May 25, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian Parliament to reverse its decision of 26 March 2018 and allow the Truth and Dignity Commission (IVD) to carry out its mandate for at least another year.
The IVD should be in the position to finalize its investigations of past serious human rights violations in the country and, when appropriate, refer cases to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), the ICJ added.
Since its decision, the Parliament has not considered or adopted any measures to address the legal and practical consequences, including how incomplete investigations by the IVD will be handled, how other investigations will be transferred to the SCC and by whom, how evidence will be preserved and protected, how the documents and the material gathered by the IVD will properly be archived, and what would happen if the IVD were unable to complete the drafting of the final report.
The initial four-year term of the IVD ends on 31 May 2018.
“It’s absolutely irresponsible for the Tunisian Parliament to thwart the whole transitional justice process and curtail the work of the IVD without providing any path forward,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“As one of the three branches of government, the Parliament must abide by Tunisia’s obligations under international law to establish the truth about past human rights violations, bring the perpetrators to account, and provide victims with effective remedies and reparation,” he added.
The March decision runs counter to all these obligations.
It denies the rights of victims, and broader society, to know the truth, including about the circumstances and reasons that led to decades of serious human rights violations in the country.
The IVD has not been able to finalize its investigations or produce its final report.
It also shields those responsible from criminal accountability. Only eight cases have so far been referred by the IVD to the SCC.
The fate of cases that have been investigated but are not referred before 31 May 2018 remains unclear. The IVD reportedly received some 62’712 complaints.
“The Parliament is abdicating its responsibility to respect and protect victims’ rights,” Benarbia said.
“Instead of playing cynical political games that can only foster impunity, the Parliament should reverse its decision and remove all the obstacles that might impede the IVD’s work in ensuring accountability for past abuses, ” he added.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Under the 2013 law on transitional justice, the IVD initially had a four-year term, with the possibility of renewal for a single additional year, on the basis of a reasoned decision by the IVD.
The 2013 law provided that the IVD’s decision on renewal should be submitted to the Parliament.
The law is however silent as to whether the submission of the IVD decision was simply a matter of notification, or required approval of Parliament to be effective.
In any event, 68 members of the Parliament voted on 26 March against extending the term of the IVD for another year.
Under its bylaws, for decisions of Parliament to be valid they must be adopted by at least 72 of its members.
The apparent lack of quorum for the Parliament’s 26 March decision has only introduced more uncertainty and confusion, further complicating the position for the IVD and others, including most notably the victims themselves.
On 24 May 2018, the IVD and the Minister in charge of relations with constitutional bodies, civil society and human rights issued a joint statement reiterating Tunisia’s commitments to the transitional justice process as provided by the Constitution.
In the statement, the IVD was requested to transfer all cases concerning serious human rights violations to the SCC, to establish criteria on the basis of which reparation for victims will be provided, to establish compensation criteria for the Victims Fund, and to send the final report to the President of the Republic, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Government.
Tunisia-IVD Parliament-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Oct 2, 2017 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the apparently unlawful violence surrounding yesterday’s referendum in Catalonia, as Catalan authorities sought to hold a vote on the independence of the region. The Spanish Constitutional Court had ruled that the referendum was illegal.
The ICJ calls on all parties concerned to resolve the current crisis in accordance with international human rights law and in the framework of the rule of law.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at allegations of excessive use of force during police operations aimed at enforcing court orders to prevent the referendum being held.
International human rights obligations binding on Spain require that any use of force by agents of the State must be no more than is strictly necessary in the circumstances to meet a grave threat .
All aspects of police operations, including their planning and co-ordination, and the training, guidance and orders given to police officers on the ground, must be designed to minimize the use of physical force.
The ICJ calls for a thorough, prompt and independent investigation into the violence surrounding the referendum, and for those responsible for acts of violence in violation of human rights to be brought to justice.
Background
Spain has obligations to respect the right to life and the right to physical integrity of any person under its jurisdiction under articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Standards in this regard are re-enforced by the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
Positive obligations under these provisions require that allegations of lethal or potentially lethal force, or force that could amount to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, be the subject of investigation that is independent and impartial, thorough and prompt.
The violence surrounding the referendum on Catalonia’s independence reportedly resulted in injuries to at least 844 civilians and 33 police offices.
Contacts:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
May 10, 2017 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ emphasised the role of judges and lawyers in protecting human rights of migrants, during consultations at the UN in Geneva, as part of the preparatory process for a Global Compact on migration.
The informal consultation was convened by the UN General Assembly and held in Geneva on 8-9 May 2017. With a focus on human rights of migrants, it was the first thematic consultation to be held in connection with ongoing efforts by States to agree a UN global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.
In addition to a written submission, the ICJ made statements during the main discussion, and as part of the concluding discussions.
The initial statement highlighted the recently published Principles on the Role of Judges and Lawyers in relation to Refugees and Migrants, developed by the ICJ in consultation with a wide range of relevant experts.
The concluding statement emphasised that effective protection of human rights, including of migrants, requires equal and effective access to impartial courts and independent lawyers, and urged States to ensure that the need for legal and practical guarantees for such access is reflected in the Global Compact eventually to be adopted. Indeed, the ICJ noted, access of individuals to a means of their enforcement is a key element distinguishing durable “rights” from, for instance, welcome but not necessarily permanent generosity.
