Latest news with #ICCPR
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
Bangkok, 27 May 2025 The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement. More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security. 'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.' In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial. Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights: I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell. The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards. Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities: [E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country. The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling. In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law. During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps. On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.' Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government: Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care. India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights. India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5). Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent. 'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
Scoop
7 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Kyrgyzstan: National Leader's Reputation Must Not Override Right To Freedom Of Expression, UN Committee Finds
GENEVA (26 May 2025) - A national leader's reputation must not outweigh the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled, finding that Kyrgyzstan violated the fundamental freedoms of a lawyer and a journalist who were prosecuted for criticising the then-president and barred from leaving the country. In a recently adopted Decision, the Committee concluded that Kyrgyzstan has violated the rights of Cholpon Djakupova, a lawyer and civil society advocate, and Narynbek Idinov, a journalist. The two were sued by the General Prosecutor for discrediting then-President Atambaev's honour and reputation. The case stemmed from Ms Djakupova's critical remarks about the then-President during a roundtable discussion on freedom of assembly and speech, and from Mr Idinov publishing the speech along with his commentary on a news portal. 'A head of State is not above public scrutiny,' said Committee member Imeru Yigezu, adding that, 'Using the courts to silence criticism undermines the very foundations of democracy.' Before any judgment on the case was issued, a local court imposed an injunction barring the two from leaving the country and ordering the seizure of their personal assets, including Ms Djakupova's house and bank account. These restrictions remained in place throughout the trial, even though they both had not missed a single court hearing. The Committee raised particular concern about the restrictions imposed before a court ruling, describing these actions as a dangerous form of pressure against critical voices. 'The use of travel bans and asset seizures before adjudication raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and creates a chilling effect,' said Yigezu Both Ms Djakulpova and Mr Idinov were found liable for discrediting the then-president's honour and reputation and were ordered to pay 3 million soms each, an amount that, in Mr Idinov's case, equated to his income over 31 years. After exhausting local legal remedies, they brought their case to the Human Rights Committee, claiming their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been violated. The Committee found that the imposed measures were disproportionate and of punitive nature. 'Ms Djakupova's speech and Mr Idinov's reporting clearly concerned matters of public interest. In such cases, open debate must be protected, and the fact that speech may offend a public figure does not, on its own, justify penalties and a blanket travel ban,' added Yigezu. 'Restrictions on freedom of expression under the ICCPR must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting national security and public order, and be necessary and proportionate. The measures taken failed to meet all the necessary criteria,' he explained. The Committee stressed that criticism of high-ranking officials, including heads of state, is a core element of democratic oversight and must not be stifled through judicial intimidation. The Committee found that Kyrgyzstan had violated the complainants' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement. It called on Kyrgyzstan to provide effective remedies, including full compensation for the two complainants and reimbursement of legal costs. It also urged the State party to revise its legislation to ensure that such violations do not recur.
Scoop
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Guatemala: UN HRC Adopts Landmark Decision On Transgenerational Harm For Mayan Peoples Suffering Forced Displacement
GENEVA (8 May 2025) – The UN Human Rights Committee has found Guatemala internationally responsible for not implementing resettlement agreements and other reparation measures reached with members of the Mayan People for their continuing forced displacement. A total of 269 members of the K'iche', Ixil and Kaqchikel Mayan Indigenous Peoples, who have been forcibly displaced from their communities during the 'scorched earth' operations of the internal armed conflict in the 1980s, turned to the Committee in 2021, claiming their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were violated. Although the victims had reached a settlement with Guatemala and agreed on a number of reparation measures under the 2011 National Compensation Programme, the programme, which foresaw, in particular, the resettlement and construction of alternative housing, was never implemented. 'Forced displacement is permanent in nature until the victims benefit from a safe and dignified return to their place of habitual residence or are voluntarily resettled elsewhere,' Committee member Hélène Tigroudja said. In its decision, the Committee found that the victims were violently uprooted from their traditional lands and forced to seek refuge in Guatemala's capital city, in violation of their right under Article 12 of the ICCPR. Amid this different cultural setting, they were also forced to conceal and ultimately change their identities in violation of Article 27. 'The uprooting of the victims from their natural environment and lands had a deep, devastating, and lasting impact as they were irremediably stripped of their cultural identity,' Tigroudja said. 'They had to abandon their cultural practices, stop wearing their traditional clothing and stop speaking their language, which also constitutes an irreparable loss for their children and grandchildren,' she added. In a new approach, the Committee considered that the State violated not only the rights of the individuals who were forcibly displaced but also the rights of third-generation children born in displacement after the events, to whom the trauma of displacement was transmitted. 'Indigenous Peoples' rights are, by definition, intergenerational. Transmission is a key condition for the continuity of Indigenous Peoples' existence and cultures,' Tigroudja said. In its decision, the Committee also highlighted that the forced displacement and accompanying violence resulted in the victims having to leave behind the buried bodies of their relatives. Moreover, they were unable to perform funeral rituals for family members who were executed, died or forcibly disappeared during the conflict, in violation of their right under Article 7 not to be subjected to torture and inhumane treatment. 'In Mayan culture, not performing funeral rites is considered a moral transgression which can lead to spiritually caused illnesses that can manifest as physical diseases and can affect the entire lineage,' Tigroudja added. 'These are not only performative ceremonies and rituals but an integral part of the physical, moral and spiritual integrity of members of the communities as well as of the communities as a whole,' she said. The Committee requested Guatemala to search for and hand over the remains of the disappeared family members to the complainants so that they could perform funeral rituals in accordance with their cultures. The Committee also requested Guatemala to build the houses according to the agreed specifications; to provide the victims, their children and grandchildren with the necessary medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment; to also provide them with scholarships if they wish so; and to carry out a public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility in which it should apologise for the violations. Guatemala is also requested to translate the decision into the Mayan K'iche', Mayan Ixil and Mayan Kaqchikel languages. The Committee's findings were assisted by Third-Party Interventions submitted by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a judge attached to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace of Colombia, and the NGO Indigenous Peoples Rights International.
