Apr 6, 2020 | Feature articles, News
A Feature Article by the Access to Justice for Women Team of the ICJ.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads across the globe, many governments are introducing a spectrum of measures to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, including travel bans, lockdowns, curfews, and school, workplace and border closures.
While it is important that States act decisively in discharge of their obligations to protect the rights to life and health of all people during this pandemic, it is equal that they do so in a human rights compliant manner, so as not to compound the harms brought directly by the virus.
This entails, among other things, acting in a manner that provides equal protection and is non-discriminatory. Complying with these principles requires taking into account gender impacts and providing for gender-specific responses.
However, a number of measures presently being taken by governments around the world to attempt to curb the spread of the virus can be expected to exacerbate pre-existing gender inequalities and therefore disproportionately affect women’s enjoyment of social and economic rights.
Many women who are disabled, refugees, migrants, detainees, living in poverty and or belonging to ethnic, racial, religious or sexual minority groups are experiencing or are likely to experience intersecting forms of discrimination during this time of crisis.
What Does #StayHome Mean to Women?
Lockdowns, quarantines, and school closures to control the pandemic in many countries have a differential effect on women.
Women and girls are most expected to perform caregiving role within families, which means less economic and work opportunities for them and thus denying their basic rights to development.
This condition is worsened if they are being quarantined with an abusive partner as they are exposed to greater risks of intimate partner violence during the outbreak.
Unfortunately, in many places there is a significant lack of guidelines or information on how to contact police, access medical treatment, psychological support, or access to shelters when domestic violence occurs during the pandemic.
In the UK, for example, while 25 organizations helping domestic violence victims have reported an increase in their cases since the surge of the COVID-19 epidemic, one quarter said they could not effectively support victims because of technical issues, inability to meet victims, and staff sickness.
Additionally, with resources already stretched in fighting the spread of the virus, many State authorities may not see as a priority access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services for women, which are already restricted by prohibitive laws and customs in many contexts.
This results in significant limitations on women’s rights to menstrual health, maternal health, and safe abortion.
Women at Work
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), women are over-represented in more affected sectors (such as services) or in occupations that are at the frontline of dealing with the pandemic.
The ILO estimates that 58.6 percent of employed women work in the services sector around the world. Women also have less access to social protection and will bear a disproportionate burden in the care economy, in the case of closure of schools or care systems.
Women migrant workers are also vulnerable to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, as extensive travel restrictions constrain both their ability to access their places of work in destination countries and return to their families.
Women at the Border: Refugees & Asylum seekers
There is a severe lack of secure, safe and accessible infrastructure and services in most refugee camps and temporary settlements.
Asylum seekers face right now a long wait if the courts are closed due to the pandemic, or worse, being returned to their home country without having a chance to pursue their claims, sometimes in violation of the principle of non refoulement.
As the virus hits overcrowded displacement sites, the consequences can expected be catastrophic. Moreover, in this setting, studies found that women and girls are often exposed to sexual violence and exploitation when they are forced to openly defecate or walk to shared sanitation facilities.
All State Measures to COVID-19 Must Be Gender Responsive
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), States have duty to achieve the full realization of the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) also provides of the obligation of States to take all appropriate measure to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.
Furthermore, failure to recognize the gender dynamics of outbreaks limits the effectiveness of response efforts and consequently impedes women’s rights.
In order for the response to disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 to be effective and not reproduce or perpetuate gender and health inequities, it is important that gender norms and roles are identified and incorporated in all socio- economic measures established to counter the pandemic.
Further, the emergency preparedness and response plan must address gender roles, responsibilities, social norms and specific needs of women.
States should also provide new strategies for women victims of domestic violence to be protected during the lockdown.
Governments should include the work of domestic violence professionals an essential service and provide emergency resources for anti-domestic abuse organizations to help them respond to increased demand for services.
They should also consider, alternative means, such as through “pop-up” counseling centers, reporting in pharmacies, to encourage women to report domestic violence.
Governments must ensure all measures to combat the outbreak are gender responsive while being in strict accordance with human rights standards.
While states may limit or derogate from certain rights to meet a public health crisis, such restrictions are always subject to the principles of legality, necessity proportionality and nondiscrimination.
Given that women are often to be found in the more vulnerable categories of informal work, for instance, as domestic workers or self-employed home-based workers, authorities should enhance universal access to collectively-financed health services for all, including uninsured workers and their families.
