radiofree.asia

Category: Law

  • Is the UK true to its word on the prevention of torture?

    Rules for Britain’s intelligence services seem strict – but experts say they give too much room for manoeuvre

    After the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the UK intelligence agencies’ embroilment in scandals relating to the “war on terror”, the government published a policy on torture and intelligence, then known as the “consolidated guidance”. The aim was to show the standards to which the UK holds itself and its intelligence agencies.

    The current rules, “the principles”, which replaced the consolidated guidance, were drawn up after the 2018 apology for Britain’s role in the rendition of a Libyan dissident, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and his wife, as well as two damning reports published by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) in the same year, which found that MI5 and MI6 were involved in hundreds of torture cases and scores of rendition cases after 9/11.

    Continue reading…

  • UK torture policy labelled ‘fatally flawed’ after watchdog report

    Investigatory powers commissioner has identified non-compliance by intelligence agencies and MoD

    The UK’s policy on torture has been described as “fatally flawed” after a watchdog identified non-compliance by intelligence agencies and the Ministry of Defence.

    An influential parliamentary group and human rights campaigners say failings identified by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) demonstrate the rules must be changed.

    Continue reading…

  • Outcry over lengthy jail terms handed to China human rights lawyers

    UN rights chief voices concern over sentencing of Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong

    The UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, has said he is “very concerned” after China sentenced two prominent human rights lawyers to more than a decade each in jail.

    Xu Zhiyong and fellow campaigner Ding Jiaxi were convicted of subversion of state power after closed-door trials and sentenced to 14 and 12 years respectively.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Iranian police plan to use smart cameras to identify ‘violators of hijab law’

    Women who break Islamic dress code will be identified, warned on first instance and then taken to court

    Police in Iran plan to use smart technology in public places to identify and then penalise women who violate the country’s strict Islamic dress code, the force said on Saturday.

    A statement said police would “take action to identify norm-breaking people by using tools and smart cameras in public places and thoroughfares”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Marginal Appreciation for Trans Women’s Rights in International Human Rights Law: A Critique of the Use of Margin of Appreciation in Recent ECtHR Decisions

    This piece analyses two recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), A.M. and Others v. Russia[1] and X and Y v. Romania,[2] to highlight the courts’ failure to incorporate rights arising from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[3] into jurisprudence relating to trans women. CEDAW is a convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and is implemented by a body of independent experts  titled the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The gap in the CEDAW with respect to trans rights, has an adverse impact on trans women’s custody and guardianship rights.  In addition, the piece critiques the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Due to the absence of pervasive domestic legislation and lack of consensus among European nations regarding trans rights, the ECtHR is more likely to concede to the often transphobic discretion of nation-states. To counter the trans-exclusionary impacts of the margin of appreciation, this article proposes a dual approach: the incorporation of specialised treaties into ECtHR  jurisprudence as well as the incentivisation of member states  to reach an inclusive consensus by the court.

    Margin of Appreciation and Self-Recognition in ECtHR

    The margin of appreciation is a “judicial doctrine whereby international courts allow states to have a measure of diversity in their interpretation of human rights treaty obligations”.[4] Pre-1998, ECtHR jurisprudence was not trans-sensitive,[5] as it afforded a wide margin of appreciation to states which narrowly interpreted violations against trans individuals under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for family and private life.  Cases like Rees v. UK;[6] X, Y, and Z v. UK;[7] and Cossey v. UK,[8] did not find Article 8 violations against trans litigants. However, the 1992 B v. France[9] was the first of  the pre-1998 cases to recognise an Article 8 violation, when a trans woman complained of the refusal of the French authorities to amend the civil-status register in accordance with her gender identity. Finally, in 1998, Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom[10] marked a turning point in trans rights jurisprudence. While the ECtHR did not find an Article 8 violation,[11] it reaffirmed the need for trans rights to be kept under  permanent review by the Contracting States, given the problems faced by post-operative trans individuals.[12]    Unfortunately, the decision did not grant the right to self-identification and did not have implications beyond those undergoing surgery. The decisions post-1998 beginning with the Christine Goodman v. UK[13] in 2002 to Y.V v. Turkey[14]  in 2015, recognised Article 8 violations by States and curbed margin of appreciation on the grounds that the resulting interference with the applicant’s right to respect for their private life could not be considered “necessary” in a democratic society.

