Nov 22, 2019 | News
On 20 November 2019, the ICJ and Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament, hosted a roundtable discussion in Brussels on the ICJ’s report Accountability for Crimes under International Law in Libya: An Assessment of the Criminal Justice System.
Panelists called for the establishment of a Human Rights Council mandated Commission of Inquiry on Libya and for States to refrain from entering or implementing agreements that could give rise to support for or complicity in violations of international law.
They also called for the intensification of monitoring of Libyan Coast Guard operations and publication of its key findings, and for the European Commission to ensure its cooperation with Libyan authorities is conditional on meeting concrete, verifiable and timebound benchmarks.
At the launch, Said Benarbia and Kate Vigneswaran, MENA Programme Director and Senior Legal Adviser respectively, discussed the findings and recommendations of the ICJ’s report examining the criminal justice framework in Libya. The report finds that investigations and prosecutions of crimes under international law have been limited to a handful of cases, and substantial reforms to the legal framework are required to ensure fair and effective justice in future cases.
In light of the report’s findings, Marwa Mohammed, Head of Advocacy and Outreach for Lawyers for Justice in Libya, discussed the arbitrary detention of thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Libya, systematic human rights violations and abuses being committed against them, and absence of options for protection, repatriation and return, including as a result of EU States’ policies.
Philippe Dam, Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, then discussed the engagement of the EU, European Commission and EU States with Libyan authorities, including in the context of violations and abuses committed against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard.
The panel was introduced by Karolina Babicka, Legal Advisor for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, and moderated by Tinneke Strik. It was attended by representatives of the European Commission, the EEAS, UNHCR, non-government organizations and independent persons
Nov 21, 2019 | News
The Upper House of Parliament must revise the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which was passed by the Lower House of Parliament on 5 August 2019.
The Bill does not adequately protect the rights of transgender people, and fails to comply with India’s constitutional and international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
The Government introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, before the Parliament on 19 July 2019. It was passed by the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of Parliament) on 5 August, 2019, despite a lack of consultation with the transgender community and serious weaknesses in the Bill, which would be in violation of the Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment.
“If the Upper House of Parliament adopts the Bill in its current form, without any amendments, it will miss an important opportunity to introduce a law that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of transgender people as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA v. UOI and India’s international obligations,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
The current draft, fails to address key concerns that have been repeatedly raised by the transgender community and human rights organizations.
Critically, the Bill appears to continue to mandate sex reassignment surgery for transgender people. This requirement would contravene the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification without the need for medical intervention. Further, the Bill does not make provision for affirmative action in employment or education despite the Supreme Court’s mandate in NALSA v. UOI.
Moreover, the Bill sets out lighter sentences for several criminal offences, such as “sexual abuse” and “physical abuse”, when they are committed against transgender people. In addition, the Bill does not adequately define these offences and retains provisions that could be used in a discriminatory manner to target transgender people for criminal prosecution. It also fails to address the lack of an effective mechanism to enforce the legal prohibition against discrimination on the ground of gender identity.
The ICJ has recommended the deletion of provisions that mandate sex reassignment surgery and that set out lighter sentences for criminal offences against transgender people. In addition, the ICJ recommends the inclusion of provisions addressing affirmative action for transgender persons in education and employment.
“We urge the Upper House of Parliament to address these deficiencies before passing the Bill into law, in accordance with India’s constitutional and international law obligations, and to ensure meaningful consultation with the transgender community” Rawski said.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Adviser for India, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Read also
ICJ 2019 Report on India Living with Dignity: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity-Based Human Rights Violations in Housing, Work, and Public Spaces in India. The Report details human rights violations suffered by LGBTQ persons in their family homes, workplaces, and public spaces including streets, public toilets, public transport and shopping centres.
ICJ Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Nov 20, 2019
Israel must comply with its obligations under international law and reverse its policies and practices aiming at formally annexing parts of the West Bank, the ICJ said in a Briefing Paper released today, analyzing the applicable international law.