States must also expand access to collectively-financed paid sick leave, sickness benefits, and parental or care leave to ensure income security for those who are sick, quarantined or caring for children, elderly or other family members.
Moreover, governments should ensure that women asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and refugees are included in national COVID-19 surveillance, preparedness, and response plans, and ensure that menstrual hygiene, reproductive, and other primary health care commodities are well-stocked and available.
Lastly, perspectives, experiences, and voices of diverse women, including LBTI persons (as enshrined in the Yogyakarta Principles), should be included in decision-making process around the COVID-19 outbreak measures because effective global responses, to public health emergencies must be in line with the rights and needs of affected women.
***
Download the Op-Ed in other languages:
Nepali (PDF)
Tamil (PDF)
Sinhala (PDF)
Indonesian (PDF)
Apr 6, 2020 | Feature articles, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
As of 8:00am CET this morning, the Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases tracker by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in the US recorded 169,049,480 confirmed cases of individuals who had contracted the COVID-19 disease in 192 countries, and 3,513,137 people who had succumbed to the virus. Read all the ICJ articles on the crisis.
Against this background, the aim of this blog is to highlight the necessity of ensuring the consistency of public health policies taken as part of the global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic with human rights law and standards.
As outlined in a prescient 2019 Lancet Commission report – The legal determinants of health: harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development – the law, and a firm commitment to the rule of law, play a critical role in the pursuit of global health with justice.
Ultimately, scientifically sound, evidence-based, human rights compliant, transparent and accountable public health policies and practices will also be more effective, as they will, in turn, elicit greater public support, including by prompting greater adherence to public health policy directives imposing restrictive measures on human rights.
As Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently affirmed, ‘COVID-19 is a test for our societies, and we are all learning and adapting as we respond to the virus. Human dignity and rights need to be front and centre in that effort, not an afterthought’.
China, where cases of COVID-19 were first documented, has been questioned from inside and outside for its response to the crisis, at first attempting to shut down information about the virus, leading to arrests and detentions. Outside China, while some COVID-19 health policies have been evidence-based, such as scaled-up, accurate testing for suspected cases, others are ineffective and overly broad, increasing stigmatization and misinformation.
Around the world, people of Asian descent have been subjected to xenophobia, stigmatization and racist attacks. Moreover, many States have now imposed extensive travel restrictions or even blanket travel bans; some have gone as far as using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to promote their xenophobic and anti-asylum agenda and have now shut down their borders to refugee claimants, thereby flouting the right of anyone to seek asylum from persecution in other countries.
In a frontal attack against women’s human rights, in Texas and Ohio, the authorities have moved to ban healthcare providers from performing abortions in most circumstances – purporting to do so to respond to the global COVID-19 crisis. There is also a world of false information on COVID-19. For instance, Indonesia’s health minister suggested that Islamic prayers shielded people from the virus.
To foster scientifically accurate, human rights compliant global health responses – including to events such as the COVID-19 pandemic – it is crucial to enhance dialogue between the public health and human rights sectors. A good place to start framing a productive exchange in this respect is to take a close and simultaneous look at the International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) – an agreement among 196 WHO Member States to work together for global health security – and to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Siracusa Principles), setting out criteria to determine the lawfulness of measures restricting or otherwise limiting human rights taken by States to respond to – among other things – public health emergencies.
International Health Regulations & Travel Restrictions
Article 3(1) of the IHR (2005), setting out the principles informing the regulations, recalls that, ‘[t]he implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’. And, perhaps tellingly, in Article 32, concerning the treatment of travellers, the IHR proclaim, among other things, that, ‘[i]n implementing health measures under these Regulations, States Parties shall treat travellers with respect for their dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
Notwithstanding the express human rights obligations enshrined in the IHR, current public policy responses to the ongoing crisis – and even public discourses around those responses – make very few, if any, direct references to human rights and, in fact, seem to be oblivious to the impact that measures taken and/or considered in the response to COVID-19 have on human rights.
But the IHR, as noted in a recent piece by Roojin Habibi et al, restrict ‘the measures countries can implement when addressing public health risks to those measures that are supported by science, commensurate with the risks involved, and anchored in human rights. The intention of the IHR is that countries should not take needless measures that harm people or that disincentivise countries from reporting new risks to international public health authorities’.