    The ECtHR delivered its most recent pronouncement on trans rights, X and Y v. Romania, on 19th January 2021. Here, two Romanian nationals approached the ECtHR because the national authorities failed to recognise the gender identity of transgender persons in the absence of gender reassignment surgery.[15] The applicants approached administrative and judicial authorities to correct the details on their identity papers concerning their gender, forenames and social security number. The applicants wanted to obtain legal recognition of their gender identity without undergoing expensive and psychologically-taxing surgery.[16] However, these requests were refused on the grounds of absence of ‘proof’[17] of their gender identity through gender reassignment surgery. The ECtHR admitted the application on the grounds that the state violated Article 8 of ECHR.

    Article 8 was found to be applicable as the Court found gender identification to be a crucial aspect of personal identity. Further, the Court noted that this applies “to all individuals, including transgender persons like the applicants, whether or not they wish to undergo gender reassignment treatment approved by the authorities.”[18] The case is relevant to the current discussion despite acknowledging the absence of the right to self-identification of the Romanian legal framework, as the court decided against granting a margin of appreciation. The ECtHR’s logic was that the national authorities’ lack of recognition of the applicants’ male identity in the absence of gender reassignment surgery “had upset the fair balance to be struck by the State between the general interest and the interests of the applicants.”[19] This non-recognition constituted unjustified interference with the Article 8 rights of the applicants.  The Court’s justification was that only a few Council of Europe member States mandated gender reassignment as a pre-condition for legal recognition of gender identity and highlighted that “by 2020, twenty-six States no longer made it a requirement.”[20] This decision therefore illustrates the wide support for the self-recognition of gender and serves as an important precedent for limiting European States’ margin of appreciation in this context. The case gives rise to the question of whether international courts can deny states’ margin of appreciation and allow international human rights law to fill in gaps in domestic legislation.

    Using Self-Recognition of Gender Jurisprudence in ECtHR to Critique Trans Custody Jurisprudence

    A.M. and Others v. Russia[21] followed closely at the heels of X and Y v. Romania. A.M. and Others v. Russia involved a transgender woman who was denied custody of her children based on her gender identity. The woman had transitioned after the dissolution of her marriage, after which the Court denied her custody. The applicant contested this decision in the ECtHR under the Article 14 right against discrimination and the Article 8 right to family life. The ECtHR read Articles 8 and 14 together to hold that the applicant’s gender identity had influenced the Court’s decision to restrict contact with her children. This meant that the applicant was treated differently than parents whose gender identity matched their sex assigned at birth. The ECtHR held that although the domestic courts had pursued a legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of children in these proceedings, it could not establish convincing and sufficient reasons for the difference in treatment, such that a reasonable relationship of proportionality had not existed between the means employed and the aim pursued.

    In this case, the margin of appreciation was not applicable as there was no conflict between domestic law and international law. However, the X and Y v. Romania case can be used to formulate a minor critique of A.M. and Others v. Russia. This is because interestingly, the recent and significant X and Y v. Romania case was not cited in the Russian transgender woman’s custody case. Had the prior case been cited it would have a two-fold impact for trans-sensitive international human rights jurisprudence. Firstly, although the gender identity of the applicant was not in question in the current case, X and Y v. Romania could be used to reassert the legitimacy of the transgender woman’s gender identity. This leads to the second point. The classification of the applicant as a woman using a recent ECtHR ruling, could entitle her to guardianship rights and protections under Article 16 (e) and (f) of the CEDAW.[22] These provisions could further strengthen her case within the international human rights law regime by enforcing the nation-state’s compliance with its CEDAW treaty obligations. This oversight by the ECtHR demonstrates not just its own reluctance to recognise trans women’s rights as being on par with ciswomen, but also the limitations of CEDAW and its essentialist and rigid definition of the woman subject. The ECtHR thus missed the opportunity to expand the scope of or at least present recommendations for CEDAW to widen its scope, in its failure to read X and Y v. Romania. into A.M. and Others v. Russia.

