International Criminal Court

expand all
collapse all

Websites/Multiple Documents

Description: The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again. The Court cannot reach these goals alone. As a court of last resort, it seeks to complement, not replace, national Courts. Governed by an international treaty called the Rome Statute, the ICC is the world?s first permanent international criminal court."
Source/publisher: International Criminal Court
Date of entry/update: 2018-06-24
Grouping: Websites/Multiple Documents
more
Description: "The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of October 2017, 123 states are party to the statute.Among other things, the statute establishes the court?s functions, jurisdiction and structure. The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Those crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations". Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute the four core international crimes in situations where states are "unable" or "unwilling" to do so themselves. The court has jurisdiction over crimes only if they are committed in the territory of a state party or if they are committed by a national of a state party; an exception to this rule is that the ICC may also have jurisdiction over crimes if its jurisdiction is authorized by the United Nations Security Council."
Source/publisher: Wikipedia
Date of entry/update: 2017-11-06
Grouping: Websites/Multiple Documents
Language: English
more
expand all
collapse all

Individual Documents

Description: "7 February 2024: Comments from SAC-M’s founding members in response to the joint statement issued by nine members of the United Nations Security Council ahead of a closed-door Council meeting on the situation in Myanmar on Monday, 5 February 2024: Yanghee Lee: “The UN Security Council has abjectly failed to enforce its Resolution 2669 (December 2022) on Myanmar, which demanded an immediate end to all forms of violence. Instead, the Council holds closed-door meetings and issues mere statements, while the military junta drops bombs on refugee schools and its supporters burn people alive for supporting the resistance.” Marzuki Darusman: “The crisis in Myanmar is escalating rapidly and the Myanmar people urgently need support and protection from the UN Security Council. It is simply not good enough for the Security Council to issue toothless statements and defer to an even more toothless ASEAN. The junta must face justice for its deplorable acts.” Chris Sidoti: “The UN Security Council should have referred the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC) long ago. If it can’t, or won’t, then others must act to finally bring the perpetrators of grave international crimes in Myanmar to justice through the ICC or a special tribunal.”..."
Source/publisher: Special Advisory Council for Myanmar
2024-02-07
Date of entry/update: 2024-02-07
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Justice For Myanmar condemns ASEAN’s move to organise a military exercise in Russia, co-chaired by the Myanmar military junta. The exercise will provide the junta with improved military capabilities as it wages a campaign of terror against the people with indiscriminate airstrikes and shelling, murder, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, and the deliberate torching of homes, villages and crops. The military exercise will take place from September 25-30 in Ussuriysk and Vladivostok, according to a recent update to ASEAN’s defence calendar. Ussuriysk and Vladivostok are under Russia’s Eastern Military District, which is engaged in Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. Vladivostok is the headquarters of Russia’s Pacific Fleet and Ussuriysk is the headquarters of the 5th Combined Arms Army. The military exercise is part of the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus Experts’ Working Group on Counter Terrorism, which the Russian regime and illegal Myanmar junta are leading. The ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) platform is chaired by Indonesia’s defence minister, Prabowo Subianto. Justice For Myanmar and other Myanmar and international civil society organisations have repeatedly called on ASEAN to bar the junta from ADMM, and for member states and dialogue partners to boycott ADMM activities that include the junta. If it goes ahead, the upcoming field training in Russia will deepen ASEAN’s complicity in the junta’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the people of Myanmar. ‍ ASEAN tabletop military exercise fuels junta violence In August, the junta hosted an ASEAN tabletop military exercise in Naypyidaw, which provided direct military support to junta troops as they slaughter Myanmar people. In propaganda published after the tabletop exercise, the junta confirmed that ASEAN’s tabletop exercise supports operations against the legitimate National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG) and People’s Defence Forces (PDF), which it has illegally designated as terrorist groups, stating that “Myanmar, where the attacks of NUG/PDF terrorists occur in recent political development, has gained invaluable experiences from the opportunity to work closely together with international community in the counter terrorism measures.” In fact, the military junta is itself a terrorist organisation under Myanmar law and as defined in international law. The tabletop exercise involved the junta’s Special Operations Task Force (SOTF), elite troops trained for urban warfare. Unverified reports suggest SOTF was involved in the junta's bloody and brutal crackdown of peaceful protesters following the military’s illegal coup attempt. The ASEAN tabletop exercise featured a demonstration by SOTF, and the junta reported that the international participants “recognized the physical strength and mental toughness of male and female SOTF members who are well-disciplined and well-trained.” Justice For Myanmar welcomes the decision of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA to not attend the tabletop exercise, and condemns ASEAN, and countries that participated, which included all remaining ASEAN members and the dialogue partners China and India. The junta responded that refusal to attend the military exercise “infers the meaning of supporting terrorism and terrorist acts.” The tabletop exercise was opened by the junta’s Chief of General Staff for the army, navy and air force, General Maung Maung Aye, who is sanctioned by the EU. The EU noted that in addition to Maung Maung Aye’s direct responsibility for numerous human rights violations, he is involved in the purchase of Russian arms and “helps to strengthen the Myanmar Armed Forces international positioning through meetings with counterparts from other countries”. Justice For Myanmar spokesperson Yadanar Maung says: “ASEAN’s decision to provide training for junta troops in counter terrorism tactics is abhorrent and untenable. “ASEAN, its member states and dialogue partners know full well that the junta commits atrocities with total impunity, and that military training emboldens it and aids and abets its international crimes. “ASEAN is not only failing to resolve the crisis in Myanmar through its Five Point Consensus but is actively undermining its own commitment to the consensus by backing the junta with military support and legitimacy, while also impeding international action. "Indonesia as the Chair of the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting must immediately cancel the exercise and ban the junta from all activities. “ASEAN members and dialogue partners should boycott the exercise if it goes ahead and refuse to attend all other ADMM activities that include the illegal junta. “ASEAN’s military training clearly shows that claims of ‘ASEAN centrality’ is a cover for business as usual with the terrorist junta, at the expense of the lives of Myanmar people. “The UN Security Council and governments need to urgently step up and take concrete steps to block the junta’s access to funds, arms, equipment and jet fuel, and refer the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court.”..."
Source/publisher: Justice For Myanmar
2023-08-29
Date of entry/update: 2023-08-29
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 165.05 KB 157.59 KB
more
Description: "On the morning of April 11th, 2023, the genocidal military junta carried out a barbaric bombardment on the innocent civilians of Pazigyee Village, Sagaing. The terrorist attack has resulted in countless tragic deaths and injuries, including many among the elderly, women, and children. The genocidal military junta maintains a semblance of control through brutal terroristic tactics, continues to escalate their violent campaign of airstrikes throughout the nation. It is imperative that we, domestically and internationally, recognise the ruthless and illegitimate nature of the junta and unite to put an end to their heinous crimes against humanity. We urgently call upon the International Community, including the UN Security Council, neighbouring and Western Nations, ASEAN Member States, and all free and Democratic Countries to take immediate and effective action to protect the people of Myanmar. To prevent the junta from carrying out further violent airstrikes on innocent civilians, we call for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Myanmar. Additionally, stricter and more effective targeted sanctions must be imposed, in particular those related to the importation of aviation fuel, arms, and munitions to genocidal military junta; the purchase of oil, gas, and other natural resources from Myanmar; and seizing foreign assets from those responsible for these atrocities. Most importantly, the perpetrators must be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. This can be achieved through investigation and prosecution in international criminal courts (ICC), the issuing of international arrest warrants, travel bans, and business bans. Moreover, the provision of support to civil society organisations in Myanmar working for human rights and democracy is essential. It is important that we work together to bring an end to the junta's reign of terror and strive towards a brighter, more peaceful future for the people of Myanmar. The National Unity Government remains resolute in our commitment to protecting our people and bringing justice to those affected. In addition, we would like to reassure that our ministry's priority has been to gather information and take action to assist those impacted by this heinous crime. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of the Pazigyee village, Kantbalu airstrikes, and we extend our deepest condolences, thoughts and prayers to their remaining family members and love ones. Again, we implore the international community to stand with Myanmar people in solidarity as we work towards a democratic and peaceful future for Myanmar..."
Source/publisher: Ministry of International Cooperation Myanmar
2023-04-11
Date of entry/update: 2023-04-11
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 24.12 KB
more
Description: "BANGKOK — Human rights activists are pushing for the United Nations Security Council to refer Myanmar junta officials to the International Criminal Court, citing what the activists say are ongoing abuses in the Southeast Asian nation. The comments coincided with a Security Council meeting Monday on the Myanmar crisis. Human Rights Watch said in a statement that more concrete action needs to be taken against the junta, which seized power more than two years ago, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi. The military coup sparked mass unrest involving the country’s armed forces, as well as a resistance movement made up of protesters, activists, ousted politicians and an armed wing. Thousands have been arrested or killed in a military crackdown, according to the latest data from a Thailand-based monitoring group. The February 1, 2021, coup happened after the military rejected the outcome of November 2020 elections, in which Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party won in a landslide. The junta claimed widespread electoral fraud, allegations denied by the civilian electoral commission before it was disbanded. Human Rights Watch is urging the Security Council to build on a December resolution, which demanded an immediate end to the violence and that the junta free all political prisoners, including Suu Kyi and former President Win Myint, who also was ousted. Myanmar is under international sanctions. “Myanmar’s junta has demonstrated it is impervious to statements of condemnation or concern. Its disregard of the Security Council’s December resolution shows the need for a new resolution imposing strong measures like an arms embargo and targeted sanctions for senior military officials and companies linked to the military,” said Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch. The council also has called for Myanmar’s democratic institutions to be restored. On Monday, the U.N.’s special envoy for Myanmar, Noeleen Heyzer, and Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi led a closed-door meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York. Reports say Heyzer likely updated council members about the current situation on the ground in Myanmar, which has seen no letup in conflict since the adoption of the December resolution. Kyaw Moe Tun, the current Myanmar permanent representative to the U.N., told VOA’s Burmese service that he was frustrated at the lack of progress the resolution has brought, but he hoped for a tangible outcome from Monday’s meeting. The representative said, “There is no action if the resolution is not implemented, so what is the next step?” He said the Security Council should take action against the Myanmar military if it fails to comply with the resolution. May Sabe Phyu, director of the Gender Equality Network, a coalition of organizations advocating for women’s rights in Myanmar, tells the Associated Press the junta has conducted a terror campaign and committed “heinous acts” that constitute crimes against humanity. Phyu also criticized U.N envoy Heyzer for meeting with Myanmar military chief Min Aung Hlaing and not with the National Unity Government, which was formed by ousted politicians and regional leaders amid the coup, and says it is Myanmar’s legitimate government. As it stands, all plans to end the crisis have failed to have the desired effect. The Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN), a political and economic union of 10 member states in Southeast Asia, adopted a five-step consensus in April 2021 in an attempt to restore peace in Myanmar. Although Myanmar agreed to the plan, little action was taken, leading to the exclusion of Myanmar’s military leaders from meetings with ASEAN members. Indonesia is ASEAN's current chair, which rotates annually among the member nations. Charbonneau added in the Human Rights Watch report that Myanmar’s General Min Aung Hlaing has rejected the ASEAN consensus plan. Charbonneau called for Heyzer and Marsudi to push for further punishments. “The U.N. special envoy and Indonesian foreign minister should make clear to Security Council members that the junta’s killings, torture, unlawful arrests and war crimes demand more targeted action. Cutting off the junta’s supply of money and weapons is a critical next step to stanch the atrocities being carried out every day in the country." China, India and Russia abstained from December’s resolution vote, but 12 of the 15-member council voted in favor, so the motion was adopted. China and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members and have long opposed tough action over Myanmar. Aung Thu Nyein, a political analyst, believes efforts made by the U.N. and ASEAN have “little leverage” on Myanmar’s issues. “U.N. is so inefficient as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has shown as evidence. U.N special envoy on Myanmar, Ms. Noleen Heyzer’s visit was ended, rebuffing a long statement by the junta,” he told VOA. “U.N. as well as ASEAN has little leverage to do with Myanmar’s crisis. If all special envoys on Myanmar, particularly China, Japan, ASEAN and other regional powers can work together, it may drive the junta [to stop].”..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "VOA" (Washington, D.C)
2023-03-14
Date of entry/update: 2023-03-14
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "15 December 2022: The International Criminal Court (ICC) can and must end the Myanmar military’s impunity urgently, said the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar (SAC-M). Human rights atrocities in Myanmar, which have continued to escalate throughout 2022, will persist until and unless the military is held accountable. A new briefing paper on Myanmar and the ICC was published today by SAC-M. “The human rights situation in Myanmar deteriorated even further this year,” said Yanghee Lee of SAC-M. “Min Aung Hlaing and his generals will continue inflicting atrocities on the people of Myanmar until they are stopped. The international community must do everything possible to bring them to justice at the ICC.” The briefing paper, Myanmar and the International Criminal Court, published by SAC-M, gives a short explanation of the ICC, the ways in which the ICC gains jurisdiction over crimes in different countries, and how the ICC investigates crimes and prosecutes individuals. The paper concludes that the ICC has jurisdiction in relation to Myanmar as a whole, dating back to 2002, and that the international community has a responsibility to ensure that the leaders of the Myanmar military are prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes without further delay. “We have been calling for Min Aung Hlaing and his generals to be prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes since 2018, when the UN Fact-Finding Mission completed its examination of the military’s violations in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States,” said Chris Sidoti of SAC-M. “Because of a legal declaration by Myanmar’s National Unity Government, the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Myanmar. The international system, including the ICC, cannot let another year slip by without justice for Myanmar.” In 2019, the ICC opened an investigation into crimes relating to the forced deportation of the Rohingya from Myanmar’s Rakhine State. However, the investigation is limited to only those crimes with a cross-border element. So, it does not cover the full extent of the alleged crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya, including genocide. SAC-M’s briefing paper explains the legal grounds for the ICC’s investigation to extend to all crimes perpetrated by the military against the Rohingya, and also to all crimes in the Rome Statute perpetrated against civilians throughout Myanmar since 2002. They include crimes perpetrated for many years against ethnic minorities throughout the country, and crimes perpetrated against civilians more broadly and particularly following the attempted coup of February 2021. “Why are the victims of Myanmar’s barbaric military being forced to wait when there are routes to justice available now?” Marzuki Darusman of SAC-M asked. “The ICC was established to hold to account those individuals accused of the gravest crimes. If the ICC cannot act now to hold the leaders of the Myanmar military to account, then it has lost its way.”..."