Siracusa Principles
The 1985 Siracusa Principles provide a good basis to flesh out what a human rights compliant public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic must entail. They detail criteria – by now firmly enshrined in international human rights law and standards – to determine the lawfulness of State measures restrictive of human rights.
According to the Siracusa Principles, for instance, when a State invokes public health as a ground for limiting certain rights, its actions ‘must be specifically aimed at preventing disease or injury or providing care for the sick or injured’. Even in circumstances when it is undeniable that a public health emergency may threaten the life of a nation, the Siracusa Principles reaffirm the obligation of States to ensure that any public health response to such an emergency be rooted in and compatible with human rights law and standards. Importantly, the Principles provide further interpretive guidance to States, proclaiming that restrictions on human rights may be justifiable only when they are:
- provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
- based on scientific evidence;
- directed toward a legitimate objective;
- strictly necessary in a democratic society;
- the least intrusive and restrictive means available;
- neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application;
- of limited duration; and
- subject to review.
The final condition – that State action be subject to review – is critical. Analogous requirements can be seen in other areas of international law. In the asylum and refugee context, for example, detention guidelines promulgated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees emphasize that confinement on health grounds beyond an initial medical check must be subject to judicial oversight. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment no. 35 makes clear that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ‘entitles anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention’ to take their case before a court to decide on ‘the lawfulness of detention’, enshrining the principle of habeas corpus.
The General Comment adds that this right also applies to house arrest, as a form of deprivation of liberty. Of course, whether involuntary home confinement constitutes deprivation of liberty – entitling those subjected to such a measure to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court – is a question of fact, depending, in turn, on the degree of the physical confinement imposed. Voluntarily choosing to stay at home in response to State authorities’ exhortation to do so, on the other hand, does not constitute deprivation of liberty.
Furthermore, any State action must comply with the rule of law and should respect the separation of powers. Neither the executive nor public health authorities should be immune from having their actions legitimately scrutinized by other branches of the State, namely, the legislature and the judiciary. Checks and balances are necessary to ensure respect for human rights and for democratic legitimacy.
In conclusion, both the IHR (2005) and the Siracusa Principles remind us of the fact that State responses to global public health emergencies cannot be unfettered, and must comply with States’ human rights obligations. Public responses to health emergencies and human rights need not be in conflict – indeed, grounding States’ public health measures in the human rights framework provides the most effective way to advance global health with justice.
The Lancet Commission report suggests one way to further identify human rights and rule of law compliant measures in the current and future global public health policy response. The report calls for a partnership between ‘legal and health experts to create an independent standing commission on global health and the law’ that would propose ‘evidence-based legal interventions for addressing major global health challenges, reforms of the global health architecture and international law, and strategies to build and strengthen global and national health law capacities’.
We should heed that call.
(Article written by Sam Zarifi and Kate Powers)
Read also
Indonesia: trans women face discrimination in access to Covid-19 vaccines
Nepal: seeking a rights-based approach to healthcare
European Union and India: leaders should use meeting to demonstrate commitment to defending rights and combating Covid-19 pandemic
The unvaccinated: equality not charity in Southern Africa – new ICJ report
Indian government fails to protect right to life and health in second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic
Journalists and media platforms at increased risk in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic
Venezuela: lack of access to safe water aggravates the COVID-19 pandemic
Covid-19: applying human rights standards to ensure corporate accountability in the context of COVID-19 vaccine access
Vaccine patents: healthy or harmful?