    Conclusion: Way Forward

    (i) Incorporation of CEDAW into ECtHR Jurisprudence

    The ECHR  has been termed a “living instrument” and for more than seven decades, has been a significant instrument in international law.[23] Further, scholars have noted that the relevance, dynamism and effectiveness of the ECHR has been maintained by the ECtHR interpreting it in light of other international human rights documents and jurisprudence.[24] The ECtHR’s receptiveness to other relevant sources and jurisprudence allows the ECHR to remain compatible with common values and emerging consensus in international law.[25] Turkish scholar Ebru Demir underlined the effectiveness of this approach in the context of the ECtHR broadening the scope of domestic violence in international law.[26] He did so by illustrating how the ECtHR innovatively interpreted article 14 of the ECHR by engaging extensively with the relevant international human rights instruments on the issue, in particular, CEDAW to define “discrimination against women”[27] and underline the obligations of the state parties under the CEDAW. A similar approach by the ECtHR in cases involving the rights of trans women could facilitate more trans-friendly decisions and persuade the ECHR and CEDAW to broaden their ambit. Consequently, the initiation of trans women into the ambit of a treaty of the nature of the CEDAW which represents universal consensus, would limit a state’s margin of appreciation in human rights violations against these vulnerable communities and would thus enable state accountability in the international human rights arena.

    The exclusion of LBTQ+ individuals from the CEDAW  has been highlighted by civil society organisations. For instance, in 2014, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) requested that CEDAW’s forthcoming General Recommendation on girls’ and women’s right to education include specific provisions on barriers to education faced by girls and youth because of their sexual orientation and gender.[28] Despite this, out of the 39 General Recommendations made by CEDAW as of 2022, not a single one deals with the protection of the rights of LBTQ+ women.[29] Further, the exclusionary strains of CEDAW are visible in its wording. CEDAW only defines discrimination in Article 1.[30] Further, while CEDAW  leaves the term ‘woman’ undefined and thus fluid and open to interpretation, the provisions of the treaty end up overlooking the equality concerns of trans women. In other words, there are no explicit protections relating to discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. As argued by Margaret Murphy, human rights law scholar from Queen’s University Belfast, “by recognizing gendered harms broadly, CEDAW could additionally strengthen women’s rights…the dichotomy of man and woman lacks a holistic view of sex/gender as it is recognized by many today.”[31] Thus to ensure inclusive jurisprudence, the ECtHR consider attempting to interpret CEDAW expansively and recommend that it be made trans friendly. 

    (ii) ECtHR’s Incentivizing a Trans-sensitive Consensus

    X and Y v. Romania and A.M. and Others v. Russia represent a crucial advancement for transgender rights as these cases illustrate that the ECtHR is willing to expand the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR) to gender non-conforming people. However, it raises some concerns regarding both the margin of appreciation and the scope of CEDAW. This is because while X and Y v. Romania highlights the consensus with respect to self-identification of gender, it still shows that transgender personhood is based on treaty-based consensus rather than a natural-rights based approach[32] to their personhood. It also means that if this majoritarian consensus changes to make the recognition of gender reaffirmation surgery-based, it could jeopardise the rights of minorities. As British professor of sociology Paul Johnson, states in his piece about margin of appreciation and LGBTQIA+ rights in Europe, if the Court continues to deprive individuals of their rights due to its reliance on the margin of appreciation’, “it calls into question both the legitimacy of its methodology and the universality of the Convention that it interprets.”[33] He further states that despite the Court’s progressive narrowing of the margin of appreciation in the context of queer rights since the 1980s, the approach is largely piecemeal and inconsistent.[34] This calls for a treaty-based recognition of gender non-conforming individuals, for decisive and uniform protections under international human rights law. In addition to courts referring to specialised treaties to broaden the rights regime, international courts can play a key role in facilitating a bottom-up trans-sensitive development of international human rights law. Norwegian philosophers Andreas Follesdal and Nino Tsereteli suggest “a bottom-up development of European human rights law that can be facilitated and subsequently validated by the ECtHR”.[35] They argue that by showing an explicit link between the breadth of the margin of appreciation and firmness of consensus, the ECtHR could incentivise national authorities to continuously engage with the convention in light of present-day conditions.[36] The ECtHR could also more frequently call for keeping issues under review where there is no clear consensus on the substantive minimal protection standard yet, but where such a consensus is likely to consolidate in the near future. Overall, the ECtHR must consider encouraging EU consensus, keeping issues for non-operative trans individuals under review and relying on special treaties such as CEDAW to fully recognise trans rights.

    [1] A.M. and Others v. Russia App no. 47220/19  (ECHR July 2021)

    [2] X and Y v. Romania App no. 20607/16 (ECHR 19 January 2021)

    [3] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

    [4] Legg, Andrew, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality, Oxford Monographs in International Law(Oxford, 2012; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Sept. 2012), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199650453.001.0001, accessed 14 Oct. 2022.

