Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Council (HRC)

An oral statement to the Human Rights Council (HRC) on March 13 reports an alarming observation of human rights violations in Burundi. Indeed, these violations continue to be committed in Burundi in complete impunity.

Following the adoption of a draft revision of the Burundian Constitution, a true campaign of terror was initiated in order to force the population to vote “yes”. This draft revision would particularly enable Pierre Nkurunziza to court two new seven-year mandates.

In the face of this situation, ACAT-Burundi and SOS-Torture/Burundi, supported by the CCPR Centre, FIACAT, OMCT and TRIAL International have invited the concerned bodies to work towards finding crisis recovery solutions.

Read the statement (in French)

The United Nations Commission of Inquiry reckoned that crimes against humanity had been committed in Burundi since 2015. As tension between Bujumbura and the international community reaches its height, two legal experts analyze possible scenarios.

 

How did the presentation of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi unfold? How have states and NGOs reacted?

Lambert Nigarura, President of the Burundian Coalition for the ICC: With the exception of four states, all countries and organizations of civil society welcomed the Commission’s work, as well as the courage and determination of its members.

Pamela Capizzi, Head of TRIAL International’s Burundi program: I was pleased that some states condemned Burundi’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, calling on it to reverse its decision. Most also agreed with the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry concerning an ICC inquiry.

 

Indeed, what do you think of the recommendation to the ICC to open an inquiry*?

LN: This recommendation is very relevant. It is proof that the members of the Commission of Inquiry are convinced that crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC have been committed, that is, the most serious crimes committed on a large scale. It is now up to the ICC, which has the jurisdiction to qualify said crimes, to take action.

PC: I too am also delighted with this recommendation, notably because it is the result of meticulous documentation, as well as a rigorous legal analysis from the Commission of Inquiry.

 

What are the different possible scenarios at present?

PC: If the ICC opens an investigation before Burundi’s withdrawal on 27 October 2017, the government will be legally obliged to cooperate. But given Bujumbura’s defiance in recent months, the likelihood is that this will do nothing. The other scenario is that the ICC opens an investigation after 27 October. Unfortunately, Burundi would no longer be obliged to cooperate, but at least an investigation would take place, sending out a strong message and establishing the truth.

LN: If the ICC failed to open an inquiry at all, it would be a huge disappointment for the victims and a dangerous precedent for international justice. The Burundian government would have succeeded in defying the international community, the United Nations and all legal mechanisms without any consequence. The Burundian people themselves would feel betrayed and abandoned, fueling the vicious cycle of violence and frustration contributing to the political instability.

PC: That is absolutely true: victims could seek justice through other mechanisms, but the main message would be that the Burundian authorities can act with complete impunity, without having to answer for their crimes. Other countries could then take a leaf out of its book and do the same.

 

What is the probability that the ICC opens an investigation at present?

PC: The Commission of Inquiry’s report is public, rigorous and well-argued. Its allegations that crimes against humanity have been committed certainly cannot leave the ICC indifferent. However, I would like to point out that the opening of an investigation by the ICC will only be a step towards fighting impunity in Burundi. This action alone will not be able to eradicate the problem, so I hope that an ICC investigation will be just one step in the process of finding lasting solutions to impunity.

 

The Burundian government recently called on African states to “stand together against the ICC”. Mr. Nigarura, what do you think is the dominant feeling in Africa?

LN: It must be understood that this call has not been echoed. It is true that the African countries do not trust the ICC, but few really plan to avoid its jurisdiction. Civil society, of which I am a member, is aware that Africans are the first victims of these crimes, and that they don’t often have access to independent justice. The ICC remains the only jurisdiction in the world capable of guaranteeing this right.

 

*The International Criminal Court opened a preliminary examination in 2016 which could lead to an investigation. Learn more

To Permanent Representatives of Members and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council: Renewing the Mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and Ensuring Accountability for Serious Crimes. 

Your Excellencies,

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, write to urge you to support a resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi and to call on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) at its forthcoming 36th session to explore all options to ensure accountability for the crimes documented by the COI, including as recommended by the COI, the opening of an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) whose Office of the Prosecutor announced the opening of a preliminary examination on 25 April 2016. In addition, we urge the UN HRC to call for Burundi’s suspension from the Council, or at a minimum to explicitly request the General Assembly to take up the matter in accordance with OP8 of GA resolution 60/251.

