Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum highlighted today concerns on freedom of association and assembly in Zimbabwe, on the occasion of discussion by the Human Rights Council of a report of the relevant UN expert’s visit to the country.
The statement was prepared for delivery in an oral interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly on his reports to the Human Rights Council, including the report of his visit to Zimbabwe in September 2019.
The statement could not actually be read aloud due to the limited time for civil society statements in the dialogue.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“ICJ and the Forum welcome the report by the Special Rapporteur which acknowledges the continued restrictions on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in Zimbabwe.
The report mentions the use of excessive and lethal force by security forces; the use of military forces in managing protest; and the subsistence of repressive laws that curtail the enjoyment of the rights to Freedom of assembly and association.
ICJ and the Forum agree with the findings by the Special Rapporteur that the use of disproportionate and excessive force by the security has resulted in massive violations against protestors. In January 2019 following the “shutdown protests”, the Forum documented at least 1800 violations including 17 killings, 16 cases of rape and 81 victims were treated for gunshot wounds while ICJ documented at least 77 incidences of violation of fair trial rights of protestors.
The Maintenance of Peace and Order Act [Chapter 11:23] (MOPA) was enacted into law in November 2019 to repeal the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). MOPA reveal common similarities with POSA and maintains problematic provisions that do not guarantee the right to peaceful assembly.
ICJ and the Forum wish to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the ongoing violations which have escalated in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown enforcement and the declining economic and social situation in Zimbabwe. While public health measures are crucial, these must be advanced in ways that do not unduly infringe on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
The government of Zimbabwe must be encouraged to comply with International human rights standards and guidelines such as the Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa; the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and firearms by law enforcement officials and the 10 principles for the Proper Management of Assemblies developed by the mandate in 2016.
ICJ and the Forum would to like to ask the SR what follow up he will do to monitor whether the Government of Zimbabwe complies with its international human rights obligations?”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC44-statement-SRFoAA-2020
Jun 19, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has responded to a call for input by UN human rights experts, for their upcoming reports on COVID-19 and human rights.
The written submission, in response the joint call for submissions questionnaire issued by a number of UN Special Procedures, highlights key issues in relation to access to justice and the operation of courts, the right to food and the right to housing, and impacts on LGBTi persons and persons living in poverty, in a number of countries where the ICJ is active.
The submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: ICJ-UN-SP-COVID19SUBMISSION-2020-EN
Apr 30, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined other NGOs in highlighting the contribution of independent UN human rights experts in ensuring that measures against COVID-19 are consistent with human rights.
The statement, delivered by Amnesty International on behalf of the group of NGOs in an informal online meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, read as follows:
“We thank the Coordination Committee for the update on the work undertaken by the Special Procedures to date to highlight the human rights impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As States undertake extraordinary measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, we recognize the good faith efforts of many States to effectively protect the right to life, the right to health and other human rights as well as the well-being of their populations, and to curb the spread of COVID-19. States must ensure that quality health services and goods necessary for prevention and care are accessible, available and affordable for all. Health workers and other front-line workers should be provided with adequate protective equipment, information, training and psycho-social support. Key health services, including sexual and reproductive health information and services, should be confirmed as essential services and their provision guaranteed.
We also recognize that in other contexts, States have used emergency powers to enact repressive measures that do not comply with the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity and that may have the effect or intention of suppressing criticism and minimizing dissent.
In this regard, we take heart at the Special Procedures statement that “[t]he COVID-19 crisis cannot be solved with public health and emergency measures only; all other human rights must be addressed too“.[1] We particularly value the vast and interconnected responses by the Special Procedures highlighting the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic itself, as well as of measures taken by states in the name of responding to the global health crisis.
The Special Procedures have addressed the impact on economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to health, housing, water and sanitation, food, work, social security, education, healthy environment and adequate standard of living, and to equality and non-discrimination as cross-cutting rights.
The Special Procedures have also highlighted the increased risks of people with underlying health conditions, older people, people who are homeless or in inadequate housing, people living in poverty, persons with disabilities, LGBTI people, children, migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, people living in refugee or IDP camps, and people deprived of liberty. They have also highlighted the effects on women and girls, calling for responses to consider factors such as their “sex, gender, age, disability, ethnic origin, and immigration or residence status among others“.[2]
We also welcome the various tools that have been developed by some mandate holders, such as the COVID-19 Freedom Tracker, the Dispatches, video messages and guidelines in addition to the vast number of press releases.[3] Making these tools readily accessible to all stakeholders is critical, as is considering ways to receive feedback and share learnings about their application. We encourage the Special Procedures to continue to deepen their analyses of state responses, including through reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, and to offer guidance, through the tools mentioned, to states on how to respond to the crisis in a human rights compliant manner.