ICJ calls on States to ensure human rights compliant access to COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)
Peru: the COVID-19 vaccine demands international and national solidarity
Harmonizing global health law and human rights law to develop rights-based approaches to global health emergencies
The ICJ and ZimRights ask for urgent intervention on access to COVID-19 vaccines from African Commission Mechanism
ICJ urges the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to call on States to comply with their obligations to ensure equitable access to vaccines for all
The ICJ recommends that the African Union acknowledge COVID-19 vaccines are a “public good”
ICJ Covid-19 end of year compassion appeal
Indonesia: ICJ addresses open letter to COVID-19 Mitigation Task Force calling for special measures to protect women workers in its pandemic response
Women facing health risks and gender-based violence in Venezuela
Sri Lanka: Mahara prison killings must be properly investigated and urgent measures taken to protect detainees from COVID-19
COVID-19: ICJ publishes global guidance on the use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings
Nepal: ICJ briefing paper outlines shortcomings in protecting the right to health during COVID-19 pandemic
Thailand: need to protect the right to health of the most marginalized highlighted in public seminar on human rights and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Sri Lanka: vulnerable groups pay the price for militarization of COVID-19 response
Lesotho: ICJ Webinar highlights COVID-19 adverse pandemic impacts on the right to equal education of children with disabilities
At UN, ICJ highlights human rights approach to COVID-19
New ICJ global report shows that the right to health must be central to State responses to COVID-19
Central Asia: ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure access to justice during the COVID-19 pandemic
Tajikistan: online workshop on access to justice in the times of COVID-19
India: ICJ Commissioner Justice Ajit Prakash Shah discusses the responsibility of the Courts in upholding human rights during COVID-19 pandemic
EU: the impact of COVID-19 on human rights of migrants and refugees
Israel: ensure full compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – new briefing paper
COVID-19: ICJ calls on African States to protect women from escalating sexual and gender based violence
ICJ briefing paper on the impact of anti-COVID-19 pandemic measures on access to justice in CIS countries
Facebook, Twitter and social media in times of COVID 19 and #BlackLivesMatter
Rights of judicial proceedings’ participants must be protected in Tunisia following COVID-19 lockdown
ICJ Covid-19 Emergency Appeal: donate now!
ICJ webinar highlights difficulties in responding to gender based violence during the Covid-19 pandemic (watch below)
The right to water in India and the COVID-19 crisis – ICJ Briefing Paper
In solidarity with the stateless
Kazakhstan: online conference on law and human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic exposes India’s housing crisis – ICJ Briefing Paper
COVID-19: NGOs emphasize role of independent UN human rights experts
COVID-19: Myanmar’s ongoing Internet shutdown and hostilities threaten right to health
Judiciaries during COVID-19: South American experience
South Africa: ICJ calls on authorities immediately ensure the end of all evictions and protect the livelihoods of all
India on the brink of Hunger Crisis during COVID-19 Pandemic, warns ICJ Briefing Paper
Philippines: upholding human rights during a state of public health emergency
European Union: ICJ joins call for urgent EU response to Hungary’s COVID-19 emergency law
COVID-19: Indian authorities must act immediately to protect internal migrant workers stranded under intolerable conditions
Amid COVID-19 crisis, Polish parliament must reject regressive proposals on sexual and reproductive rights
Myanmar: Government must lift online restrictions in conflict-affected areas to ensure access to information during COVID-19 pandemic
ICJ joins in highlighting COVID-19 human rights issues at Human Rights Council
European governments must ensure safe and timely access to abortion care during the COVID-19 pandemic
Colombia: COVID-19 policies should include conflict-related measures, especially for human rights defenders
Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law
ICJ Guidance on the Courts and COVID-19
South Africa: authorities must work urgently to curb gender-based violence under lockdown
State measures to address COVID-19 must be gender responsive
COVID-19: the ICJ publishes a briefing paper on promoting non-citizens’ right to work in South Africa
New Zealand: unprecedented lockdown should be carefully monitored
Guatemala: the ICJ urges the Government to protect the rights of indigenous people against COVID-19
You can’t fight the virus when you live in poverty
COVID-19: Use of digital surveillance technologies must be human rights compliant
Southeast Asia: States must respect and protect rights in combating misinformation online relating to COVID-19
Turkey : ICJ urges extension of alternatives to detention for prison population amid COVID-19 crisis
COVID-19 pandemic: Zimbabwe must act urgently to protect the right to health of inhabitants
South Africa: authorities must take immediate measures to protect social and economic rights before nationwide lockdown commences
Thailand: measures under the Emergency Decree to address the COVID-19 outbreak must conform to international law
COVID-19: urgent measures must be taken by MENA governments to protect the prison population
Hungary : Parliament should not pass COVID-19 permanent emergency powers Bill
Read ICJ legal blogs on OpinioJuris
The COVID-19 measures impact on the rights of migrants and refugees in the EU: access to the right to seek asylum and reception and living conditions
The Right to Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory during the COVID-19 Pandemic
The right to social security: navigating the narrow passage between virus suppression and economy resuscitation
A Radical Shift in Libyan and International Priorities is Necessary to Protect Health and Save Lives in Libya (+ Arabic version)
Gender Based Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic and economic, social and cultural rights
The Right to Health of Venezuelans in Colombia: From Policy to Practice (Part 2)
The Right to Health of Venezuelans in Colombia: From Principle to Policy (Part 1)
COVID-19 Symposium: The Use of Criminal Sanctions in COVID-19 Responses – Enforcement of Public Health Measures, Part II
COVID-19 Symposium: The Use of Criminal Sanctions in COVID-19 Responses – Exposure and Transmission, Part I
COVID-19 Symposium: The Courts and Coronavirus (Part II)
COVID-19 Symposium: The Courts and Coronavirus (Part I)
COVID-19 Symposium: COVID-19 Responses and State Obligations Concerning the Right to Health (Part 2)
COVID-19 Symposium: COVID-19 Responses and State Obligations Concerning the Right to Health (Part 1)
Watch video interviews
Frederick Rawski, Director of ICJ’s Asia & Pacific Programme talks with ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Ajit Prakash Shah about the role of the Indian judiciary as “protector of Indian people” in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic.
