Jun 25, 2021 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ is concerned that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHRPRA) are prioritizing young fit healthy persons to receive vaccinations. In the context of severe shortages of vaccines in South Africa and Southern Africa more generally, and in light of the stated aim of South Africa’s own vaccine roll-out plan to prioritize the most vulnerable in line with WHO advice, the vaccination of younger ‘elite athletes’ and young diplomats would appear unjustifiable on public health grounds. They are simply not priority groups for vaccination, especially where there is vaccine scarcity, inequality, and the promise by government of equality.
ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh stated,
“To date South Africa has administered just over 2.23 million vaccines mostly to health care workers and persons over 60 years old. This represents just 3.76% of the population. South Africa has the highest number of confirmed cases in Africa with more than 1.86 million who have been infected and where 59 000 have lost their lives. According to the South African Medical Research Council the excess deaths, which represent a more accurate representation of Covid-19 related mortality, is at 173 000. In this context the slow pace of vaccination coupled with the unfair and unequitable prioritisation of certain groups is contributing to a devastating third wave.”
A decision taken by SAHPRA appears to contradict the eligibility criteria of the Sisonke vaccine trial (a process where a vaccine was made available to health care workers using a research programme prior to the requisite approvals and licencing processes) to include among others ‘elite athletes’, enabling them to enjoy special privileged access to some of the remaining clinical trial stock, while others at risk could have been study subjects instead.
No reasons or public health-based justifications have been made publicly available as to why athletes and other persons working in sport as well government officials were given priority access. Ramjathan-Keogh added,
“No reasons or public health-based justifications have been made publicly available as to why these athletes and as well as sports and government officials have been prioritised to receive these vaccines from the Sisonke trial. If they cannot be justified on public health grounds, we are concerned that they may be non-compliant with human rights imperatives, and we question the ethical considerations of the approach”.
According to the Africa Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention as of 24 June there are 5.2 million cases reported across Africa, with 139 000 total deaths in Africa. Most new cases are from these five countries – South Africa (35%) Ethiopia (5%), Egypt (5%), Morocco (10%) and Tunisia (7%). The highest number of new cases are emerging from Southern Africa and from these countries: South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, and Uganda representing 63% of new cases in Africa.
The ICJ calls on South Africa to follow the World Health Organization’s guidance which is to prioritise those who are more vulnerable in respect of equitable access and fair allocation of vaccines. Further, South Africa has an international legal obligation to protect the right to health as a State party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The supervisory body for that treaty, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has affirmed that all healthcare goods, facilities, and services must be available, accessible, acceptable and of adequate quality. In addition, these goods, facilities, and services should be “accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds.” The right to health should be accessible without discrimination “even in times of severe resource constraints” such as those brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the letter.
Further Reading:
ICJ, “The Unvaccinated Equality not Charity in Southern Africa” (May 2020): https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Africa-The-Unvaccinated-Publications-Reports-2021-ENG.pdf
ICJ and Human Rights Watch, “More than words: it is time for urgent action on COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)” (21 June 2021): https://www.icj.org/more-than-words-it-is-time-for-urgent-action-on-covid-19-vaccines-un-statement/.
WHO, WHO SAGE values framework for the allocation and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccination (September 2020): https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334299/WHO-2019-nCoV-SAGE_Framework-Allocation_and_prioritization-2020.1-eng.pdf
UN CESCR, Statement on universal and equitable access to vaccines for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (December 2020): https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2f2020%2f2&Lang=en
UN CESCR, Statement on universal affordable vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19), international cooperation and intellectual property (23 April 2020): https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2f2021%2f1&Lang=en.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2021 | News, Uncategorized
Egyptian authorities must immediately quash the convictions of Hanin Hossam and Mawadda Al-Adham and immediately and unconditionally release the two “TikTok girls,” the ICJ said today.
