Jun 23, 2019 | Events, News
This side event will take place on Friday 28 June 2019, from 13:00-14:00, in Room XXI, at the Palais des Nations.
There has been an increase in serious human rights violations in Kashmir, particularly since 2016. This has coincided with shrinking space for human rights reporting and advocacy at the national level, with human rights defenders facing unprecedented threats and reprisals.
The escalating violence, coupled with systemic impunity for perpetrators, has made it imperative for the human rights situation in Kashmir to be highlighted at the international level, including at the UN.
This event aims to bring to the forefront the human rights aspect of the conflict and discuss possible strategies through which the international community can play a more effective role in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.
Keynote Address
Hon. Judge Navanethem Pillay: Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008-2014)
Moderator
Sam Zarifi: ICJ Secretary General
Speakers
Juliette Rousselot: Program Officer for South Asia, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Gerard Staberock: Secretary General, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
Dr. Angana Chatterji: Co-chair, Initiative on Political Conflict, Gender and People’s Rights, Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley
Kashmir-HRC-Event-2019-ENG (Flyer in PDF)
Feb 12, 2019 | News
As the trial of twelve Catalan separatist leaders begins before the Spanish Supreme Court today in Madrid, the ICJ warns that their trial on broadly defined offences of rebellion and, possibly, sedition unduly restricts rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association.
“The very broad definition of the offence of rebellion being applied in this case risks unnecessary and disproportionate interference with rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia regional Director.
The twelve political leaders – including high-ranking Catalan government officials – have been charged in connection with their part in the administration on 1 October 2017 of a referendum on Catalonian independence.
The referendum was conduced despite having been declared illegal by the Constitutional Court.
The voting process during the referendum was partially suppressed by the police, with credible reports of the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force in breach of Spain’s international law obligations.
“Interference with peaceful political expression and protest must be justified as strictly necessary and proportionate under international human rights law. Where peaceful protests or political actions, even if declared unlawul by the authorities, provoke an excessive response by the police, it is solely the police and other state authorities who should be held responsible for the violence,” Pillay said.
“It is crucial that the Supreme Court, in its consideration of these charges, takes full account of Spain’s obligations under international human rights law,” she added.
The ICJ is concerned that prosecutors, and the Supreme Court in admitting the indictment in the case, have ascribed an unduly broad meaning to the offence of “rebellion” under article 472 of the Criminal Code.
According to that article, the offence requires violent insurrection to subvert the constitutional order.
But the referendum organizers are not accused of using or advocating violence.
Rather, they are being tried on the basis that they should have foreseen the risk of intervention and the use of force by the police.
It is therefore alleged that the defendants were criminally responsible for the violence that ensued from their decision to carry on with the referendum, despite it being declared illegal.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the use of force by Spanish law enforcement authorities during the repression of the referendum of 1 October 2017 was “legitimate and, as such proportionate”, international observers have concluded that such use of force was excessive and disproportionate.
In accordance with international human rights law, the mere fact that the use of force is considered to be legal under national law, does not of itself mean that it can be considered to be necessary and proportionate.
The Supreme Court has further already accepted that, if the facts alleged by prosecutors are proven, they could amount to the offence of sedition, which is committed by those that that rise up publicly and in a tumultous way, by force or by unlawful means, to impede the implementation of laws or of authorities’ orders.
“Vague, broadly defined offences of sedition or rebellion risk violation of the principle of legality, as well as arbitrary and disproportionate interference with human rights,” said Róisín Pillay.
“In a highly sensitive and politicised case such as that of the Catalonian referendum, they would set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of peaceful independence movements and political dissent, not only in Spain but internationally,” she added.
Several of the accused have already been held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods, further exacerbating the severity of the interference with rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and casting doubt on the proportionality of the response.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
The 12 people on trial in connection with the October 2017 referendum include Oriol Junqueras (photo), former Catalan vice-president; Carme Forcadell, former Catalan parliament speaker; eight former ministers in the Catalan government – Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Santi Vila, Meritxel Borràs, Dolors Bassa, Josep Rull, Carles Mundó -; Jordi Sànchez the former leader of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC); and Jordi Cuixart, former head of the independence organisation Òmnium Cultural.
The trial, which begins on 12 February in the Supreme Court in Madrid, is expected to last for several months.
Spain has obligations to protect freedom of expression, including political expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 21 and 22 ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on freedom of expression has affirmed that: “extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3 of article 19 ICCPR, which requires that restrictions on freedom of expression be provided for by law and must be necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as national security or public order .) Rights to participate in public life are protected under Article 25 ICCPR.
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the International Commission of Jurists made a submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) in view of its forthcoming review of Nepal’s implementation of and compliance with its obligations under CEDAW in light of the State party’s sixth periodic report under Article 18 of the Convention.
In its submission, the ICJ focused on the transitional justice processes in the country, and noted that the Government of Nepal has failed to effectively address human rights violations experienced by women during the armed conflict that ended in 2006.
The submission highlighted the failure of the authorities to ensure criminal accountability for serious crimes, including rape and other forms of sexual violence during the conflict, and to ensure effective and meaningful participation by women in political and public life.