    [5] Fact Sheet-Gender Identity Issues, European Court of Human Rights, October 2022, < https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Gender_identity_eng.pdf > accessed 1 November 2022

    [6] Rees v. UK, App no. 9532/81 (ECHR 17 October 1986)

    [7] X, Y, and Z v. UK App no. 21830/93 (ECHR 22 April 1997)

    [8] Cossey v. UK App no. 10843/84 (ECHR 27 September 1990)

    [9] B v France, App No 13343/87 (ECHR 25th March 1992)

    [10] Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom App no. 22985/93 (ECHR 30 July 1998)

    [11] Id.

    [12] Id.

    [13] Christine Goodman v. UK App no. 28957/95 (ECHR 11 July 2002)

    [14] Y.V v. Turkey App no. 14793/08 (ECHR 10 May 2015)

    [15] X, Y, and Z v. UK App no. 21830/93 (ECHR 22 April 1997)

    [16] Id.

    [17] Id.

    [18] X, Y, and Z v. UK App no. 21830/93 (ECHR 22 April 1997)

    [19] X, Y, and Z v. UK App no. 21830/93 (ECHR 22 April 1997)

    [20] X, Y, and Z v. UK App no. 21830/93 (ECHR 22 April 1997)

    [21] A.M. and Others v. Russia App no. 47220/19  (ECHR July 2021)

    [22] Article 16, UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

    [23] Dzehtsiarou K. (2011) European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal 12(10): 1730–1745.

    [24] Letsas G. (2013) The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy. In: Følledal A, Peters B, and Ulfstein G (eds) Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context. Cambridge University Press, pp. 106–141.

    [25] Letsas G. (2013) The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy. In: Følledal A, Peters B, and Ulfstein G (eds) Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context. Cambridge University Press, pp. 106–141.

    [26] Ebru Demir, The European Court of Human Rights’ Engagement with International Human Rights Instruments: Looking at the Cases of Domestic Violence, The Age of Human Rights Journal, 17 (December2021) pp. 79-96 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.v17.6347

    [27] Ebru Demir, The European Court of Human Rights’ Engagement with International Human Rights Instruments: Looking at the Cases of Domestic Violence, The Age of Human Rights Journal, 17 (December2021) pp. 79-96 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.v17.6347

    [28] The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) Memo on General Recommendation on Article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, June 20, 2014<https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/WomensRightEducation/IGLHRCContribution.pdf > accessed November 1, 2022

    [29] General Recommendations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women <https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cedaw/general-recommendations > accessed 1 November, 2022

    [30] Article 1, UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

    [31] Margaret Murphy, ‘ Queering Women’s Rights: Re-Examining CEDAW’ Human Rights Pulse, March 1 2021 < https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/queering-womens-rights-re-examining-cedaw > accessed November 1, 2022

    [32] A natural rights based approach is one that conceives of rights as independent of legal and political systems. Broadly, natural rights are seen as those rights that originate from individuals by virtue of their existence, independent of the state. Political theorists like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau were proponents of this approach.

    [33] Paul Johnson, ‘Homosexuality, Freedom of Assembly and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Alekseyev v Russia’, Human Rights Law Review, (2011), pp 578-593 < https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27001.pdf > accessed 14 October 2022

    [34] Paul Johnson, ‘Homosexuality, Freedom of Assembly and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Alekseyev v Russia’, Human Rights Law Review, (2011), pp 578-593 < https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27001.pdf > accessed 14 October 2022

    [35] Andreas Follesdal & Nino Tsereteli (2016) The margin of appreciation in Europe and beyond, The International Journal of Human Rights, 20:8, 1055-1057

    [36] Andreas Follesdal & Nino Tsereteli (2016) The margin of appreciation in Europe and beyond, The International Journal of Human Rights, 20:8, 1055-1057

  • Switzerland and France accused of lack of climate action in ECHR hearing

    Group of Swiss women and French ex-mayor suing their governments in first such cases heard by rights court

    The governments of Switzerland and France have been accused of breaching the human rights of their citizens by not acting decisively enough on climate change, at a landmark legal hearing in Strasbourg.

    A panel of judges at the European court of human rights heard petitions from a group of Swiss women and a French former mayor seeking to bolster climate action in their countries. Although climate litigation has spread quickly around the world, these are the first such cases to be heard by the ECHR.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Europe’s human rights watchdog warns UK over illegal migration bill

    Council of Europe’s experts say bill is ‘step backwards’ in fight against modern slavery

    Europe’s human rights watchdog has warned the UK government that its plans to curb the rights of trafficking victims in its illegal migration bill is a “significant step backwards” in the fight against human trafficking and modern slavery and demonstrates a lack of compliance with international law.