هذا البيان الصحفي متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
On 20 June 2021, the Cairo Criminal Court sentenced 20 year-old Hanin Hossam and 23 year-old Mawadda Al-Adham to 10 and six years in prison, respectively, and a fine of 200.000 Egyptian pounds each (12,778 US Dollars), after convicting them on “human trafficking” charges arising from their social media activities.
“Their convictions must be quashed and Hanin Hossam and Mawadda Al-Adham and others imprisoned must be immediately and unconditionally released,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Director.
“The role of the judiciary is to protect and uphold everyone’s right to freedom of expression, not to crack down on its legitimate exercise in the name of some purported and ill-defined moral or social values.”
The two women, known as the “TikTok girls”, were arrested in April 2020 for violating “public morals” and “undermining family values” after publishing videos, including some in which they were shown dancing or signing, on the social media platform TikTok. In July 2020, a Cairo Court convicted and sentenced Hossam and Al-Adham to two years in prison; their conviction was overturned on appeal in January 2021.
However, prosecutors moved swiftly soon after their successful appeal to charge them in another case with “human trafficking”, and “using girls in acts contrary to the principles and values of Egyptian society with the aim of gaining material benefits.” The sentences imposed on 20 June by the Cairo Criminal Court on Hossam and Al-Adham arise from their conviction on those charges.
The charges are based on the 2018 cyber-crimes law, which effectively criminalizes the lawful and legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and association.
“Egypt’s military and government are turning Egypt into an open-air prison in which any and all forms of free expression are crushed,” added Benarbia.
On 12 March 2021, 31 UN Member States delivered a joint declaration at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council denouncing the human rights situation in Egypt, including restrictions on freedom of expression.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 23, 2021 | News
The Egyptian authorities systematically abuse “counter-terrorism” laws against human rights defenders, setting a dangerous model for other countries around the world to follow.
On 23 June, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) jointly organized an online event on the sidelines of 47th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to denounce Egypt’s targeting of human rights defenders through the country’s “counter-terrorism” laws.
Titled ‘Weaponizing Counter Terrorism Laws to Silence Human Rights Defenders’, the interactive online webinar aimed to highlight how the Egyptian authorities use “counter-terrorism” laws to target human rights defenders, including by placing lawyers and human rights activists on Egypt’s “terrorist list”, a recent practice resulting in serious human rights violations.
The event was moderated by Bahey Eldin Hassan, CIHRS Director, who stressed that the abuse of the “counter-terrorism” laws was not only employed against human rights defenders, and is not a phenomenon limited to Egypt.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, pointed out that repressive regimes take advantage of the lack of a globally agreed definition of terrorism when legislating for counter terrorism purposes. As a result, they get to place whomever they like under the “terrorism label” at the national level, with no meaningful oversight or penalties.
“The United Nations Security Council has taken on a massive legislative role on counter terrorism, which has given cover to and enabled State repression at the national level,” Ní Aoláin noted addressing the role of the international community.
“This is not an accident or a ‘bad apple’ problem, the misuse of counter-terrorism is embedded in the practised national legal systems,” Ní Aoláin added. “That abuse is part of the DNA of State practice in many countries.”
“We are at a pivotal moment. States must ask themselves what 20 years of abuse of counter terrorism laws have done,” Ní Aoláin urged. “It has weakened protections and made us less safe in many ways. This is a time for States to stand up and ensure pressure for change of this situation.”
Brian Dooley, Senior Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, noted that for authorities to imprison a human rights defender “with a straight face” for a long period of time, they have to use major accusations such as terrorism.
“The Egyptian authorities know that these human rights defenders are not terrorists,” Dooley said. “In most of the cases we have seen, where defenders were sentenced to ten years or more in prison, the relevant authorities use some sort of anti-terrorism, national security, or treason laws to justify putting a human rights defender away in prison for 10 or more years.”
Said Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Director, began by naming some of the most prominent human rights defenders who remain in pre-trial detention facing “terrorism-related charges” in Egypt.