Source/publisher: Special Advisory Council for Myanmar
2022-12-15
Date of entry/update: 2022-12-15
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 210.71 KB 1.14 MB
more
Description: "(Bangkok) – On the evening of October 23, 2022, the Myanmar military carried out an airstrike on a music concert in Hpakant, Kachin State, organized by the opposition Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) to commemorate the ethnic organization’s 62nd anniversary. Local media reported that at least 60 people were killed and 100 injured, and that the Myanmar military blocked access to medical care for those harmed. The concert was held at a base also used for military training by the KIO’s armed wing, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA). The following quote can be attributed to Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch: The Myanmar military’s airstrike on hundreds of concertgoers in Kachin State is an apparent violation of the laws of war, which prohibit attacks causing indiscriminate or disproportionate civilian harm. Myanmar military operations in ethnic minority areas have long been characterized by a near total disregard for civilian lives and property and a failure to abide by international law. The military’s entrenched impunity underlines the need for an international investigation of those responsible for this attack and the many others committed by security forces since the February 2021 military coup. For over a year and a half, the junta has carried out grave abuses against the millions of people who oppose military rule, amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes. How high does the death count need to reach before governments around the world impose consequences that will impact the junta’s behavior? This horrific attack should trigger renewed efforts by concerned states to enforce tougher sanctions on the junta, including cutting off its access to foreign currency revenues as well as arms and aviation fuel. The United Nations Security Council should urgently pass a resolution imposing a global arms embargo on the junta and referring the situation to the International Criminal Court. Southeast Asian leaders meeting this week and at the ASEAN Summit in November should signal their support for such efforts to bring justice to the victims of the junta’s abuses across the country..."
Source/publisher: Human Rights Watch (USA)
2022-10-24
Date of entry/update: 2022-10-24
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Burma Campaign UK today accused Apple CEO of hypocrisy for announcing a partnership on racial equality and justice with the Southbank Centre, London, at the same time as hosting Apps controlled by the Burmese military which use racist language against the Rohingya minority, and which deny genocide. The Burmese military is facing charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice and is being investigated for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. Apple hosts apps for Burmese state-owned media, which are now under the control of the Burmese military, including MRTV. Apple also hosts Apps for the Burmese military-owned Mytel mobile phone network, which helps to fund the Burmese military and the violations of international law which they commit. The Apps are a crucial part of the marketing strategy for Mytel, Apple host 8 of their Apps. Apple also hosts a new social media App, OKPar, created by the military as part of its attempt to limit access to information from independent social media sources such as Facebook. “Apple helps the Burmese military make money and helps the Burmese military spread lies and propaganda,” said Mark Farmaner, Director of Burma Campaign UK. “For Tim Cook to come to the UK and claim to be supporting equality and justice while his company provides services to a military which committed genocide and rapes children shows staggering hypocrisy.” Apple are on the Burma Campaign UK ‘Dirty List’ because of their provision of service to the Burmese military. https://burmacampaign.org.uk/take-action/apple/ Apple removed Russian state media Apps after the invasion of Ukraine but has kept on hosting Burmese military Apps. https://burmacampaign.org.uk/apple-removes-rt-and-sputnik-apps-but-keeps-myanmar-military-apps/ More information on Apple hosting the OKPar App is available here: https://www.accessnow.org/myanmar-facebook-youtube-ban/ ..."
Source/publisher: "Burma Campaign UK" (London)
2022-09-26
Date of entry/update: 2022-09-26
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Burma Campaign UK today welcomed the British government’s announcement of its support in principle for a referral of Burma to the International Criminal Court, ICC. The announcement comes just weeks after the US made a similar announcement. Burma Campaign UK has been calling on the British government to support an ICC referral for almost 20 years. In an answer to a written Parliamentary question from Rushanara Ali MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy in Burma, Foreign Office Minister Jesse Norman MP stated: “The UK is clear that there must be accountability for the atrocities committed in Myanmar. We condemn the continuing grave human rights violations by the Myanmar Armed Forces, as well as historic atrocities against the Rohingya. The UK is supportive, in principle, of any attempts to bring these issues before the International Criminal Court (ICC) where they can be scrutinised.” This language is a significant change from their previous position. For years the British government refused to say that it supported in principle a referral of Burma to the ICC. They hid behind a likely veto by Russia and China at the UN Security Council as an excuse to not declare their position at all, helping to extend the sense of impunity enjoyed by the Burmese military. “This is a significant and welcome step by the British government, building on their recent announcement that they would join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice,” said Karin Valtersson, Campaigns Officer at Burma Campaign UK. The Parliamentary answer goes on to state: “However, with regards to a referral by the UN Security Council, our assessment remains that there is insufficient support amongst Security Council members for a referral at this time. It will not advance the cause of accountability for an ICC referral to fail to win Security Council support or to be vetoed; such a result would only give comfort to the Myanmar Armed Forces and reduce the pressure they currently face.” The current membership of the UN Security Council includes Russia, China and India, which are still arming the Burmese military, and Brazil, which is also unlikely to support an ICC referral. This is the second declaration by the British government on justice and accountability on Burma in the past month. On Thursday 25 August the government declared its intention to join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice. The British government has also led the way internationally on sanctioning sources of revenue and arms to the Burmese military since the attempted coup began in February 2021. “For decades the Burmese military have been allowed to get away with violating international law”, said Karin Valtersson. “Action to end impunity sooner could have helped prevent atrocities happening today.” The Parliamentary question is on the Parliament website here...."
Source/publisher: "Burma Campaign UK" (London)
2022-09-26
Date of entry/update: 2022-09-26
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "21 September 2022: The United Nations (UN) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) can no longer wait to take action on the side of the Myanmar people after the Myanmar military junta committed its deadliest attack against children since the attempted coup began. Without action, then they are complicit in the junta’s crimes, says the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar (SAC-M). At least 11 children were killed and 17 injured after junta air strikes against a school in a monastery in Let Yet Kone village in Tabayin Township, Sagaing Region of Myanmar on Friday, 16 September. The assault began when two junta helicopters fired machine guns and heavy weapons into the school in sustained fire which lasted for an hour. Junta troops then entered the monastic compound where the school is located and continued firing indiscriminately. The airstrikes could not have taken place without authorisation from commanders who report to Commander-in-Chief of the military, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing through their chain of command. “The military junta attacked and killed the Let Yet Kone school children in cold blood. Altogether, the junta has killed, tortured or taken hostage hundreds of children since the attempted coup began, and driven thousands into displacement, hunger and fear,” said Yanghee Lee of SAC-M. “The United Nations and ASEAN are allowing this to happen. Children in Myanmar will continue to suffer and die at the hands of this barbaric military until it is stopped, and its leaders finally brought to justice. How many more innocent children need to be killed for the United Nations and ASEAN to take definite action?” For almost twelve months, the junta has waged a brutal offensive against communities in Sagaing in response to widespread popular resistance in the Region to the attempted coup. The relentless campaign has involved massacres of unarmed civilians, rape, arson, looting, destruction of food and medical supplies, and shelling of schools and places of worship. The junta has resorted to the use of mass atrocities across the country in an effort to crush anti-coup resistance which has become entrenched nationwide. Resistance organisations, represented by the National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG), control more of the territory of Myanmar than the junta and are expanding provision of services, including education, in those areas. But the resistance is yet to receive significant diplomatic, financial or humanitarian support from the international community. “The attempted coup, which is the latest bloody manifestation of Myanmar’s military-induced crises, began twenty months ago,” said Marzuki Darusman of SAC-M. “What has the United Nations done in that time, besides sending envoys and agency officials to shake hands with the junta? What has ASEAN done, besides making futile appeals to the junta? Where is the protection for the Myanmar people and their children? When the junta’s full crimes are finally accounted for, the glaring complicity of international actors will be laid bare.” The Myanmar military has never faced justice for its decades of atrocities committed against the Myanmar people, including attacks against children. The members of SAC-M have been calling, since before the attempted coup began, for the investigation and prosecution of Min Aung Hlaing and his senior generals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those calls grow more urgent by the day. The NUG, as the legitimate government of Myanmar, has sought to advance accountability in Myanmar through international mechanisms. It has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in Myanmar (ICC), dating back to 2002, by lodging a declaration with the Court under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. “The junta’s horrific attack on Let Yet Kone school last week is consistent with the military’s 70-year history of brutality and criminality,” said Chris Sidoti of SAC-M. “Criminal accountability is needed to stop history from continuing to repeat itself. The generals fear justice – and rightly so. The ICC must act on the NUG’s article 12(3) declaration, which is now more than a year old.” To protect the lives of the Myanmar people and bring the leaders of the military junta to justice, SAC-M is calling on: – The UN Security Council to put to a vote a resolution on Myanmar to impose a comprehensive global arms embargo on the junta, to impose targeted financial and economic sanctions against the junta, and to refer the situation in Myanmar to the ICC; – The UN General Assembly to fully accept the credentials of Myanmar’s representative to the UN, NUG appointee Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, with all the rights and privileges of any other member state, including representation in all other UN bodies and forums; – ASEAN to engage formally with the NUG, accept the NUG as the representative of Myanmar in ASEAN meetings and forums, and use the ASEAN Summit in November to reach a new agreement on how to respond to the junta-made crises in Myanmar, developed in consultation with the NUG; – UN officials, agencies and other humanitarian actors to cease all activities that grant legitimacy to the junta, including presenting credentials to Min Aung Hlaing and participating in photo opportunities with the generals and their collaborators, and adhere to humanitarian principles by engaging primarily with the NUG and resistance organisations; – The ICC to accept the NUG’s article 12(3) declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction in Myanmar dating back to 2002 and urgently expand the current investigation on the basis of the declaration..."
