Privacy Policy for http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at kajifiki@gmail.com.
At http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://national-humanrights.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Progress Report of Ministry of Home Affairs for June 2009
The Union Home Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram presented here today the report card of the Ministry of Home Affairs for June, 2009. The following is the text of his statement:
“June was the first full month that the new Government has been in office. Hence, I thought it would be appropriate to submit a report on the activities of MHA in the month of June 2009.
The most important event in June was the operations launched in Lalgarh, West Bengal. The operations are still under way, but I am glad to report that the Central Paramilitary Forces have ably assisted the West Bengal Police in reclaiming most of the territory that had been dominated by the CPI (Maoist) for nearly 8 months. We reiterated the principle that the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the State Government and that after committing its own forces, if the State Government makes a request for assistance, the Central Government will provide an adequate number of personnel from the Central Paramilitary Forces.
Another important development was the operationalisation of the NSG hubs at Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. We made a promise to establish these hubs by July 1, 2009 and I am glad that we have been able to fulfil the promise.
Home Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram and the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy at a press conference after declaring the operationalisation of the National Security Guard Regional Hub, in Hyderabad on July 01, 2009.
“June was the first full month that the new Government has been in office. Hence, I thought it would be appropriate to submit a report on the activities of MHA in the month of June 2009.
The most important event in June was the operations launched in Lalgarh, West Bengal. The operations are still under way, but I am glad to report that the Central Paramilitary Forces have ably assisted the West Bengal Police in reclaiming most of the territory that had been dominated by the CPI (Maoist) for nearly 8 months. We reiterated the principle that the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the State Government and that after committing its own forces, if the State Government makes a request for assistance, the Central Government will provide an adequate number of personnel from the Central Paramilitary Forces.
Another important development was the operationalisation of the NSG hubs at Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. We made a promise to establish these hubs by July 1, 2009 and I am glad that we have been able to fulfil the promise.
Human rights group accuses University of Ottawa of 'spying' Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Human+rights+group+accuses+University+Ottawa+spying/2963033/story.html#ixzz0xh1feALP
Canadian Friends of Burma says it will ask the Ontario government to grant provincial ombudsman André Marin power to investigate the conduct of the University of Ottawa administrators in relation to the event.
More than a dozen internal emails, reaching as high as the university’s former president and obtained through freedom of information requests by the Canadian Friends of Burma, show that the school was concerned about a speech by human rights activist Ka Hsa Wa at a December 2007 campus event discussing alleged human rights abuses by a French oil company in Burma.
The emails show that when the student federation-sponsored event went ahead, the university administration sent at least one unidentified person to monitor what was said, take notes and report back.
Kevin McLeod, a spokesman for Canadian Friends of Burma, says the steps taken by the university administration show an “extreme paranoia and a complete disregard for free speech.”
“I think it’s a general mistrust on the part of the administration. They don’t trust the students,” Mr. McLeod, 28, said in an interview with the National Post. “It’s a violation of the principles that universities stand for.”
The revelations contained in the emails come just a month after François Houle, the university’s vice-president academic and provost, sent a letter to U.S. conservative pundit Ann Coulter urging her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” when speaking at the school during a Canadian tour.
The cascade of email exchanges related to the Burma event began on Nov. 30, 2007, at 7:49 a.m. when Bruce Feldthusen, then vice-president of university relations, sent his colleagues a copy of an advertisement for a speech by Burmese rights activist Ka Hsaw Wa scheduled to take place five days later at the university’s Desmarais Building, named for Canadian billionaire Paul G. Desmarais.
The topic of the speech was alleged human rights abuses by French oil conglomerate Total SA during the construction of the Yadana natural gas pipeline through Burma in the 1990s.
Mr. Desmarais was a Total SA board member from 1999 to 2002. In 2006, he donated $15-million to the University of Ottawa, his alma mater.
The advertisement for the event read, “Burma Blood Profits: Was the Desmarais building paid for with cash tainted by the blood of innocent Burmese citizens?”
“I assume you received this? Nice of us to let them use the Desmarais building,” Mr. Feldthusen wrote.
Four minutes later, Gilles Patry, the University of Ottawa’s then president and vice-chancellor, replied: “Can’t believe this. Might be a bit too late to do anything about it. We should monitor to see if they are exposing themselves with libellous comments.”
Half an hour after Mr. Feldthusen’s initial email, Victor Simon, the university’s vice-president resources, responded to his two colleagues by saying the use of the school’s facilities should be prohibited on grounds that the “program material includes allegations and accusations that may be libellous.”
“Given that the existence of this material is (was) known to uOttawa, isn’t there a risk that we could be named in a libellous action? Don’t we have a responsibility to mitigate this risk,” Mr. Simon wrote. “I know that this kind of thinking flies in the face of many principles we hold dear in the University world, but I think we have other interests at stake here.”
Requests for interviews with Messrs. Feldthusen, Patry and Simon were not granted. Mr. Feldthusen, now dean of the University of Ottawa’s common law section, said he could “not remember a thing about this” and referred all questions to the school’s communications department.
Vincent Lamontagne, a University of Ottawa spokesman, said the administration was concerned about the event because it had heard there “might be a protest.”
“The administration did its due diligence, examined and assessed the risks, including security risks. The conference did take place and security was provided to ensure everyone’s safety,” he said. “The University of Ottawa has always promoted and defended freedom of expression.”
The Canadian Friends of Burma alleges that the “due diligence” Mr. Lamontagne speaks of included Mr. Feldthusen asking Claude Giroux, head of the university’s protection services, in an email to “find out who booked the event and whether or not our own students are involved.”
He went on: “Is this a difficult room to secure? That might be a reason to move the event elsewhere on campus.”
Emails between Mr. Giroux and several members of his staff show that protection services took screen captures of a Facebook site set up to promote the event.
“I love this program!!!” wrote one protection services staff member to Mr. Giroux. “We know who is likely to attend.”