Among those Benarbia mentioned are: Alaa Abdelfattah, a blogger and a human rights activist; Mahienour al-Masri, a human rights lawyer; Mohammad al-Baqer, a lawyer and the director of the independent NGO, Adalah; and Amr Imam, a lawyer at the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information.
“In most of the cases the ICJ documented human rights defenders face charges of ‘joining a terrorist group’,” but the State security prosecution has consistently failed to even name the terrorist organization or group concerned,” Benarbia said. “In most of the cases, prosecutions were initiated with the sole purpose of intimidating and silencing human rights defenders.”
Benarbia emphasized that prosecuting individuals despite a total lack of evidence to support the charges is contrary to both the Egyptian and international law and standards.
“Any country that, like Egypt, uses ‘counter terrorism’ legislation to clamp down on basic freedoms and retaliate against human rights defenders and create open-air prisons should not have a say in setting international standards on terrorism,” Benarbia added.
Human Rights Defender, Celine Lebrun Shaath, delivered a passionate statement about her husband, Ramy Shaath, an Egyptian Palestinian human rights defender who has been detained since July 2019. Shaath, who herself was deported from Egypt in the wake of her husband’s arrest, mentioned that the online event was taking place on Ramy Shaath’s birthday; the second since his imprisonment. “I would rather not be here today,” she added, lamenting what had happened to her husband.
“We do not know to what terrorist group Ramy is supposed to be belonging,” Shaath said. “He is accused of spreading ‘fake news’, but we don’t know which news or where he had spread them.”
Shaath expressed her hope that the Egyptian government would heed the call for her husband’s release and free Ramy and all the political prisoners.
“[Human Rights Defenders] should be looked at as a wealth for this country. They are the future, they are not a threat, dissent is not terrorism, dissent is a vibrant part of democracy that should be cherished and protected,” Shaath underscored.
On 12 March 2021, 31 UN Member States signed a joint declaration condemning the human rights situation in Egypt, which Finland delivered on their behalf at the Human Rights Council’s 46th session. The joint letter focused primarily on “the restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, the constrained space for civil society and political opposition, and the application of terrorism legislation against peaceful critics.”
The event was cosponsored by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights.
You can watch the entire event here.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 22, 2021 | News
The Second Berlin Conference on Libya, taking place on 23 June, should focus on ensuring accountability for crimes under international law and guaranteeing that the transitional justice process is fully consistent with international law and standards as its key priorities, the ICJ said today.
هذا البيان الصحفي متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
“The Berlin II Conference must bring accountability to the top of the political agenda in Libya”, said Saïd Bernarbia, the ICJ MENA Director.
“The necessity to hold the 24 December elections cannot sideline the need for the Libyan authorities to hold perpetrators of crimes under international law to account and to end impunity for past and ongoing human rights abuses. Time and again experience from around the world has shown that accountability is crucial for a sustainable political solution.”
The 19 January 2020 Berlin Conference Conclusions stressed “the need to hold accountable all those who have violated provisions of international law”, and encouraged the Libyan authorities to strengthen “transitional justice institutions, including prosecution initiatives, reparations, truth-seeking and institutional reform.” A dedicated Working Group on human rights and international humanitarian law was created to implement such conclusions.
The Berlin II Conference must follow up on these commitments and give priority to ensuring that crimes under international law committed by all parties in Libya be effectively investigated with a view to holding perpetrators to account.
“The transitional justice process must be prioritized with a view to establishing the truth about past and ongoing gross human rights violations and abuses, upholding victims’ right to remedies and reparations, including by providing guarantees of non-repetition”, Benarbia said.
The Berlin II Conference should also support the work and mandate the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya established by the Human Rights Council in June 2020.
Download this press release in PDF form here.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 20, 2021 | News
On 19-20 June, the ICJ, in partnership with the Tunisian Association of Judges (AMT), organised a workshop on ‘Legal reasoning and judgment drafting in the cases before the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC)’ in Tunis, Tunisia.
