Mar 9, 2018 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ and other organisations today express concern about China’s draft UN resolution, “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation”.
In a letter addressed to the Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council, the organizations wrote:
“The draft resolution entitled “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” lacks balance and undermines accepted international human rights law and principles. Its adoption could undermine the ability of the Council and its mechanisms to protect and promote human rights, and risks undermining the rights of victims of human rights violations.
No resolution that purports to promote human rights but ignores victims can be considered a “win” for anyone. The right of every victim to an effective remedy, regardless of the preferences of the responsible State, lies at the very heart of any meaningful understanding of human rights, as the General Assembly, the Council, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and human rights treaties, have repeatedly affirmed.
Cooperation between States, and between States and the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, is an important component of the international human rights system. The version of cooperation envisioned by the draft resolution, however, finds no basis in the decades of practice of human rights at the UN or in the Institutional Building Package for the Council. “Win-win cooperation” and “a community of shared future for mankind” instead emanate specifically from the speech made by Chinese President Xi at the Palais des Nations in January 2017 and other national policy statements. Their implications have not been explained by the Chinese delegation, and reading these terms in their original context only raises greater concern about their import.
The language stating that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option” is perhaps the best example of our many concerns. Although the draft resolution does not specify in relation to what it is “the only viable option”, presumably the implication is with regard to human rights. This language of the draft resolution directly contradicts and undermines that part of the Council’s mandate, as articulated by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/251, that requires it to respond promptly and effectively to gross and systematic human rights violations.
Indeed, in all too many actual situations of gross and systematic violations faced by the Council, States responsible for human rights violations have shown no good faith to engage in any form of cooperation that could actually assist to end the violations or fulfil the rights of the victims. The draft resolution defies experience, and suggests no consequences for persistent non-cooperation.
Additionally, there is no mention in the draft concerning enforcement of States’ obligations under international human rights law by national, regional or international courts or other bodies, or even at a more general level, the need for accountability where abuses occur. As such, only impunity stands to “win” from such an approach.
Furthermore, the concept of “win-win cooperation” in the draft resolution as currently drafted clearly focuses predominantly, if not exclusively, on cooperation between States. The draft resolution does not call for States to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. Neither does it call on States to refrain from committing reprisals against individuals or groups seeking to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, including civil society actors and victims of human rights violations.
Our organisations call on States to reject the proposed resolution on “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” as drafted. Indeed, the problems with the text are so fundamental and far-reaching, it is difficult to see how consensus could possibly be reached without a substantial rethinking of the approach. If the proponents of the draft resolution sincerely believe that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option”, they surely cannot, at the same time, believe that it would be consistent with the draft resolution’s own terms for its adoption to be forced through on a divided vote, and should withdraw the draft resolution from consideration at the present Council session.
Signatories:
- Asian Legal Resource Center
- Amnesty International
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Conectas
- Defend Defenders
- FIDH
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights
The letter can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-OpenLetter-ChinaResolution-2018
Aug 29, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
South Asian states can only address the tens of thousands of cases of enforced disappearances by recognizing enforced disappearance as a serious crime in domestic law, said the ICJ today.
On the eve of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, the ICJ 58-page report No more ‘missing persons’: the criminalization of enforced disappearance in South Asia analyzes States’ obligations to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes a distinct, autonomous crime under national law.
It also provides an overview of the practice of enforced disappearance, focusing specifically on the status of the criminalization of the practice, in five South Asian countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
For each State, the report briefly examines the national context in which enforced disappearances are reported, the existing legal framework, the role of the courts; and the international commitments and responses to recommendations concerning criminalization.
“It is alarming that despite the region having some of the highest numbers of reported cases of disappearances in the world, enforced disappearance is not presently a distinct crime in any South Asian country,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“This shows the lack of political will to hold perpetrators to account and complete apathy towards victims and their right to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.
In Nepal and Sri Lanka, draft legislation to criminalize enforced disappearance is under consideration.
Though the initiatives are welcome, the draft bills in both countries are flawed and require substantial improvements to meet international standards.
In the absence of a clear national legal framework specifically criminalizing enforced disappearance, unacknowledged detentions by law enforcement agencies are often treated by national authorities as “missing persons” cases.