    In a highly unusual move, the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings (Greta) on Wednesday expressed deep concern about the bill and its lack of compliance with core elements of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • MPs urged to uphold UK’s global obligations in migration bill debate

    Council of Europe commissioner raises concerns that legislation may not meet human rights standards

    A European human rights commissioner has warned UK parliamentarians, before a debate on the government’s illegal migration bill, to uphold international obligations when scrutinising the proposed legislation.

    In a letter to the House of Commons and House of Lords published on Monday, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatović, said: “It is essential that parliamentarians prevent legislation that is incompatible with the United Kingdom’s international obligations being passed.”

    Continue reading…

  • Rwanda scheme would ‘completely erode’ UK’s standing on world stage

    New Human Rights Watch head Tirana Hassan says UK’s plan to deport asylum seekers is ‘cheap politics’

    The UK’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda would “completely erode” Britain’s standing on the world stage, the new head of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said.

    Tirana Hassan, who takes over as HRW’s executive director on Monday, also said other conservative governments in Europe were considering following Britain’s lead and looking at African states as an offshore dumping ground for asylum seekers, potentially dealing further blows to established refugee protections.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to No 10 is an insult to British Palestinians like me | Sara Husseini

    The government’s mealy mouthed criticism of the Israeli PM’s increasingly rightwing policies is not enough. He should be persona non grata in the UK

    The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, might have been hoping for some brief respite from the tumult back home during his flying visit to London. Instead, in addition to his meeting with Rishi Sunak and other officials, the Likud leader was met with protests from human rights activists, including a protest by Amnesty International, a Palestine solidarity demonstration outside No 10 and another by the British Jewish group Na’amod.

    Such protests are well justified. Since the new government was sworn in, as reported by international governments, lawyers and human rights groups, Israel has furthered “annexation” of occupied land and advanced construction in illegal settlements. In 2023 so far, 75 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces (as of 13 March); last year, at least 231 Palestinians were killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, including nearly 40 children.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘Historic moment’ as El Salvador abortion case fuels hopes for expanded access across Latin America

    Human rights court hears seriously ill woman denied procedure as advocates call for change in region with world’s most restrictive abortion laws

    Human rights activists in Latin America hope that a historic court hearing over the case of a Salvadoran woman who was denied an abortion despite her high-risk pregnancy could open the way for El Salvador to decriminalize abortions – and set an important precedent across the region.

    The inter-American court of human rights (IACHR) this week considered the historic case of the woman, known as Beatriz, who was prohibited from having an abortion in 2013, even though she was seriously ill and the foetus she was carrying would not have survived outside the uterus.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • How the Cuban government and people collaborated on the Family Code

    Natalia Marques spoke to young activists in Cuba to find out how the new law was won through grassroots dialogue.

  • Brother of Biafra separatist held in Nigeria loses court challenge against UK

    UK government not required to state whether Nnamdi Kanu, a British national, was victim of extraordinary rendition, judge rules

    The brother of a British national being held in Nigeria after falling victim to extraordinary rendition has said he is disappointed after the high court dismissed his challenge to UK ministers’ handling of the case.

    Kingsley Kanu, brother of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (Ipob), a prominent separatist movement proscribed in Nigeria, claimed that three foreign secretaries – Liz Truss, Dominic Raab and then James Cleverly – had acted unlawfully by failing to reach a view on whether he had been subjected to extraordinary rendition.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Experts cast doubt on Braverman’s hopes of ECHR rule change on Rwanda

    Home secretary’s claims of ‘constructive’ talks regarding Strasbourg’s injunctions disputed by legal scholars

    Legal experts have cast doubt on the UK’s claims of “possible reforms” to European court of human rights procedures that stopped an asylum seeker from being deported to Rwanda last year.

    During a two-day visit to the country’s capital, Kigali, Suella Braverman told a selected group of government-friendly papers that she was “encouraged” by the government’s “constructive” talks with Strasbourg to overhaul court injunctions. An ECHR injunction last June prevented an Iraqi national from being deported from the UK to the east African country.

