Pakistan: widespread practice of enforced disappearance must be addressed

Pakistan: widespread practice of enforced disappearance must be addressed

The ICJ today called on the Government of Pakistan to take immediate measures against the increasing practice of enforced disappearances in the country.

A significant number of recent victims were said to be human rights defenders and political activists.

The ICJ highlighted the particular case of Raza Mahmood Khan. Raza, a human rights defender and peace activist, has been “missing” since 2 December 2017 after he organized a public event in Lahore to discuss recent political developments, including religious extremism and the role of state institutions.

Raza is known for his work on human rights, building inter-faith harmony, and promoting peace and tolerance between Pakistan and India. His family and friends have appealed to the police and the courts to trace him, but more than a month since his alleged “disappearance”, his whereabouts are still unknown.

“Many of the victims of enforced disappearances in Pakistan have been activists like Raza, which indicates the shrinking space for activism and dissent in the country,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.

Given that circumstances in which Raza went “missing” are very similar to other cases of enforced disappearance reported recently, the ICJ called on Pakistani authorities to conduct a prompt, impartial, and thorough investigation to determine his fate and whereabouts and hold perpetrators criminally responsible.

“It is not enough for the authorities to deny knowledge of the fate or whereabouts of disappeared people. Are they properly questioning eyewitnesses to abductions? Are they looking for forensic evidence or electronic data from mobile phones? There are clear steps that authorities can and should take to investigate such crimes, and they must act immediately to establish the truth about these cases,” added Rawski.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has, in multiple judgments, acknowledged the role of security and intelligence agencies in enforced disappearances and secret detentions, holding that the practice constitutes a violation of the “fundamental rights” recognized by the Constitution of Pakistan as well as international human rights law.

The State Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has more than 1500 unresolved cases of enforced disappearances as of January 2018.

In 2017 alone, the Commission received 868 reports of alleged enforced disappearances – one of the highest since the Commission’s establishment in 2011. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances also has more than 700 pending cases from Pakistan.

“Despite hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of enforced disappearance reported from across Pakistan, not a single perpetrator of the crime has been brought to justice,” added Rawski. “Not only does this impunity deny truth and justice to victims of the crime, it is also eroding the rule of law and emboldening perpetrators of human rights violations.”

The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) has on a number of occasions expressed concern about lack of implementation of the recommendations it made following a country visit to Pakistan in 2012, citing among other things continuing impunity arising from failure to diligently investigate allegations.

The UN Human Rights Committee also, in its review of Pakistan’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), noted with concern “the high incidence of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings allegedly perpetrated by the police and military and security forces.”

Pakistan must ensure all persons held in secret or arbitrary detention are immediately released or charged with a recognizable criminal offence and brought promptly before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal for a trial that meets international standards.

The ICJ called on Pakistan to become a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; recognize enforced disappearance as a distinct, autonomous offence; and hold perpetrators of enforced disappearance, including military and intelligence personnel, to account, through fair trials before civilian courts.

Contacts

Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org

Venezuela: ICJ calls for follow up action by Human Rights Committee and Special Procedures

Venezuela: ICJ calls for follow up action by Human Rights Committee and Special Procedures

The ICJ today called on the UN Human Rights Committee and a group of UN Special Procedure mandates to take urgent follow up action on Venezuela in light of the grave and ever deteriorating human rights situation in the country.

In a letter to the UN Human Rights Committee, the treaty body responsible for monitoring implementation by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ called for urgent action by the Committee, either through its established follow-up procedure and/or through requesting a special interim report. The Committee’s follow-up procedure was referenced in the Committee’s Concluding Observations on Venezuela’s fourth periodic report under the ICCPR. Special interim reports may be requested by the Committee under Article 40(1)(b) of the ICCPR.

The ICJ also called for urgent action to be taken by the following UN Special Procedure mandates: the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This group of Special Procedure mandates had on 4 August 2017 issued a joint statement on the human rights situation in Venezuela.

The ICJ’s letters draw attention to several critical areas of concern:

  • The rapidly deteriorating human rights situation;
  • The lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations;
  • The lack of effective remedies and reparation for victims of human rights violations;
  • The lack of independence of the judiciary;
  • The institutional crisis arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice;
  • The unconstitutional election of the new National Constituent Assembly;
  • The dismissal of the former Attorney General;
  • The recent establishment of a ‘Truth Commission’;
  • The intended revision of Venezuela’s Constitution; and
  • Venezuela’s failure to notify its state of emergency under the ICCPR.

ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-HRCttee-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Human Rights Committee, in PDF)

ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-SPs-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Special Procedure mandates, in PDF)

ICJ reports:

Venezuela: the Supreme Court of Justice has become an arm of an authoritarian executive

Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens

Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability

Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis

Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela

NGO statement on meeting of UN treaty body chairs

NGO statement on meeting of UN treaty body chairs

A Joint NGO Statement was issued on the occasion of the Twenty-ninth meeting of UN treaty body chairs 27-30 June 2017, New York

This statement includes some reflections and recommendations, by the undersigned organisations (see list on p.6-7), in relation to the programme of work for the 2017 annual meeting.

Some of the comments and recommendations stem from a two-day consultation involving representatives of NGOs, States, treaty body members, OHCHR and academics, which took place in Geneva on 23-24 May 20171.

The consultation focused on developing a strategy for the Treaty Body strengthening process.

A report will shortly be made public.

The comments and recommendations below are structured around the substantive treaty body chairs meeting agenda items.

Universal-MeetingTreatyBodies-Advocacy-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)

Women profiles: Karinna Moskalenko

Women profiles: Karinna Moskalenko

ICJ Commissioner Karinna Moskalenko talks about the vulnerabilities of human rights defenders in Russia, as part of the ICJ’s ongoing women profiles series.

Ms Moskalenko is a Russian lawyer who has been a Commissioner of the ICJ since 2003. In the early 1990s she founded, and was the former Director of, the International Protection Centre based in Moscow.

The Centre was founded after Russia had ratified the Human Rights Committee Mechanism with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provided an opportunity to be able to use international mechanisms to appeal against injustices.

Once Russia had ratified the European Convention it was also possible to use the European Court of Human Rights as another means to challenge incidences where domestic remedies were failing to protect the rights of people in Russia.

The Centre pursued many cases successfully and the credibility of the organization grew, which also increased demands for help. Karinna said that women have a strong role to play in human rights defence work in Russia and form the majority of the human rights community where they are well respected.

However, this is not reflected elsewhere in Russian society where, although women are visible in senior roles within the judiciary and the executive, they do not often play an important role in leadership positions or decision-making.

“Women in Russia are sometimes much more vulnerable than other groups of the population,” said Karinna. She identified the particular problem of domestic violence as one where women are unable to obtain legal protections because police are not very interested in the problem. In addition many people within society think that women already have enough protections so there is little public opposition for reducing protections and no support for enhancing these.

Karinna felt compelled to work as a human rights defender to protect the most vulnerable people but commented that many lawyers are not interested in this field of law. Instead, they prefer to build careers within official bodies of the judiciary or the government. Human rights activities are no longer very popular, she said.

Members of non-governmental organizations are often accused of being ‘foreign agents’ or ‘enemies of the State’. As many people do not understand the nature of human rights defence work, Ms Moskalenko said it can be frustrating and hurtful to have to defend yourself against these accusations. However, Karinna thinks that those working in human rights are the most patriotic people she knows because they care about the rights of each and every member of society.

Fortunately, the International Protection Centre has won so many cases for ordinary people that they have a very good reputation in society, but they do not have enough funding for their activities. They cannot accept international funds and domestically no funding is available. Many lawyers take on unpaid cases, but not everyone can afford to do so. The defence of human rights is a very difficult career.

“I cannot say that there is no fear. There is, of course. Some of my friends were killed because of their human rights activity.”

Ms Moskalenko said that human rights defence work is very important but in Russia defenders are not protected financially, legally, morally or physically. They are frequently threatened, persecuted and even killed.

However, although working as a human rights defender is difficult, Karinna says that “when you somehow help people, you want to continue that, you think that you believe that you must do that, you cannot stop and people come to you, how can you refuse?”

Watch the interview:

The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.

Kyrgyzstan: the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Azimzhan Askarov should be implemented promptly

Kyrgyzstan: the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Azimzhan Askarov should be implemented promptly

The ICJ welcomed today’s decision of the UN Human Rights Committee in the case of Azimzhan Askarov, a Kyrgyz human rights activist, sentenced to life imprisonment in Kyrgyzstan.

The Committee found multiple violations of Azimzhan Askarov’s human rights related to his arrest, detention and trial, including violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender working in the South of Kyrgyzstan, was convicted in December 2015 of serious crimes, including the murder of a police officer, which took place during the violent ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan in June 2010.

The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011. Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed Report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.

The report established multiple violations of human rights in the arrest and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.

The decision of the UN Committee is an important step in providing a legal framework to remedy the violations in the case.

The ICJ calls on the relevant authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to take urgent measures to implement the decision of the Human Rights Committee.

In particular, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, the Kyrgyz Republic must now immediately release Azimzhan Askarov; quash his conviction and provide him with adequate compensation.

Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-CCPR-Statement-2016-RUS (download the statement in Russian)

Translate »