Express Tribune
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC greenlights military trials of civilians
Listen to article After holding nearly five dozen hearings, the Supreme Court's constitutional bench, by a 5-2 majority, has upheld the military court convictions of PTI activists accused of attacking military installations during the events of May 9, 2023. In its order, the majority also urged the parliament to consider amending the Pakistan Army Act to grant civilians convicted by military courts an independent right of appeal. The intra-court appeal and other connected appeals were allowed by five judges – Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan – who also set aside the earlier judgment delivered on October 23, 2023, in the constitution petitions. However, two judges – Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan – dismissed the intra-court appeals, according to the order announced in open court by the bench's head, Justice Aminuddin Khan. The majority verdict has effectively overturned the earlier decision that had declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. "The impugned judgment is set aside and, as a consequence, subclauses (i) & (ii) of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the same Act are restored," the order stated. The bench clarified that the earlier verdict could not have declared these provisions void under Article 8(5) of the Constitution, which stipulates that fundamental rights cannot be suspended unless expressly provided for in the Constitution. The order held that there was no issue of fundamental rights suspension under Article 233 in this context. The court, in unison, emphasised the need for legislative changes that align with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in order to maintain constitutional and societal norms within the current legal framework. "Therefore, the matter is referred to the Government/Parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/legislation in the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and allied Rules within a period of 45 days in order to provide an independent right of appeal in the High Court against the conviction awarded to the persons by the Court Martial/Military Courts under sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, read with sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952," the order reads. The order further clarifies that the limitation period for filing an appeal against conviction will be calculated from the date of notification of the proposed amendments under the Pakistan Army Act, and such convictions will remain subject to the final decision by the high court. The court also addressed pending writ petitions in high courts challenging anti-terrorism court orders related to the transfer of cases to military courts. "The individual cases/writ petitions, if pending or filed in the high courts for challenging the vires of orders passed by the Anti-Terrorism Courts, allowing the transfer of case/custody of any accused to the Military Court for trial, shall be decided by such Courts on its own merits." The order also directed the transmission of its copy to the attorney general, secretary general of the National Assembly, secretaries of the ministries of law and justice and defence, and the secretary of the law and justice commission, to ensure compliance. The majority opinion further elaborated on the right to fair trial, observing that the provisions merely accentuating the right to a fair trial and due process in any statute and their actual application and proper implementation during the trial are two distinct features and situations. It noted that if an independent right of appeal was provided in the high court for challenging the original order or internal departmental appellate order of conviction, "then obviously, the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as conferred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, may examine whether an equal and fair opportunity to defend the charges was afforded to the convict, whether sufficient evidence was available to substantiate the charges, and whether proper procedure in the trial was followed in letter and spirit". Many were taken aback by the timing of the short order's announcement, coinciding with a moment when national unity was deemed crucial amid Indian aggression. Following the order, PTI workers, representing the country's largest political party, expressed strong discontent over the majority decision. Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed remarked, "Despite taking 6 months to deliver its first real judgment, CB proves it is performing exactly as per design specifications & operational parameters." Asad Rahim Khan, who was part of the respondents' legal team opposing military courts, expressed dismay. "The landmark significance of the previous verdict in 2023 was to have outlawed the very provision that enabled such trials: it declared Section 2(1)(d) illegal as a rule, in light of the right to fair trial," he said. "Today's short order not only validates those trials, it has restored the law in general: civilians can thus be court-martialed again, even outside a state of exception." He further criticised the legal foundation of the verdict. "The logic is fundamentally wrong: it relies almost entirely on FB Ali's case from half a century ago – a verdict that came about under emergency rule; that related to a brigadier for acts he committed in service; and that hinged on the long-dead 1962 Constitution". He pointed out that there was no Article 10-A (right to fair trial) or Article 175(3) (independence of the judiciary) at the time of FB Ali. "Yet the short order has engaged with none of this." "It must be said that a chain of deliberate disasters – destroying judicial