On the rare occasions where criminal complaints are registered against alleged perpetrators, complainants are forced to categorize the crime as “abduction”, “kidnapping” or “unlawful confinement”.
These categories do not recognize the complexity and the particularly serious nature of enforced disappearance, and often do not provide for penalties commensurate to the gravity of the crime.
They also fail to recognize as victims relatives of the “disappeared” person and others suffering harm as a result of the enforced disappearance, as required under international law.
“Like torture and extrajudicial execution, enforced disappearance is a gross human rights violation and a crime under international law,” said Rawski.
“South Asian States must recognize that they have an obligation to criminalize the practice with penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the crime–filing “missing” person” complaints in cases of disappearance is not enough, and in fact, it trivializes the gravity of the crime,” he added.
Other barriers to bringing perpetrators to account are also similar across South Asian countries: military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention, often in the name of “national security”; members of law enforcement and security forces enjoy broad legal immunities, shielding them from prosecution; and military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military, even where these crimes are human rights violations, and proceedings before such courts are compromised by their lack of independence and impartiality.
Victims’ groups, lawyers, and activists who work on enforced disappearance also face security risks including attacks, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.
A comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to end the entrenched impunity for enforced disappearances in the region – criminalizing the practice would be a significant first step, said the ICJ.
Contacts:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, ICJ National Legal Advisor (Sri Lanka), e: thyagi.ruwanpathirana(a)icj.org
Background
Under international law, an enforced disappearance is the arrest, abduction or detention by State agents, or by people acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or by concealing the fate or whereabouts of the “disappeared” person which places the person outside the protection of the law.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity”.
South Asia-Enforced Disappearance-Publications-Reports-Thematic Reports-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)
Apr 27, 2017 | News
An appeals court’s confirmation of the conviction for crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture of Hissène Habré, the former president of Chad, is a vindication of the decades-long campaign waged by his survivors, the ICJ and two human rights groups supporting the victims said today.
Habré’s May 2016 conviction was upheld by the appeals chamber of the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegalese court system on April 27, 2017.
The appeals court also confirmed the life sentence handed down by the trial court and ordered Habré to pay over 82 billion CFA francs (approximately 123 million euros) to his victims.
“This is a crowning victory for Hissène Habré’s victims, who for 26 years never gave up fighting to bring him to justice” said the ICJ Commissioner Reed Brody, who has worked with the survivors since 1999.
“His life sentence is a wake-up call to tyrants everywhere that if they engage in atrocities they will never be out of the reach of their victims,” he added.
The appeals court also upheld the decision to order compensation to Habré’s victims and said that a trust fund created by the African Union (AU) should be tasked with searching for and recovering Habré’s assets.
A summary of the decision was read out in court by chief judge Ougadeye Wafi, a judge of the Supreme court of Mail, who shared the bench with two senior Senegalese judges.
Habré, who ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, was not in court for the judgment. He did not recognize the chambers’ authority and sat silently throughout the trial.
His court-appointed lawyers filed the appeal on his behalf.
Hissène Habré fled to Senegal in 1990 after being deposed by the current Chadian president, Idriss Déby Itno. Although Habré was first arrested and indicted in Senegal in 2000, it took a long campaign by his victims before the Extraordinary African Chambers were inaugurated by Senegal and the AU in February 2013 to prosecute crimes under international law committed in Chad during Habré’s rule.
“I have been fighting for this day since I walked out of prison more than 26 years ago,” said Souleymane Guengueng, who nearly died of mistreatment and disease in Habré’s prisons, and later founded the Association of Victims of Crimes of the Regime of Hissène Habré (AVCRHH). “Today I finally feel free.”
Habré’s trial was the first in the world in which the courts of one country prosecuted the former ruler of another for alleged human rights atrocities.
“At long last, after so many years of fighting, so many years of setbacks, we have achieved what we set out to do,” said Jacqueline Moudeina of Chad, the victims’ chief lawyer and president of the Chadian Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (ATPDH).
The appeals court said that while it accepted the credibility of the witness Khadidja Hassan Zidane who stated that Habré personally raped her on four occasions, it could not convict Habré of personal having committed rape because the charge was not included in the individual indictment.