The COI has confirmed the continuation of serious human rights violations from April 2015 to date, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, enforced disappearances and sexual violence perpetrated mainly by the National Intelligence Service (SNR), members of the Imbonerakure, the youth wing of the ruling party, the police and the army. The COI confirmed that they have reasonable grounds to believe that several of the violations documented constitute crimes against humanity.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Burundi’s once vocal and vibrant human rights organizations and independent media have been decimated and forced into exile. The COI has expressed its concerns about hate speech by the Burundian authorities and members of the ruling party aimed at intimidating and at times dehumanizing their opponents. While not constituting direct and public incitation to commit genocide, they contribute to “creating a dangerous climate of hate and terrorizing the population, and could reignite ethnic tensions.” Violations have continued unabated and with impunity.

The UN HRC adopted resolution 33/24 on 30th September 2016 establishing an independent international Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights abuses in Burundi since April 2015, to identify alleged perpetrators and to provide recommendations to guarantee that perpetrators are held accountable. The government of Burundi has refused to cooperate with the COI, and suspended its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the country. Given Burundi’s persistent refusal to cooperate with the UN HRC and the gross and systematic violations of human rights occurring in the country, we urge Council members to initiate action towards suspending Burundi’s membership of the UN HRC.

The ICC has been analyzing acts of killing, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as cases of enforced disappearances that have been allegedly committed since April 2015 in Burundi. Shortly after the creation of the COI, Burundi’s National Assembly and Senate swiftly approved a bill on October 12, 2016, to withdraw from the ICC and on October 27, 2016, the UN Secretary-General received official notification of Burundi’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The withdrawal will come into effect on October 27, 2017. Burundi’s withdrawal does not affect its obligation to cooperate fully with the ICC on any criminal investigations and proceedings that are initiated before the withdrawal comes into force.

The government of Burundi has failed to hold accountable the individuals responsible for brutal crimes and by withdrawing from the ICC, it is attempting to deny justice for the victims. Given the gravity of the human rights violations in Burundi, we urge you to support a resolution during the 36th Session that renews the mandate of the COI, calls for further action to ensure justice for the victims and initiates action for Burundi’s suspension from the UN HRC.

Yours sincerely,

  1. Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture – Burundi (ACAT-Burundi)
  2. Assistance Mission for Africa
  3. Association Burundaise pour la Protection des Droits Humains et des Personnes Détenues (APRODH)
  4. Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
  5. Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
  6. CIVICUS
  7. Coalition Burundaise pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CB-CPI)
  8. Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation South Sudan (CEPO)
  9. DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  10. Eritrean Law Society (ELS)
  11. Eritrean Movement for Democracy and Human Rights (EMDHR)
  12. Forum pour la Conscience et le Développement (FOCODE)
  13. Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile au Burundi (FORSC)
  14. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P)
  15. Human Rights Concern – Eritrea (HRCE)
  16. Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA)
  17. Human Rights Watch (HRW)
  18. Information Forum for Eritrea (IFE)
  19. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  20. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  21. International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT)
  22. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  23. International Youth for Africa
  24. Ligue Iteka
  25. Mouvement des Femmes et des Filles pour la Paix et la Sécurité (MFFPS)
  26. National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders – Kenya
  27. National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders – Uganda
  28. Pan Africa Human Rights Defenders Network
  29. Réseau des Citoyens Probes (RCP)
  30. SOS-Torture
  31. Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC)
  32. The Ecumenical Network for Central Africa (ÖNZ)
  33. TRIAL International
  34. Union Burundaise des Journalistes (UBJ)
  35. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

On 25 January 2011, the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (WG-UPR) reviewed Nepal. As a result, on 8 March 2011, the report of the WG-UPR was published, containing a number of recommendations to Nepal.

On 4 November 2015, Nepal will be subjected to a second review. In anticipation thereof, TRIAL submitted this report in March 2015, providing information to the WG-UPR on the state of implementation of a selected number of recommendations issued in 2011.

In September 2015, TRIAL issued this statement, emphasising the continued lack of implementation of the aforementioned recommendations. The statement draws particular attention to shortcomings relating to the codification of crimes under domestic law (both in relation to torture and enforced disappearance), the ratification of relevant international instruments, the failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for gross violations of human rights, as well as other flaws of the newly established transitional justice mechanisms. For each particular issue addressed, the statement includes a number of concrete questions that TRIAL would encourage States to pose to the representatives of Nepal during its second cycle review, as well as proposed recommendations that it urges States present to make during the review.

TRIAL and 19 local associations are presenting their recommendations in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.

The first cases ever brought against Burundi to the UN Committee against Torture were recently submitted by TRIAL. Already seven victims of torture and arbitrary detention have, with the support of TRIAL, handed their case to the UN to seek justice. In Burundi, TRIAL also works to strengthen the civil society capacities by organising training courses for lawyers and NGO representatives.

