Sep 11, 2017 | News
The Government of Myanmar must do everything in its power to respect and protect human rights during military operations in northern Rakhine State, said the ICJ today.
These military operations have reportedly resulted in widespread unlawful killing and the displacement of more than 200,000 people in response to attacks attributed to ARSA.
The ICJ called on Myanmar’s government to act as swiftly as possible to address the root causes of violence, discrimination and under-development in Rakhine, as well as for enhanced engagement by the international community in efforts to effectively address the situation, and to take measures to ensure that security operations are conducted in accordance with international human rights standards.
The military operations follow attacks by ARSA on August 25 on police posts and a military base in which at least 12 police, military and government officials were killed, along with a large number of attackers (according to government figures).
In the wake of the attacks on 25 August, the military launched what it has termed as a “clearance operation,” and the government announced that parts of northern Rakhine State have been designated as a “military operations area.”
“The attacks attributed to ARSA constitute serious crimes for which individual perpetrators should be brought to account through fair trials conducted in accordance with international standards,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“But ‘clearance operations’ carried out by the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military) in an unlawful manner, and allegations of serious human rights violations, many amounting to crimes under international law, are on an entirely different scale and cannot be justified in the name of security or countering terrorism. These allegations must be promptly investigated in light of the Tatmadaw’s decades-long record of grave human rights violations and impunity throughout Myanmar,” he added.
“The Tatmadaw is responsible for the conduct of security operations in Rakhine as in other parts of the country, but the entire government remains responsible for upholding its international legal obligations to protect the rights of everyone living in Rakhine State – including the Rohingya Muslim communities that constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in the areas most affected by the violence,” Zarifi said.
“We also urge the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi to use her immense electoral popularity and moral stature to push for full respect for human rights for the Rohingya as well as all others in Rakhine State.”
In the wake of the attacks on 25 August, the military launched what it has termed as a “clearance operation,” and the government announced that parts of northern Rakhine State have been designated as a “military operations area.”
These terms are not clearly prescribed in Myanmar’s laws, but in practice seem to be used to grant the military authority to ignore legal protections afforded under the country’s constitution and international standards.
“Whatever descriptive cover may be used to describe security operations, they must scrupulously respect international standards on the use of force.” Zarifi said.
“Myanmar’s government has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect all people in its jurisdiction from attacks by armed groups, but it must do so in conformity with international law. Experience from around the world has shown that greater respect for rule of law and human rights is the most effective response to terrorism,” he added.
This was unfortunately not the case following the arrests and detentions carried out during the military operations that followed attacks in October 2016.
Many of these arrests appear arbitrary and unlawful, as detainees were not given access to legal counsel, and deaths in custody have not been properly investigated.
Similar violations by the military have been documented recently in Shan and Kachin States.
Government authorities must ensure that arrest and detention in the context of the current operations in Rakhine State be conducted in accordance with national and international law, and respect the rights to liberty, freedom from arbitrary detention and a fair trial.
The most effective way for the government to respond to allegations of abuse by the security forces both in Rakhine and elsewhere in the country would be to take well-founded allegations seriously, and ensure that they are promptly, impartially and thoroughly investigated and those responsibility are brought to justice.
It is an unfortunate fact that investigations and prosecutions of human rights violations are rarely undertaken in regular courts, as national laws shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, often by using military or special police courts.
Zarifi further said: “Ending the military’s impunity would establish much needed confidence in the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.”
“One immediate way to illustrate this commitment would be to cooperate with the UN Fact Finding Mission, which the ICJ and other organizations called for earlier in the year, to investigate allegations of human rights violations and abuses in Myanmar.”
“There are paths forward for the government to both respond to allegations of rights violations, and to show its commitment to finding solutions to the unacceptable state of affairs in Rakhine State.”
Myanmar-RakhineStateCrisis-PressReleases-2017-ENG (full press release)
Jan 17, 2017 | News
Leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, have hailed a landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court to hold the UK Government accountable for its role in human rights abuses overseas.
The country’s highest court issued today a long-awaited judgment in the two joined appeals in Belhaj and Others v. Jack Straw & Others and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence and Another.
The Court ruled that the UK Government could not rely on the legal doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state to escape claims in the two cases alleging UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
The first case, brought by the former Libyan opposition leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj (photo) and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, alleges that UK Government officials were complicit in the couple’s kidnap and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured.
The second case was brought by Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained by UK forces in Iraq before being handed over to US forces and allegedly tortured and imprisoned without charge for over ten years.
The Government argued before the Supreme Court that the claimants’ cases should be dismissed because, under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state, the UK courts were not permitted to rule on the legality of acts by foreign governments.