The security staff member then goes on to identify Mr. McLeod to his superiors in a clip on YouTube as “the male with beard holding a poster.” Mr. McLeod says that security personnel would not have been able to ascertain that he had a beard unless they accessed his personal Facebook site.
Such was the apparent concern, a blog posting by Ottawa Citizen columnist Kate Heartfield about the event a few days prior was forwarded by Mr. Feldthusen to his colleagues prefaced with the following: “So this is clearly a set-up.”
An email from an attendee at the event -- whose name has been redacted by the university -- to Louis Benoit, the university’s associate legal counsel at the time, summarizes what was said about Mr. Desmarais at it. Records show that Mr. Benoit then forwarded the message to Messrs. Giroux, Feldthusen and Simon.
Mr. Lamontagne said that the university “simply wanted to know what linkages would be made between Burma, Paul Desmarais and the University property.”
He insisted that the school normally asks that its communications staff attend public events “in case there is media on site.” The university refuses to disclose who was sent and if the person was paid, citing “solicitor-client privilege.”
The emails, many of which contain redacted portions, were obtained over a one-and-a-half year period that saw the group make two appeals after the university initially said it had disclosed all records. A third appeal over fully- and partially-redacted emails is currently awaiting adjudication at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.
Mr. Lamontagne said the university has complied with freedom of information legislation.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Human+rights+group+accuses+University+Ottawa+spying/2963033/story.html#ixzz0xh2F7vng
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
National Human Rights Commission Downgraded for Failure in Human Rights Responsibilities
The recent decision by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions (ICC) to downgrade the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (SLHRC) from Status A to Status B is an unequivocal message to Sri Lanka from the international community that its human rights conduct is unacceptable and if it wishes to remain part of the civilized nations, then it must respect the universal issues of human rights and democracy.
The ICC decision, a deserved blow to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse, came amidst expression of growing concern by civil society organizations and international agencies about the human rights and humanitarian crisis and the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. The rule of law is non-existent and there is total disregard for international human rights and humanitarian laws in the island.
The ICC is a representative body consisting of representatives of national human rights institutions from Africa, Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe, established for the purpose of creating and strengthening national human rights institutions which are in conformity with the Paris Principles. It co-ordinates, at international level, the activities of national human rights institutions; supports the creation and strengthening of national institutions in conformity with the Paris Principles; liaises with the UN and other international organizations; ensures regular contacts with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and follows up on, and where appropriate, implements recommendations of International Conferences of National Institutions, UN resolutions and recommendations.
The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) state the responsibilities of national human rights organizations. The main features of a national human rights institution are independence and pluralism. (a) It should monitor any situation of violation of human rights and it should not be limited in its access to any group or individual possessing knowledge about violations or is threatened. (b) It should be able to advise the government, the Parliament and any other competent body on specific violations, on issues related to legislation and compliance with international human rights standards, and should have direct contact with these institutions. (c) It should encourage the government to ratify human rights instruments, and contribute to the reports which States are required to submit to regional and international institutions or committees. (d) It should have a mandate to educate and inform in the field of human rights and formulate educational human rights programmes and take part in their implementation. (e) It should be able to prepare and publicize reports on any human rights matter and make use of the media.
Any national human rights institution seeking membership of the ICC may make an application to the ICC Chairperson, through the ICC Secretariat, with supporting documents. The Sub-Committee of the ICC on Accreditation meets before and during the annual meeting of the ICC and reviews new applications, reviews additional information submitted on applications presented previously, and prepares recommendations. The Chair of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation presents a report with recommendations and rationale to members of the ICC. The Chairperson of the ICC then informs applicant institutions of the decisions taken by ICC members and their rationale.
The member national institutions accredited are classified according to the level of compliance with the Paris Principles. The accreditation classifications are as follows:
Status A: The national human rights organization is in compliance with the Paris Principles;
Status A(R): Accreditation with reserve – Accreditation granted where preliminary analysis indicates compliance with the Principles but insufficient documentation is submitted to confer Status A;
Status B: Observer Status - The national human rights organization is not fully in compliance with the Paris Principles or insufficient information provided to make a determination;
Status C: The national human rights organization is not in compliance with the Paris Principles.
The SLHRC was created under the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996. The Sri Lankan Constitution specifically provides that ‘no person shall be appointed by the President as the Chairman or a member of any of the Commissions’ except on a recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
Among SLHRC’s functions as defined in the Act are to
(a) investigate complaints regarding procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights and to promote respect for fundamental rights;
(b) investigate complaints regarding infringement or imminent infringement of fundamental rights and provide resolution through conciliation and mediation;
(c) advice and assist the government in formulating legislation and administrative directives and procedures in furtherance of the promotion and protection of human rights;
The SLHRC has power to investigate, on its own motion, infringement of fundamental rights caused by executive or administrative action. It also has powers, among others, to intervene in court proceedings relating the infringement or imminent infringement of fundamental rights with the permission of the court, and monitor the welfare of persons detained by judicial order or otherwise.
The previous Commission lapsed in March 2006 and the Sri Lankan President did not appoint a new Commission until 18 May 2006. The appointment was made without any transparent consultations and in breach of the Sri Lankan Constitution, affecting SLHRC’s independence and credibility. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the ICC emphasizes that the following factors are critically important in the selection and appointment process of the Governing Body of a national human rights institution in ensuring pluralism and independence: a) A transparent process; b) Broad consultation throughout the selection and appointment process; c) Advertising vacancies broadly d) Maximizing the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups; e) Selecting members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.
But these factors were not observed in the appointment of the SLHRC. Although the Human Rights Commission Act says that the five Commissioners must be ‘chosen from among persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights’, the current Commissioners have no background in human rights. The previous Commissions were criticized since the appointment of the first Commission, but the current SLHRC has completely deviated from its mandate and has become part and parcel of government machinery. After visiting Sri Lanka in October 2007 (1-8 October), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture expressed his dissatisfaction about the SLHRC:
"...........a number of shortcomings remain, and most significantly, the absence of an independent and effective preventive mechanism mandated to make regular and unannounced visits to all places of detention throughout the country at any time, to conduct private interviews with detainees, and to subject them to thorough independent medical examinations. It is my conviction that this is the most effective way of preventing torture. In the case of Sri Lanka, I am not satisfied that visits undertaken by existing mechanisms, such as the NHRC, are presently fulfilling this role, or realizing this level of scrutiny."