Twenty-five SCC judges and prosecutors from across the country participated in the two-day workshop.
Said Benarbia, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Director; Anas Hmedi, AMT’s President; and Martine Comte and Philippe Texier, ICJ Commissioners, were the main speakers.
On the first day, speakers and participants focused on legal reasoning and interpretation challenges before the SCC.
ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier spoke about the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, res judicata and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations, which are all recognised under Tunisian law.
Texier underlined that, when properly understood and applied, both the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations would not necessarily be a bar to the prosecution of crimes and gross human rights violations within the jurisdiction of the SCC, since international law, including customary international law, already proscribed them at the time of their commission.
Said Benarbia stressed the importance of applying international law and standards, especially with regard to international crimes that Tunisian domestic penal law does not proscribe yet, such as the crime under international law of enforced disappearance. With respect to the hierarchy of norms, he underscored that the Tunisian Constitution clearly recognises that international law and treaties are superior to national law.
As a result, SCC judges are required to have regard to and apply relevant international law and treaties ratified by Tunisia in adjudicating the cases before them. Judges have the power and the responsibility to interpret Tunisian law in light of international law, including, whenever necessary, by filling certain gaps in domestic legislation.
ICJ Commissioner Martine Comte then spoke about the attribution of individual criminal responsibility and modes of liability, procedural guarantees and the rights of victims and the accused, as well as reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. She emphasised that, under the 2013 Tunisian law on Transitional Justice, guarantees of non-repetition are a constitutive and fundamental element of the transitional justice process.
Comte also explained that the doctrine of command responsibility is a well-recognised general principle of international law, established and applied in many jurisdictions, and therefore to be applied, as relevant, in cases before the SCC.
Comte underlined the importance of enforcing and monitoring the respect of procedural guarantees and the rights of both the victims and the accused, including the right to the presumption of innocence, the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings.
She added that the first reparation of all is the establishment of the truth and of the facts of each case, which, in turn, aims to restore the dignity of victims and their families by recognizing the harm they suffered.
Finally, Comte and the other speakers talked about conviction and sentencing and the challenges faced by SCC judges when the sentence is not defined in nor international law nor Tunisian law.
On the second day, expert speakers and participants discussed judgment drafting in cases before the SCC. They discussed how SCC judges, while addressing the challenges related to the complexity of the cases at hand, can ensure organized, clear, and effective judgment drafting, including through the establishment of a coherent judgment outline; and by providing a clear analysis of factual issues and how they should be resolved.
Texier stressed that the SCC are not exceptional in their nature: they are composed of ordinary judges and have to adhere to the standards of fair trial. SCC judgments differ from ordinary judgments in that they carry a historic significance, by establishing a negated truth and contributing to the duty of remembrance, both of which are crucial elements of the transitional justice process.
Said Benarbia spoke of one of the main challenges facing the work of the SCC, namely, the voluntary absence of the accused who do not appear before court despite being summoned. Drawing on examples from other transitional justice contexts, he concluded that in this respect Tunisia is an exception, as the transitional justice process is typically accompanied by a political will that ensures the presence of the accused.
Benarbia also stressed the importance of the presence of the accused before the Court as one of the fundamental guarantees of the right to a fair trial.
Comte underscored the need to comply with the law regarding the admissibility of evidence (e.g., ensuring that a confession has not been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or by any other coercive means).
She then addressed the need for the judgment to provide a thorough analysis of the admissible evidence presented at trial on which the ultimate decision is rendered in light of the applicable law and stated that, under Tunisian law, the judges’ decision must be based on firm conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Finally, Benarbia presented an outline for judges to rely upon when drafting the first SCC judgments, based on several judgments rendered by international tribunals. He underscored that such a structured and comprehensive outline would help judges in drafting coherent and exhaustive judgements.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org phone number: +41 79 878 35 46
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer at the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: Asser.khattab(a)icj.org