Despite the end of the civil war in Burundi, serious violations of human rights such as torture and extrajudicial executions are still regularly documented in the country and access to justice remains difficult for victims. The persistent impunity observed for the most serious crimes is a sign that the judicial system in Burundi needs to be strengthened.

The voice of the victims: “For hours, they beat me violently over my entire body with different objects. The pipes with which they beat my lower back seem to cut in half my body covered in blood. I seised the Committee against Torture in the hope of getting justice. I also want to be the spokesperson of the other victims of torture to end this scourge and to fight against impunity”.Concerning the legal trainingprovided by TRIAL, a local attorney voices his position: “The training provided by TRIAL to Burundian lawyers and human rights defenders is a rare opportunity to be informed, trained, and take concretely part in the fight against torture. After this valuable training, I am convinced that TRIAL contributes effectively to building the national capacities that are necessary to provide Burundi with a new momentum in the fight against human rights violations in general and torture in particular”.

At the request of a Burundian NGO, in 2011 TRIAL launched a project in this country in order to enable victims of torture and other crimes to assert their rights and obtain redress for their suffering. To this aim, TRIAL offers free legal support to victims of human rights violations, whose cases haven’t been handled in an effective manner by national courts, by submitting complaints on their behalf to the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), the Working Group of the United Nations on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and other international mechanisms for human rights protection. Within the framework of this project, TRIAL is currently representing seven victims before those institutions, six victims of torture before the CAT and one victim of arbitrary detention before the WGAD. With the support of TRIAL, other victims will shortly file their complaints to obtain justice before these bodies.

Moreover, TRIAL works for the strengthening of the capacity of Burundian civil society, lawyers and NGOs by organising legal trainings on international human rights law and the submission of complaints before international mechanisms for the protection of human rights.

In doing so, TRIAL’s project aims at reinforcing the rule of law in Burundi and in particular its judicial system by identifying shortcomings and by working towards an effective respect of international human rights law by Burundi. As part of the review of the situation in Burundi by international human rights mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council, TRIAL submits concrete recommendations aiming in particular at strengthening the judicial system and improving the legal and institutional framework necessary for the fight against impunity.

For more informations in the media:

In December 2012, TRIAL prepared a document containing recommendations in light of the upcoming exam of the human rights situation in Burundi by the Human Rights Council  in January 2013 in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review.

On the eve of the United Nations Human Rights Council review of Libya’s human rights record, TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) submitted today two new cases of enforced disappearances against Libya to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The organization calls upon the Human Rights Council to put accountability of human rights offenders on the table.

The cases of Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and Jaballa Hamed Matar  

Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar were both high-level opposition figures to the regime of Colonel Gaddafi. They lived in exile in Egypt until 1990, when they were arrested by Egyptian authorities, handed over to Libya and taken back to their country. They have since disappeared.

RTEmagicC_Izzat_Al-Maqrif_02.png Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif was a member of the Libyan army until 1973 when he was accused of taking part in an attempt to overthrow the government of Colonel Gaddafi and held in prison for almost one year after which he was discharged from the army. Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and his family fled the country in 1981 and lived from 1984 onwards in Cairo, Egypt. There, he exercised activities as a senior member of the Executive Committee of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL).

 

Jaballah Hamed MATAR, undated photo. Jaballah Hamed Matar and Ezzat Youssef al-Maqrif were forcibly disappeared in Cairo in March 1990. Both men were prominent members of Libyan opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, and it is thought that they were handed over to the Libyan authorities by their Egyptian counterparts.Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar was also arrested in 1970 and detained for 6 months. He worked a few years for the government and then he resigned because of a policy disagreement. He worked as a businessman from 1973 to 1978 in Libya but, realising it was no longer safe to remain in Libya, joined his family in Egypt in 1979, where they spent a further 11 years in exile. While in Cairo, Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar was a member of the Executive Committee of the NFSL. As such, he wrote many articles calling for democracy, the rule of law and justice in Libya.

Arrest in Egypt and enforced disappearance in Libya

Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar were interrogated on 4 and 5 March 1990 by agents of the Egyptian State Security Investigation Bureau, and their passports confiscated.

On 12 March 1990, they were again arrested by Egyptian security personnel, handed over to Libyan officials and transferred by plane to Libya. They were never seen again by their family.

Even though Libya has constantly denied having arrested and detained the two opposition figures, Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar have sent letters to their families written in Abu Salim prison and clandestinely smuggled out. Although their relatives have had no direct news from them since approximately 1995, information that one of them was still alive in 2002 has filtered out.