    Continue reading…

  • Cruel Tory migration bill will erode basic right to seek asylum | Letters

    The impact the policy will have across the world can’t be ignored, says Oliver Lough. Plus letters from Derrick Joad, Nigel Griffin and David Duell

    Rafael Behr is right to draw attention to both the unworkability and the inhumanity of the proposed illegal migration bill (‘Stop the boats’ shows how Britain is really being governed: by Tory campaign leaflet, 14 March). But it is also important to look beyond domestic concerns. At a time when displacement across borders due to war, climate breakdown and economic collapse are becoming increasingly common, Britain risks joining a growing list of privileged countries whose actions threaten to undermine the basic right to seek asylum from persecution. Already, the US is turning away refugees at its southern border, and the militarisation and criminalisation of asylum in the Mediterranean is well entrenched.

    Countries adjacent to crises are the primary hosts of most of the world’s refugees. They are not blind to the hypocrisy of wealthy nations, which insist that refugees be supported and protected “over there” while relying on hostile and legally dubious solutions to prevent them coming “over here”. If the world’s richest countries are prepared to undermine its norms, the international refugee protection regime risks descending into a free-for-all, where each country will act as it sees fit – denial of refugee status, detention, violent pushbacks and forced repatriation – with the rights and needs of vulnerable people relegated to an absolute last priority.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Trinidad and Tobago is failing children locked in Syrian camps – it must bring them home | Kenneth Mohammed

    During Covid, the Caribbean republic shut its borders, stranding citizens overseas; now it has left children vulnerable to illness, death and IS recruitment

    When is it acceptable for a government to lock its citizens out of their country, to leave them stranded overseas, trampling the constitutional and human rights of those who pay their salaries? During a pandemic perhaps?

    When is it acceptable to disown nationals, especially children who are victims of misguided decisions made by their brainwashed parents? When their parents left to join Islamic State perhaps?

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A fairer way to pay slavery reparations | Letter

    John Cookson says only those whose ancestors gained from slavery should be responsible for reparations

    The initiative by the Trevelyan family to pay reparations is very laudable and welcome (British slave owners’ family makes public apology in Grenada, 27 February). They directly benefited from slavery, so this is appropriate. I have serious reservations about reparations being paid by me. The government paying reparations means that my taxes would be used. My ancestors gained nothing from slavery. They worked in the mills and factories of Lancashire, particularly in Salford and Manchester, in the most appalling conditions, and were housed in insanitary, dangerous and unhealthy accommodation with a record of disease and deprivation among the worst in Europe. Anyone who doubts this should read Engel’s 1845 book, The Condition of the Working Class in England.

    If reparations are to be paid, a tax on the aristocrats and fat cats whose ancestors profited from slavery would be the only just solution.
    John Cookson
    Bournemouth, Dorset

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Queensland boy, 13, spends at least 45 days in solitary confinement despite not being sentenced to detention

    Exclusive: First Nations teenager spent 22 consecutive days isolated after being remanded on minor offences

    A 13-year-old First Nations boy remanded for minor criminal offences was kept in total solitary confinement in a Queensland youth detention centre for at least 45 days, Guardian Australia has learned.

    It is understood the boy also claimed that on one occasion he was denied drinking water at the Cleveland youth detention centre (CYDT) in Townsville, after he became distressed during a prolonged period in isolation and flooded the cell.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Reality of Reproductive Rights of Women: A Comparative Study of India and the U.S.A

    Introduction

    “It is impossible to think about the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved. It is impossible for a bird to fly on only one wing.” ~ Swami Vivekanand.

    Nearly three-quarters of a century later, the silence around unsafe abortions, maternal deaths, use of contraceptives and reproductive rights still deafens independent India.

    Broadly, reproductive rights refer to an individual’s ability to choose whether or not to procreate and to maintain reproductive health. This includes the right to start a family, terminate a pregnancy, use contraception, and obtain reproductive health care. The trajectory of women’s emancipation in India has veritably been dynamic. Tracing it right from their participation in nationalist movements, to being forced into the domiciliary domain and to their recent revival as super-women, women in our country have seen it all.

    The judiciary has been the flag bearer for securing and furthering reproductive rights here and now. Nevertheless, women’s sexual and reproductive rights in the country still hang in the realm of obliviousness. Despite women successfully marching towards closing gender gaps, the griming realities of maternal health and abortion-related fatalities have weighed heavily against all the progress made.

    The griming reality

    Despite India being the forerunner in the world to come up with infrastructural and policy measures ensuring safe abortion and contraception, women continue to encounter obstacles in exercising their reproductive rights, including poor health services and dismissal of decision-making authority. It is a problem that encompasses reproductive rights, sexual health, family planning, and maternal health.