The ICJ’s analysis – The Road to Annexation – contradicts the 18 November 2019 statement by the US Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, in which he asserted that the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
“Israel’s settlements are illegal no matter how hard the Israeli and the US governments try to spin or whitewash them,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Director.
“Any sovereignty claims by Israel over East Jerusalem and the West Bank are null and void under international law and must be repudiated, not condoned or encouraged,” he added.
The ICJ’s Briefing Paper explains that such statements by the US administration are void and of no effect under international law, as are the underpinning Israeli settlement laws, policies and practices.
Throughout the 52 years of occupation over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel has implemented long-term, irreversible changes to the occupied territory, including the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements, as well as the construction of the Separation Barrier incorporating considerable parts of the West Bank into Israeli territory.
The ICJ Briefing Paper finds that these activities, combined with Israel’s legislative activity aiming at extending its sovereignty over settlements, are a further, strong evidence of Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank.
Such annexation is prohibited by international law, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity of a State and, consequently, the transmission of sovereign title over territories resulting from such use of force.
The International Court of Justice has affirmed that the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force is a peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation is permitted.
The ICJ also examines the legal implications of the annexation of the West Bank for third States, urging them not to recognize annexation efforts and activities, refrain from providing assistance to them, and act, collectively and individually, to bring such unlawful conduct to an end.
“The international community must not legitimize or aid and abet Israel’s moves to annex parts of the West Bank,” said Said Benarbia.
“Instead of condoning and supporting the acquisition of land by force, the US should urge Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territory, including by dismantling existing settlements and refraining from establishing new ones,” he added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Program, t: +41 22 979 38 17 ; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Download:
Israel-Road to Annexation-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG
Nov 20, 2019
On 18 November, the ICJ, together with 35 other non-governmental organizations, addressed an open letter to the members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, expressing deep concern at ongoing legislative attempts to roll back on the reproductive rights of women in Slovakia.
At this time the Slovak Parliament is debating new draft legislation that would require women seeking abortion care to undergo a mandatory ultrasound scanning, to view and obtain the ultrasound image of the embryo or the foetus, and where technically possible, to also listen to the “heartbeat of the embryo or the foetus.” The proposed legislation also seeks to prohibit “advertising” on abortion and to impose a fine of up to 66,400 Euros on those who order or disseminate it.
In the letter, the signatory organizations raised concern that, if adopted, this legislation would harm women’s health and well-being, obstruct their access to safe abortion care and violate Slovakia’s international human rights obligations.
Download
Slovakia-Reproductive rights-Advocacy-Open Letter-2019-ENG (letter available in PDF)
Nov 19, 2019 | News
Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government must demonstrate that they will uphold human rights and rule of law, and ensure that Sri Lanka sustains its international obligations and commitments to justice and accountability, said the ICJ today.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa faces credible allegations of involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity that took place during the country’s armed conflict.
“The election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, after a highly polarizing campaign, has alarmed human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and abroad, who have little reason to believe that someone facing such serious allegations of perpetrating human rights violations can be relied upon to meet the country’s obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the presidency with 52.25% of votes, served as Sri Lanka’s Secretary of the Ministry of Defence from 2005 to 2015 during the tenure of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the height of the armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Both the military and LTTE perpetrated war crimes and gross human rights violations during the conflict, and particularly during its bloody final stages. As Defence Secretary, Gotabaya was accused of ordering the killing of surrendering LTTE fighters, ordering strikes on civilians and hospitals, and authorizing attacks on human rights defenders.
International condemnation of atrocities committed during the conflict led to the UN Human Rights Council demanding that the Sri Lankan government commit to a process of transitional justice, in view of the systematic failures of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka in the past, as documented by the ICJ in its submission to the Human Rights Council, and others. Despite commitments from the Sri Lankan government, the transitional justice process has effectively stalled and impunity has prevailed.
“The ICJ is deeply concerned that even the limited strides made over the past five years in Sri Lanka on transitional justice, positive constitutional amendments and institutional reform will be reversed,” said Rawski.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director, t +66 644781121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
