Sep 21, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN today, the ICJ called on India to reconsider its refusal to accept recommendations for decriminalisation of consensusal same-sex relations, abolition of the death penalty, and ensuring accountability for human rights violations.
The oral statement was made during the consideration by the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of India’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) regrets that India has not supported recommendations related to decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations, abolishing the death penalty, and combatting impunity for serious human rights violations.
The ICJ has documented how by allowing the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has facilitated numerous human rights violations, including violations of the principle of non-discrimination and the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, liberty and security of person, freedom of expression, health, and privacy. Section 377 has also perpetuated homophobic and transphobic attitudes in India, leading to discrimination and violence against LGBT individuals.
The Government has also failed to take steps to combat impunity for serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture and other ill treatment, which are facilitated by laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and other national security and public safety legislation. Despite repeated commitments to do so, India has also not enacted legislation to recognize torture as a distinct, autonomous offence in its penal code.
The ICJ therefore urges the Government to reconsider, accept and implement UPR recommendations to:
- Decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations (161.71, 161.76, 161.77, 161.78, 161.79);
- Enact legislation consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the rights of transgender persons and international human rights standards (161.80);
- Repeal AFSPA and other state and central level laws that similarly violate international human rights law (161.97, 161.248, 161.249);
- Become a party to the CAT; OPCAT; the Second OP to the ICCPR; the ICPPED and other international instruments (161.13, 161.15, 161.29, 161.30, 161.31); and
- Establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view towards its abolition (161.104 – 161.115).”
Sep 23, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, highlighted concerns with criminalization of political gatherings, arbitrary detention, use of military for law enforcement, and trials of civilians before military courts, in Thailand.
The statement was made during discussion of the outcome of the Second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Thailand.
While congratulating Thailand on completion of the UPR, the ICJ oral statement continued as follows:
However, the ICJ is disappointed that several key recommendations concerning restrictions of civil and political rights in the country did not enjoy the support of Thailand.
The interim Constitution, put in place by the military government after the May 2014 coup, remains in force. Article 44 gives the government sweeping, unchecked powers inconsistent with the fundamental pillars of the rule of law and human rights.
The military government has issued numerous orders and announcements under the interim Constitution, including some that criminalize political gatherings, allow arbitrary detention for up to seven days without charge, and provide military officers broad powers of law enforcement.
At least 1,811 civilians have faced proceedings in military courts contrary to international law and standards, many merely for exercising their rights to free expression and peaceful assembly.
Thailand did not accept any of the recommendations to remove these restrictions on the rule of law and human rights.
While the ICJ welcomes the Order of 12 September 2016 ending the practice of prosecuting civilians in military courts for crimes committed after that date, approximately 500 civilian cases remain in military courts.
The ICJ is also concerned that in July the government charged three human rights defenders with criminal defamation for raising allegations of torture in the deep South.
The ICJ urges Thailand to accept and implement recommendations relevant to:
- revoking the interim Constitution and all NCPO orders and announcements that are contrary to the rule of law and respect for human rights;
- transferring all pending civilian cases to civilian courts and set aside the convictions of all civilians prosecuted in military courts since the 2014 coup; and
- ending all harassment of human rights defenders in Thailand.
The statement may be downloaded in English and in Thai in PDF here:
thailand-hrc33-upr-advocacy-non-legal submission-2016-eng
thailand-hrc33-upr-advocacy-non-legal-submission-2016-tha
Sep 22, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke to continuing concerns for human rights and the rule of law in Swaziland, during discussion at the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of Swaziland’s Universal Periodic Review.
The statement read as follows:
The ICJ is concerned by the lack of implementation of recommendations accepted by the Government of Swaziland during the first UPR cycle.
The Swazi Government undertook to take concrete and immediate measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. However judges continue to be appointed on the basis of corrupt patronage. The current Chief Justice and another Supreme Court judge are generally perceived to have been appointed on the basis of their traditional roles as former headman and chief, respectively, in the absence of any formal or transparent merit-based recruitment process.
Swaziland still has not ratified key international instruments, including the Rome Statute, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which they accepted during the last cycle.
The police have continued to ban and disrupt peaceful protests, relying on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act and Public Order Act. Human rights defenders and political activists continue to be arrested and charged with criminal offences for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Swaziland has not enacted into law the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, or any other law guaranteeing gender equality.
For these reasons, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Swaziland to accept and fully and promptly implement UPR recommendations from this cycle relevant to:
- Ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Ratifying and domesticating the international instruments they accepted at the last cycle;
- Aligning national laws with international standards to guarantee freedom of expression, association and assembly;
- Enacting the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill into legislation.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-upr-swaziland-2016
Mar 18, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined an oral statement on the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, as well as the threats they face, and the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered by the Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, read as follows:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released this week its report on the ‘Role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’. The report assesses more than 38,000 recommendations made between 2008 and 2014 for references to the legal profession.
The report’s key findings include:
UPR recommendations still insufficiently address the role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, or the threats they face, as extensively documented by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Significantly, these recommendations often make no reference to relevant UN standards.
Recommendations relating to the independence of judges are often too vague to be an effective response to the shortcomings of any given jurisdiction. Serious issues in the appointment and removal of judges are mostly ignored.
The independence of lawyers was considered in fewer than 100 of the 38,000 UPR recommendations.
Prosecutorial independence is addressed in less than 10 per cent of the recommendations calling upon States to effectively investigate or prosecute rights violations.
Guarantees for legal professionals’ rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association are barely addressed. This fails to reflect the key role that self-governing organisations of legal professionals should play in upholding human rights and the rule of law, the independence of the legal profession and law reform processes.
As international organisations of legal professionals, we foster the engagement of the legal profession in UN human rights mechanisms and in monitoring the implementation of UPR recommendations.
We call upon the Human Rights Council, as well as States, to ensure that in the third cycle of the UPR, the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors receives the heightened attention that it is due, as recognised by the UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers and the UN Guidelines on the role of prosecutors.”
The following organisations endorsed the statement:
- Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
- Commonwealth Lawyers Association
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
- International Commission of Jurists
- Judges for Judges
- Lawyers for Lawyers
- Southern Africa Litigation Centre
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC31-JointOralStatement-UPRLegalProfessions-2016
The IBAHRI report on ‘The role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’ is available at : http://tinyurl.com/gr525sq
Mar 17, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute to make an oral statement on judges & lawyers in Myanmar, during the consideration of its Universal Periodic Review outcome by the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the International Commission of Jurists welcome Myanmar’s decision to accept recommendations made at the Universal Periodic Review relating to the administration of justice and the independence of the legal profession and call on the Government of Myanmar to implement the recommendations which it has accepted ‘in principle’ to reform the Bar Council Act to allow for the Bar Council to become a truly independent and self-governing association.
In order to ‘guarantee in law and practice that lawyers and judges can perform their professional functions without improper interference and legally form and join self-governing associations’, we call for the right to join such associations to be enshrined in law, and that the right of the first Independent Lawyers’ Association of Myanmar (ILAM) to register as an association be respected;
In order to ‘define professional legal standards and disciplinary procedures in conformity with the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers’, we call upon the government of Myanmar to engage in a consultation process with the legal profession and other stakeholders in relation to the revision of the Bar Council Act. The government should also commit sufficient funds to allow for the funding of the system created by the new Legal Aid Law.
We are encouraged by and support efforts by the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union to draft and implement a Code of Judicial Ethics.
Finally, we urge the Government to improve legal education and continue legal professional development including with regard to international human rights law and the UN human rights mechanisms.
We are glad to provide support in the realisation of these recommendations and will look for collaboration with the Government to that end.”