    Women are often made to face the weight of administrative delays. In one such example, a woman was prevented from having an abortion after 20 weeks, despite having requested one at 17 weeks.

    Furthermore, inconsistent judgements add to the general lack of clarity surrounding the conditions in which a woman may legitimately terminate her pregnancy. While a Supreme Court decision in 2019 enabled a woman from Mumbai to terminate her pregnancy at 24 weeks due to a foetal anomaly that would jeopardise her life, previous rulings have penalised women who seek abortions after the 20-week mark, even where medically proven problems existed. Like in early 2017, the apex court decided against a lady whose foetus had a down syndrome-diagnosed abortion at 26 weeks. She was forced to deliver the baby with severe brain disorders, all credit to India’s archaic abortion law.

    Additionally, discriminatory precepts like spousal consent being an informal but imperative condition to obtain reproductive health services implicitly or explicitly sabotage women’s reproductive autonomy. Legal protection of reproductive rights as human rights is essential for gender parity and gender equity.

    Judiciary to the rescue

    Despite these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court has made paramount strides in India regarding the reproductive rights of women. Each country, however, has its restriction and exceptions when it comes to abortion rights.

    While abortion has been a contention in America for decades, many states, particularly those led by conservatives, have recently expressed interest in or initiated legislation to limit abortion drastically. Recent newsworthy events include the US Supreme Court’s draught decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The historic rulings in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade (1973) which protected women’s right to abortion, are reversed in the draught opinion. The apex court of the United States in a significant ruling in 1973, two years after India legalised abortion, recognised for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy is not so shallow that it does not even grant women the autonomy to decide the termination of her pregnancy.

    On the other hand, the Indian judiciary gave true sense to the societal needs in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment which bestowed upon an individual the sense and privilege of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also reaffirmed the decision in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which held that reproductive rights include a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, and raise children; and that these rights are part of a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the apex court has also extended the meaning of personal liberty by decriminalising adultery and homosexuality.

    The reproductive rights are directly affected by these decisions. The right to safe abortion is an essential component of women’s right to bodily integrity, life, and self-determination, and it must be guarded.

    Conclusion and way forward

    We must not paint the Indian legislative and judiciary as perfect, despite their consistently supporting abortion rights from a liberal standpoint. The old legislation on abortion rights was exemplary but the new one was overdue as it broadened its scope to encompass single women and adjusted the abortion threshold considering recent medical breakthroughs. In addition, the USA recognised the right to privacy in 1891 whereas India recognised it in 2017 bringing the right to abortion under its wide ambit. While it may be said that these developments are late, it is undeniable that India is on the correct path despite the setbacks. On the other hand, the established good norms in the USA have been shaken with the recent trends on the judicial front which is concerning for the developed society of the nation.

    The governments in both the nations should focus on providing access to licit and safe abortion, which are integral to sexual and reproductive parity and public health issues. The legal systems must consider these rights as a fundamental part of the laws it enacts, the policies it inserts place and the programs it engenders. The responsibility additionally lies with civil society and development actors to raise these issues for public debate and demands.

    As mentioned earlier, the legal protections outlined in the judgements serve as a powerful call to defend and uphold women’s reproductive rights, defined as both reproductive health and autonomy, including for marginalised communities in future litigation.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Japanese man granted retrial after 45 years on death row

    Iwao Hakamada, 87, was convicted of four murders in 1968 but granted ‘temporary release’ in 2014 after new evidence emerged

    A court in Japan has granted a retrial to a man – thought to be the world’s longest-serving death row inmate – who was sentenced to hang for the murders of a family of four almost six decades ago.

    The Tokyo high court ruled on Monday that Iwao Hakamada, 87, should be tried again for the crimes in a decision campaigners said was a “step towards justice”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Giving the middle finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

    Gesture may not be civil or polite but ‘it is not a crime’ and is protected under Canada’s constitution, judgment says

    Giving your neighbour the middle finger may not be polite but is protected as part of a person’s right to freedom of expression under the Canadian constitution, a judge has ruled.

    In a 26-page decision, Judge Dennis Galiatsatos of the French-speaking province of Quebec dismissed a case against a man accused of harassing his neighbour in a Montreal suburb.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Guardian view on refugee rights: a warning from history | Editorial

    Rishi Sunak’s pretence of serious statecraft is belied by his embrace of shabby populism when it comes to immigration law

    Britain did not sign up to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention by accident, nor was the country bamboozled into the European convention on human rights and cooperation with the Strasbourg court that enforces the convention. It was an architect of those institutions.