In her statement to the UN Human Rights Council in December 2007, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said as follows:
"Regrettably, the various national institutions and mechanisms that could be expected to safeguard human rights have failed to deliver adequate protection. In particular, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, which had previously enjoyed a proud reputation internationally, has had its independence compromised by the irregular appointment of its Commissioners and the credibility of its work has suffered."
Thirty three Sri Lankan national organizations, including the Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), submitted a petition to the ICC on 24 October 2007. In the petition the civil society organizations said that they have no confidence in the SLHRC, as it is constituted and in the way it operated, and that the SLHRC lacks independence, credibility and has been ineffective in responding to the victims of human rights abuses at a moment of severe human rights crisis. They pointed out that the Sub-Committee on Accreditation has noted that in a situation of a state of emergency, a national human rights commission should ‘conduct itself with a heightened level of vigilance and independence in the exercise of its mandate’, but the SLHRC has chosen to be silent and inactive despite the introduction of emergency and harsh emergency regulations. They further stressed that the silence and inaction of the SLHRC violates a key responsibility as laid down in the Paris Principles and the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission Act. They urged the ICC and the High Commissioner for Human Rights not to lend credibility and legitimacy to an institution that has failed to live up to its mandate and has been unwilling and unable to respond to the severe human rights crisis facing Sri Lanka.
The Tamil Information Centre, which has constantly argued that the international community must address the human rights crisis urgently and effectively, said in a statement in December 2007 as follows about the SLHRC:
"It is clear from the inaction even in the cases of serious human rights violations, the SLHRC which should be independent, is now functioning fully under the control of the Sri Lankan government and has failed to provide protection to the people in accordance with its mandate. It has failed to adequately monitor human rights violations and to investigate abuses. It lacks transparency and accountability. It has failed systematically to hold inquiries into abuses and publish reports. As a consequence, it has totally lost the confidence of the people and people’s institutions. In relation to torture and disappearances, the regional offices of the SLHRC have provided information to the SLHRC headquarters in Colombo. But the commissioners have not taken any action. The SLHRC lacks the legal basis for effective functioning. The Sri Lankan President appointed the Commission in May 2006 without the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, which is a mandatory legal requirement in terms of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The President has also failed thus far to appoint the Constitutional Council which recommends the appointment of all the independent commissions.
The SLHRC announced in June 2006 that it will not hear 2,127 cases of disappearance passed on to it from the presidential commissions appointed to investigate disappearances, ‘unless special directions are received from the government, as findings will result in payment of compensation’. This is a clear indication that the SLHRC is taking instructions from the government contrary to its purpose and mandate. In June 2007, the SLHRC introduced a three-month time-limit for investigation of complaints, although Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act 1996 does not limit the time for investigations. It has also issued instructions to its regional offices to stop sharing information with NGOs Sri Lankan human rights agencies have stated that the SLHRC violates fundamental features of the Paris Principles Relating to National Institutions for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. By failing to carry out its duties as a national institution, the SLHRC in effect, is contributing to impunity and human rights violations in Sri Lanka."
While issuing instructions to regional office not to share information with NGOs, the SLHRC falsely reported to the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions in September 2007 that it closely collaborates with NGOs by providing information reported to the Commission. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation recognizes that there are diverse models of ensuring the requirement of pluralism set out in the Paris Principles, but it emphasizes the importance of national institutions to maintain consistent relationships with civil society and notes that this will be taken into consideration in the assessment of accreditation applications.
The SLHRC was granted Status A in 2000 by the ICC. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation considered information relating to the SLHRC in March 2007 and the SLHRC’s Status A was placed under review. The Report and Recommendations of the Sub-Committee were adopted during the 19th Annual Meeting of the ICC in Geneva from 21 to 23 March 2007. The Sub-Committee made the following recommendations relating to Sri Lanka:
"Sri Lanka: Human Rights Commission
Pursuant to its powers under article 3 (g) of the ICC Rules of Procedure, the Sub-Committee considered information provided by the Secretariat of the ICC in relation to matters of concern involving the Sri Lanka Commission. The Sub-Committee notes that the Commission is scheduled for re-accreditation in October 2007. After consideration of the material before it, pursuant to its powers under article 3(g) of the ICC Rules of Procedure, the Sub-Committee initiates a review of the Sri Lanka Commission on the basis that:
a) It is not clear whether the appointment of Commissioners has been in compliance with the Law of the Commission and therefore in compliance with the Paris Principles; and
b) It is not clear whether the actual practice of the Commission remains balanced, objective and non-political, particularly with regard to the discontinuation of follow-up to 2000 cases of disappearances in July 2006. The review will take place in October 2007.
The Commission is requested to provide detailed documentation regarding these concerns two months prior the next Sub-Committee meeting, and updated information two weeks prior to the meeting.
In relation to the re-accreditation scheduled for October 2007 the Sub-Committee refers the Commission to the General Observation on NHRIs under review and notes that the reaccredidation will be deferred until the review is completed."
Recently, the ICC decided to downgrade the status of the SLHRC from Status A to Status B. The reasons for the decision, as observed by the Sub-Committee are as follows:
1) The Paris Principles provide for the appointment of the Governing Body and other guarantees of independence. The 2006 appointment of the SLHRC was carried out without compliance to Sri Lankan law, that is, the recommendation of the Constitutional Council prescribed in the Sri Lankan Constitution was not obtained.
