Jul 19, 2018 | News
His Majesty King Mswati III of the Kingdom of Eswatini (formerly known as the Kingdom of Swaziland) yesterday gave his royal assent to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, a milestone in the fight against sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the country.
In its May 2018 report on key challenges to achieving justice for human rights violations in Swaziland, the ICJ identified the widespread occurrence of SGBV, with discriminatory practices based on customary laws and traditional beliefs undermining equality between men and women and the access by victims of such violence to effective remedies and reparation, as well as the holding to account of perpetrators of such violence.
Eswatini’sNational Strategy to End Violence in Swaziland 2017-2022, produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in collaboration with the UN Population Fund, itself pointed to an alarming rate of increasing violence in all its forms, noting that its most common form was gender-based violence, disproportionately affecting women and girls.
The new law follows a protracted legislative process, first initiated in 2009; then resumed in 2015. It has also been accompanied by increasing attention and concern by international human rights mechanisms, including the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
Building on ICJ initiatives to bring together international, regional and local SGBV experts in 2015, and on sustainable development goals on access to justice and gender equality in 2017, the ICJ with local partners convened a workshop on combatting SGBV in Swaziland in February 2018. In consultations during and around this most recent workshop, interlocutors signaled fears that the Senate of Swaziland was equivocating on passage of the 2015 Bill. Responding to local partners’ requests, the ICJ made a submission to the Senate in March 2018, bringing to its attention to the global and regional obligations of the Kingdom to enact the legislation, as well as the Government’s own commitments to do so. The Senate soon after voted to adopt the legislation.
The new law for the first time criminalizes marital rape and other domestic violence offences; makes provision for Specialised Domestic Violence Courts; creates mechanisms and avenues for reporting of offences; and requires medical examination and treatment of victims. These are issues that had not been previously provided for.
Enactment of the law is significant, incorporating into domestic law a very large part of Eswatini’s international human rights obligations, including those arising from the Africa region, to criminalize and sanction the perpetrators of SGBV. It also discharges commitments made by His Majesty’s Government during the 2016 Universal Periodic Review.
Just as important will be the effective implementation of the new law to combat SGBV by bringing perpetrators to account and providing victims with access to justice.
With a view to enhancing the prospects of an effective and comprehensive approach to that end, the ICJ’s Commissioner, and Principal Judge of the High Court, Justice Qinsile Mabuza, will next week be coordinating a meeting of governmental justice sector stakeholders involved in combatting SGBV in the country. This first coordinated meeting of governmental actors will focus on issues of investigation, prosecution and sanctioning of sexual and gender-based violence crimes, including the role of social and medical services.
The ICJ is also commissioning a report on the access of victims of SGBV to effective remedies and reparation. Focused on case studies, the report will include attention to lack of justice through acquittals that have been prompted by inadequate laws or procedures and/or through lack of prompt or sufficient forensic or medical evidence. This report will feed into discussions at a second meeting of governmental justice sector stakeholders, intended for 2019.
Mar 28, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today submitted a report to the UN Committee against Torture, calling for recommendations to be made on prevention of and accountability for continued recourse to torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan.
The ICJ’s submission is made ahead of consideration by the Committee against Torture in April to May 2018 of Tajikistan’s third periodic report on the implementation of its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The ICJ’s report draws from an earlier study on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Tajikistan and calls on the Committee against Torture to make recommendations concerning:
- The obligation to adequately sanction torture;
- The obligation to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including in places of detention;
- The obligation to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment;
- The use of amnesties and pardons for torture;
- The prohibition against the use of evidence obtained by torture;
- The right to complain about torture and ill-treatment; and
- The right of victims to effective remedies and reparation.
Tajikistan-CAT-Advocacy-AlternativeReport-2018ENG (download the ICJ’s submission, in PDF)
Mar 27, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
On 27 March 2018, the ICJ, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) made a joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Thailand’s implementation of the Committee’s prioritized recommendations.
On 23 March 2017, during its 119th Session, the Human Rights Committee adopted its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand under article 40 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pursuant to its rules of procedure, the Committee requested Thailand to provide a follow up report on its implementation of the Committee’s recommendations made in paragraphs 8 (constitution and legal framework) 22 (extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture) and 34 (conditions of detention) of its concluding observations by 23 March 2018. To date, the Thai authorities are yet to file their follow-up report with the Committee.
In their joint submission to the Human Rights Committee, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF detailed their concerns in relation to Thailand’s failure to implement the Committee’s recommendations in paragraphs 8 and 22 of its concluding observations. The three organizations’ submission focuses on their concerns arising from the following:
Constitution and legal framework
- Orders by the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (‘HNCPO’); and
- Escalation in use of HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture
- Allegations of widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment;
- Incommunicado detention;
- Southern Border Provinces; and
- Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, ill–treatment and enforced disappearance.
Read also
ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand_Joint-Follow-up-Human-Rights-Committee-Submission-march-2018 (Full submission in ENG, PDF)
Thailand-Follow up HRC-Advocacy-Non legal submission-2018-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Mar 20, 2018 | News
The authorities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) should reveal the whereabouts of prominent human rights defender and citizen-journalist Ahmed Mansoor and release him immediately and unconditionally, two dozen human rights organizations, including the ICJ, said today.