In the ruling upheld today, the trial court awarded each survivor of rape and sexual slavery 20 million CFA francs (approximately 30,489 Euros, US$32,702), each survivor of torture and arbitrary detention and each mistreated former prisoner of war 15 million CFA francs (22,867 Euros, US$24,526), and family members of victims 10 million CFA francs (15,244 Euros, US$16,350).
It said that 7,396 victims were eligible for reparations and that 3,489 others who had not produced sufficient proof could apply to the trust fund.
The court has already frozen some assets belonging to Habré including a house in an upscale Dakar neighborhood believed to be worth about 680,000 Euros as well as some small bank accounts. Habré is thought to have much more extensive assets.
“Money will never bring back my friends,” said Clément Abaïfouta, who as a prisoner was forced to bury other detainees in mass graves, and is now president of the AVRCHH. “But money is important to heal the wounds, to take victims out of poverty, and to show that we have rights that must be recognized.”
“With this verdict, we can now try to locate and seize Habré’s assets and make sure the victims are compensated,” said lawyer Moudeina.
Contact
Reed Brody, ICJ Commissioner, t: +221-76-618-79-10 (in Dakar) or +1-917-388-6745 ; e: reedbrody(a)gmail.com
The full text of the press release can be downloaded in English and in French below:
Chad-HisseneHabre Conviction Upheld-News-Press Releases-2017-ENG (English, PDF)
Tchad-Hissene Habre peine confirmee-News-Press Releases-2017-FRE (Français, PDF)
Jan 19, 2017 | News
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
Oct 22, 2016 | Advocacy
South Africa’s announced withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a slap in the face for victims of the most serious crimes and should be reconsidered, African groups and international organizations with a presence in Africa said today.
The groups urged other African countries to affirm their commitment to the ICC, the only court of last resort to which victims seeking justice for mass atrocities can turn.
“South Africa’s intended withdrawal from the ICC represents a devastating blow for victims of international crimes across Africa,” said Mossaad Mohamed Ali of the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies. “As South Africa is one of the founding members of the court, its announcement sends the wrong message to victims that Africa’s leaders do not support their quest for justice.”
South Africa publicly announced on October 21, 2016, that it has notified the United Nations secretary-general of its intent to withdraw from the ICC.
However, there are significant questions as to whether South Africa abided by its domestic law in withdrawing without approval of its own parliament, the groups said.
“Modern day South Africa is testament to the importance of struggle for international justice, given the history of people of South Africa supported by the international community in defeating the scourge of apartheid and systematic racism. It is inconceivable that this country is now at the forefront of efforts aimed at undermining the international framework to tackle impunity,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme.
“We call on the government of South Africa to reconsider taking this enormous backwards step in the struggle for justice and to restore its place as a leader in promoting accountability for the most serious crimes and human rights abuses,” he added.
“South Africa’s purported withdrawal – without parliamentary approval or public debate – is a direct affront to decades of progress in the global fight against impunity,” said Stella Ndirangu, from the Kenyan section of the International Commission of Jurists.
“We call on the South African government to reconsider its rash action and for other states in Africa and around the world to affirm their support for the ICC.”
“We do not believe that this attempt to withdraw from the ICC is constitutional and it is a digression from the gains made by South Africa in promoting human rights on the continent,” said Jemima Njeri of the Institute for Security Studies’ International Crime in Africa Program.
“The South African government is sending a signal that it is oblivious to victims of gross crimes globally.”
South Africa’s announcement that it will withdraw from the ICC comes after the country’s court of appeal concluded the government violated its international and domestic legal obligations in not arresting ICC fugitive Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in June 2015, when he visited South Africa.
A government appeal was pending, but on October 21, 2016, the government indicated that it has withdrawn the appeal.
“The decision by Pretoria to withdraw from the Rome Statute is a response to a domestic political situation,” said George Kegoro of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
“Impervious to the country’s political history and the significance of the ICC to African victims and general citizenry, the South African leadership is marching the country to a legal wilderness, where South Africa will be accountable for nothing.”
South Africa is the first country to notify the UN secretary-general of withdrawal from the ICC.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, t: +27-716-405-926 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
south-africa-withdrawal-of-icc-advocacy-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