2) The SLHRC did not take measures to ensure its independent character and political objectivity, as required by the Paris Principles. Its practice was not "balanced, objective and non-political, particularly with regard to the discontinuation of follow-up to 2,000 cases of disappearances in July 2006.
3) The SLHRC failed to issue annual reports on human rights as required by the Paris Principles.
As a result of the downgrading, the SLHRC has no right to vote in international meetings and is not eligible to stand for election to the ICC. This is an expression of the international recognition that human rights in Sri Lanka are being violated with impunity and that national human rights institutions are unable to provide protection and are acting in violation of internationally recognized principles. The Sri Lankan government’s claim that national human rights institutions are strong is untenable.
The TIC reiterates the importance of maintaining the pressure to improve human rights in Sri Lanka and again calls up on the International Community to take all measures as are necessary to,
a) ensure the presence of an international human rights monitoring body with access to all parts of Sri Lanka and access to all relevant institutions in Sri Lanka;
b) ensure that a mechanism for investigation of human rights violations throughout the island, which meets the requirements of independence, credibility, effectiveness and empowerment is established, with international participation, so that it contributes to public confidence, peace and stability in all parts of Sri Lanka;
c) tackle impunity in Sri Lanka, paying special attention to the laws and regulations that contribute to impunity by ensuring proper, adequate and impartial investigations into allegations of torture, rape, disappearances and extra-judicial executions, and prosecuting the perpetrators, irrespective of their ethnic origin, position or status.
The ICC decision, a deserved blow to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse, came amidst expression of growing concern by civil society organizations and international agencies about the human rights and humanitarian crisis and the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. The rule of law is non-existent and there is total disregard for international human rights and humanitarian laws in the island.
The ICC is a representative body consisting of representatives of national human rights institutions from Africa, Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe, established for the purpose of creating and strengthening national human rights institutions which are in conformity with the Paris Principles. It co-ordinates, at international level, the activities of national human rights institutions; supports the creation and strengthening of national institutions in conformity with the Paris Principles; liaises with the UN and other international organizations; ensures regular contacts with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and follows up on, and where appropriate, implements recommendations of International Conferences of National Institutions, UN resolutions and recommendations.
The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) state the responsibilities of national human rights organizations. The main features of a national human rights institution are independence and pluralism. (a) It should monitor any situation of violation of human rights and it should not be limited in its access to any group or individual possessing knowledge about violations or is threatened. (b) It should be able to advise the government, the Parliament and any other competent body on specific violations, on issues related to legislation and compliance with international human rights standards, and should have direct contact with these institutions. (c) It should encourage the government to ratify human rights instruments, and contribute to the reports which States are required to submit to regional and international institutions or committees. (d) It should have a mandate to educate and inform in the field of human rights and formulate educational human rights programmes and take part in their implementation. (e) It should be able to prepare and publicize reports on any human rights matter and make use of the media.
Any national human rights institution seeking membership of the ICC may make an application to the ICC Chairperson, through the ICC Secretariat, with supporting documents. The Sub-Committee of the ICC on Accreditation meets before and during the annual meeting of the ICC and reviews new applications, reviews additional information submitted on applications presented previously, and prepares recommendations. The Chair of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation presents a report with recommendations and rationale to members of the ICC. The Chairperson of the ICC then informs applicant institutions of the decisions taken by ICC members and their rationale.
The member national institutions accredited are classified according to the level of compliance with the Paris Principles. The accreditation classifications are as follows:
Status A: The national human rights organization is in compliance with the Paris Principles;
Status A(R): Accreditation with reserve – Accreditation granted where preliminary analysis indicates compliance with the Principles but insufficient documentation is submitted to confer Status A;
Status B: Observer Status - The national human rights organization is not fully in compliance with the Paris Principles or insufficient information provided to make a determination;
Status C: The national human rights organization is not in compliance with the Paris Principles.
The SLHRC was created under the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996. The Sri Lankan Constitution specifically provides that ‘no person shall be appointed by the President as the Chairman or a member of any of the Commissions’ except on a recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
Among SLHRC’s functions as defined in the Act are to
(a) investigate complaints regarding procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights and to promote respect for fundamental rights;
(b) investigate complaints regarding infringement or imminent infringement of fundamental rights and provide resolution through conciliation and mediation;
(c) advice and assist the government in formulating legislation and administrative directives and procedures in furtherance of the promotion and protection of human rights;
The SLHRC has power to investigate, on its own motion, infringement of fundamental rights caused by executive or administrative action. It also has powers, among others, to intervene in court proceedings relating the infringement or imminent infringement of fundamental rights with the permission of the court, and monitor the welfare of persons detained by judicial order or otherwise.
The previous Commission lapsed in March 2006 and the Sri Lankan President did not appoint a new Commission until 18 May 2006. The appointment was made without any transparent consultations and in breach of the Sri Lankan Constitution, affecting SLHRC’s independence and credibility. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the ICC emphasizes that the following factors are critically important in the selection and appointment process of the Governing Body of a national human rights institution in ensuring pluralism and independence: a) A transparent process; b) Broad consultation throughout the selection and appointment process; c) Advertising vacancies broadly d) Maximizing the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups; e) Selecting members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.
But these factors were not observed in the appointment of the SLHRC. Although the Human Rights Commission Act says that the five Commissioners must be ‘chosen from among persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights’, the current Commissioners have no background in human rights. The previous Commissions were criticized since the appointment of the first Commission, but the current SLHRC has completely deviated from its mandate and has become part and parcel of government machinery. After visiting Sri Lanka in October 2007 (1-8 October), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture expressed his dissatisfaction about the SLHRC:
"...........a number of shortcomings remain, and most significantly, the absence of an independent and effective preventive mechanism mandated to make regular and unannounced visits to all places of detention throughout the country at any time, to conduct private interviews with detainees, and to subject them to thorough independent medical examinations. It is my conviction that this is the most effective way of preventing torture. In the case of Sri Lanka, I am not satisfied that visits undertaken by existing mechanisms, such as the NHRC, are presently fulfilling this role, or realizing this level of scrutiny."