Source/publisher: Special Advisory Council for Myanmar
2022-09-21
Date of entry/update: 2022-09-21
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "The Department of State yesterday announced an additional contribution of $1 million through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM). During an event cohosted on the margins of the UN General Assembly by the Department of State and the Atlantic Council titled, “Safeguarding Victims and Witnesses in Atrocity Crime Trials: A Call to Courts and Governments,” the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack announced the contribution to support victims and witnesses of abuses by the Burmese military, calling on other governments to similarly provide assistance to safeguard victims of and witnesses to atrocity crimes. There is a clear and pressing need to protect victims of and witnesses to crimes in Burma. Credible information provided by victims and witnesses of atrocities committed in Burma is a threat to the military regime, which is actively targeting dissenting voices through forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. This contribution will further support the IIMM’s efforts to ensure victim and witness protection, while also increasing the mechanism’s access to important credible information of crimes committed within the scope of the IIMM’s mandate to investigate, collect, preserve, and analyze evidence of the most serious international crimes in Burma since 2011. The United States remains firmly committed to pursuing justice for victims and accountability for those responsible for atrocities and other human rights violations across Burma..."
Source/publisher: United States Department of State
2022-09-20
Date of entry/update: 2022-09-20
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "London, 19 August, 2022: According to a legal opinion published today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has a clear legal obligation to accept the declaration of Myanmar’s democratic, National Unity Government (NUG) providing the consent of that state for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction inside Myanmar. If the Court were to accept the NUG Declaration, it could lead to an investigation into atrocity crimes such as the one the ICC is currently conducting in Ukraine. The opinion written by Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert on international law at University College London, is being released by the Myanmar Accountability Project (MAP) to mark the first anniversary of the NUG making its declaration public. It is endorsed by some of the world’s leading international law experts. According to Wilde, the ICC’s legal obligation to accept the NUG declaration “is based in part on the fact that the NUG is the legitimate government of Myanmar as a matter of domestic law, having been elected by a landslide in November 2020. The junta seized power in a coup in February 2021 and is operating on a manifestly unconstitutional and thereby illegitimate basis.” It flows from this, says MAP Director, Chris Gunness, “that the ICC could and should initiate proceedings against the Myanmar junta. There is a clear case to be answered, with over two thousand people killed since the coup, according to conservative estimates, around fifteen thousand arrested, over a million displaced by conflict and some fourteen million people in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.” MAP’s Protection Director, Damian Lilly, argues that “the execution of four prisoners of conscience at the end of July and the international condemnation of this heinous act underlines the urgent need for Myanmar’s junta to be held accountable for its atrocity crimes. An investigation by the ICC is one of the few paths towards justice for the people of Myanmar.” Wilde’s opinion argues that such a move “supports the ultimate aims of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding document: to end impunity for serious crimes through the exercise of criminal jurisdiction nationally and, if that is not forthcoming, internationally.” “The good news for the ICC is that there is already plenty of evidence available to prosecute member of the military junta,” says Lilly. “The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) established to investigate the 2017 genocide against Myanmar’s Rohingya population, has collected a plethora of evidence of crimes also committed since the coup and is mandated to share this with the ICC.” Following the ICC Prosecutor’s decision to seek authorisation to begin an investigation into Ukraine, over forty states parties referred the situation there to the Court. Gunness urged them to take similar action on Myanmar. “We call on the states parties to the Rome Statute and the Prosecutor, to demonstrate that the lives of the people of Myanmar matter as much as the lives of people in Ukraine. Given that the NUG Declaration provides the gateway for action, the ICC Prosecutor and the states parties have no excuse for further delay. The people of Myanmar have been waiting long enough for justice. States and the ICC Prosecutor must act.”..."
Source/publisher: Myanmar Accountability Project
2022-08-17
Date of entry/update: 2022-09-07
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "This Saturday, 20 August 2022, marks the one-year anniversary of the date it was made public that the National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar had issued a Declaration to the International Criminal Court accepting the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction with respect to the situation in Myanmar on the basis of Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute. The legal effectiveness of the Declaration hinges on whether or not the NUG could act as the state of Myanmar for this purpose. This question implicates the broader matter of who can and should represent the state of Myanmar internationally, as a matter of international law – the NUG, or the Junta who took power in the coup in February 2021. And by association, even more broadly, who is and should be regarded as the ‘legitimate’ government of Myanmar, and on what basis. The Myanmar Accountability Project (MAP) commissioned me to write a legal opinion on the legal effectiveness of the Declaration. The opinion was sent to the individual States Parties to the Rome Statute, and the Office of the ICC Prosecutor, on Monday 15 August 2022. It explains that the Declaration was valid as a matter of relevant legal test, and should be accepted as such by the States Parties and the Court. It has been endorsed by a number of senior colleagues, including Radhika Coomaraswamy, former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, John Dugard, former Judge ad-hoc at the International Court of Justice and member of the United Nations International Law Commission, Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and Justice of the South African Supreme Court, and Aryeh Neier, founder of Human Rights Watch and President Emeritus of the Open Society Foundations. A summary of the opinion follows. The full version, including the full list of endorsers, can be found here. An article in The Diplomat on the subject by John Dugard, Christopher Gunness (Director of MAP), Tommy Thomas (former Attorney General of Malaysia), Yuyun Wahyuningrum (a Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights) and myself can be found here. On Friday 19 August 2022, a webinar will be held to present and discuss the opinion and the case for accountability more generally. Speakers are Aung Myo Min, the NUG Minister for Human Rights, Wai Wai Nu, Founder and Executive Director, the Women’s Peace Network in Myanmar, and former political prisoner, Antonia Mulvey, Founder and Executive Director, Legal Action Worldwide, Richard Goldstone and myself. It will take place at 6.30pm Myanmar time (noon UTC) and you can register to attend here. The recording of the webinar will be posted on the MAP website afterwards. Summary of the Opinion (taken from section 1.2): The International Criminal Court (ICC) is legally entitled and, indeed, legally required, to accept the Declaration of 20 August 2021 issued by the National Unity Government (NUG) under Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute as valid under that Article as an acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by the State of Myanmar. The NUG is the legitimate government of Myanmar as a matter of domestic law, since it is formed of members who were elected under the Constitution, is committed to democratic, pluralistic and Constitutional rule, the rule of law and promotion of human rights and is the only alternative to the military junta/SAC, which is manifestly and inherently illegitimate, un-Constitutional and undemocratic, and engaged in widespread, systematic and grave human rights violations. It is also notable that the question of de facto control exercised within the country is in flux, with significant areas and population groupings not under the control of the junta while the NUG is also aligned with armed actors that control significant parts of the country. The analysis in this Opinion leading to the foregoing conclusion about legal status of the Declaration cascades through the different applicable legal regimes, from the general to the specific. It begins with the recognition of governments as a general matter, not specific to Myanmar, as a matter of the rules of customary international law based on the practice of States on the subject, and the implications of this for the ICC’s position on the Declaration. It then turns to the accreditation of representatives of member States before the UN General Assembly, again as a general matter, again explaining the implications for the Declaration. The focus then moves to these same two legal regimes as they have been applied to the situation of Myanmar, with further, more specific, implications for the Declaration. Finally, the sui generis legal position of the ICC is addressed, revealing further, distinctive norms applicable to the question of the legal status of the Declaration as far as the Court is concerned. As far as the ICC acting in a manner that is consistent with the general position in international law applicable to States when they recognize governments of other States, the ICC is free to decide whether or not to recognize the NUG as being a valid authority to issue the Declaration on behalf of Myanmar, and, if it decides in the affirmative, it can do this on any basis. In particular, there is no legal requirement to adopt a consideration based on the level of control exercised over Myanmar by the NUG. When it comes to the significance of the practice of the UN General Assembly on the accreditation of representatives of Member States, the Credentials Committee has been willing on occasions to approve the credentials of democratically elected governments and groups in restored democracies even in circumstances where they had been deposed from power or lacked effective control of the country concerned. In situations where there has been a refusal to accept the outcome of a free and fair election or where power has been illegally seized through a coup, the Credentials Committee has on occasions considered other factors, such as the legitimacy of the entity issuing the credentials, the means by which it achieved and retains power, and its human rights record. Bearing in mind the manifest similarities between this practice and the situation in Myanmar at the time the Declaration was issued, it follows that a decision by the ICC to accept the NUG as being a valid authority to issue the Declaration on behalf of Myanmar would be consistent with, and would follow from, a diverse set of precedents set by this UNGA practice as a simple matter of fact. Moreover, more specifically, if such a decision were to manifest not only factual coincidence with these precedents, but also to be partly made on the basis of similar normative considerations, it would also be consistent with, and, indeed, follow from, a diverse set of precedents to do this set by the UNGA. The significance for the ICC of the practice of the General Assembly on the representation of Myanmar in particular, and the situation at one stage of proceedings before the International Court of Justice is as follows. A decision by the ICC to accept the Declaration as valid would follow from the equivalent decision made by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2021 to recognize an official acting on behalf of the NUG to represent Myanmar as the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations. This is not contradicted by the presence of two SAC ministers as Agents for Myanmar in oral proceedings at the International Court of Justice in 2022, since that presence cannot be understood to have necessarily operated on the basis of a more general acceptance by the Court on the merit of the SAC’s claim to be the government of the State. For the ICC to accept the NUG as capable of engaging the State of Myanmar so as to render the Declaration legally effective would be to follow from, be consistent with, and in one respect potentially required by, two related positions adopted by States and the United Nations that have direct legal significance to the entitlement of the NUG to represent the State in international law as a general matter (i.e. not just before the United Nations General Assembly). In the first place, there has been a consistent and widespread determination by both States and all the main relevant United Nations bodies and officials that the junta is illegitimate both as a general matter—based on how it was constituted—and in terms of the abuses it has perpetrated against the people of Myanmar. In the second place, there has been an act of collective recognition of the NUG as the government of that State by almost all the world’s states when they voted unanimously in the General Assembly on accreditation before that body. Moreover, a case can be made that this collective recognition was intended to have legal standing, in rendering obligatory the recognition of the NUG as the government of Myanmar. Since this was made unanimously, it has had the intended legal effect in terms of creating a rule of customary international law requiring the NUG to be accorded this status. In consequence, the ICC would be required to accept the Declaration as valid as far as the question of the NUG’s capacity to act on behalf of Myanmar to issue it is concerned. Finally, as a matter of the internal law of the ICC Statute which the ICC must comply with, given that, for the reasons set out above, treating the NUG as the government of the State of Myanmar is consistent with all the different relevant areas of international law and, indeed, a sui generis rule of international law adopting such treatment as a legal norm that may well have been established, the object and purpose of the Statute, to end impunity, requires the ICC to accept the Declaration as valid for the purposes of Article 12(3)..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: Opinio Juris
2022-08-17
Date of entry/update: 2022-08-17
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: There is no way the people of Myanmar will find justice in national courts. The international community must act.