independence – had to happen for this: the Practice and Procedure Act, the 26th Amendment, and now this Constitutional Bench, reaching for a precedent from ZAB's emergency rule, to validate an awful Ayub-era law. There can be no military trials of civilians in our constitutional order. History delivered its verdict on 23 October 2023," he added. Minority opinion The two dissenting judges – Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, both hailing from Balochistan – held that civilian trials by court martial violate core constitutional protections. They argued that such trials breach the principles of judicial independence, personal security, protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, fair trial and due process, access to information, equality of citizens, and Islamic injunctions as guaranteed under Articles 2A, 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25 and 227(1) of the Constitution. They further maintained that such trials are inconsistent with international human rights commitments: "The trial of civilians by courts martial presided over by active military officers, is violative of the recognised covenants of the United Nations Human Rights Commission ('UNHRC') as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 ('ICCPR') and treaties, to which Pakistan is a signatory." They concluded that the military's role, as defined by the Constitution, does not encompass such trials: "The trial of civilians by courts martial is in excess of the functions assigned to the Armed Forces by Article 245 of the Constitution," says the minority opinion. As such, the minority set aside all convictions: "The convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by the courts martial for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023, are declared to be without jurisdiction, hence, the same are set aside." "The accused under custody shall be treated as under-trial prisoners. Their cases stand transferred to the concerned courts of competent jurisdiction for trial. Upon receipt whereof, the concerned courts should proceed with their trials expeditiously and decide the same at the earliest, in accordance with law." "The persons who have completed/undergone their sentences or have been acquitted of the charge by the courts martial or Forum of Appeal under the PAA, shall have the effect of their discharge under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)."
Business Recorder
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Trial of civilians in military courts: KBA voices its opposition to SC verdict
KARACHI: The Karachi Bar Association (KBA) here Wednesday rejected the judgment passed by seven-member bench of Supreme Court in ICA and connected appeals about trial of civilians in military courts. In a press release it alleged: 'this retrogressive judgment restores provisions of the Pakistan Army Act 1952, which enable the trial of civilians by military courts, and constitutes a serious blow to the basic structure of the Constitution, including Article 10-A.8.175(3) and 4, among others.' It said the verdict comes at a time when the legal fraternity is already engaged in a continuous and principled struggle against corporate farming, the 26th constitutional amendment, and PECA amendments, all reflecting executive excesses. It claimed that the latest judgment marks yet another judicial capitulation before the coercive organs of the state. 'It sets a dangerous precedent where military jurisdiction can now be extended over civilians, eroding the sanctity of civilian supremacy and paving the war for further repression of political dissent, free speech, and peaceful protest.' It claimed that the decision is not merely a judicial misstep it is a clear abdication of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check on executive power. It alleged that instead of upholding fundamental rights, the judgment lends judicial endorsement of militarization of justice, and compromises the principle of due process, open trial, and impartial adjudication, all of which are the cornerstones of any democratic order. 'It is deeply alarming that the judiciary, instead of acting as bulwark against executive overreach, now appears to be subservient to non-civilian institutions, thereby undermining public confidence in judicial independence.' The KBA asserted that no constitutional interpretation, no matter how technical, can justify the military trial of a civilian. It opined that such trials are inherently incompatible with constitutional guarantees, international law, and the globally recognised right to a fair trial. It said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a signatory, strictly prohibits such practices. It called upon all Bar Councils and Association across the country, including the Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association and Provincial Bar Councils to immediately convene and form a National United Front against this 'unconstitutional encroachment'. It also urged the civil society, democratic political parties, media, human rights defenders and masses to 'resist to this judicial surrender and reclaim the constitution from creeping authoritarianism'. The KBA demanded that the parliament must immediately legislate to permanently prohibit military trials of civilians, amend the Pakistan Army Act 1952 accordingly, and restore the sanctity of Article 10-A. No delay can be justified in protecting the constitution and the unalienable rights of the people. The KBA said it will continue its lawful resistance, including legal, institutional and democratic means, to oppose the judgment. It said the legal fraternity stand united and resolute to not to allow the subversions of the constitution under the guise of the national security. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