In her statement to the UN Human Rights Council in December 2007, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said as follows:
"Regrettably, the various national institutions and mechanisms that could be expected to safeguard human rights have failed to deliver adequate protection. In particular, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, which had previously enjoyed a proud reputation internationally, has had its independence compromised by the irregular appointment of its Commissioners and the credibility of its work has suffered."
Thirty three Sri Lankan national organizations, including the Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), submitted a petition to the ICC on 24 October 2007. In the petition the civil society organizations said that they have no confidence in the SLHRC, as it is constituted and in the way it operated, and that the SLHRC lacks independence, credibility and has been ineffective in responding to the victims of human rights abuses at a moment of severe human rights crisis. They pointed out that the Sub-Committee on Accreditation has noted that in a situation of a state of emergency, a national human rights commission should ‘conduct itself with a heightened level of vigilance and independence in the exercise of its mandate’, but the SLHRC has chosen to be silent and inactive despite the introduction of emergency and harsh emergency regulations. They further stressed that the silence and inaction of the SLHRC violates a key responsibility as laid down in the Paris Principles and the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission Act. They urged the ICC and the High Commissioner for Human Rights not to lend credibility and legitimacy to an institution that has failed to live up to its mandate and has been unwilling and unable to respond to the severe human rights crisis facing Sri Lanka.
The Tamil Information Centre, which has constantly argued that the international community must address the human rights crisis urgently and effectively, said in a statement in December 2007 as follows about the SLHRC:
"It is clear from the inaction even in the cases of serious human rights violations, the SLHRC which should be independent, is now functioning fully under the control of the Sri Lankan government and has failed to provide protection to the people in accordance with its mandate. It has failed to adequately monitor human rights violations and to investigate abuses. It lacks transparency and accountability. It has failed systematically to hold inquiries into abuses and publish reports. As a consequence, it has totally lost the confidence of the people and people’s institutions. In relation to torture and disappearances, the regional offices of the SLHRC have provided information to the SLHRC headquarters in Colombo. But the commissioners have not taken any action. The SLHRC lacks the legal basis for effective functioning. The Sri Lankan President appointed the Commission in May 2006 without the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, which is a mandatory legal requirement in terms of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The President has also failed thus far to appoint the Constitutional Council which recommends the appointment of all the independent commissions.
The SLHRC announced in June 2006 that it will not hear 2,127 cases of disappearance passed on to it from the presidential commissions appointed to investigate disappearances, ‘unless special directions are received from the government, as findings will result in payment of compensation’. This is a clear indication that the SLHRC is taking instructions from the government contrary to its purpose and mandate. In June 2007, the SLHRC introduced a three-month time-limit for investigation of complaints, although Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act 1996 does not limit the time for investigations. It has also issued instructions to its regional offices to stop sharing information with NGOs Sri Lankan human rights agencies have stated that the SLHRC violates fundamental features of the Paris Principles Relating to National Institutions for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. By failing to carry out its duties as a national institution, the SLHRC in effect, is contributing to impunity and human rights violations in Sri Lanka."
While issuing instructions to regional office not to share information with NGOs, the SLHRC falsely reported to the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions in September 2007 that it closely collaborates with NGOs by providing information reported to the Commission. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation recognizes that there are diverse models of ensuring the requirement of pluralism set out in the Paris Principles, but it emphasizes the importance of national institutions to maintain consistent relationships with civil society and notes that this will be taken into consideration in the assessment of accreditation applications.
The SLHRC was granted Status A in 2000 by the ICC. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation considered information relating to the SLHRC in March 2007 and the SLHRC’s Status A was placed under review. The Report and Recommendations of the Sub-Committee were adopted during the 19th Annual Meeting of the ICC in Geneva from 21 to 23 March 2007. The Sub-Committee made the following recommendations relating to Sri Lanka:
"Sri Lanka: Human Rights Commission
Pursuant to its powers under article 3 (g) of the ICC Rules of Procedure, the Sub-Committee considered information provided by the Secretariat of the ICC in relation to matters of concern involving the Sri Lanka Commission. The Sub-Committee notes that the Commission is scheduled for re-accreditation in October 2007. After consideration of the material before it, pursuant to its powers under article 3(g) of the ICC Rules of Procedure, the Sub-Committee initiates a review of the Sri Lanka Commission on the basis that:
a) It is not clear whether the appointment of Commissioners has been in compliance with the Law of the Commission and therefore in compliance with the Paris Principles; and
b) It is not clear whether the actual practice of the Commission remains balanced, objective and non-political, particularly with regard to the discontinuation of follow-up to 2000 cases of disappearances in July 2006. The review will take place in October 2007.
The Commission is requested to provide detailed documentation regarding these concerns two months prior the next Sub-Committee meeting, and updated information two weeks prior to the meeting.
In relation to the re-accreditation scheduled for October 2007 the Sub-Committee refers the Commission to the General Observation on NHRIs under review and notes that the reaccredidation will be deferred until the review is completed."
Recently, the ICC decided to downgrade the status of the SLHRC from Status A to Status B. The reasons for the decision, as observed by the Sub-Committee are as follows:
1) The Paris Principles provide for the appointment of the Governing Body and other guarantees of independence. The 2006 appointment of the SLHRC was carried out without compliance to Sri Lankan law, that is, the recommendation of the Constitutional Council prescribed in the Sri Lankan Constitution was not obtained.
2) The SLHRC did not take measures to ensure its independent character and political objectivity, as required by the Paris Principles. Its practice was not "balanced, objective and non-political, particularly with regard to the discontinuation of follow-up to 2,000 cases of disappearances in July 2006.
3) The SLHRC failed to issue annual reports on human rights as required by the Paris Principles.
As a result of the downgrading, the SLHRC has no right to vote in international meetings and is not eligible to stand for election to the ICC. This is an expression of the international recognition that human rights in Sri Lanka are being violated with impunity and that national human rights institutions are unable to provide protection and are acting in violation of internationally recognized principles. The Sri Lankan government’s claim that national human rights institutions are strong is untenable.