    The ambition was to lay solid foundations of European cooperation for the establishment of a peaceful democratic order after the second world war. Winston Churchill was a leading advocate of that project.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • What are the legal obstacles faced by the UK’s illegal migration bill?

    Suella Braverman has denied the government is breaking the law but experts say it faces many challenges

    A major piece of legislation unveiled this week seeks to achieve nothing less than the holy grail of current immigration policy: making asylum claims inadmissible from those who travel to the UK on small boats.

    The illegal migration bill, to give its provisional title, would involve a duty placed on the home secretary to remove “as soon as reasonably practicable”, to Rwanda or a “safe third country”, anyone who arrives on a small boat. Those who arrive will also be prevented from ever claiming asylum in the UK.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Brexit trade treaty ‘could be terminated’ if UK quits ECHR over small boat crossings

    Legal experts say Brussels has right to take retaliatory action, making cross-border law enforcement harder

    The UK’s trade agreement with the EU could be immediately terminated if the British government quits the European convention on human rights (EHCR) over the issue of stopping small boat crossings across the Channel, legal experts have said.

    Under the 2020 trade and cooperation agreement (TCA), the EU has the right to take retaliatory action including the ending of the hard-fought agreements on extradition and access to the database of biometric data including fingerprints and DNA, said Steve Peers, a professor of EU and human rights law.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Campaign calls for gender apartheid to be crime under international law

    Prominent Afghans and Iranians say current laws do not capture the systematic suppression of women

    A prominent group of Afghan and Iranian women are backing a campaign calling for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

    The campaign, launched on International Women’s Day, reflects a belief that the current laws covering discrimination against women do not capture the systematic nature of the policies imposed in Afghanistan and Iran to downgrade the status of women in society.

    Continue reading…

  • What does the UK government’s bill on illegal migration propose?

    Ministers say the bill will stop people crossing the Channel in small boats but critics say the plans are unworkable

    In 2022, 45,755 men, women and children crossed the Channel in small boats to reach the UK, most of whom then claimed asylum. Nearly 3,000 people have already made the crossing this year, with official estimates expecting more than 80,000 this year.

    Rishi Sunak has promised to end the small boats once and for all, by introducing the illegal migration bill. Critics including former Tory ministers have claimed it is doomed to be halted by challenges in the EU courts and will be used as an issue to attack Labour in a general election campaign.

    Continue reading…

  • Suella Braverman: small boats plan will push boundaries of international law

    Rishi Sunak says bill will ‘take back control of our borders’ but critics argue the proposals are unworkable

    Suella Braverman has admitted the government is attempting to push “the boundaries of international law” with legislation aimed at reducing small boat crossings in the Channel.

    The law, to be disclosed to MPs at lunchtime on Tuesday, is expected to place a legal duty on the home secretary to detain and remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive “irregularly” such as via small boats in the Channel.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Ukraine urges ICC to investigate video appearing to show Russians killing PoW

    Graphic clip shows detained combatant standing in a shallow trench before being apparently shot

    Ukraine has urged the international criminal court to investigate footage circulating on social media that appeared to show Russian fighters killing a Ukrainian prisoner of war.

    In the graphic clip that first circulated on Telegram, a detained combatant is seen standing in a shallow trench and smoking a cigarette. The soldier says “Glory to Ukraine” and is then apparently shot with automatic weapons.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Rishi Sunak to launch bill to stop people arriving on small boats claiming asylum

    Law would also place duty on home secretary to send anyone who arrives on small boat in UK to Rwanda or another country

    Rishi Sunak is to announce new laws stopping people entering the UK on small boats from claiming asylum, with the prime minister saying: “Make no mistake, if you come here illegally, you will not to be able to stay.”

    The prime minister and his home secretary will launch the legislation this week, as part of the government’s drive to “tackle illegal migration”, one of its main priorities.

    Continue reading…

  • Campaigners hail law raising age of marriage to 18 in England and Wales

    Now illegal for 16- and 17-year-olds to marry or enter a civil partnership, even with parental consent

    Campaigners have hailed a new law raising the legal age of marriage in England and Wales as a significant milestone in child protection.

    The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act comes into force on Monday following a five-year campaign and will prevent 16- and 17-year-olds from marrying or entering a civil partnership, even if they have parental consent.

    Continue reading…