ICJ Director of Media & Communications Olivier van Bogaert talks with ICJ President Robert Goldman about the COVID-19 situation in the USA and its impact on human right and the rule of law. They also discuss the killing of George Floyd.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with ICJ Vice-President Radmila Dragicevic Dicic about the COVID-19 situation in Serbia:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with prominent judge of the Tribunal of Milan, Martina Flamini about Italy, the European country that has been first hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.
ICJ Director of Media & Communications Olivier van Bogaert talks with ICJ Commissioner Belisário dos Santos Júnior about the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and the health, political and judicial crisis that it triggered.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with prominent human rights lawyer Zia Oloumi about France’s Rule of Law and Human Rights during COVID-19:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Khanyo Farisè about the gendered impact of COVID-19 in Southern Africa.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Poland with prominent human rights lawyer, Maria Ejchart-Dubois:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Kazakhstan with ICJ Legal Consultant Dmitriy Nurumov.
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Tim Fish Hodgson about how COVID-19 has impacted socio-economic rights in South Africa:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Uzbekistan with ICJ Legal Consultant Dilfuza Kurolova.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with Turkish lawyer and ICJ Legal Consultant Kerem Altiparmak:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks to ICJ Legal Adviser Justice Mavedzenge about COVID-19 and human rights issues in Zimbabwe:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks to Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ Africa Programme:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser for Latin America, about COVID-19 and human rights issues in Colombia:
ICJ Commissioner Justice Kalyan Shreshta talks about the COVID-19 situation in Nepal:
Which answers from economic and social rights to the COVID-19 pandemic? ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Tim Fish Hodgson (Africa Programme)
Follow webinars
The ICJ brought together first responders from Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa to discuss how they were responding to #GBV during the #COVID19 pandemic.
Additional links
Nina Sun and ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Livio Zilli talk about Criminalization & COVID-19: Public Health and Human Rights Implications
Feb 17, 2020 | Feature articles, News
A tribute to former ICJ Commissioner José Zalaquett by current ICJ Commisioner Alejandro Salinas Rivera (Chile).
After a prolonged and agonizing illness, our beloved José (Pepe) Zalaquett has passed away. Pepe, as his friends used to call him and as he was widely known, was a leading lawyer and professor of international human rights law.
However, he was much more than that. At heart, he was a gentle man, a curious and pleasant human being, very sensitive to the expressions of art.
As a lawyer and later as a law professor, he was characterized by his deep commitment to justice and respect for human rights.
This commitment also brought adverse consequences in his life, as he suffered persecution, jail and exile, during the Chilean dictatorship.
While in exile and away from his homeland, he joined Amnesty International, and soon after became the president of its board of directors.
Upon returning to Chile after 10 years of exile, he headed the Chilean section of Amnesty International, in what were strenuous times for the country.
Once democracy was re-established in Chile, he became part of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission, known as the “Rettig” Commission. However, it should have been called the “Zalaquett” Commission instead, since he was the architect of the initiative which was later emulated in South Africa, El Salvador and other countries, which initiated similar processes.
Pepe, because of his strict commitment to justice and his veritable concern for the protection and promotion of human rights, was not confined in dogmas or prejudices; he was so generous, open and free minded that he would not settle for anything less than the best. This at times made him a quixote, facing solo against windmills.
