, at a conference organized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the ICJ, today.
Keynote speakers included the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Ilze Brands Kehri, and victim representatives from Myanmar and Yemen.
“The quest for global accountability has progressed tremendously since the ICJ began working nearly 70 years ago,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
“Over the last three decades in particular we have seen increasing efforts to seek justice at the international level as well as through national courts.”
“We now have to ensure these efforts are more coherent and are able to gather and preserve evidence critical for the successful prosecution of crimes under international law,” he added.
The ICJ has dedicated a Global Accountability Initiative to combat impunity and promote redress for serious human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law.
The Initiative works at the national, regional, and global level to facilitate victims’ access to justice.
“All over the world, perpetrators of serious human rights violations still go unpunished,” said Stef Blok, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
“But this climate of impunity cannot be allowed to continue,” he added.
Impunity for serious human rights violations remains a significant challenge for a variety of reasons including when certain countries obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court.
In response, UN Bodies, including the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, are increasingly being called upon to establish innovative accountability mechanisms often with an evidence collection and preservation function.
Examples include Syria, Myanmar and Yemen where the lack of an UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court led the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council to take action.
At the same time, accountability mechanisms have indicated challenges, including failures of political support, lack of international cooperation, and difficulties in securing the necessary resources and staffing in the amount and time required to effectively fulfill their mandates within the mandate period.
Mr Blok opened today’s online event, in which over 30 countries, numerous NGOs and victim’ advocacy groups discussed how best to enhance these various efforts. The event was moderated by Sam Zarifi.
Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
Radya Al-Mutawakel, President of the Mwatana Organization for Human Rights
Ambia Perveen, Vice chairperson of the European Rohingya Council
Omar Alshogre, Syrian refugee and human rights activist
The full video of the conference can be viewed here.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Director of Global Accountability and International Justice, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Sep 26, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted challenges and urged strengthening and support for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement was delivered during a general debate on technical assistance and capacity-building. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) appreciates the contribution of UN technical assistance and capacity-building to implementation of the Peace Agreement in Colombia.
Full implementation of the Peace Agreement is important to the fulfilment of Colombia’s international human rights obligations, including rights of victims. In particular, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP by its Spanish acronym) is playing a key role in addressing accountability for gross human rights violations committed during the internal conflict in Colombia.
The JEP faces several challenges.[1] First, the JEP must do more to strengthen effective participation of victims in its procedures. Second, the Special Jurisdiction from the outset should ensure that the sanctions it imposes and reparation measures it orders are sufficient and appropriate to meet international standards. Third, national authorities, including the President and the Parliament, must respect the judicial independence of the Special Jurisdiction.
The ICJ also highlights the need for effective measures to address security threats faced by victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP.
We urge the UN, States and other stakeholders to provide technical assistance and capacity building towards strengthening guarantees for victim’s rights in the JEP’s procedures, and we urge the Human Rights Council to follow closely the work of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to ensure it makes an effective contribution to fulfilling Colombia’s obligations under international law.”
[1] See also ICJ, Colombia: The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Analysis One Year and a Half After its Entry into Operation (executive summary in English and full report in Spanish available at: https://www.icj.org/colombia-the-special-jurisdiction-for-peace-one-year-after-icj-analysis/).
Jul 29, 2019 | News
The Government of Nepal has failed to fulfill its commitment to provide justice for the victims of the country’s decade-long armed conflict, the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and TRIAL International said today.
The organizations echoed statements by victims and human rights groups about the Nepal government’s inaction on addressing conflict-era human rights violations, and a lack of transparency in the appointment of commissioners to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearances.
“The lack of progress in holding perpetrators accountable for the suffering inflicted upon victims, their families and Nepali society as a whole, is appalling,” said ICJ Asia-Pacific Director Frederick Rawski.
“Nearly 13 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, political leaders inside and outside of government are still playing games by politicizing the process. It is about time that they showed some courage, and took action to ensure access to justice, instead of continually looking after their own short-term self-interests,” he added.
“We have seen no evidence so far that the authorities of Nepal are serious about fulfilling their obligation to investigate conflict-era violations and bring all those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts,” said Raju Chapagai, South Asia researcher at Amnesty International. “If the commitment to human rights obligations was as unflinching as claimed by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the government would have acted diligently to deliver on its transitional justice responsibilities.”