The claimants argued in response that the doctrines only applied in certain limited situations, and that they did not extend to the circumstances in Belhaj and Rahmatullah.
The claimants’ position in Belhaj was supported by several prominent human rights organizations – the ICJ, Amnesty International, JUSTICE and REDRESS – who intervened in the case.
The intervening organizations submitted that dismissing the claims would effectively grant impunity for torture to UK officials, violating international human rights law and weakening international commitments to an effective remedy for torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights breaches.
The Supreme Court found unanimously in favour of the claimants and dismissed the Government’s appeal.
It ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply because the foreign governments were not parties to the cases and their legal interests were not affected by the claims put forward.
In respect of foreign act of state, while the judges differed in their reasoning, they agreed that the doctrine could not be invoked for such serious violations of law as torture, unlawful detention and enforced disappearance.
The Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases will now proceed to full trials, where the courts will examine the facts of the claims and determine whether the UK Government and its officials were complicit in the claimants’ torture and other human rights abuses.
“The UK Supreme Court has spoken forcefully in affirming that the public interest in ensuring access to justice for victims of serious human rights abuses is paramount,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Human rights are universal and their effective enforcement must not be blocked by misapplied juridical doctrine that contrives to deny victims a remedy,” he added.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22979 3800 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
UK-Belhaj case-News-press releases-2017-ENG (full version of press release, in PDF)
Oct 11, 2016 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Selected by a jury of 10 global human rights organizations, including the ICJ, Ilham Tohti has worked for two decades to foster dialogue and understanding between Uyghurs and Han Chinese. Detained in China, he could not travel to collect his prize in Geneva.
A renowned Uyghur intellectual in China, Ilham Tohti (photo) has rejected separatism and violence, and sought reconciliation based on a respect for Uyghur culture, which has been subject to religious, cultural and political repression in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
In 1994 he began to write about problems and abuses in Xinjiang, which led to official surveillance.
From 1999 to 2003 he was barred from teaching.
Since then the authorities have also made it impossible for him to publish in normal venues.
As a response, he turned to the Internet to broaden public awareness of the economic, social and developmental issues confronting the Uyghurs.
In 2006 he established Uyghurbiz.net, a Chinese-language site, to foster dialogue and understanding between Uyghurs and Han Chinese.
Over the course of its existence, it has been shut down periodically, and people writing for it have been harassed.
In 2009, he was arrested for several weeks after posting information on Uyghurs who had been arrested, killed and “disappeared” during and after protests.
In the following years he was periodically subjected to house arrest, and in 2013, while bound to take up a post as a visiting scholar at Indiana University, USA, he was detained at the airport and prevented from leaving China.
On January 15, 2014, Ilham Tohti was arrested on charges of separatism and sentenced to life imprisonment, after a two-day trial.
Numerous statements were issued by Western governments and the European Union condemning his trial and sentence, and in early 2016 several hundred academics petitioned the Chinese leadership for his release.
Upon his nomination as a Finalist for the Martin Ennals Award earlier this year, his daughter stated: “My father Ilham Tohti has used only one weapon in his struggle for the basic rights of the Uyghurs of Xinjiang: Words; spoken, written, distributed, and posted. This is all he has ever had at his disposal, and all that he has ever needed. And this is what China found so threatening. A person like him doesn’t deserve to be in prison for even a day.”
Martin Ennals Foundation Chair Dick Oosting said: “The real shame of this situation is that by eliminating the moderate voice of Ilham Tohti the Chinese Government is in fact laying the groundwork for the very extremism it says it wants to prevent.”
The two other finalists received Martin Ennals Prizes.
Zone 9 Bloggers (Ethiopia) are nine young activists who called themselves ‘Zone 9’ as a symbol for Ethiopia as a whole (Kality prison in Ethiopia, has 8 zones and holds many journalists and political prisoners).
They document human rights abuses and shed light on the situation of political prisoners in Ethiopia.
Six of its members were arrested and charged with terrorism.
Although they have now been released, three are in exile while four of the six remaining in Ethiopia are still facing charges and banned from travel.
Razan Zaitouneh (Syria) has dedicated her life to defending political prisoners, documenting violations, and helping others free themselves from oppression.
She founded the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), which documents the death toll and ill-treatment in Syria’s prisons.
She had started to cover all sides in the conflict when she was kidnapped, alongside with her husband and two colleagues, on 9 December 2013. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
Background
The “Nobel Prize of Human Rights”, the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide.
Strongly supported by the City of Geneva, the award is given to Human Rights Defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk. Its aim is to provide protection through international recognition.