Description: "A year ago this week, Myanmar’s democratic, National Unity Government (NUG) made public a declaration that it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In effect, the NUG was requesting the ICC to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in Myanmar. It was a watershed moment in the quest for accountability. Suddenly justice looked possible for 55 million Myanmar people, who since the coup on February 1, 2021, have been subjected to what U.N. human rights experts call “a brute force terror campaign.” Over 2,000 people have been killed, according to conservative estimates. Around 15,000 have been detained, over a million displaced by conflict, and some 14 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The shocking executions in July of four prisoners of conscience led to global condemnation and highlighted the urgent need for accountability. There is no way the people of Myanmar will find justice in national courts, which have become instruments of repression in the hands of a vindictive regime. Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month. But following the NUG Declaration, which the ICC acknowledged, the court has taken no further steps. What a contrast with Ukraine, where an investigation was initiated and within days its investigators were on the ground. We urge Ukraine-style action for Myanmar. There is not just a compelling humanitarian imperative. There is also a solid basis in law. The ICC has an obligation to accept the NUG declaration, paving the way for an investigation into events in Myanmar since the coup. The central question is whether the NUG can act on behalf of the State of Myanmar to trigger ICC jurisdiction. In our opinion it can. The NUG is the legitimate government of Myanmar as a matter of domestic law, since it is formed of members who were elected under the country’s 2008 constitution by a landslide in elections in November 2020. It is committed to democratic, pluralistic, and constitutional governance, the rule of law, and the promotion of human rights. By contrast, the junta attempted to seize power through a military coup that violated articles 71(a) and 417 of the 2008 constitution (which the military itself wrote). These articles lay out clear conditions for the dismissal of the president and the imposition of a state of emergency. And those articles were patently not followed when the president and other democratic leaders were imprisoned shortly before they were due to take office. Thus the military operates on an entirely illegitimate basis. The U.N. General Assembly (UNGA), made up of all U.N. member states, decided unanimously in December 2021 to continue to accept the NUG ambassador as the legitimate representative of Myanmar, in effect rejecting the nominee of the junta, and determining which entity should represent the state. This was based on well-established precedent in the UNGA. Since the early 1990s, where there have been competing claims to U.N. recognition, the U.N. has usually sided with those administrations that have democratic legitimacy and a solid human rights record. Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month. Effective control has become less of a necessary determinant, but in any case, the junta no longer exercised effective control, with significant areas and population groupings under the control of ethnic groups aligned with the NUG. In many urban centers, traditionally controlled by the government, there is anarchy. The UNGA decision effectively to continue to recognize the NUG ambassador is not merely a decision about a particular representative: It is about the general matter of who has the right to be treated as the government of the state before the United Nations as a whole. Such an implication is illustrated in the way the International Labor Organization describes the effect of the General Assembly decision. It affirmed that the decision determines “which entity is internationally recognized as representing the Government of the Member State in the Organization.” This collective recognition by states in the UNGA and its subsidiary organizations arguably had general effect in international law, as a determination of the NUG’s right to act as the government of Myanmar. Since this was made unanimously, it can be understood to require, as a matter of international law, the NUG to be accorded this status. In consequence, the ICC is legally required to accept the NUG Declaration as valid. It flows from this that it could – we would argue that it should — initiate an investigation into potential crimes committed in Myanmar since the coup. Such a move accords well with the recent decision of the U.N.’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, to reject the junta’s attempts to halt a case accusing it of genocide. It also supports the ultimate aims of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding document: to end impunity for serious crimes through the exercise of criminal jurisdiction nationally and, if that is not forthcoming, internationally. The good news for the ICC is that there is an oven-ready case waiting to be prosecuted. The U.N. Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, established to investigate the 2017 genocide against Myanmar’s Rohingya population, has a plethora of evidence of alleged crimes, including those committed since the coup. The NUG declaration means that the precondition for the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over a situation in a state that is not party to the Rome Statute is now met. This is the same as Ukraine, also a non-party that made two such declarations. For the court then to go on to exercise jurisdiction, either the situation needs to be referred to it by one or more of the states parties to the Rome Statute, or the prosecutor needs to initiate an investigation. In Ukraine, the day after the prosecutor announced his decision to seek authorization to initiate an investigation, referrals by states parties, which currently stand at over 40, started to be made. We call on the states parties to the Rome Statute, and the prosecutor, to demonstrate that the lives of the people of Myanmar count as much as the lives of people in Ukraine. States should make referrals, and the prosecutor should seek authorization to initiate an investigation. This would go some way to address the concern that the ICC seems to be prioritizing the lives of Europeans over those in other parts of the world. Given that the NUG Declaration provides the gateway for action, the ICC prosecutor and the states parties to the Rome Statute have no excuse for further delay. The people of Myanmar have been waiting long enough for justice. States and the ICC prosecutor must act..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "The Diplomat" (Japan)
2022-08-17
Date of entry/update: 2022-08-17
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Crimes against humanity continue to be systematically committed in Myanmar, with ongoing conflicts severely impacting women and children, according to the evidence gathered to date by the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (Mechanism) and outlined in its Annual Report released today. The Mechanism has collected more than three million information items from almost 200 sources since starting operations three years ago, the Report notes. This includes interview statements, documentation, videos, photographs, geospatial imagery and social media material. The available information indicates that sexual and gender-based crimes, including rape and other forms of sexual violence, and crimes against children have been perpetrated by members of the security forces and armed groups. According to the Report, children in Myanmar have been tortured, conscripted and arbitrarily detained, including as proxies for their parents. “Crimes against women and children are amongst the gravest international crimes, but they are also historically underreported and under-investigated,” said Nicholas Koumjian, Head of the Mechanism. “Our team has dedicated expertise to ensure targeted outreach and investigations so that these crimes can ultimately be prosecuted. Perpetrators of these crimes need to know that they cannot continue to act with impunity. We are collecting and preserving the evidence so that they will one day be held to account.” According to the Report, “there are ample indications that since the military takeover in February 2021, crimes have been committed in Myanmar on a scale and in a manner that constitutes a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population” and the nature of potential criminality is also expanding. This includes the execution of four individuals by Myanmar’s military on 25 July 2022, which was carried out after the Report was prepared. The Report is released just two weeks ahead of the five-year commemoration of clearance operations which resulted in the displacement of nearly one million Rohingya people. Most of the Rohingya who were deported or forcibly displaced at that time are still in camps for refugees or internally displaced persons. “While the Rohingya consistently express their desire for a safe and dignified return to Myanmar, this will be very difficult to achieve unless there is accountability for the atrocities committed against them, including through prosecutions of the individuals most responsible for those crimes,” said Koumjian. “The continued plight of the Rohingya and the continuing violence in Myanmar illustrate the important role of the Mechanism to facilitate justice and accountability and help deter further atrocities.” With the consent of its sources of information, the Mechanism is sharing relevant evidence to support international justice proceedings currently underway at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM or Mechanism) was created by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2018 to collect and analyse evidence of the most serious international crimes and other violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011. It aims to facilitate justice and accountability by preserving and organizing this evidence and preparing case files for use in future prosecutions of those responsible in national, regional and international courts..."
Source/publisher: Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar
2022-08-09
Date of entry/update: 2022-08-09
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "The Republic of the Union of Myanmar welcomes the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the Situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar, and extends its appreciation to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for its leadership on the text. Myanmar supports the resolution's strong condemnation of the gross human rights violations and abuses perpetrated by the security and armed forces of Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims and other minorities, and its recognition of the impact of the military's escalating acts of violence and forced displacement on civilians, including ethnic minorities. According to the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, these acts include probable crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is with great shame that the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, as represented by the National Unity Government, acknowledges that historic exclusionary and discriminatory policies, practices and rhetoric against the Rohingya and other ethnic groups laid the ground for atrocities. The historic impunity enjoyed by the Myanmar military has since enabled its leadership to commit countrywide atrocities at the helm of an illegal military junta. Myanmar therefore strongly welcomes the resolution's call for all those responsible for violations and abuses of international law to be held to account, while recalling the authority of the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Myanmar furthermore accepts the resolution's call for the adoption of new measures to promote the inclusion, human rights and dignity of all people living in Myanmar, to address the spread of discrimination and prejudice, and to combat incitement to hatred and hate speech against Rohingya Muslims and other minorities. At the same time, Myanmar's legislature, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, will take continuing steps to amend or repeal discriminatory laws, including the Race and Religion Protection Laws of 2015 and the Citizenship Law of 1982. Myanmar will also partner with ethnic and organisations, affected communities and their representatives, neighbouring states and UN entities to create conditions conducive for the voluntary return in safety and dignity of Rohingya and all other Myanmar communities driven from their homes and villages by multiple waves of violence. The sustainability of these actions, however, remains contingent on democracy being cemented, on violence being stopped, and on impunity being ended. Myanmar therefore shares the deep concern expressed by the European Union that the resolution 'fails yet again to acknowledge and condemn the military coup' despite its link to 'the worsening of the human rights situation in Myanmar - including on the Rohingya and other persons belonging to minorities - [as] has been underlined, among others, by the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur during this session of the Council.' Nor does the resolution recognise Myanmar's submission of an Article 12(3) Declaration under the Rome Statute granting the ICC jurisdiction with respect to international crimes, or the National Unity Government's sustained efforts to cooperate with the International Court of Justice in The Gambia v. Myanmar case under the Genocide Convention. Significantly, the resolution does express its 'unequivocal support for the people of Myanmar and their democratic aspirations'. The Human Rights Council and UN Member States must therefore directly engage with the National Unity Government as the legitimate representative of the Myanmar people to realise these aspirations and to support the implementation of the asks set out in the resolution. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar restates its commitment to constructive engagement with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms and with UN Member States..."
Source/publisher: Ministry of Human Rights
2022-07-08
Date of entry/update: 2022-07-09
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 88.87 KB 271.79 KB
more
Description: "This report aims to tackle the impunity of junta military leaders for crimes violating international norms of jus cogens. As the National Unity Government (NUG), the legitimate representative of the state, is currently ‘unable’ to ensure fair functioning of domestic courts, and as it has lodged a declaration with the ICC accepting the court’s jurisdiction under article 12 (3) of the Rome statute on August 20, 2021, the court has jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of atrocity crimes committed from 2002 on. AAPP argues that military leaders should be held accountable for the crimes committed by their subordinates as per the Rome Statute in all cases where their active (art. 25) or passive (art. 28) responsibility can be incurred..."
Source/publisher: Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
2022-07-08
Date of entry/update: 2022-07-08
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf pdf
Size: 422.64 (5 pages), KB 2.72 MB (87 pages) - Original version. 422.64 KB
more
Description: "The Asia Justice Coalition is a network of organizations whose purpose is to promote justice and accountability for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law in Asia, and to contribute to the fulfillment of the rights of victims and their families. 1 July 2022 marks the 20th anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“ICC/the Court”). The Rome Statute established the Court with jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The Court in its twenty years of operation has cemented the relevance and importance of the fight against impunity across the globe. The Court has centered accountability within the international legal sphere. Now, more than ever, there is a need to hold perpetrators of international crimes to account and to ensure justice. While the Court has done much to expand its reach, there are only a handful of ratifications to the Rome Statute from the Asia-Pacific region. The geographical disparity in the membership of the Court remains a concern and genuine efforts must be made to bridge the accountability gap through engagement with nonstate parties and civil society. The Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP”) is currently investigating four situations in the Asia-Pacific region, namely Myanmar/Bangladesh, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. The Coalition calls for independent and thorough investigations as well as comprehensive casebuilding strategies in all these situations. In particular, it draws the attention of the Court to the crisis in Myanmar, which has worsened significantly due to the February 2021 coup. It is imperative that the investigation move forward, in keeping with the urgency of the situation. While the wheels of international criminal justice move slowly, concerted efforts must be made to ensure that any delays within the system are significantly reduced and that there are sufficient resources brought to bear for successful investigations and prosecutions. The Assembly of States Parties, the ICC Registry, and Presidency must ensure that the budget of the Court and its resources are distributed fairly amongst the situations before the Court. While the OTP has the discretion to prioritise investigations, the Asia Justice Coalition strongly urges the Prosecutor to investigate all parties to a situation without distinction. Further, there is a need for greater engagement with States in situations under examination and investigation, while respecting the principle of complementarity. The Asia Justice Coalition welcomes the Court’s renewed engagement with civil society, emphasizing the need for greater cooperation in order to further the cause of justice and accountability. It also welcomes the measures to be implemented pursuant to the International Expert Review of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute System, relating to issues such as ensuring geographic diversity, gender equality, open and transparent recruitment processes, and an inclusive and safe working culture. On this twentieth anniversary, as the world witnesses multiple conflicts and the commission of mass atrocities, the urgency of the task ahead of the ICC cannot be overstated. An effective international criminal court is the need of the hour and must be supported in achieving its goals..."