Pepe was a lover of life, a sensitive soul and an art aficionado. He had an opinion over almost all artistic disciplines. He regularly wrote art columns and his reviews were very reputed.
Pepe was one of those humans who are scarce and yet essential for our society. He was a complex and wholesome personage, who left his mark after his demise.
He left behind a generation of spirited students and disciples trained at the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Chile, of which he was a co-Director, who will undoubtedly continue his legacy in human rights.
But even more, he left an impression, a way of doing things, an impalpable legacy that is quintessential for the times to come. Intellectual honesty, sensitivity and empathy towards the victims along with ethical austerity and geniality, are part of the legacy that Pepe leaves behind after passing through this life.
The ICJ feels privileged as an institution to count Pepe Zalaquett among its commissioners. His departure indisputably, is an irredeemable loss, but at the same time we are proud and grateful to have shared a common cause with him.
José, Pepe, thank you very much …
Sep 24, 2018 | Feature articles, News
On October 16, 1998, the former dictator of Chile Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London on a warrant from a Spanish judge. Reed Brody participated in the subsequent legal case.
Reed Brody went on to apply the “Pinochet precedent” in the landmark prosecution of the former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, who was convicted of crimes against humanity in Senegal in 2016.
He now works with victims of the former dictator of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh. The ICJ interviewed Brody about the Pinochet case and its legacy.
What was your role in the Pinochet case?
My role started when Pinochet was arrested in London. The case began long before that, of course, in the early years of Pinochet’s dictatorship when brave human rights activists documented each case of murder, and “disappearance.”
The ICJ worked with those advocates to produce a seminal 1974 report on those crimes, just six months after Pinochet’s coup. Shut out of Chile’s courts, even after the democratic transition of 1990, victims and their lawyers pursued a case against Pinochet in Spain under its “universal jurisdiction” law and when Pinochet traveled to London, Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón requested and obtained his detention.
When Pinochet challenged his arrest in court claiming immunity as a former head of state, I went to London for Human Rights Watch, and we and Amnesty International were granted the right to intervene with teams of lawyers in the proceedings at the judicial committee of the House of Lords, then Britain’s highest court.
The Lords cited our research in rejecting Pinochet’s immunity.
You famously described the Lords’ Pinochet decision as a “wake-up call” to tyrants everywhere. Looking back, do you think it was?
Actually no, I think one would be hard pressed to discern a change in the behavior of dictators. Mugabe didn’t quake in his boots, Saddam didn’t clean up his act.
The more important and more lasting effect of the case was to give hope to other victims and activists. When the Lords ruled that Pinochet could be arrested anywhere in the world despite his status as a former head of state, the movement was in effervescence.
As a human rights lawyer, I was used to being legally and morally right, but still losing. In the Pinochet case, not only did we win, but we upheld the detention of one of the world’s most iconic dictators.
The Pinochet case inspired victims of abuse in country after country, particularly in Latin America, to challenge the transitional arrangements of the 1980s and 1990s, which allowed the perpetrators of atrocities to go unpunished and, often, to remain in power.
These temporary accommodations with the ancien régime didn’t extinguish the victims’ thirst to bring their former tormentors to justice.
How did you go from Pinochet to Habré?
With Pinochet, we saw that universal jurisdiction could be used as an instrument to bring to book people who seemed out of the reach of justice.
Together with groups like Amnesty, the FIDH, and the ICJ (which wrote an important report on the Pinochet case and its lessons), we had meetings on who could be the “next Pinochet.”
That’s when Delphine Djiraibe of the Chadian Association for Human Rights asked us to help Habre’s victims bring him to justice in his Senegalese exile.
I was excited at the prospect of persuading a country in the Global South, Senegal, to exercise universal jurisdiction, because there was a developing paradigm of European courts prosecuting defendants from formerly colonized countries.
It took us 17 years, but Habré became the first prosecution ever of a former head of state using universal jurisdiction, and indeed the first universal jurisdiction trial in Africa.
1998 was a high water mark for international justice with the adoption of the ICC Rome Statute and Pinochet’s arrest. Neither the ICC nor universal jurisdiction have quite lived up to their expectations. Why?
International justice doesn’t operate in a vacuum, it’s conditioned by the global power structure. Each case, whether at the ICC level or the transnational level, is a product of the political forces which must be mobilized, or fended off, to allow a prosecution to proceed.