Last but not least, we urge UN member states to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures. While country visits are suspended for the time being, this should not be used as an excuse not to co-operate. We call on states to respond in a timely manner to communications from the Special Procedures and to seek technical and expert advice from relevant mandate holders in relation to draft legislation to ensure that these are in line with states’ obligations to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights.”
The statement was joined by the following organisations:
- Amnesty International
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Conectas Direitos Humanos
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Human Rights Law Centre
- Human Rights Watch
- ILGA World – The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (International Lesbian and Gay Association)
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25746&LangID=E
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/News.aspx
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/COVID-19-and-Special-Procedures.aspx
Mar 5, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today expressed concern at violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of countering violent extremism, and at attempts by some States at the Human Rights Council to dilute its focus on human rights while countering terrorism and the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes your report on “Human rights impact of policies and practices aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism” (A/HRC/43/46).
The ICJ shares concern at the growing range of measures that restrict human rights, adopted in the name of the opaque and contested concepts of countering or preventing violent extremism. At the Council, certain States push for agreed language on suppression of terrorism to be cut-and-pasted to apply to “violent extremism”, and then eventually to all “extremism” whether violent or not, without definitions. As your report documents, at the national level this translates into overbroad, unjustified, arbitrary, and discriminatory measures, with particular impacts on civil society, especially human rights defenders, and from a gender perspective.
We also share the view expressed at para 51 of your report, that the current draft report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on “the negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights”, remains fundamentally flawed. Any discussion of “effects of terrorism” at the Council should exclusively focus on a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, consolidating work already undertaken by successive Special Rapporteurs and other UN and regional entities, as collected in a compilation published recently by the ICJ.[1] The Council must not allow its attention and limited resources to be diverted away from the human rights of victims of terrorism and protecting human rights while countering terrorism, to more diffuse questions of a macro-economic or budgetary character or duplicating work of other bodies.”
[1] See https://www.icj.org/victimsofterrorism2019/ and https://www.icj.org/icj-highlights-rights-of-victims-of-terrorism-to-un-delegations/
Feb 17, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has urged expert members of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to focus on the most direct and acute human rights issues, including a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, as the Committee prepares a report on “effects of terrorism on all human rights”.
In an oral statement to the Advisory Committee’s ongoing 24th session in Geneva, the ICJ expressed grave concern about the content of the latest draft of the report, and the potential negative consequences for human rights protection of the report in its current form, and urged the Advisory Committee:
- To substantially revise and refocus the report to include a clear recommendation to the Council that the exclusive focus of the Council’s work should remain on the most acute issues from a human rights perspective: violations in countering terrorism and a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, along the lines already established by successive holders of the Special Rapporteur mandate.
- To recommend against the Council entering into more diffuse macroeconomic issues such as diverting foreign direct investment, reducing capital inflows, destroying infrastructure, limiting foreign trade, disturbing financial markets, and negatively affecting certain economic sectors and impeding economic growth.
- To avoid making recommendations that simply repeat already-existing obligations or commitments to counter terrorism under various UN or other instruments.
- To affirm that the existing and longstanding normative and institutional framework on counter-terrorism and human rights is already sufficient to address relevant impacts of terrorism from a human rights perspective.
Prior to the session, the ICJ together with other NGOs had filed a written statement alerting the Advisory Committee to the highly sensitive context into which its report would be delivered at the Council, and urging the Committee to guard against its work being instrumentalized by Egypt and other States who seek to distort, distract and divert the limited resources and attention of the Council and its Special Rapporteur, away from the longstanding focus, achieved by years of Mexican leadership with consensus support of the Council, on human rights in countering terrorism, and the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The Advisory Committee’s report was requested by a 2017 resolution led by Egypt, which was not a matter of consensus, and is being drafted by a former Ambassador of Egypt who is now a member of the Committee.
Earlier at the session, several States including the EU, Switzerland, and Mexico had expressed concern or otherwise questioned particular aspects of the current draft of the report, and urged the Committee to substantially review and revise the draft. Egypt, China, Russia and several other States expressed satisfaction with the draft and urged the Committee to quickly finalize the report and send it to the Council.
The Advisory Committee report is due to be presented to and considered at the September 2020 session of the Human Rights Council, although some Committee members expressed the wish to finalize the report at the current Committee session.