Source/publisher: Asia Justice Coalition via "Reliefweb" (New York)
2022-07-05
Date of entry/update: 2022-07-05
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 109.98 KB
more
Description: "The massive scale of nationwide strikes held in Myanmar over Thingyan sends a powerful message that democratic resistance to the military coup will continue into the New Year. Even under sustained attack, the resistance is holding its ground against the military junta and laying the foundations of a future federal democracy, says the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar (SAC-M). Myanmar’s streets have been emptied for days when they would usually be packed with people joining water festivities for Thingyan, to wash away sins of the previous year and celebrate the New Year in Myanmar. The New Year itself falls on Sunday 17 April. The empty streets are an act of nationwide resistance to the military junta, which attempted to seize power in a coup last year and is trying to create a perception that the situation in Myanmar is normalising. The junta is reported to have forced its own employees to take part in official Thingyan festivities in a vain attempt to bolster participation. “The massive New Year strikes in Myanmar send a powerful message that the people’s commitment to democratic resistance continues,” said Chris Sidoti of SAC-M. “The military wants to present the situation as normalising – with these strikes the people of Myanmar are demonstrating very clearly that it is not.” In early April alone, junta forces are reported to have set fire to hundreds of homes across townships in Magway, Mandalay and Sagaing regions. Junta forces have waged a months-long campaign of arson across central and northwest Myanmar in an attempt to crush strong local resistance to the coup there. Days before Thingyan, junta forces launched deadly airstrikes and artillery against civilian targets in the Karen State town of Lay Kay Kaw in Karen National Union territory, as part of a sustained and devasting campaign of aerial bombardment against allied democratic resistance forces in the southeast. The military junta’s forces have repeatedly committed mass atrocities in deliberate acts of terror as part of a sustained, widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population since it launched the coup last year. The attack has devastated lives but has not resulted in the military gaining greater control over the country. “The democratic resistance in Myanmar has held its ground against the military junta over the past year. Indeed, there is now less territory in Myanmar under the control of the military than there was twelve months ago,” said Marzuki Darusman of SAC-M. “The junta had expected to subdue the people within days of its ill-fated February coup of last year, in the manner of a similar case in Ukraine. That seems to be a fatal mistake.” The one-year anniversary of the appointment of the National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG) by the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw also falls over Thingyan, on Saturday 16 April. Along with Ethnic Revolutionary Organisations (EROs), the National Unity Consultative Council, political parties and protest groups, these institutions are working to shape a future Myanmar pursuant to the Federal Democracy Charter, albeit while under constant attack from the junta. “The National Unity Government formed one year ago. Since then, it has taken vital steps to lay the foundations of a future federal democracy in Myanmar, such as accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to end the impunity that has devasted Myanmar for so long,” said Yanghee Lee of SAC-M. “What is missing in this picture is the international support for the people of Myanmar. Where is it?” As Myanmar enters a New Year, a time of renewed hope, SAC-M is calling on the international community to finally step up and recognise the NUG as the legitimate government of Myanmar. The NUG is deserving of recognition as the government of Myanmar, according to internationally accepted criteria. States must increase political and financial support to the NUG, including by granting the NUG access to US$1 billion of Myanmar assets frozen by the United States Government after the coup. States must massively increase cross-border assistance to Myanmar through the NUG and EROs, with supply lines coming from neighbouring countries, in order to effectively address the junta-made humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. Finally, SAC-M is calling for a global three cuts strategy against the junta through the imposition and enforcement of a comprehensive global arms embargo against Myanmar, targeted economic sanctions against senior junta members and military aligned businesses, and referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court..."
Source/publisher: Special Advisory Council for Myanmar
2022-04-15
Date of entry/update: 2022-04-15
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 195.65 KB
more
Description: "On Sunday, 27 February 2022, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or "the Court"), Mr Karim A. A. Khan QC, concluded a five-day visit to Dhaka and Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. This represented the first visit by the Prosecutor of the Court to Bangladesh. During the visit, Prosecutor Khan emphasised that the investigation being conducted by his Office into crimes within the Court's jurisdiction allegedly committed against the Rohingya from Myanmar would be a priority during his tenure. He confirmed to all stakeholders that he had allocated additional resources to the investigative team and was seeking to accelerate the collection and analysis of evidence, which had previously been impacted by the COVID-19 global pandemic. Prosecutor Khan delivered this message directly to survivors and affected communities during his visit to Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, home to hundreds of thousands of members of the Rohingya community who have fled violence in Myanmar. In meetings with Rohingya women and youth activists, Prosecutor Khan discussed how his Office can further empower them to contribute to the investigation. During a meeting with local Imams and other religious leaders, the Prosecutor also addressed ways that Rohingya leaders can support victims of sexual and gender-based violence to come forward with their accounts in the context of the Office's ongoing investigations. "We are here to work with you to build the foundations of justice. The road to accountability will not be simple, but it is a goal we can only achieve by working together, as a partnership between us", stated the Prosecutor. During the course of the visit, Prosecutor Khan also held several productive meetings with officials of the Government of Bangladesh, and engaged with diplomatic corps and representatives of civil society organisations in Dhaka. Meetings were held with their Excellencies, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina; Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Anisul Huq; State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Abdul Momen; Foreign Secretary, Mr Masud Bin Momen, and Secretary for Maritime Affairs, Rear Admiral (retd.) Khurshed Alam. In his meeting with the Prime Minister, the Prosecutor recognised the crucial role that Bangladesh had played in providing refuge to the Rohingya as they fled Myanmar in 2017. "That decision represented a moment of true empathy and courage. It also demonstrated the understanding among the Bangladeshi people of the impact of atrocity crimes, based on their own lived experience. This approach of courageous solidarity continues to be reflected in the assistance provided by Bangladesh to our work in pursuit of justice for the Rohingya community", stated the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor expressed his sincere appreciation to the authorities of Bangladesh for facilitating his visit. He also expressed his gratitude to the non-governmental organisations and United Nations partners that had supported his direct engagement with survivors and affected communities in Cox's Bazar. The Prosecutor held a press conference in Dhaka at the conclusion of his mission to Bangladesh, fielding questions from local and international media present. During the press conference, the Prosecutor announced his intention to undertake additional visits to Bangladesh in order to further support and advance the work of his Office in relation to this investigation. The Prosecutor had the following message at the conclusion of his visit: "I am profoundly grateful for the generosity and support shown to me by the Bangladeshi people and the Rohingya community during this visit. As I stated to survivors in Cox's Bazar: We are here to serve you and help deliver justice. I am leaving here confident that with the renewed focus of my Office on this investigation, combined with the strengthened partnerships we have developed with survivors and national actors, we can now enter a phase of accelerated action. It is my hope and expectation that this will ultimately lead to those that may be responsible for atrocity crimes committed against the Rohingya community being held accountable in accordance with the law." Background: In November 2019, ICC Judges granted the former Prosecutor Bensouda's request to open a full investigation into alleged crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction in the Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar (read her statement following the Judges' authorisation to proceed with an investigationby clicking here). The Prosecutor may investigate any crimes which fall within the ICC's jurisdiction - and which were committed at least in part on the territory of Bangladesh (or any other State Party or State formally accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC), insofar as the crimes are sufficiently linked to the situation, and irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrators. In this context, the investigation may cover alleged crimes committed since 1 June 2010, the date of entry into force of the Rome Statute for Bangladesh (or from the date of entry into force of the Rome Statute for any other relevant State Party), and includes any future crimes, as long as they are sufficiently linked to the situation..."
Source/publisher: International Criminal Court
2022-03-01
Date of entry/update: 2022-03-02
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "The Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), along with the wider Karen community and other ethnic and civil society organisations, welcomes and expresses support for the three ongoing proceedings against perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities against the Rohingya people: the genocide case brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the forced deportation investigation before the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the more recent universal jurisdiction case in Argentina. The Karen people have long suffered the types of atrocities that Rohingya people have faced at the hands of the Burma/Myanmar military. We hope these cases will bring justice and accountability, and put an end to the Burma/Myanmar military’s long-standing impunity for systematic and widespread human rights abuses. These three proceedings offer the possibility for perpetrators of crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations in Burma/Myanmar to finally be exposed and brought to justice. Bringing such cases to justice at the national level is nearly impossible. There have already been eight ineffective inquiries into the situation in Rakhine State alone since 2012. Investigators for the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar have previously stated that “any hope that Myanmar’s national justice system will provide justice and truth for human rights violations committed by the military would be unfounded. The provisions of Burma/Myanmar law, the structure of the legal system and the judiciary’s lack of independence and legal competence make that impossible. Far from uncovering the truth, Myanmar’s domestic justice system will, on the contrary, punish those who seek it.”[1] As such, ethnic minorities in Burma/Myanmar hold hope in international tribunals to take notice of their calls for human rights abuses to be investigated, and count on these international actions to help bring justice to victims and survivors, and an end to ongoing crimes.[2] Ethnic minorities have however waited for decades for the recommendations of international bodies to be implemented effectively so that the Burma/Myanmar military’s gross human rights violations and atrocity crimes finally come to an end. Since 1992, successive UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar have reported consistent and systematic patterns of violations and abuses against minority communities throughout Burma/Myanmar. In some cases, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur have suggested that these violations amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes, thus warranting investigation by the ICC. For decades, ethnic civil society, community-based and human rights organisations, like KHRG, have documented the atrocities committed by the Burma/Myanmar military, providing credible evidence of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, destruction of property, torture and inhumane treatment, rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, forced labour, recruitment of children into armed forces, and indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks on civilians, including targeting of places of worship, hospitals, schools, and using civilians as human shields. And yet international justice and accountability mechanisms have yet to hold the Burma/Myanmar military accountable, or bring justice to the people who have endured these atrocities. The proceedings currently under way provide hope, but further reveal the difficulty of seeking justice on the international level. After The Gambia filed a case against the Burma/Myanmar military before the ICJ in 2019 alleging that the atrocities committed against the Rohingya people in Rakhine State constituted a violation of the Genocide Convention, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi publicly denied these allegations. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar later submitted objections questioning the ICJ’s jurisdiction and The Gambia’s eligibility to file the case, which has resulted in further delays in the proceedings. Despite the legally-binding provisional measures issued by the ICJ to protect the Rohingya people from further acts of genocide until a final decision can be rendered, the Burma/Myanmar military has continued to perpetrate acts of genocide against the Rohingya, and to commit a multitude of atrocities against other ethnic and religious minorities in Burma/Myanmar, both before and since the 2021 coup.[3] Later in 2019, the ICC authorised the opening of an investigation into alleged international crimes related to the 2016 and 2017 waves of violence against the Rohingya people in Rakhine State. The investigation is currently limited to crimes, including future crimes, committed at least in part in Bangladesh, or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, from the date such State Party ratified the Rome Statute (June 2010 in the case of Bangladesh). As such, the majority of crimes committed by the Burma/Myanmar military would be left out. If accepted by the ICC, the National Unity Government’s recent declaration (in July 2021) accepting ICC jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute all international crimes committed in Burma/Myanmar would, however, allow expansion of the investigation to include those committed within Burma/Myanmar, and to crimes dating back to July 2002, the earliest date permitted by the Rome Statute.