Those forces, particularly since September 11, 2001, have been hostile to human rights enforcement in general and to justice in particular. Universal jurisdiction has been subject to the same double standards as the ICC.
The Belgian and Spanish universal jurisdiction laws, which were the broadest in the world, were both repealed when they were used to investigate superpower actions.
But many of the most successful cases have been those in which the victims and their activist supporters have been the driving forces, have compiled the evidence themselves, built an advocacy coalition which placed the victims and their stories at the center of the justice struggle and helped create the political will in the forum state.
I’m thinking not just of Habré, but the genocide prosecution in Guatemala of the former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, the case in Haiti of “President for Life,” Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the Liberian cases brought around the world by Civitas Maxima and its partners, the Swiss cases initiated by TRIAL International, and the Syria litigation by ECCHR and others.
These cases were brought before domestic courts either of the country in which the atrocities took place (Guatemala, Haiti) or of foreign countries based on universal jurisdiction, rather than before international courts.
Most of these cases took advantage of legal regimes which allowed victims directly to participate in the prosecutions as “parties civiles,” or “acusación particular” rather than play passive or secondary roles in cases prosecuted solely by state or international officials.
How do victim-driven prosecutions look different than institutional cases?
When it’s the victims and their allies who get the cases before a court, who gather the evidence, and who have formal standing as parties, the trials are more likely to live up to their expectations.
In the Rios Montt case, for instance, the Asociación Para la Justicia y Reconciliacion (AJR) and the Centro Para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH) mobilized the victims, developed the evidence, defined the narrative and, essentially, determined the outlines of the case and chose the witnesses who would testify for the prosecution.
In the Habré case, we spent 13 years building the dossier, interviewing hundreds of victims and former officials and uncovering regime police files. The victims’ coalition always insisted that any trial include crimes committed against each of Chad’s victimized ethnic groups, and that is exactly was happened.
In contrast, a distant prosecutor, disconnected from national narratives and inherently not accountable to the victims or civil society, can be tempted to narrowly tailor prosecutions in the hopes of securing a conviction or avoiding political resistance.
This was the case with the ICC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, where, as Pascal Kambale has persuasively argued, it betrayed the victims’ hopes.
Millions of civilians died in the DRC and Luis Moreno Ocampo only went after two local warlords. I think the current prosecutor is paying more attention to local realities.
The inspiration from victim-driven cases is also greater, and they are to some degree replicable. As Naomi Roht-Arriaza has written, these cases “stirred imaginations and opened possibilities precisely because they seemed decentralized, less controllable by state interests, more, if you will, acts of imagination.”
When I showed Chadian victims video clips of the Ríos Montt trial, they saw in those images exactly what they were trying to do.
Just as the Chadians came to us in the Habré case seeking to do what Pinochet’s victims had done, our hope in getting the Habré case to trial was that other survivors would be inspired by what Habre’s victims had done and say, “you see these people, they fought for justice and never gave up. We can do that too.”
And indeed, Liberian victims and Gambian victims have patterned their campaigns for justice on what Habre’s victims did. So, the Pinochet case continues to be an inspiration.
May 17, 2018 | Feature articles, News
South Asian States must repeal laws that discriminate against LGBTI persons, and must respect, protect and fulfill the full range of their human rights, the ICJ said today on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO-T).
These rights include the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all without discrimination, to which LGBTI persons are entitled due to their inherent dignity as human beings.
Across South Asia, discriminatory laws have enabled socially constructed gender and sexual norms to foster and perpetuate intimidation, harassment, threats of violence and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, due to animosity, hostility and hatred motivated in whole or in part by their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and/or intersex status.
Under international law, including the International Bill of Rights, that is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two Covenants – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is prohibited.
In this context, the Office of the UN High Commissioner of the Human Rights has underscored five core international human rights law obligations for States: (1) protecting individuals from homophobic and trans-phobic violence; (2) preventing torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of LGBTI persons; (3) decriminalizing homosexuality; (4) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (5) respecting the freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of LGBTI persons.
Under international human rights law, the principle of non-discrimination includes the right to determine one’s sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender identity and gender expression.
Contrary to their international human rights law obligations in this respect, States’ policing of gender and sexuality has created a pattern of stigma, harassment and violence.
