Oct 26, 2015 | News
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
Oct 6, 2015 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Selected by a jury of 10 Global Human Rights organizations, including the ICJ, Ahmed Mansoor could not come to Geneva to collect the 2015 Award, as he has been banned from travelling. Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) and Asmaou Diallo (Guinea) receive Martin Ennals Prizes.
Emirati blogger and prominent human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor is one of the very few independent voices to whom international NGOs can turn for a credible independent assessment of human rights developments in the United Arab Emirates.
He regularly raises concerns on arbitrary detention, torture, international standards for fair trials, non-independence of the judiciary, and domestic laws that violate international law.
Since 2006, he has focussed on initiatives concerning freedom of expression, civil and political rights.
He successfully campaigned in 2006-2007 to support two people jailed for critical social comments, who were released and the charges dropped.
Shortly after, the Prime Minister of UAE issued an order not to jail journalists in relation to their work.
He has faced repeated intimidation and harassment, including imprisonment in 2011 after being convicted of “insulting officials” and sentenced to three years’ in prison, although he was released after eight months.
Since being jailed in 2011, he has been denied a passport and banned from travelling.
The Martin Ennals Jury has publically urged the government of the UAE to lift this travel ban and allow him to travel.
“Ahmed Mansoor continues to pay the price for speaking out on human rights issues in his country, we urge his government to lift the travel ban,” said Martin Ennals Foundation Chair Micheline Calmy-Rey.
“There is little attention for the massive crackdown on free expression and assembly in the UAE, and Ahmed Mansoor is one of the few independent voices who refuses to be silenced,” said Olivier van Bogaert, ICJ Director of Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury.
“Without him, we would probably not know that behind the UAE’s shopping malls, high-rise towers and tourism hub, there is a nasty underside, there are dark prisons where inmates are hidden for years without trial, and tortured,” he added.
Honored with a Martin Ennals Prize, Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) has courageously fought against human rights abuses since 1974.
He has been repeatedly imprisoned in harsh conditions, physically attacked as well as regularly threatened. He was disbarred from 1993 – 2012.
Currently, he represents students detained for peacefully protests.
Asmaou Diallo (Guinea) founded l’Association des Parents et Amis des Victimes du 28 septembre 2009 (APIVA), after the Guinean military attacked peaceful demonstrators on that day.
APIVA assists those affected, and supports them to testify in court proceedings.
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, ICJ Director of Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08, e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Watch the Martin Ennals Award Ceremony 2015:
Watch the Ahmed Mansoor film:
Jul 7, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ and 15 other NGOs participating in the first session of the OEIWG to elaborate a treaty on business and human rights highlighted that in principle all conduct by all types of business enterprises, whether local or transnational, shall be addressed in the legally binding instrument.
The footnote in the preamble should not be interpreted as limiting in any way the scope of possible discussions in the Open Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIWG) or any analysis or recommendations that may be reported back to the Council on a future treaty.
Business enterprises that do not have any or any significant transnational operations no doubt are capable of and in many instances have been responsible for human rights abuses no less serious in scale or severity than those of transnational businesses.
The people whose human rights are abused directly or indirectly by businesses are unlikely to distinguish whether the business enterprise that causes them harm has transnational ownership or operations; nor are affected people likely to excuse abuses they suffer from a “local” business simply because the entity lacks a transnational element.
From the point of view of those whose human rights are affected by business activities, the key consideration is not the formal character of the business entity, but instead the their practical access to effective remedy and reparation for the harm they have suffered.
If a treaty is going to take the view and needs of those adversely affected by business activity as a central concern, it must address all business enterprises that can potentially carry out abuses and not only on those with transnational links.
The statement can be downloaded here: Joint Oral Statement on Scope v.2
Mar 20, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ today joined a call with Libyan, regional and other international NGOs for the Human Rights Council to create an independent inquiry mechanism into serious human rights and humanitarian law violations in Libya.
The escalating armed conflict and significantly deteriorating human rights situation in Libya requires a strong and urgent response from the Human Rights Council.