[4] In November 2021, an Argentine appeals court ruled that a case to investigate and hear testimony on alleged war crimes committed in Burma/Myanmar against the Rohingya under the principle of universal jurisdiction could proceed. As the first universal jurisdiction case on the situation of the Rohingya, this investigation is a landmark. The possibility of accountability and wider international impact is strong, not only because the case will cover the full range of crimes committed against the Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar, but also because it will hear victim testimonials, thus honoring the rights of victims to be heard and tell their stories in a court of law. Multiple opportunities therefore currently exist to deliver justice and end impunity. Because accountability proceedings to investigate the Burma/Myanmar military’s atrocities against other ethnic minorities have yet to be undertaken, the possibility for justice and ending ongoing violence for other ethnic minority groups in Burma/Myanmar hinges heavily on the outcome of the Rohingya proceedings. Since the February 2021 coup, the Burma/Myanmar military has intensified its perpetration of atrocities against ethnic minorities, making these proceedings even more urgent, essential and long overdue. Its attacks on the entire civilian population as people voice their opposition to the coup has further demonstrated the military’s disregard for human life and human rights. The failure of the international community to adequately respond to the atrocities committed against ethnic minorities since the 1990s has led to this point. The continued impunity and lack of international accountability has only emboldened the Burma/Myanmar military to continue perpetrating atrocity crimes. Now is the time for concrete action to address problems of accountability and impunity in Burma/Myanmar. For justice to be delivered and ongoing violence to end, the international community must demonstrate widespread support for the proceedings of these courts, as well as a willingness to seek out all additional opportunities to hold the Burma/Myanmar military accountable for its vast array of crimes. KHRG, the Karen community and ethnic and civil society organisations thus make the following recommendations: Additional states should join Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to intervene in the genocide case at the ICJ, and/or provide financial or legal support. Individual states, and particularly states sitting on the UN Security Council, should publicly declare support for an ICC referral, regardless of possible veto of a resolution by Russia or China. The Prosecutor should accept the declaration made on 17 July 2021 by the NUG under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute; and extend the territorial scope of his investigation to cover crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC committed in Myanmar since 1 July 2002. More states should allow the use of universal jurisdiction laws to hold the Burma/Myanmar military to account for its crimes. States must provide more financial support to CSOs in and from Burma/Myanmar that are documenting human rights violations and providing information used by the United Nations, governments and other justice organisations. More focus should be given in future UN resolutions and reports on the situation in Burma/Myanmar on the failure to implement previous recommendations, rather than repeating the same recommendations year after year. Acknowledging the lengthy timeframe for investigations and proceedings, states should ensure adequate humanitarian assistance and protection for ethnic populations who are facing violence and atrocities at the hands of the Burma/Myanmar military. All states individually and collectively at the United Nations and other international and regional organisations should refuse to lend legitimacy to the military junta and impose targeted economic sanctions and a global arms embargo. For more information, please contact: Naw Htoo Htoo: +66 87 205 1856 Saw Nanda Hsue: + 66 81129 7564 Signed by: Albany Karen community, Albany, NY Assistance Association for Political Prisoners Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters Athan - Freedom of Expression Activist Organization Australia Karen Organisation Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK Burmese Women's Union Calgary Karen Community Association California Karen Youth Forum Chin Human Rights Organization Committee of the Internal Displaced Karen People Democracy for Ethnic Minorities Organization Edmonton Karen Community Youth Organization European Karen Network Future Light Center Future Thanlwin Gender Equality Network Generation Wave Human Rights Foundation of Monland International Karen Organisation Kachin Women's Association Thailand Karen American Association of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI Karen Association of Huron, SD Karen Baptist Churches USA Karen Community Association UK Karen Community in Norway Karen Community in the Netherlands Karen Community of Akron, OH Karen Community of Austin, TX Karen Community of Canada Karen Community of Czech Republic Karen Community of Finland Karen Community of Hamilton Karen Community of Iowa, IA Karen Community of Ireland Karen Community of Israel Karen Community of Kansas City, KS & MO Karen Community of Kitchener & Waterloo Karen Community of Leamington K Karen Community of Lethbridge Karen Community of London Karen Community of Louisville Karen Community of Minnesota, MN Karen Community of North Carolina Karen Community of Ottawa Karen Community of Regina Karen Community of Saskatoon Karen community of Tennessee Karen Community of Thunderbay Karen Community of Toronto Karen Community of Windsor Karen Community of Winnipeg Karen Community Society of British Columbia Karen Environmental and Social Action Network Karen Finland Culture Association Karen Organization of America Karen Organization of Illinois, IL Karen Organization of San Diego Karen Organization of San Diego - Signed Karen Peace Support Network Karen Society of Nebraska Karen Student Association, University of Nebraska Karen Swedish Community Karen Thai Group Karen Women's Organization Karen Youth Education Pathways Karen Youth Networks Karen Youth of Norway Karen Youth of Toronto Karen Youth Organization Karen Youth UK Karen-Canadian Education Alliance Karenni Civil Society Network Karenni Human Rights Group King N Queens Organization Korea Karen Organization Korea Karen Youth Organization Let's Help Each Other Metta Campaign Mandalay Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) Oversea Karen Organization Japan Pa-O Women’s Union Progressive Voice Save and Care Organization for Ethnic Women at Border Areas Synergy - Social Harmony Organization Ta'ang Legal Aid Utica Karen Community, NY Women Advocacy Coalition Myanmar Women's League of Burma Footnotes: [1] Human Rights Council, “Statement by Mr. Marzuki DARUSMAN, Chairperson of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, at the 39th session of the Human Rights Council,” 18September 2018. [2] Karen Grassroots Women’s Network, The Karen Grassroots Women’s Network Welcomes Cases Against Burma for Genocide, 8 December 2019. [3] Fortify Rights, U.N. Security Council: Take Urgent Action Against Myanmar Military Junta, 7 December 2021. [4] NUG Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement of the National Unity Government of Myanmar on the 4th Anniversary of the Atrocity Crimes Against the Rohingya People in 2017, 24 August 2021..."
Source/publisher: Karen Human Rights Group
2021-12-20
Date of entry/update: 2021-12-20
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 209.13 KB 156.41 KB
more
Description: "660 letters from Burma Campaign UK supporters were sent to Liz Truss MP today, calling on the British Foreign Secretary to announce that the British government will join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice. The Gambia has brought a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Burma is in violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. Liz Truss’s predecessor as Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, steadfastly refused to join the genocide case, despite cross-party political support for doing so and a recommendation from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament. The Burmese military faced no significant consequences for their genocidal military offensives against the Rohingya in 2016 and 2017. Having literally been allowed to get away with genocide increased the sense of impunity enjoyed by the military and encouraged them to believe they would also face no significant consequences for holding the military coup. “Action to hold the military to account for their violations of international law is essential, not just to ensure justice, but also to help prevent further human rights violations,” said Anna Roberts, Executive Director of Burma Campaign UK. “If Liz Truss is genuine about holding the military to account for their crimes, joining the genocide case at the ICJ is the most obvious and effective step she can take.” Burma Campaign UK is calling on the British government to take four steps to help ensure justice and accountability in Burma: Announce an intention to join the genocide case at the International Court of Justice. Announce support in principle for referring Burma to the International Criminal Court. Provide funding to local civil society organisations documenting human rights violations. Consider reforming Britain’s universal jurisdiction laws to enable prosecutions in the UK. The British government has provided significant funding to the IIMM and to Myanmar Witness for the documentation of evidence which can be used in future prosecutions. However, there is still very little funding going to civil society organisations from Burma on the ground which are documenting human rights violations, and which provide the IIMM and Myanmar Witness with information. The British government also refuses to support referring Burma to the International Criminal Court. While we accept that Russia and China would likely veto a UN Security Council resolution referring Burma to the International Criminal Court, there is political value in announcing support in principle for a referral, as it will help erode the sense of impunity enjoyed by the military. Britain’s universal jurisdiction laws are a complex mish-mash of various treaties and laws which are outdated and limited in scope. For example, even the crime of genocide does not come under Britain’s universal jurisdiction legislation. In light of the UN Security Council being unable to perform its duties properly because of obstruction by Russia and China, reforming Britain’s universal jurisdiction laws is a logical step to ensure the application of international law..."
Source/publisher: "Burma Campaign UK" (London)
2021-12-13
Date of entry/update: 2021-12-13
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Fortify Rights submit amicus curiae to Federal Court in Argentina
Description: "In the amicus curiae submitted today to the National Chamber of Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals in Buenos Aires, RFK Human Rights and Fortify Rights provided expert analysis to the court in support of a petition filed in Federal Court in Argentina on November 13, 2019 by Rohingya activist Maung Tun Khin of the Burmese Rohingya Organization U.K. (BROUK), five other survivors, and two Latin American human rights organizations. The original petition urges the court to investigate, under “universal jurisdiction,” mass atrocity crimes committed with impunity against Rohingya in Myanmar. Universal jurisdiction enables states to investigate and prosecute crimes under international law, such as crimes against humanity or genocide, regardless of where they occurred. The principle of universal jurisdiction is enshrined in the Argentine national legal framework, including in Article 118 of the Constitution. Maung Tun Khin and BROUK are represented by Argentine lawyer Tomás Ojea Quintana, a former U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar from 2008 to 2014 and a founding member of the International Advisory Board at Fortify Rights. On July 12, 2021, a lower court in Argentina decided not to investigate atrocity crimes committed against the Rohingya in Myanmar. The court ruled that the Argentinian courts were not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the alleged crimes, as the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) is already investigating crimes against Rohingya. Maung Tun Khin appealed the decision; the first appeal hearing was held on August 17. In the 21-page amicus curiae, RFK Human Rights and Fortify Rights argue that the lower court in Argentina relied on a misunderstanding of the ICC’s principle of complementarity. The principle of complementarity maintains that the ICC is a “court of last resort” and may only exercise jurisdiction when States are unable or unwilling to do so; however, the rule as defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC is that the ICC would refrain from investigating if another State is already investigating, not the other way around. There is no international customary norm to support the lower court’s interpretation of complementarity. The amicus curiae also explains that if the court were to accept the lower court’s argument, there would still be a variety of international crimes against Rohingya in Myanmar that the ICC is not at present investigating, as it is investigating only the crime of forced deportation. Myanmar is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. The ICC’s investigation into crimes against the Rohingya is limited to the forced deportation of Rohingya to Bangladesh and other related crimes partially committed in Bangladesh, which is a State Party to the Rome Statute. The original petition filed by BROUK and others in Argentina covers a variety of crimes committed in Myanmar against the Rohingya since 2012, including murder, enforced disappearance, torture, sexual violence, and imprisonment. On August 17, 2021, as a part of the proceedings in Argentina, five Rohingya survivors of sexual violence testified remotely to the Federal Criminal Appeals Court in Buenos Aires from refugee camps in Bangladesh. On August 23, 2021, six Rohingya civil society organizations in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh also submitted an amicus curiae to the Federal Criminal Appeals Court. The Rohingya-led groups include the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights, Rohingya Youth for Legal Action, Rohingya Women Development Forum, Rohingya Women’s Empowerment and Advocacy Network, Rohingya Student Unity and Rights, and the Rohingya Peace Innovation Unity. There are more than one million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and the Myanmar military junta continues to confine more than 120,000 people, mostly Rohingya, to more than 20 internment camps in five townships in Rakhine State, Myanmar. Like the pre-coup government, the military junta now confines an estimated 500,000 other Rohingya in Myanmar to their villages, denying them citizenship, freedom of movement, and other fundamental human rights. Since seizing power in February, the Myanmar military junta has killed more than 1,100 women, men, and children and arbitrarily arrested, detained, and charged more than 6,800 people, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. In 2018, Fortify Rights published a 160-page report detailing genocide and crimes against humanity against Rohingya during the Myanmar military-led “clearance operations” of 2016 and 2017..."
Source/publisher: "Fortify Rights"
2021-09-30
Date of entry/update: 2021-10-09
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: UN Human Rights Council – 48th session
Description: "UN Human Rights Council – 48th session Item 4: Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar 22 September 2021 Mister Vice-President, Mister Special Rapporteur, FIDH and its member organizations ALTSEAN-Burma and Women Peace Network welcome this oral progress report. The downward spiral of Myanmar’s human rights situation is accelerating and the country has effectively descended into civil war. The military junta has escalated arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions of human rights defenders and journalists - among them many women. Too often, detentions mean death. Since the February coup, we have recorded 115 civilian deaths (including seven women) in prisons, police stations, and military interrogation centers due to torture and lack of adequate medical care. Under the military, there will never be accountability for its war crimes and crimes against humanity inflicted on Myanmar’s diverse population. The risk of further atrocities is being fueled by the military’s increasingly hateful propaganda against the Rohingya. This is why we reiterate our call for a UN Security Council referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court. Mister Vice-President, Accountability for human rights violations, international pressure, targeted sanctions against the military, and non-recognition of the junta as the government of Myanmar are all demands unequivocally made by the country’s civil society and the National Unity Government. We back these demands and so should the international community. Stronger international action is urgently needed to prevent further suffering for the people of Myanmar and a threat to the region’s peace and security. Thank you..."
Source/publisher: International Federation for Human Rights
2021-09-22
Date of entry/update: 2021-09-24
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 32.09 KB
more
Description: "1. Ministry of Human rights, National Unity Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, has submitted the report on human rights violations by the Myanmar Military in Magway and Sagaing regions since July 2021 to the UN Human Rights Council today. The report compiled first-hand accounts of human rights abuses committed by the military council in those two regions by interviewing those who suffered the abuses. 2. The report stated arbitrary arrests, tortures to death and massacres happened in July, August and September during the offensive clearance operations carried by the military towards civilians in two Regions. 3. The ministry urged the council to tighten arms embargo, help stop the military assistance, to help stop human rights abuses and to effectively act by means of international mechanisms including International Criminal Court to be able to bring about justice, and to provide humanitarian assistance to Myanmar people including those people being terrorized in Sagaing and Magway regions. 4. The Ministry of Human rights of the National Unity Government is trying to effectively bring about justice and to end the culture of impunity as soon as possible by documenting the evidences o f human rights abuses th rou gh ou t the country by cooperating with relevant ministries and civil society organizations..."