The TIC reiterates the importance of maintaining the pressure to improve human rights in Sri Lanka and again calls up on the International Community to take all measures as are necessary to,
a) ensure the presence of an international human rights monitoring body with access to all parts of Sri Lanka and access to all relevant institutions in Sri Lanka;
b) ensure that a mechanism for investigation of human rights violations throughout the island, which meets the requirements of independence, credibility, effectiveness and empowerment is established, with international participation, so that it contributes to public confidence, peace and stability in all parts of Sri Lanka;
c) tackle impunity in Sri Lanka, paying special attention to the laws and regulations that contribute to impunity by ensuring proper, adequate and impartial investigations into allegations of torture, rape, disappearances and extra-judicial executions, and prosecuting the perpetrators, irrespective of their ethnic origin, position or status.
George honored with national human rights medal in Poland
Marek Zubik, deputy ombudsman of the Office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection and a law professor at the University of Warsaw, bestowed the medal in a ceremony May 4 at the University of Warsaw, after which George delivered the 2010 Petrazycki Lecture in legal philosophy on "Natural Law, God and Human Dignity."
George was chosen for the honor by Poland's Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection Janusz Kochanowski, who died in the April 10 plane crash that also killed the country's president and dozens of political and military leaders.
Robert George accepting medal
(Left to right) Robert George with Polish Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection Marek Zubik and Marta Kochanowski, the daughter of the late Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection Janusz Kochanowski. (Photo: Courtesy of the Office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection)
At Princeton, George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, a professor of politics and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He is the author or co-author of several books, including "Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics," "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life," "The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis," "In Defense of Natural Law" and "Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality."
He has served as a presidential appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He was a judicial fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He currently serves on UNESCO's World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Among George's other honors are the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Bradley Prize for Intellectual and Civic Achievement, the Philip Merrill Award for Distinguished Contributions to the Liberal Arts, and honorary doctorates of law, ethics, letters, science, civil law, humane letters and juridical science.
President Should Act on Rights Commission
Cassiopeians Petition Again
More than 120,000 fans of the K-pop idol group TVXQ, which is embroiled in legal battle against its agency, filed a collective petition with the human rights agency on Friday, judging a working contract made between three members of the group and their agency to be “unfair” and “inhumane.”
Three representatives of the fans visited the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in Seoul and submitted the petition and a bulky package of papers with their signatures of support.
They said in a statement, “The contract banning TVXQ members from changing their agency for 13 years since their debut is the same as a life-long working contract, which is extremely disadvantageous to the singers.”
They claimed the period is far longer than that of other agencies. “Singers have the right to change their agency to one offering better conditions. Under the contract, however, they have no choice but to work with the present agency virtually until they retire. This is an infringement of human rights,” the statement said.
A NHRC spokesman told The Korea Times, “It will take at least three months to the complete investigation of the case.”
The controversy over the five-member group’s working contract touched off early this month after three of its members ― Micky, Xiah and Hero ― asked the Seoul Administrative Court to terminate the validity of their contract with their agency, SM Entertainment. The other two members, Max and U-Know, did not take part in the action.
According to the legal document filed, the agency prohibited their freedom as artists by claiming that the group’s and members’ activities belonged to the agency, requiring them to follow the agency’s demands to appear at certain performances and broadcasts, and to stay under the agency’s wing for 13 years.
Reports of dissension started circulating about a month ago.
The three members were said to have conflicting interests with SM regarding their private business endeavors in the makeup industry. Max and U-Know, meanwhile, had been busy pursuing individual acting careers in TV soaps in addition to their work with the group.
This raised concern among fans about the group’s potential breakup. Despite the rumor of internal conflicts, the five singers appeared all together, as planned, at a concern in Japan early this month.
SM said, “TVXQ is a group that represents Asia and we believe that their career should continue. We hope to figure things out soon.”
TVXQ debuted in 2004 with the album “Hug” and shot to stardom in Korea, Japan and other parts of Asia. Their subsequent albums were well received and their fourth album, “Mirotic,” released last year, sold 500,000 copies here despite sluggishness in the Korean record market.
They said in a statement, “The contract banning TVXQ members from changing their agency for 13 years since their debut is the same as a life-long working contract, which is extremely disadvantageous to the singers.”
They claimed the period is far longer than that of other agencies. “Singers have the right to change their agency to one offering better conditions. Under the contract, however, they have no choice but to work with the present agency virtually until they retire. This is an infringement of human rights,” the statement said.
A NHRC spokesman told The Korea Times, “It will take at least three months to the complete investigation of the case.”
The controversy over the five-member group’s working contract touched off early this month after three of its members ― Micky, Xiah and Hero ― asked the Seoul Administrative Court to terminate the validity of their contract with their agency, SM Entertainment. The other two members, Max and U-Know, did not take part in the action.
According to the legal document filed, the agency prohibited their freedom as artists by claiming that the group’s and members’ activities belonged to the agency, requiring them to follow the agency’s demands to appear at certain performances and broadcasts, and to stay under the agency’s wing for 13 years.
Reports of dissension started circulating about a month ago.
The three members were said to have conflicting interests with SM regarding their private business endeavors in the makeup industry. Max and U-Know, meanwhile, had been busy pursuing individual acting careers in TV soaps in addition to their work with the group.
This raised concern among fans about the group’s potential breakup. Despite the rumor of internal conflicts, the five singers appeared all together, as planned, at a concern in Japan early this month.
SM said, “TVXQ is a group that represents Asia and we believe that their career should continue. We hope to figure things out soon.”
TVXQ debuted in 2004 with the album “Hug” and shot to stardom in Korea, Japan and other parts of Asia. Their subsequent albums were well received and their fourth album, “Mirotic,” released last year, sold 500,000 copies here despite sluggishness in the Korean record market.
