On 2 May 2024, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) held a meeting for EU lawyers to discuss the right of judges to independence, as established by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system.
On 21-22 March 2024, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), together with Forum for Human Rights, Human Rights in Practice, aditus and Free Courts, held a workshop on tackling attacks on judicial independence and the autonomy of the prosecution through disciplinary and criminal proceedings, in Prague.
Immigration detention of children is unlawful according to international law and States are obliged to implement alternatives to detention. One of the best solutions for unaccompanied children is their placement into mainstream child protection systems, which already works well in some countries in the EU, an ICJ webinar was told.
To commemorate the tenth anniversary of the massacre of 34 people in Roboski, Southeast Turkey, and take stock of the continuing lack of accountability and reparations for the victims and their family members, the ICJ convened a group of experts on 13 December.
“The Roboski massacre was carried out in clear violation of international human rights law”, said Roisin Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, “Since then, the Turkish authorities have further violated their international obligations by failing to provide investigation or accountability for the arbitrary killings. Ten years later, the Turkish authorities must end this impunity.”
On 28 December 2011, 34 persons living in Turkish villages near the border with Iraq, including 17 children, were killed by a Turkish military bombshell during a purported “counter-terrorism” operation, known as the “Roboski massacre”.
The ICJ today condemned the order issued by Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri, Malaysia’s Minister in charge of religious affairs, to the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) to take action against the transgender community.
The ICJ called on the Minister to rescind the order immediately and take steps to ensure non-discrimination and equal protection of all persons in Malaysia, including LGBTI persons.
On 10 July 2020, Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri announced in a social media post that he had given the Jawi authorities “full licence to carry out its enforcement actions” against transgender persons in Malaysia. He elaborated that his order would beyond arresting transgender persons but would also extend to providing them “religious education” so that they would “return to the right path”.
“This unacceptable transphobic and homophobic attack from a government official highlights the societal prejudices and the lack of legal protections against discrimination faced by transgender persons in Malaysia,” said Ambiga Sreenavasan, a prominent Malaysian lawyer and Commissioner of the ICJ.
“Instead of ensuring that the human rights and dignity of all persons are respected and protected, the Minister, through his statement, is going in the complete opposite direction by advocating state action against persons belonging to sexual orientation and gender identity minorities,” added Ambiga Sreenavasan. “The Minister is legitimizing harassment, discrimination and violence against transgender people, and increasing violations of their human rights.”
Across the country in 13 states and the federal territories, a “male” who “poses” as a woman or wears the clothing of a “woman” may be subjected to criminal liability under state-level religious enactments. Consensual same-sex sexual relations are criminalized as “unnatural offences” in both secular civil law and religious state-level laws. These “offences” carry heavy penalties in the form of fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment in the form of caning, which constitutes impermissible cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law and standards.
The ICJ stressed that these laws served to institutionalize systemic discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, while also creating barriers for LGBT people when seeking justice. They provide state authorities with expansive power to police gender identities, expressions and sexual orientations of people.
The ICJ notes that experiences of severe stigma, marginalization, and violence committed by families, communities, and State actors lead to immense health risks and mental health disparities of transgender individuals.
The ICJ is also deeply concerned about the Minister’s plan to require members of the transgender community to undergo religious conversion therapy. Numerous studies have shown how religious conversion therapy and related practices are causing real harm not only to transgender people, but also to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to abide by its obligations under international law and follow through with its commitment to human rights, by ensuring that transgender people and all persons are legally protected against discrimination, and that they are able to live free from prejudice, harassment, and violations of their human rights.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
In 2019, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) released a report on Transgender Persons in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Many of the transgender people interviewed for this report said that they constantly face arbitrary arrests, discrimination in obtaining employment, and even discrimination in obtaining housing because of their gender identity. A large majority of those interviewed experienced violence because of their gender identity.
In a wide-ranging interview recorded on June 4 2020, ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Ajit Prakash Shah, called on the Indian judiciary to exercise its responsibility to protect peoples’ human rights and “reprise its role as protector of Indian people” in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic.
In April and May 2020, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed several petitions and applications concerning the rights of internal migrant workers.
These included petitions demanding that migrant workers be moved to shelter homes and provided with basic needs and that payment of minimum wages be made to all migrant workers for the lockdown period.
The Court was also requested to direct the District Magistrates to identify those who are walking and ensure that they are provided with shelter and food and reach their destination, following the death of 16 internal migrant workers killed while sleeping on railway tracks while on their way back to their hometowns.
Finally, on 26 May 2020 the Court took suo moto cognizance of their predicament and, on 28 May 2020 ordered the Government to: register internal migrant workers; provide internal migrant workers free transportation home; and provide internal migrant workers with shelter, food, and water until they reach their homes.
This action was followed by another order on 9 June by which the Court ordered that: internal migrant workers are identified and sent to their hometowns within 15 days; and that all cases registered against those who had allegedly violated COVID-19 lockdown orders be considered for withdrawal.
In the interview, Justice Shah accented, in particular, the role of the Indian judiciary “as protector of Indian people” in respect of marginalized and disadvantaged people, including people living in poverty.
In addressing the question about internal migrant workers who were stranded during the recent COVID-19 lockdown, Justice Shah observed that for two months (March 24 2020 – May 28 2020) between the initiation of the lockdown and the rulings of the Supreme Court the Court appeared to have “remained skeptical” and in “denial” about petitions filed seeking redress for internal migrant workers.
Speaking in this context, Justice Shah reminded the Indian judiciary that Indian courts have historically been at “the forefront of giving effect to India’s international legal obligations,” including its economic, social, and cultural rights obligations encapsulated in International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
They had done so in landmark cases such as PUCL v. UOI (in which it held that the right to life with dignity includes a right to food and a right to be free from hunger and starvation) and Chameli Singh v. UOI (in which it held that right to shelter includes adequate living space includes light, air, water, civil amenities, and sanitation).
While commending the Courts interventions in May 2020, Justice Shah pointed out that their lateness to react was damaging.
“Courts should have intervened earlier. They could have monitored the process of the return of the migrants to their home states and ensured basic wages were fixed and delivered.”
Justice Shah expressed hope that the 28 May 2020 order represented a turning point:
“Hopefully, going forward, the Court will act in the same spirit … to grant some reliefs to suffering migrant communities. In the future, the Court should take the lead and monitor these processes, serving as a guide to both the center and the state authorities and the bureaucracy for addressing these issues.”
Commenting on the role of lawyers during the COVID-19 crisis, Justice Shah expressed concern that law officers were castigating lawyers for approaching courts with petitions.
Watch the video
Additional Reading
Download (with additional information)