For more information about the Principles on the Role of Judges and Lawyers in relation to Refugees and Migrants, click here.
Feb 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today announces the establishment of an expert panel of jurists to study and provide guidance on the effectiveness of grievance procedures provided by businesses to address and remedy harms arising from their operations.
The Panel, composed of senior retired judges, academics and legal practitioners, will work with the support of a wider group of civil society organizations, lawyers, academic institutions and the legal profession.
Many large business enterprises and projects have their own internal procedures and mechanisms to address concerns affecting individuals and local communities that arise from their operations. Known as operational-level grievance mechanisms, these are an integral part of responsible business practices and a way to remedy real or perceived wrongs.
The use of operational-level grievance mechanisms is recommended by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and global institutions, such as the World Bank.
However, poor design and/or implementation of these grievance mechanisms can result in further problems, aggravating the harm to individuals and communities and impacting on the company’s or project’s own sustainability.
The ICJ initiative has been prompted by concerns about recent cases where people the mechanisms were meant to help have been unaware of their very existence, the procedures have been unfair or unclear and outcomes have been inadequate for the kind of harm experienced.
Most importantly some grievance mechanisms seem to stand in the way of meaningful access to justice for adversely affected people.
The panel members
The expert Panel is the think tank of the ICJ initiative. Besides holding wide consultations and site visits to specific projects, the Panel will advise the ICJ on preparation of a report and a guidance to support the work of practitioners and human rights defenders working in this field.
The members of the Panel, five of whom are ICJ Commissioners, are:
- Justice Ian Binnie (retired) formerly of Canada’s Supreme Court
- Sheila Keetharuth, Lawyer in Mauritius and currently UN special rapporteur on the human rights in Eritrea
- Justice John O’Meally (retired) formerly of the District Court of New South Wales and the Dust Diseases Tribunal in Australia
- Alejandro Salinas Rivera, lawyer and former legal advisor to the Government of Chile
- Professor Marco Sassoli, professor of international law at the University of Geneva
- Justice Ajit Prakash Shah (retired), formerly of the High Court of Delhi and presently Chair of the Law Commission in India
The Panel and the ICJ will receive advice for this work from a wider Consultative Group of practitioners and members of the legal profession.
The Consultative Group includes individuals of long-standing experience and recognised expertise on the functioning of grievance mechanisms at the project or operations level.
This initiative adds to the growing attention paid to remedy systems available to individuals and communities affected by business operations.
The final outcome of this initiative will be to provide guidance to making effective the remedial procedures systems available in cases of business-related human rights abuses in way that truly helps victims attain justice.
Feb 10, 2017 | News
Extending the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (COID) without accompanying legal amendments to the TRC Act, 2014, in line with Nepal’s international legal obligations, will be meaningless, the ICJ said today.
It will fail to empower the commissions to address the root causes of the conflict and provide justice to victims, the ICJ added.
On 9 February 2017, the Government of Nepal formally extended the mandate of the TRC and COID for another year.
The TRC and COID were established on 10 February 2015 through the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act, 2014 (TRC Act), with the mandate to investigate alleged human rights abuses committed by both sides of Nepal’s decade-long armed conflict between the Government of Nepal and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) rebels.
However, due to a flawed legal mandate, resource and capacity limitations, and lack of political will, the commissions have been unable to carry out their work effectively.
“Unless the government of Nepal is prepared to amend the TRC Act in line with the Nepal Supreme Court’s rulings and international law, and to take other concrete steps to address the persistent challenges that have plagued the commissions’ ability to complete their work over the past two years, the extension of their mandate will be meaningless,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
In two separate rulings, the Nepal Supreme Court has previously ruled that the TRC Act and its predecessor TRC Ordinance were in violation of Nepal’s international legal obligations, as they allowed for amnesties for gross human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law.
Despite repeated calls by the ICJ, as well as other human rights and victims groups, to ensure a credible transitional justice process by amending the TRC Act in line with Nepal’s Supreme Court order and international standards, and by providing adequate resources to enable the commissions to carry out their work effectively and independently, the Government of Nepal has thus far failed to take any steps to implement the Supreme Court’s orders.
Nevertheless, the commissions finally commenced their work in February 2016, one year into their two-year mandate, and despite a severe lack of public faith in the commitment of the government and the ability of the commissions to deliver justice, victims came forward to submit more than 60,000 complaints to the two commissions combined.
“The government of Nepal must demonstrate its commitment to deliver justice to victims of Nepal’s armed conflict,” said Zarifi. “Victims have already waited more than a decade to receive justice and are losing hope in the transitional justice process.”
“The Nepal government and political parties must not once again betray the trust of victims by perpetuating a fundamentally flawed transitional justice process without concomitant reforms that will address victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.
While extending the mandate of the TRC and COID, the Government of Nepal must immediately establish a credible transitional justice process that ensures victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation by: amending the TRC Act in line with the Supreme Court rulings and international law; empowering the TRC and COID with adequate resources to function independently, transparently and in a victim-centred manner; and, adopting necessary legislation to criminalize serious international crimes, including enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment, and rape and other sexual violence, with retroactive effect and without any limitations period for conflict-era cases.