For example, consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in seven out of eight countries in South Asia – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka – based on colonial era laws, such as S. 377 of the Penal Codes of Pakistan, India, Maldives and Bangladesh, and similar legal provisions in Sri Lanka and Bhutan, that criminalize “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.
While the enforcement of these laws rarely lead to actual criminal convictions and sentences of imprisonment, their mere continued existence creates an ominous and ongoing threat against and criminalizes entire sectors of the populations in these countries.
This, in turn, gives rise to a climate that encourages and is ripe for extortion, harassment and blackmail of LGBTI persons, by the police, as well as non-State actors, including the general public and even their own families.
While there have been some progressive developments, discrimination, violence and other human rights abuses against LGBTI people – both at the hands of State and non-State actors – remain rampant in South Asia.
Hence, on IDAHO-T, the ICJ renews its call on all South Asian Governments to repeal discriminatory laws against LGBTI persons, including laws that criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations.
In addition, the organization urges all South Asian Governments to enable transgender persons’ right to self-identification of their gender, and to enact legislation that establishes prior, free, full, informed, genuine and consistent consent for any medically unnecessary interventions on intersex persons.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ International Legal Adviser in India, t: +91 7756028369; e: maitreyi.gupta@icj.org
Full text in ENG (PDF): India-IDAHO-T call-News-Feature article-2018-ENG
May 3, 2018 | Feature articles, News
On 3 and 4 May 2018, the ICJ supported by UNAIDS and OHCHR convened an expert meeting on global principles addressing criminalization’s detrimental impact in the areas of sexuality, reproduction, drug use and HIV.
The expert meeting of leading jurists from around the globe aimed at laying the foundations for a set of principles to address the misuse and abuse of the criminal law and its detrimental impact on health, equality and human rights.
The expert group focused on the criminalization of conduct relating to four principal areas: sexuality, reproduction, personal drug use, and the overly broad criminalization of HIV exposure, transmission and non-disclosure.
In these areas, international human rights authorities, as well as domestic courts, have regularly found criminal law provisions to be contrary to international law and standards, and to have a deleterious effect on public health.
“We need to understand why the blunt instrument of the criminal law is used against and affects real people, and why the criminal law ought not to apply in our four areas of concern. Where the criminal law is misused, that is a betrayal of the rule of law. The rule of law must be our guiding compass,” said Justice Cameron, Constitutional Court of South Africa.
“The principles we hope to develop must facilitate the availability of tools which can impact key populations where they are in conflict with the law. They are often at risk of blackmail, stigma and discrimination. It falls on courts to make the difficult decisions. Judges can then consider legality, legitimate purpose and questions of necessity and proportionality in light of a broader understanding of the human rights principles at stake and the relevant scientific evidence,” said Judge Mbaru, Industrial Court of Kenya.
“The law is required to guarantee rights but at same time it can impose arbitrary restrictions. Often those restrictions in the form of the criminal law purport to be necessary in order to ‘protect’ people. That purported purpose ought to be closely scrutinised,” said Justice Ortiz, Constitutional Court of Columbia.
Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ, stated: “The misuse of the criminal law affects the most marginalized groups of people and, in particular, the dispossessed and disenfranchised.”
“The centrality of the rule of law at a time when it is under threat globally, and our crucial obligation to stand against laws that are arbitrary, unequal and discriminatory,” he added.
Tim Martineau, Acting Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS said: “The application of human rights principles to criminal law is key in order to address the detrimental impact of such laws in the areas of sexuality, reproduction, drug use and HIV.”
“While there was significant progress in HIV prevention, treatment and care, there was a big discrepancy in HIV prevention in relation to key populations who are more vulnerable to HIV infection in many respects because of a lack of legal protection, and the unjust criminalization of their behaviour,” he added.
Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the criminal law can readily become a tool of repression or oppression. She said: “Wrongful deployment of criminal law betrays universal human rights standards. By eroding rather than protecting physical and mental integrity specifically in the contexts of sexuality, reproduction and gender identity, misuse of criminal law seeks a wrongful “regulation” of the body of women in particular, with devastating consequences for women’s and girls’ autonomy, health and well being.”
She emphasized that “the criminal law plays an essential role in the recognition, protection and enforcement of rights including by tackling impunity for violations for those rights.”
ICJ, UNAIDS and OHCHR consider that the envisaged principles will help legislators, judges and advocates in the development and review of criminal laws that have adverse consequences on health, equality and human rights particularly where they relate to key populations.