After being elected in 2018, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli renewed promises that the legal framework governing the transitional justice process would be brought into conformity with Nepal’s international human rights law obligations, as the Supreme Court had repeatedly directed. However, the government never amended the law, and instead pushed forward – without adequate consultation – with the establishment of a committee to recommend appointments to the transitional justice bodies.
“The failure of the government to deliver on its commitment to ensure truth, justice and reparations for the victims of conflict-era abuses shows a dismaying disregard for the protection of human rights,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
The organizations called on the government to: 1) suspend the current process, and initiate a consultative and transparent process for the nomination and appointment of commissioners; 2) follow through on commitments to amend the 2014 transitional justice law to ensure that the legal framework is consistent with international human rights standards and Supreme Court rulings; and 3) adopt and publicize a plan for taking the transitional justice process forward.
“The legitimacy of Nepal’s transitional justice process lies both on a transparent and consultative appointment process for commissioners, and a strong legal foundation to allow the commissions to fulfil their mandate,” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Head of TRIAL International’s Nepal program. “Societal consensus is crucial for both factors.”
Amnesty International, ICJ and TRIAL International had previously submitted their analysis of the draft transitional justice legislation circulated in 2018 and had made recommendations on ensuring compliance with international human rights law. Human Rights Watch had also alerted for reform of the transitional justice law before appointing the commissioners. In April 2019, United Nations experts also wrote a joint letter to the foreign minister reminding the government of its commitment to amend the law and calling for a transparent process for appointing new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners expired.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 644781121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org,
Nepal-trans just-News-Press releases-2019-NEP (story in Nepali, PDF)
May 25, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian Parliament to reverse its decision of 26 March 2018 and allow the Truth and Dignity Commission (IVD) to carry out its mandate for at least another year.
The IVD should be in the position to finalize its investigations of past serious human rights violations in the country and, when appropriate, refer cases to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), the ICJ added.
Since its decision, the Parliament has not considered or adopted any measures to address the legal and practical consequences, including how incomplete investigations by the IVD will be handled, how other investigations will be transferred to the SCC and by whom, how evidence will be preserved and protected, how the documents and the material gathered by the IVD will properly be archived, and what would happen if the IVD were unable to complete the drafting of the final report.
The initial four-year term of the IVD ends on 31 May 2018.
“It’s absolutely irresponsible for the Tunisian Parliament to thwart the whole transitional justice process and curtail the work of the IVD without providing any path forward,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“As one of the three branches of government, the Parliament must abide by Tunisia’s obligations under international law to establish the truth about past human rights violations, bring the perpetrators to account, and provide victims with effective remedies and reparation,” he added.
The March decision runs counter to all these obligations.
It denies the rights of victims, and broader society, to know the truth, including about the circumstances and reasons that led to decades of serious human rights violations in the country.
The IVD has not been able to finalize its investigations or produce its final report.
It also shields those responsible from criminal accountability. Only eight cases have so far been referred by the IVD to the SCC.
The fate of cases that have been investigated but are not referred before 31 May 2018 remains unclear. The IVD reportedly received some 62’712 complaints.
“The Parliament is abdicating its responsibility to respect and protect victims’ rights,” Benarbia said.
“Instead of playing cynical political games that can only foster impunity, the Parliament should reverse its decision and remove all the obstacles that might impede the IVD’s work in ensuring accountability for past abuses, ” he added.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Under the 2013 law on transitional justice, the IVD initially had a four-year term, with the possibility of renewal for a single additional year, on the basis of a reasoned decision by the IVD.
The 2013 law provided that the IVD’s decision on renewal should be submitted to the Parliament.
The law is however silent as to whether the submission of the IVD decision was simply a matter of notification, or required approval of Parliament to be effective.
In any event, 68 members of the Parliament voted on 26 March against extending the term of the IVD for another year.
Under its bylaws, for decisions of Parliament to be valid they must be adopted by at least 72 of its members.
The apparent lack of quorum for the Parliament’s 26 March decision has only introduced more uncertainty and confusion, further complicating the position for the IVD and others, including most notably the victims themselves.
On 24 May 2018, the IVD and the Minister in charge of relations with constitutional bodies, civil society and human rights issued a joint statement reiterating Tunisia’s commitments to the transitional justice process as provided by the Constitution.
In the statement, the IVD was requested to transfer all cases concerning serious human rights violations to the SCC, to establish criteria on the basis of which reparation for victims will be provided, to establish compensation criteria for the Victims Fund, and to send the final report to the President of the Republic, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Government.
Tunisia-IVD Parliament-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