The Jury is composed of the following NGOs: ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Int’l Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights, and HURIDOCS.
Contact:
Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208, e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org
Olivier van Bogaert, Director, ICJ Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08, e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
china-mea-laureate-2016-news-press-releases-2016-chi (full text in Chinese, PDF)
Watch the Martin Ennals Award Ceremony 2016:
Watch the Ilham Tohti movie:
Jul 12, 2016 | News
The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision reiterating the importance of accountability for human rights violations by police and security forces, in particular where unnecessary or excessive force is alleged to have been used, is a welcome step and must be immediately implemented.
In the case of EEVFAM v Union of India, petitioners alleged that 1,528 killings by the police and security forces in the Indian state of Manipur had amounted to unlawful extrajudicial executions. Manipur is the site of a long-running armed insurgency.
In 2013, a court-appointed commission – the Santosh Hegde Commission – conducted an inquiry into six of the cases mentioned in the petition, and found all the six killings to be unlawful.
“This judgment is a strong signal from the Court that human rights violations by security forces will not be tolerated in the name of national security or anti-terror policies,” said Sam Zarifi, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Asia Director.
“It’s crucial for the government now to follow through on this ruling to bring the families of the victims of these and other extra judicial executions mentioned in this petition closer to truth, justice and accountability”.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use force, to cause death.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court, thus effectively shielding armed forces from accountability for human rights violations.
“These, and other allegations, of human rights violations under the AFSPA only reiterate the urgent need to repeal this draconian and undemocratic law,” Zarifi said. “The allegations in this case are evidence of the culture of impunity that the AFSPA has perpetuated”.
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court made some welcome observations:
- It emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, reiterating the principles laid down in previous landmark cases. It said “every death caused by the armed forces, including in the disturbed area of Manipur should be thoroughly enquired into if there is a complaint or allegation of abuse or misuse of power”.
- It dismissed the government’s argument that legal safeguards would not fully apply to anyone considered an “enemy” under Indian law. The Court held that at least all Indian citizens were equally entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, stating “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger”.
- It noted that it did not have sufficient information about each of the 1,528 cases mentioned in the petition. It has directed parties to present detailed information about the status of each case.
“This judgment references India’s obligations under international human rights law, which requires the government to respect and protect the right to life and ensure access to effective remedies,” Zarifi said. “Accountability for all human rights violations is a key aspect of these rights”.
The ICJ called for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all the cases mentioned in the petition, in line with international standards.
It said that persons responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials in civilian courts, and the family of victims should be accorded an effective remedy and reparation for any violations.
The ICJ will continue to follow the case, which will continue in four weeks. Several key issues remain to be addressed, which the court will look at in subsequent hearings.
First, how should the specific cases be investigated? The petitioners have asked for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to investigate the allegations, to ensure that the enquiry is fair, independent and thorough.
Second, in what forum should trials take place? The Indian Army Act allows for army personnel on active duty to be tried by a court martial (military court) instead of a civilian court for all offences, including gross human rights violations.
International standards call for military personnel accused of gross human rights violations to be put on trial before a civilian court. The Court has left this question open for the allegations in the present petition, stating: “The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court”.
Third, the Court will also consider the efficacy of the National Human Rights Commission; in particular whether its guidelines are binding or only advisory. Under Indian law, the NHRC has limited jurisdiction where human rights violations by the armed forces are concerned.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e:sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 3, 2016 | News
One of the leading indigenous activists and human rights defenders in Honduras, Berta Cáceres had worked jointly with the ICJ on several projects. She was shot dead by unknown attackers at her home today.
The ICJ urges the Honduran authorities to launch a rapid and independent investigation to identify who perpetrated and/or ordered the murder of Berta Cáceres and bring the person(s) responsible into court.
“We have lost a courageous and committed human rights defender,” said Ramón Cadena, ICJ’s Regional Director for Central America.
“It is essential that this crime does not remain unpunished. The government must send a strong signal and take immediately measures to effectively investigate this killing and hold those responsible to account,” he added.
A relentless defender of indigenous peoples rights to land and natural resources, Berta Cáceres had been awarded the Goldmann Environmental Prize in 2015 (photo).
It is a huge loss not only for her family, but also for the whole human rights movement in Honduras, the ICJ said.
Berta Cáceres had received repeated death threats from both state security forces and the company planning the Agua Zarca dam, which she had successfully fought against, together with residents of the Lenca Community.
She had been placed under the protection of the local police in La Esperanza, the area where she lived. Obviously this was not enough.
The situation of human rights defenders in Honduras is dire and has continuously deteriorated in the recent years, with their activities being systematically criminalized.