In its submissions the ICJ urged the authorities of Nepal to implement a number of recommendations with a view to ensuring that the above-mentioned concerns be effectively addressed in a manner that complies with the country’s obligations under the CEDAW and other relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ’s full submission is available here: Nepal-CEDAW Report on Nepal-Advocacy-Non Legal Submission-2018-ENG
Aug 2, 2018 | News
The ICJ condemns in the strongest terms the violence that erupted in Zimbabwe after the elections, and calls for the restoration of the rule of law and respect for human rights.
At least 3 people are reported to have died in Harare on 1 August as a result of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ (ZDF) use of live ammunition “to disperse” unarmed protestors in Harare’s Central Business District.
Members of the ZDF are reported to have fired live bullets against the fleeing crowd, and assaulted people indiscriminately, resulting in injuries and loss of life.
While the ICJ does not condone acts of violence carried out by protesters and party supporters, it strongly condemns the intentional use of lethal force and other actions of the ZDF, which were disproportionate and unnecessary in the circumstances.
According to the ICJ, the unrest could have been contained in a manner consistent with Zimbabwe’s international human rights law obligations, which, in turn, could have avoided loss of lives and injuries to protesters and bystanders.
“The use of lethal force on unarmed protesters must never be condoned,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
“The intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life,” he added.
The ICJ reminds the authorities in Zimbabwe of their commitment to rule of law, constitutionalism and protection of human rights as provided for under the Constitution and relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ calls on them to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights during this post-election period.
The ICJ urges the responsible authorities to hold to account members of the ZDF responsible for the loss of life and limb during the protests on 1 August.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists C: +263 77 728 3248, E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background information
Protests erupted in the morning of 1 August 1 2018 during the announcement of the results for the National Assembly following “the Harmonised Elections” held on 30 of July 2018.
It is alleged by authorities that protesters were damaging property during the protest.
Media reports published later in the day indicate that the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) invoked section 37(1) of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11 :17], which allows the Minister of Home Affairs upon request by the Commissioner General of Police to seek assistance from the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) to quell civil commotion in any district and for the ZDF to assist.
The Zimbabwean Constitution recognizes and protects the rights of citizens to freely and peacefully demonstrate and petition.
It also guarantees the freedom of assembly and association.
Although section 86 of the Constitution makes clear the non-absolute nature of these rights, Zimbabwean authorities must be reminded that any limitations must be in terms of a law of general application and must be fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom.
Citizens of Zimbabwe are also reminded of these constitutional provisions and encouraged to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.
Mar 8, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan government must act swiftly and in line with human rights to prosecute those responsible for recent communal violence.
Particularly for attacks against the minority Muslim community in Kandy district, while avoiding the abusive practices of the past, said the ICJ today.
Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, proclaimed an island-wide state of emergency on 6th March 2018, following a curfew imposed in several areas since Monday.
The action came following a spate of attacks against members of the Muslim community that was spreading in the Kandy district, following attacks in Ampara last week, in Gintota in 2016, and Aluthgama in 2014.
“The government must show that it will bring to account those who have incited communal violence, particularly notorious figures who have been emboldened by the pervading impunity to preach hatred openly and publicly. The arrest of key suspects yesterday is a start and convictions must follow,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
“But the government must ensure that its investigation is impartial and effective and follows due process of the law,” he added.
The ICJ called upon the government of Sri Lanka to swiftly prosecute those responsible for inciting and carrying out the communal violence using existing legal provisions in the Penal Code and the ICCPR Act, the latter of which prohibits advocating “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
The ICJ is concerned that the Emergency Regulations issued by the President through powers under the Public Security Ordinance, confer excessively broad powers on the army and the police to search, arrest and investigate.
“Given Sri Lanka’s experience of Emergency Regulations, the government should ensure that these regulations are time-bound and comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Rawski.
The government has further restricted access to selected instant messaging applications and social media platforms “as an extraordinary but temporary response to limit the increasing spread of hate speech and violence through social media websites and phone messaging applications.”
“Blocking social media and other communication channels, even with the best of intentions, typically has the negative effect of restricting affected persons from seeking assistance, journalists from reporting around the situation and may actually undermine efforts to counter violence and hate speech. Any such measures should be narrowly targeted and limited in time,” said Rawski.
“A better approach would be for the Sri Lankan government to aggressively push back against these hateful narratives by demonstrating in actions as well as its rhetoric that Sri Lanka is a diverse country in which all of its citizens’ rights are respected and protected equally,” he added.
Background
Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance of Sri Lanka empowers the President to make emergency regulations in the interest of ‘public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ Sri Lanka has a history of governance using emergency powers, which in the past has posed a challenge for democratic governance and human rights, providing law enforcement with wide powers, circumventing ordinary checks and balances.
The President, while justifying circumstances that led to his proclamation of a state of emergency, has stated that he “has given special instructions the Police and the tri-forces to take action in terms of these regulations, in a lawful manner in good faith while ensuring minimum disturbance to the life and well-being of people, in conformity with Fundamental Human Rights of people.”