The statement calls for the creation of an independent inquiry mechanism with the mandate to investigate and ensure accountability for gross human rights and humanitarian law violations occurring throughout the country including attacks on civilians, the widespread use of torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and unlawful killings.
The statement outlines the ongoing impunity for those responsible for violations, the inability of the Libyan criminal justice system to deal with such crimes and it calls on the Human Rights Council to encourage Libya’s cooperation with the ICC.
Libya-HRC joint Statement-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Libya-HRC joint Statement-Advocacy-2015-ARA (full text in PDF)
Feb 19, 2015 | News
The ICJ and other rights groups welcome the decision Africa’s main human rights treaty body has made which recognizes Sudan’s obligation to protect human rights defenders and to ensure that their work promoting and protecting the rights of others is not hindered or frustrated.
The ICJ, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) and REDRESS hail the important decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), published on 13 February 2015, which called on Sudan to effectively investigate and prosecute the security and intelligence officers alleged to be responsible for the arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment of three prominent human rights defenders; to reopen and unfreeze the bank accounts of a human rights organization shut down in connection with the case and to pay them compensation.
Human rights defenders Monim Elgak, Amir Suliman and the late Osman Hummaida were targeted for their supposed cooperation with the International Criminal Court in a pending case against the President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir (photo) arising from international crimes committed in Sudan’s Darfur region.
The three human rights defenders were arrested on 24 November 2008 by Sudan’s National and Intelligence Services (NISS) and subjected to torture and ill-treatment for three days.
After their release, they were effectively forced to flee Sudan because of their fear of further persecution, given the impunity enjoyed by the security and intelligence services and the inaction of the Sudanese government.
Suliman was Director of the Khartoum Centre for Human Rights and Environmental Development (KCHRED), which in 2009 was shut down by the Sudanese authorities and had its bank accounts frozen.
Hummaida, an ardent advocate for human rights who founded the Khartoum Centre and set up the ACJPS in Uganda, after his release, to ensure continued reporting of the human rights situation in Sudan, died in 2014.
The complainants turned to the ACHPR in 2009. The Commission found their complaint admissible in 2012, agreeing that the Sudanese justice system prevented them from obtaining redress in Sudan.
OMCT and FIDH intervened on their behalf at the ACHPR and the complaint was supported by the ICJ, ACJPS and REDRESS.
Reacting to the decision, Amir Suliman, Legal Programme Coordinator of ACJPS and complainant in the case, said: “The African Commission’s decision is an important recognition of the harm caused not only in our own case but the daily harm caused to the Sudanese people through the actions of the security and intelligence services. It also highlights the lack of effective safeguards against torture and remedies for victims.”
Monim El Jak, complainant in the case and Acting Chairperson of the Commission for the Protection of Civilian and Human Rights in the conflict zones of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, said: “We hope this decision will make the Sudanese government stop and reflect on its ongoing crackdown on civil society groups and human rights activists and also helps to put an end to other human rights violations.”
The UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration establishes that states must take effective measures to facilitate the work of human rights defenders and protect their rights.
Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General, added: “The ruling sends a powerful message against torture and for the protection of those who fight torture and impunity in Sudan and in Africa. Sudan has now to fully implement and comply with this ruling providing reparations. It is time for all to recognize the vital role human rights and anti-torture activists play for the benefit of their societies.”
Karim Lahidji, the FIDH President, said: “The decision of the African Commission is significant and comes in a context where Sudanese human rights defenders continue to work in an environment that is marked by extreme insecurity and rampant impunity. Sudan must ensure that reprisals against those advocating for justice and fundamental rights and freedoms are no longer tolerated and unpunished.”
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director, said: “The Government of Sudan must now expeditiously comply with the findings of the African Commission to provide reparation to the victims, as well as to ensure guarantees of non-repetition.”
Lutz Oette, REDRESS Counsel, added: “Human rights defenders continue to be harassed, arbitrarily arrested, detained, and prosecuted in Sudan, or driven into exile. The African Commission’s decision is a timely reminder of Sudan’s obligations to protect human rights defenders, and to put a stop to its current practice.”
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director, t +27 73 131 8411, e arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