For Philip Grant, director of TRIAL, «the evidence clearly shows that the two victims were taken back to Libya and secretly imprisoned there for years. Such actions are consistent with past practices of abduction or assassination of opposition figures by the Libyan State». Enforced disappearance is a crime under international law. «The victims’ family members now deserve to know the truth», Grant added.

Universal Periodical Review

On 9 November 2010, Libya will undergo its Universal Periodical Review before the UN Human Rights Council. On this occasion, TRIAL calls upon the members of the Human Rights Council to insist upon Libya’s obligation to investigate cases of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture, and bring to justice those responsible for such deeds.

Context

Since the coup that brought Colonel Gaddafi to power in 1969, many opposition groups to his regime have been created abroad. One of the most important of the opposition groups was the NFSL, which opposed military and dictatorial rule in Libya, and called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free elections, a free press, and separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The enforced disappearances of Mr. Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif and Mr. Jaballa Hamed Matar, two high-ranking members of an opposition party operating abroad, took place in the context of the repression implemented by the Libyan government against members of those groups.

About TRIAL

TRIAL is a Geneva-based NGO active in the field of international justice, enjoying consultative status with the UN ECOSOC. TRIAL has brought close to 60 cases of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture to various human rights organs, including the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee.

TRIAL has no affiliation whatsoever to any organization, party or group active in Libyan politics, in particular to the NFSL. The NGO’s sole interest lies in the upholding of human rights standards and the struggle to bring perpetrators of grave human rights violations to justice.

For more information

Q & A

Are the two victims dead or alive?

  • No one knows whether or not they are still alive. In 1996, up to 1,200 prisoners were massacred in Abu Salim prison, where both men were held. It is not known whether they were amongst those killed. Information from a former inmate has filtered out that one of the two men was still alive in 2002.

Why were the two cases not brought against Egypt as well?

  • Egypt ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982, but not its Optional Protocol, which allows individuals to bring their case before the Human Rights Committee. Still, Egypt is bound to respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant, which it obviously did not do in the present case. As the victims have no possibility to submit their case to the Human Rights Committee, only Libya will be party to the proceedings.

What can be expected of the Human Rights Committee?

  • TRIAL expects the Human Rights Committee to rule that Libya is responsible for the enforced disappearance of Izzat Al-Maqrif and Jaballa Matar and has thus violated a number of provisions of the Covenant. If such is its conclusion, the Committee will further require Libya to take the necessary measures in order to investigate the two cases, bring the perpetrators to justice, unveil the fate and whereabouts of the victims and offer measures of reparation to their families.

Have other cases been filed against Libya before the Human Rights Committee?

  • Four previous cases have been filed against Libya by TRIAL in collaboration with Al Karama for Human Rights before the Human Rights Committee. These are cases of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance and other grave human rights violations. These cases are ongoing.
  • Libya has been found in violation of the Covenant in eight other cases so far (none of which have been filed by TRIAL).

What is the difference between the Human Rights Council and the Human Rights Committee?

  • The Human Rights Council is the political intergovernmental body within the UN system in charge of human rights issues. Its main role is to address situations of human rights violations and make recommendations concerning them.
  • The Human Rights Committee is a body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the State parties. It has multiple functions, among which is the competence to examine individual complaints regarding alleged violations of the Covenant by the State parties (where they have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant).

The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearancesundertook a country visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina form 14 to 21 June 2010 and met with the government, national and local authorities, international institutions, as well as with human rights NGOs and associations of families of victims. 

TRIAL, whose June 2009 general allegation prompted the Working Group to request the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to invite it to for the first country visit after 13 years of absence, also met with the Working Group on Monday June 14.

Lejla Mamut, Advocacy Center TRIAL (ACT) representative in Sarajevo, Gabriella Citroni, ACT legal adviser and Philip Grant, ACT Director, met with members of the Working Group to explain in details the legal and practical problems faced by relatives of victims of enforced disappearances, whatever their ethnic background may be. Absence of information regarding investigations and searches for the bodies; lack of prosecuting of those responsible for such acts; absence of a comprehensive reparations scheme: almost 15 years since the war ended, numerous victims’ relatives are still waiting to recover the remains of their loved ones and to obtain justice and redress.

ACT also organised trainings with members of its partner organisations to prepare them for the meetings these associations would be having with the Working Group.

The Working Group will issue a thorough report on its visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina by the end of the year and make recommendations to the government. The report will be discussed before the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011. TRIAL will closely monitor all upcoming developments and will intervene before local and national authorities to see that the Working Group’s recommendations are fully implemented.

More