Ahmed Mansoor is being held for his peaceful human rights work.
20 March 2018 marks one year since security forces arbitrarily arrested Mansoor, winner of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015, at his home in Ajman.
The UAE authorities have continued to detain him in an unknown location, despite condemnation from UN human rights experts and independent human rights organizations.
“The authorities have subjected Ahmed Mansoor to enforced disappearance since his wife last saw him in September 2017. They must reveal his whereabouts to his family and grant him immediate access to them and to a lawyer of his choosing,” said Khalid Ibrahim, Executive Director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR).
Following his arrest, the authorities announced that he is facing speech-related charges that include using social media websites to “publish false information that harms national unity.”
On 28 March 2017, a group of UN human rights experts called on the UAE government to release Mansoor immediately, describing his arrest as “a direct attack on the legitimate work of human rights defenders in the UAE.”
They said that they feared his arrest “may constitute an act of reprisal for his engagement with UN human rights mechanisms, for the views he expressed on social media, including Twitter, as well as for being an active member of human rights organizations.”
“Mansoor’s arbitrary detention is a violation of his right to freedom of expression and opinion. The UAE authorities must drop all charges against him and release him immediately,” said Carles Torner, Executive Director of PEN International.
Since his arrest, Mansoor has not been allowed to make telephone calls to his family and has been allowed only two short visits with his wife, on 3 April and 17 September 2017, both under strict supervision.
He was brought from an unknown place of detention to the State Security Prosecutor’s office in Abu Dhabi for both visits.
The authorities have refused to inform his family about his place of detention and have ignored their requests for further visits.
In February 2018, a group of international human rights organizations commissioned two lawyers from Ireland to travel to Abu Dhabi to seek access to Mansoor.
The UAE authorities gave the lawyers conflicting information about Mansoor’s whereabouts.
The Interior Ministry, the official body responsible for prisons and prisoners, denied any knowledge of his whereabouts and referred the lawyers to the police.
The police also said they had no information about his whereabouts. The lawyers also visited Al-Wathba Prison in Abu Dhabi following statements made by the authorities after Mansoor’s arrest, which suggested that he was being held there.
However, the prison authorities told the lawyers that there was nobody matching Mansoor’s description in prison.
“Pending his release, Mansoor must be granted immediate and regular access to his family, as well as to a lawyer of his choosing,” said Sima Watling, UAE Researcher at Amnesty International’s Middle East Regional Office.
UAE-one-year-Ahmed-Mansoor-remain-unknown-2018-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Mar 8, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan government must act swiftly and in line with human rights to prosecute those responsible for recent communal violence.
Particularly for attacks against the minority Muslim community in Kandy district, while avoiding the abusive practices of the past, said the ICJ today.
Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, proclaimed an island-wide state of emergency on 6th March 2018, following a curfew imposed in several areas since Monday.
The action came following a spate of attacks against members of the Muslim community that was spreading in the Kandy district, following attacks in Ampara last week, in Gintota in 2016, and Aluthgama in 2014.
“The government must show that it will bring to account those who have incited communal violence, particularly notorious figures who have been emboldened by the pervading impunity to preach hatred openly and publicly. The arrest of key suspects yesterday is a start and convictions must follow,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
“But the government must ensure that its investigation is impartial and effective and follows due process of the law,” he added.
The ICJ called upon the government of Sri Lanka to swiftly prosecute those responsible for inciting and carrying out the communal violence using existing legal provisions in the Penal Code and the ICCPR Act, the latter of which prohibits advocating “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
The ICJ is concerned that the Emergency Regulations issued by the President through powers under the Public Security Ordinance, confer excessively broad powers on the army and the police to search, arrest and investigate.
“Given Sri Lanka’s experience of Emergency Regulations, the government should ensure that these regulations are time-bound and comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Rawski.
The government has further restricted access to selected instant messaging applications and social media platforms “as an extraordinary but temporary response to limit the increasing spread of hate speech and violence through social media websites and phone messaging applications.”
“Blocking social media and other communication channels, even with the best of intentions, typically has the negative effect of restricting affected persons from seeking assistance, journalists from reporting around the situation and may actually undermine efforts to counter violence and hate speech. Any such measures should be narrowly targeted and limited in time,” said Rawski.
“A better approach would be for the Sri Lankan government to aggressively push back against these hateful narratives by demonstrating in actions as well as its rhetoric that Sri Lanka is a diverse country in which all of its citizens’ rights are respected and protected equally,” he added.
Background
Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance of Sri Lanka empowers the President to make emergency regulations in the interest of ‘public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ Sri Lanka has a history of governance using emergency powers, which in the past has posed a challenge for democratic governance and human rights, providing law enforcement with wide powers, circumventing ordinary checks and balances.
The President, while justifying circumstances that led to his proclamation of a state of emergency, has stated that he “has given special instructions the Police and the tri-forces to take action in terms of these regulations, in a lawful manner in good faith while ensuring minimum disturbance to the life and well-being of people, in conformity with Fundamental Human Rights of people.”