Prisoner dies in Srinagar jail
SRINAGAR, Sep 9: An ailing undertrial prisoner at Central Jail, Srinagar died last night due to some heart ailment, the jail authorities said. However, the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) has strongly condemned the jail authorities for their alleged negligence, which according to them has caused the death of the prisoner.
Chairman Hurriyat Conference (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani visited the family of the deceased and prayed for peace to the departed soul.
Mehraj-u-Din Dar son of Ghulam Mohammad Dar, a resident of Chrar-e-Sharief was arrested in 2006 for his alleged militant links. He was lodged in Kot Bhalwal Jail Jammu, where from he was shifted to central Jail Srinagar, last year. He was booked under 7/25 Indian Arms Act and was facing trial before the session's court, Budgam. According to the Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar Mohammad Ayoub, the deceased had complained about his ailment a few days ago.
"Our doctors were seeing him and last night at around 10 PM he complained of vomiting and abdominal pain. I in my own car ferried him to Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Hospital where doctors deeming his condition critical referred him to Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, where he expired at around 2:15 AM," said SP Central Jail.
He rebutted the allegations of negligence on the part of jail authorities saying that Dar's post-mortem was conducted in camera and in presence of a magistrate. "Since the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) people have taken samples from Dar's body the actual cause of the death will be known in two months. We have conveyed about Dar's death to State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as well. I strongly refute the allegations of our negligence. He was taken due care of by our Jail doctors," Ayoub added.
President Aquino wants AICHR office in RP
HANOI, Vietnam—Seeking to make the Philippines the premier human rights champion in the region, President Aquino offered to locate the headquarters of ASEAN’s new human rights body in Manila.
“As the country will endeavor to once again be the champion of human rights, the country will reiterate its offer to locate the Secretariat headquarters in Manila,” Foreign Affairs Sec. Alberto Romulo (picture) said in a statement.
The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is a new mechanism launched last year to strengthen the “promotion and protection of human rights” in the region. The AICHR secretariat currently shares office with the ASEAN headquarters in Jakarta.
Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was the first to suggest moving AICHR headquarters in Manila. An Arroyo-appointee, Romulo will formally propose it in the ASEAN Regional Forum, the annual meeting of 27 states and the European Union.
“It was a very generous offer from the Philippines, but we need to get a consensus on it,” Indonesian foreign minister Dr. Marty Natalegawa told Newsbreak.
The same proposal was made by Thailand. The proposed relocation will put the successful country at the center of AICHR activities.
For the Philippines, hosting the AICHR headquarters can help the country re-position itself as one of the leaders in ASEAN, a stature that observers said now belonged to Indonesia following its aggressive stance on various issues including the protection of human rights.
But Natalegawa said the relocation may not happen soon because the other ASEAN members have yet to express their approval.
Ironically, Philippines and Thailand were recently criticized for opposing Jakarta’s push for stronger provisions in AICHR to include the investigation of human rights violations.
In a region beset with various cases of human rights violations, the creation of the AICHR is recognized as a big step.
However, regional civil society groups said AICHR’s policy of non-interference has seriously clamped its potential.
The principle of non-interference means AICHR cannot intervene or investigate individual cases of human rights violations. It cannot, say, sanction Myanmar for its continued imprisonment of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi because it is considered an internal matter.
In March, relatives of the journalists in the November 2009 Maguindanao massacre sought the intervention of the AICHR, but to no avail. While the AICHR Secretariat has received the complaint they filed, it maintains that it is not part of AICHR’s job.
At best, the new human rights body can only assess general situation of ASEAN country’s adherence international standards of human rights. How it will do that remains unclear. It is yet to finalize its rules of procedure.
Regional civil society groups have been actively calling for the AICHR to revise its terms of reference (TOR) but ASEAN officials said the review of the TOR will not happen until 5 years from now.
Filipino human rights lawyer Carlos Medina said it should be President Aquino’s advocay to call for a stronger AICHR.
“The Aquino administration should now take the lead in calling for the expansion of the protection powers of the commission, even as it recognizes the constraints faced by AICHR,” Medina said.
President Aquino should not forget to address the local human rights situation, added lawyer Harry Roque.
“You can’t champion it abroad unless we keep our house in order,” Roque said.
NHRC to set up 10 panels to look into clashes
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will set up 10 working panels to investigate incidents relating to the red-shirt rally.
Since the anti-government demonstration started in March, many violent incidents, including street clashes, have taken place. There were huge casualties.
"The working panels will interview witnesses and gather evidence," NHRC chairwoman Prof Amara Pongsapich said yesterday. The panels will comprise of NHRC officials, academics, public prosecutors and officials from relevant agencies.
Amara was speaking after she met with an NHRC subcommittee, chaired by NHRC commissioner Paiboon Varahapaitoon, tasked with looking into rally-related incidents. Amara said the investigation would focus on 10 points:
Demonstrators' activities between March 12 and May 20, including their moves to surround various government agencies;
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's declaration of the emergency decree on April 7, as well as his government's moves to block the People Channel and suspend the services of several community radio stations, print media and websites;
The April 10 clashes;
Grenade attacks at the Sala Daeng intersection on April 22, and shooting at security officials on May 7;
The clash between red shirts and security officials at the National Memorial on April 28;
Red shirts' rally around the Police General Hospital, as well as their raid into Chulalongkorn Hospital and the Thai Red Cross Society;
The government's orders and security officials' operations between May 13 and May 19, as well as red shirts' activities over the same period, including riots, arson attacks and vandalism;
The six bodies found inside the Pathum Wanaram Temple between May 19 and May 20;
Deaths and injuries of media crew;
The deaths, injuries, disappearances and detentions of many people between March 12 and May 20.
Amara said the investigation would likely take more than 120 days.
According to her, the 10 working panels will submit evidence and relevant information to the Paiboon-chaired subcommittee.
"If this subcommittee believes that the information is complete and comprehensive, it will consult the subcommittee on laws and regulations, and work out which have been violated," Amara said. "Then, the case will be brought to NHRC."
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) adviser Sunai Phasuk revealed that the HRW had also set up a panel to dig into the facts about the recent violence in Thailand.
"Representatives from the HRW headquarters will join this panel," he said.
Sunai said the recent unrest marked the first time a battle with proper weapons had erupted in the heart of Bangkok.
"We have to present truths for both sides to reflect on what they have been doing," he said. "They should accept the truths and admit their wrongdoing."
Regional Workshop on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Release of Human Rights Consultation Report
The National Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Workshop for National Human Rights Institutions
In order to discuss how to ensure the protection of the human rights of persons living with HIV, OHCHR and the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), with the support of the Asia-Pacific Forum of NHRIs, organized a Regional HIV/AIDS and Human Rights Workshop for national human rights institutions (NHRIs) from 10-12 March 2010 in Bangkok.
Due to their specific mandate and expertise, NHRIs can play a crucial role the protection of the human rights of persons living with HIV through a greater engagement with the national HIV response. The workshop brought together 15 NHRIs from Asia and the Middle East, various UN agencies and representatives from civil society to review the human rights standards and principles that can guide the national HIV response; share experiences and identify opportunities on how HIV can be integrated into NHRIs' programme of work; and strengthen institutional collaboration between NHRIs and other stakeholders in the HIV response. At the end of the workshop, the participants also agreed on a joint statement and drafted HIV action plans.
Human Rights Act door still swinging
Even though most people who participated in the consultation wanted a Human Rights Act and, more to the point, even though the majority of Australians randomly and objectively polled and quizzed favoured an Act, no major political party in the country is yet willing to relinquish unreviewable power in the name of human rights protection. So the 14 recommendations relating only to a Human Rights Act were put to one side.
This does not mean that the government has closed the door to further judicial review of legislation and policies contrary to human rights. In deciding not to open the door within a defined doorway (a Human Rights Act), the Government has just left the door swinging. How so?
In accordance with our Recommendation 17, the Government is putting in place a rights framework which operates on the assumption that the human rights listed in the seven key international human rights instruments signed voluntarily by Australia (including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) will be protected and promoted.
In accordance with Recommendations 6 and 7, Parliament will legislate to ensure that each new Bill introduced to Parliament, as well as delegated legislation subject to disallowance, is accompanied by a statement of compatibility attesting the extent to which it is compatible with the seven UN human rights treaties. Also Parliament will legislate to establish a parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise legislation for compliance with the UN instruments.
So the Executive and the Legislature cannot escape the dialogue about legislation's compliance with UN human rights standards. Neither can the courts, because Parliament has already legislated that 'in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision, consideration may be given to that material'. Parliament has provided that 'the material that may be considered in the interpretation of a provision of an Act' includes 'any relevant report of a committee of the Parliament' as well as 'any relevant document that was laid before, or furnished to the members of, either House of the Parliament by a Minister before the time when the provision was enacted'.
When interpreting new legislation impacting on human rights in the light of these relevant documents from the Executive and from the Parliament, the courts will assuredly follow the course articulated by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in one of the more controversial refugee cases of the Howard era.
Gleeson said: '[W]here legislation has been enacted pursuant to, or in contemplation of, the assumption of international obligations under a treaty or international convention, in cases of ambiguity a court should favour a construction which accords with Australia's obligations.' He added, '[C]ourts do not impute to the legislature an intention to abrogate or curtail fundamental rights or freedoms unless such an intention is clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language. General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose.'
So even though there be no Human Rights Act, the courts are now to be drawn into the dialogue with the Executive and the Parliament about the justifiable limits of all future Commonwealth legislation in the light of the international human rights obligations set down in the seven key UN instruments.
That's not all. The Government's human rights framework notes that 'the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 enables a person aggrieved by most decisions made under federal laws to apply to a federal court for an order to review on various grounds, including that the decision maker failed to take into account a relevant consideration'.
Retired Federal Court Judge Ron Merkel in his submission to our inquiry pointed out that the High Court has already 'recognised the existence of a requirement to treat Australia's international treaty obligations as relevant considerations and, absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, administrative decision makers are expected to act conformably with Australia's international treaty obligations'.
Ultimately Australia will require a Human Rights Act to set workable limits on how far ajar the door of human rights protection should be opened by the judges in dialogue with the politicians.
We will have a few years now of the door flapping in the breeze as public servants decide how much content to put in the statements of compatibility; as parliamentarians decide how much public transparency to accord the new committee processes; and as judges feel their way interpreting all laws consistent with the parliament's intention that all laws be in harmony with Australia's international obligations, including the UN human rights instruments, unless expressly stated to the contrary.
There is no turning back from the federal dialogue model of human rights protection.
Pay attention to human rights
“The panchayats can do wonderful things to improve the living conditions of the marginalised people,” he noted in his opening remarks at a seminar on ‘Panchayats and human rights' organised by the NHRC here on Friday.
He pointed out that the United Nations had recently declared access to drinking water a fundamental human right.
Mr. Balakrishnan said Kerala had done well on the panchayati raj front. The Green Kerala social reality show hosted by Doordarsan had revealed the wonderful work being done by the local bodies at the grassroots level.
N.R. Madhava Menon, jurist and educator, pointed out that the State was an acknowledged leader in term of experiments and innovations in the field of local governance.
An outstanding example of this was the action taken by the Plachimada panchayat against a multinational company for having depleted its water resources and polluted the sources of drinking water in the panchayat.
“It is remarkable that the panchayat took it up as a human rights issue even against the non-cooperation of the State government and the development advocates in the civil society,” he said.
Professor Menon urged the NHRC to partner with select panchayats in the State for the protection of socio-economic rights. This was particularly important in the context of the Right to Education Act, in the implementation of which the local bodies had an important role.
The NHRC had a responsibility to ensure that the RTE was a successful initiative by making appropriate interventions at the operational level.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)