Source/publisher: Ministry of Human Rights
2021-09-19
Date of entry/update: 2021-09-19
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 19.4 KB
more
Description: "In August 2017 and in October-November 2016, Myanmar security forces advanced upon numerous Rohingya villages in Rakhine state. The 100-300 assailants, comprised of the Myanmar military, Border Guard Police (BGP), police, and mmobilized Rakhine civilians, besieged the villages from their deployment stations, which typically included BGP camps, military camps, Rakhine villages, schools, and temples. Security forces killed and injured Rohingya villagers with indiscriminate gunfire; raped Rohingya women, and unlawfully arrested Rohingya men. Security forces burned down Rohingya homes and looted Rohingya property. In the terror after such mass-scale violence and killing, Rohingya villagers escaped to Bangladesh, where they now live in temporary tents within precarious refugee camps. Premeditation and intent to commit genocide is apparent from security forces’ advance planning and deployment. They commonly began intimidation tactics in the dark hours before dawn, by firing guns, and then attacked the villages in the early hours of the morning. Security forces consistently surrounded Rohingya villages, completely blocking escape or leaving only one of four sides open for egress. They shot indiscriminate gunfire to incite panic and fired at Rohingya people as the civilians fled. Yet the systematic destruction of the Rohingya people began far earlier than August 2017. Starting from decades earlier, the government confiscated land from Rohingya villagers. And during the time period of 2012-2016, Rohingya experienced multiple and successive forms of religious discrimination and persecution. This included prohibitions on giving religious sermons, on holding religious events, on practicing Qurban (ceremonial sacrifice of livestock animals), and on performing azan (making calls to prayer). They were forbidden to gather in groups of five or more people, which abrogated religious fellowship. Nor could they freely use their mosque for prayer or provide Islamic education to their children at the madrasa. Security forces physically beat, arrested, jailed, and extorted money from those found in prayer or religious practice. Marriage required payment of high fees, of up to 500,000 kyat, in order to obtain permission from the authorities. As the permission was issued, the authorities directed the Rohingya to have no more than two or three children, under threat of punishment. The Rohingya had no freedom of movement but were forced to obtain a series of travel permits, even to travel to a neighboring village. And despite obtaining such permission by paying large amounts of money, security forces extorted money at checkpoints. Security forces beat, fined, arrested, and jailed those who did not obtain travel permission. Later, the Rohingya were forbidden to even leave their own homes between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Rohingya faced discrimination in schooling, thereby foreclosing their education. The government barred them from obtaining public employment. The military regularly conscripted Rohingya men into forced labor. The Rohingya also faced discrimination in obtaining medical treatment and healthcare. Although the Rohingya voted before, this too was foreclosed after 2015. Finally, no Rohingya person held Myanmar citizenship. Indeed, the authorities tried to force them to accept NVC, a card which would register them as foreigners. In summation, Rohingya people were deprived of basic rights in essentially every aspect of daily life. With this history of discrimination and persecution of the Rohingya as the backdrop, we recommend first that the international community provide affirmative support to having the entire matter of genocide referred to the International Criminal Court or to a newly established special or ad-hoc court for investigation and trial. The truth-seeking investigation must proceed without any grants of immunity, for the wrongdoers occupy all levels of society. The bad actors include the Myanmar military, BGP, and officials of the Myanmar government, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other Cabinet Members, as well as civilians who were mobilized into paramilitary forces. We also recommend that the Myanmar government provide remedy and relief to the victims and survivors, founded first on restoration of previously-held rights, as well as financial recompense to those for whom such restoration is insufficient, such as victims who have suffered psychological harm. In such situations, it is critical to respect and decide the specific substance and form of remedy and relief according to the wishes of the victims and the Rohingya community. Further action includes the introduction of legislation and administrative measures to abolish systems and practices that discriminate against the Rohingya, including those involving hate speech and other forms of prejudiced information. Education is necessary to improve awareness of hatred, bias, and discrimination. The Myanmar government must cease registering the Rohingya with NVC identification cards and must ensure restoration of their citizenship rights. Finally, the Myanmar government and the international community must actively guarantee and ensure participation of Rohingya people in discussions about possible repatriation..."
Source/publisher: Asian Dignity Initiative
2021-09-01
Date of entry/update: 2021-09-03
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 44.36 MB (Original version) - 112 pages, 4.87 MB (Reduce version) - 122 pages
more
Sub-title: The United Nations is set to consider whether to recognise the military regime or National Unity Government, and its decision could have major implications for a genocide case before the International Court of Justice.
Description: "With the United Nations expected to soon decide whether Myanmar is represented in the General Assembly by the military regime or the National Unity Government, another important question may hang in the balance: who will represent Myanmar at the International Court of Justice? The Gambia brought a case against Myanmar at the ICJ in 2019, accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority. The allegations stem from the Tatmadaw’s brutal campaign of violence in 2017, which monitoring groups say killed thousands of Rohingya and forced more than 700,000 to flee across the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh. Nobel Peace Prize laureate State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi controversially defended the military’s actions before the ICJ in December 2019. Her administration was overthrown by the generals in February this year, and she is now being imprisoned by the very people she went to the Hague to defend The NUG was formed in April by lawmakers elected in November’s polls, which the military later annulled, and consists of members from the National League for Democracy as well as representatives from ethnic minority groups and civil society. With the military back in nominal control of the country but still largely unrecognised on the international stage, the case has become embroiled in the struggle between the regime and the NUG. Unlike the International Criminal Court, which hears cases against individuals, the ICJ is a United Nations body that settles disputes between states, and both the junta and the NUG are apparently eager to take the ICJ case to bolster their legitimacy. Dr Sasa, the NUG’s Minister for International Cooperation, confirmed that the civilian government is seeking control of the case. “If the ICJ will allow us to represent Myanmar by appointing an agent at the case, then that is what we also will do,” he said in a recent interview with Frontier. Sasa made clear that the legitimacy issue is weighing heavily on the NUG’s decision to try and take the ICJ case. “It’s also very much to do with who will represent Myanmar as a state right now,” he said. The UN Credentials Committee recommends to the UN General Assembly which government to recognise in the event of a dispute. The nine-member body currently includes Russia and China, who have shielded the junta from consequences at the UN Security Council, as well as the United States, which has already declared the events in Rakhine State ethnic cleansing and imposed sanctions against military-linked entities and individuals. The issue could come to a head when the General Assembly meets on September 14. Myanmar’s seat at the UN is occupied by U Kyaw Moe Tun, who has remained loyal to the overthrown government; the junta has not only sought to replace him, it has charged him with high treason and demanded his extradition. Last month, America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation announced details of an alleged assassination plot targeting Kyaw Moe Tun involving Myanmar nationals based in the US. The military regime has denied any involvement in the scheme. Despite being the target of most of The Gambia’s allegations, the military regime also appears keen to continue engaging with the ICJ; it recently announced a reshuffle of the team overseeing the case, appointing eight junta officials. Mr William Schabas and Ms Phoebe Okowa, foreign lawyers who previously served on Myanmar’s legal team under Aung San Suu Kyi, both confirmed that they are no longer working on the case but declined to comment further. “I resigned from the legal team soon after the military coup and have absolutely no insights into the case except what is publicly available,” Okowa said to Frontier in an email. The military’s new legal team is led by the junta’s foreign minister, U Wunna Maung Lwin, and also includes Lieutenant-General Yar Pyae, a close ally of commander-in-chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing who was recently named as minister of the Union Government Office. But the NUG remains hopeful that the ICJ will not engage with the military’s legal team. “I don’t think that the ICJ will accept those people that claim to be representing the state of Myanmar or the people of Myanmar,” Sasa said. A tough spot Taking charge of the case would put the NUG in a tricky position, however. Aung San Suu Kyi’s decision to defend Myanmar before the ICJ was wildly popular inside the country, where many people consider the Rohingya to be illegal immigrants, but she was condemned by human rights groups and other Nobel Peace Prize winners. Canada and the Netherlands joined the case against Myanmar, and other Western countries like the United Kingdom expressed support for it. How then would the NUG, which has Aung San Suu Kyi still nominally as its state counsellor, fight the case, if it were accepted as Myanmar’s representative? Continuing to deny allegations of genocide would harm its efforts to secure international support for its cause, but conceding that genocide occurred is unlikely to go over well domestically, where anti-Rohingya sentiment is widespread even among pro-democracy supporters. This could be ameliorated to some extent by heaping the blame onto the Tatmadaw, and saying that it misled the NLD government about events on the ground in Rakhine State back in 2017, but accepting that genocide occurred could still cost the NUG some support. Political analyst Mr David Mathieson said the NUG would be “deplored internationally if they argued against genocide and pilloried domestically if they agreed it was a genocide”. There are some signs that attitudes towards the Rohingya are changing. The NUG has pledged to grant the Rohingya equal rights and replace the 1982 Citizenship Law, and some activists and protesters have apologised for their treatment or advocated for their rights – public displays of sympathy and support were rarely seen before the coup. Even the use of the word “Rohingya” in such a public manner would have been unthinkable before the coup. But Mathieson said he didn’t think attitudes had changed that much. “I can’t imagine any deep-seated anti-Rohingya sentiments would have completely evaporated since the coup. They may well have altered, but I seriously doubt there has been a nation-wide epiphany of compassion. More likely there has been a nationwide awakening as to the brutality, oppression and greed of the Tatmadaw.” But Rohingya activist U Tun Khin, president of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK, said he believes perceptions have genuinely shifted. “There’s no question that we have seen a real change in public opinion since the coup. I and many other Rohingya have been flooded with messages on social media from people apologising for spreading hatred against us in the past,” he told Frontier. Although some members of the NUG had denied atrocities were perpetrated against the Rohingya when the NLD was in power, Tun Khin said he believes the parallel government’s recent statements were a “step in the right direction”. “We welcome the fact that the NUG is seeking to engage with the ICJ, and there is no question that it is a better choice to [represent Myanmar] than the Tatmadaw,” Tun Khin said. The NUG’s position is made more difficult by the fact that the case has been brought under the Genocide Convention. This means the ICJ can only rule on whether genocide occurred, and cannot, for instance, dismiss the genocide accusation but confirm a charge of crimes against humanity – a middle ground that might have been acceptable to most of the NUG’s international and domestic supporters. When Aung San Suu Kyi defended the case, she did not even acknowledge crimes against humanity, however, saying instead that any alleged war crimes were committed by individual soldiers who would be held accountable domestically. The Tatmadaw has tried some soldiers accused of atrocities at military tribunals, but these trials were widely seen as attempts to deflect responsibility from more senior officers. They were also not open to the public and some of those convicted were soon amnestied and freed from prison. One of Myanmar’s former lawyers, Schabas, was more explicit, acknowledging during the ICJ hearing that the UN Fact-Finding Mission “concluded without equivocation that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed” but was “more circumspect” on the allegations of genocide. He noted at the time that the ICJ lacks jurisdiction to address those crimes. Frontier asked Sasa several times whether the NUG would accept the allegations of genocide or argue against them in court, but he evaded the question each time. “It is for the court to decide based on the evidence and proof if genocide happened or not. It’s not for the government or an organisation to decide. If it is found that there is evidence of genocide, who are we to say no?” he said. When the NUG released a statement on the fourth anniversary of the crackdown on the Rohingya, it condemned “atrocity crimes” but did not explicitly call it a genocide. But even within the NUG there are divisions. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs released a statement calling the crackdown a genocide and highlighted acts of sexual violence, which the NUG did not mention and which Aung San Suu Kyi’s Facebook page previously referred to as “fake rape”. Mathieson said the NUG could look foolish if it argued that genocide did occur, and then the court determined the crackdown did not qualify as genocide, an outcome he said “is not unlikely”. Tun Khin argues it is crucial that the NUG publicly recognises the treatment of the Rohingya as a genocide. “Only by accepting the realities of the past will we be able to build a common future, and to take effective and genuine steps to end the ongoing genocide,” he said. Sasa said the NUG is also working with its law firm, Volterra Fietta, to build a case against military leaders at the ICC. “We have received thousands of videos of atrocities” committed by the military since the coup, he said, pledging that the NUG will also “bring justice to our Rohingya brothers and sisters” either through the ICC or domestic legal mechanisms. Although Myanmar is not yet a state party to the ICC because it has not ratified the Rome Statute, soon after his interview with Frontier Sasa the NUG announced that it lodged a formal declaration in July to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction as a non-state party for crimes committed since 2002. Legitimacy not necessarily at stake While the question of who represents Myanmar at the ICJ is symbolically important, the court adjudicates disputes between states, not governments. Legal experts say that if the junta were allowed to represent Myanmar, it would not imply legal recognition. Mr Arsalan Suleman, a lawyer on The Gambia’s legal team, said they would continue to pursue the case even if the military regime is representing Myanmar. “The Gambia sued the State of Myanmar in the ICJ. Since then, The Gambia has followed the procedures established by the Court, and it will continue to do so until a final judgment has been issued by the Court. This does not imply The Gambia’s diplomatic recognition of Myanmar’s current de facto government,” he said in an email. Ms Emma Palmer, a senior lecturer at Australia’s Griffith Law School and an expert on international law, said the ICJ’s decision over who represents Myanmar could be “persuasive” in terms of popular perception of legitimacy, but is not legally binding. “It would be the ‘state’ that the ICJ has jurisdiction over, rather than a particular government, so I agree that a change in government does not affect the ICJ case’s ability to proceed,” she said. Allowing the military to take the case “would not amount to any kind of formal change to the status of the military”. Palmer said she would expect the ICJ to “avoid the issue” by delaying proceedings or waiting for the UN to make a decision. This may already be happening. The last update on the ICJ website is from January 28, days before the coup, setting a deadline of May 20 for The Gambia to respond to Myanmar’s preliminary objections, which challenged the court’s jurisdiction over the case. These objections mean the case will not move forward until the court makes a decision on whether it has the authority to proceed. Suleman confirmed that The Gambia countered Myanmar’s objections, and said he expects the court to set a date soon for oral arguments on the preliminary objections. But more than three months after the deadline for The Gambia’s response, the court is still yet to make any public statement on the case, let alone schedule oral hearings. In contrast, the January update came just eight days after Myanmar filed its preliminary objections on January 20. The ICJ did not respond to Frontier’s request for comment. No decision A further complication for the court would be if the UN General Assembly does not make a definitive decision later this month on who should represent Myanmar. Ms Sarah Williams, a professor in the Faculty of Law & Justice at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said the UN could theoretically leave Myanmar’s seat at the UN empty as it did with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in 1997 and Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996. She said it could also maintain the status quo, allowing the incumbent ambassador, Kyaw Moe Tun, to retain his seat – at least for now – without deciding between the military regime and the NUG. Williams said that if this happens, she would expect the ICJ to “say that it is unable to determine which person/entity is entitled to represent Myanmar and will not accept instructions from anyone” – a scenario that is likely to further stall the case. Even though the ICC is not a UN body and therefore “in theory has more flexibility”, it would still most likely take its cues from the UN and be reluctant to make its own determination. Palmer said there is another scenario where the military takes the ICJ case, but then refuses to cooperate with the proceedings, given its history of rejecting the authority of international legal mechanisms. “If the military does notappear in Court, which seems potentially likely, then the Court will most likely just proceed with the case without ‘Myanmar’,” she said, adding that this has happened before, in a case between Nicaragua and the United States. On August 24, the military regime filed a legal amendment criminalising genocide in Myanmar’s domestic law, and defining it by the recognised international standard. It has said little about the reasons behind the amendment, but observers say it could be an attempt by the military to undermine international legal mechanisms, as it can now try to argue that the crime of genocide can be investigated and prosecuted domestically and international action is therefore not needed. But Tun Khin said only international mechanisms will suffice. “The military has committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes with impunity in Myanmar for decades,” he said. “They must be held to account, and only the international community is in a position to provide justice.”..."
Source/publisher: "Frontier Myanmar" (Myanmar)
2021-09-02
Date of entry/update: 2021-09-02
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: Investigations in international courts will only give a partial picture of what happened in 2017, the rest must not be lost to history
Description: "More than four years after Myanmar military soldiers committed mass murder, rape and arson against the Rohingya in Rakhine State, several efforts aimed at achieving the distant-seeming goal of bringing Min Aung Hlaing and other perpetrators to justice are underway. Cases have been accepted at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), while Rohingya advocates in Argentina are pushing for courts there to accept a third case that specifically names both civilian and military officials implicated in the genocide, including detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Justice is by no means guaranteed for the Rohingya, or others across the country who have been suffering under the military both before and after the February 1 coup. Regardless of the legal outcomes of these cases, the reality is that the military will continue to enjoy impunity as long as it clings to power. Even so, the one thing that these cases can do for the Rohingya is to act as truth-seeking exercises, putting down on the official record exactly what happened. But even the courts of The Hague do not have the capacity to comprehensively document what happened in the weeks and months after the killing started on August 25, 2017. During the bloodbath, some 300 villages across Rakhine were subjected to atrocities. Nearly 24,000 Rohingya civilians were killed in numerous massacres, while 18,000 women and girls were raped, according to a report from the Ontario International Development Agency (OIDA). The ICC, the ICJ and others will not and cannot do a full truth-seeking investigation covering every affected village. These international legal proceedings will focus on several villages that were heavily affected, inviting a couple of dozen witnesses to the stand. That means a huge amount will be left out of the proceedings, information that ought to be brought to light for historical, legal, and moral reasons. We must not allow the details about what happened in the majority of Rohingya villages in 2017 to be lost to history. In Asian Dignity Initiative's latest report on the massacre, seven Rohingya researchers interviewed 845 civilians from 30 villages in Rakhine State in a bid to ensure as many details about what happened are put on the record as possible. We want to continue these efforts in the future so that no village is left out. When the Covid-19 situation allows again, grassroots efforts to build a comprehensive picture of what happened must resume..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "Myanmar Now" (Myanmar)
2021-09-02
Date of entry/update: 2021-09-02
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Myanmar’s military regime has added a genocide law to the country’s colonial-era Penal Code, a move being seen by legal experts as an attempt to ease international pressure on the regime as it faces a genocide charge at a United Nations court for its soldiers’ atrocities against the Rohingya. The new provisions published in junta-controlled newspapers threaten the death sentence for murders committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The provisions were signed by coup leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing on Tuesday. The addition to the Penal Code also carries a life sentence for other crimes committed with genocidal purpose. They include causing grievous hurt or serious mental harm to members of a group, deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures, not in accordance with any existing laws, intended to prevent births within a group, and forcibly transferring children of a group to another group. The promulgation of the new genocide law coincided with an online campaign to mark the fourth anniversary of atrocities against the Rohingya, the stateless Muslim people in Rakhine State, in 2017. A Rohingya Genocide Remembrance Day was organized online on Wednesday, with many activists expressing their apologies to the Rohingya for failing to speak out while they were being persecuted by the Myanmar military. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighboring Bangladesh after the military carried out clearance operations in Rakhine in response to the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army’s attacks on security outposts in August 2017. The Gambia, representing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, filed a genocide case against Myanmar at the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late 2019. However, both the then National League for Democracy government and the military denied the accusations of genocide. In January 2020, the ICJ ordered Myanmar to comply with four provisional measures as requested by The Gambia. The measures require that Myanmar take steps to prevent genocide from occurring in the future, as well as ensuring that the military and its affiliates do not commit further acts of genocide, in particular killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and preventing births. Myanmar is also required to preserve all evidence of genocide, and provide regular updates on its progress on these measures. One legal expert, who asked for anonymity, said that the military regime has enacted the genocide law to ease international pressure on it as it faces the genocide charge at the ICJ, but the move will not give the regime any protection from crimes it has previously committed. “The law will not have an effect on things that happened before its enactment. This law should be accepted as it presents the opportunity for citizens, ethnic groups and religious organizations to open cases regarding genocidal crimes in the future,” he added. The junta said it had enacted the genocide law because it was liable to do so after Myanmar ratified the Genocide Convention on December 30, 1949 and then became a member of the Convention in March 1956. “As we are a member country, we have a responsibility to enact a law. So we have enacted a law to prevent and punish genocide,” said the regime spokesperson, Major General Zaw Min Tun. The junta has also changed the Code of Criminal Procedures, which allows authorities to arrest genocide suspects without a warrant. People accused of genocide can no longer be bailed. “They just want to show the international community that they are against genocide and are taking action to prevent it,” said another legal expert. Meanwhile, the parallel National Unity Government (NUG) is also working to prosecute Myanmar’s military at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Myanmar is not an ICC member, but Acting President Duwa Lashi La of the NUG lodged a declaration with the ICC registrar last week, accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction with respect to international crimes committed in Myanmar since July 1, 2002, the earliest date permitted by the Rome Statute that established the ICC. To mark Rohingya Genocide Remembrance Day, the NUG Deputy Minister for Women, Youths and Children Affairs, Daw Ei Thinzar Maung, called on Myanmar people to show sympathy for the traumatic experiences Rohingya women and children and other ethnic minorities have suffered. She also urged them to protect the vulnerable and to speak out for them to prevent genocidal acts from occurring in the future..."
Source/publisher: "The Irrawaddy" (Thailand)
2021-08-26
Date of entry/update: 2021-08-26
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Today, on the fourth anniversary of the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, we call for justice and inclusion for the Rohingya. Decades of discrimination and mistreatment peaked on 25 August 2017. when the Myanmar military initiated a brutal crackdown against the Rohingya in Rakhine State that led to mass human rights violations and caused over 725.000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. Today, approximately 1 million Rohingya reside in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar. Bangladesh. The overcrowded and under-resourced camps are ill-equipped to face rising COVID-19, dengue fever, and cholera cases and are vulnerable to floods and fires. Meanwhile, back in Myanmar, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya remain internally displaced, many confined in detention camps, and the country as a whole, since the 1 February 2021 coup, is in a state of crisis. Despite the hardship the Rohingya have faced, they demonstrate, on a daily basis, their resilience and strength. Since 2019, A]AR has worked with Rohi ngya refugees in the camps and has witnessed this determi nation first-hand. Carrying the trauma of the past and the uncertainty of the future, the refugees persist, tirelessly seeking out new ways to improve their circumstances while continuing to honor their culture and faith. Several international mechanisms are working to advance justice for the Rohingya. and the pro-democracy movement has taken steps to show its support of the Rohi ngya. However, at present, both justice and the voluntary, safe, and dignified return of the Rohingya remain a distant goal. This must change. On this anniversary, we therefore call on the international community to: • Advance initiatives providing urgent and interim measures to help repair the lives of survivors and invest in long-term empowerment programming for survivors; • Promote accountability by joining The Gambia in its case against Myanmar before the International Court of justice (ICJ) and by supporting and enhancing understanding of the accountability mechanisms, including the ICJ, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Independent Investigative Mechanisms for Myanmar (IIMM), and by pursuing universal jurisdiction cases in their own countries; • Support the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar; • Support Bangladesh in the provision of assistance and resources to the Rohingya; and • Maintain pressure on ASEAN to give effect to the right of Rohingya survivors to an effective and enforceable remedy..."
Source/publisher: Asia Justice and Rights, Sisters2Sisters, Perlindungan Insani Indonesia, KontraS, KontraS Aceh, The May 18 Memorial Foundation, Cross Cultural Foundation, Kurawal Foundation, Migrant CARE, Milk Tea Alliance Indonesia, SP Kinasih Solidaritas Perempuan, YLB
2021-08-25
Date of entry/update: 2021-08-25
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf pdf
Size: 58.63 KB 25.59 KB 251.39 KB
more
Description: "Republic of the Union of Myanmar National Unity Government www.nugmyanmar.org 20 August 2021 The National Unity Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Acting President Duwa Lashi La of the National Unity Government lodged a declaration with the registrar of the ICC, accepting the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to international crimes committed in Myanmar territory since 1 July 2002, which is the earliest date permitted by the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). The declaration was lodged in accordance with article 12(3) of the Statue of the International Criminal Court, which enables a State not party to the Rome Statue to accept the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court. This declaration was transmitted to the Registrar of the Court on 17 July 2021 for further consideration. The National Unity Government is committed to ensuring accountability and ending impunity for all human rights violations. The NUG continues to draw attention to the ongoing atrocity crimes being committed by the military, and it seeks justice for all past crimes. The NUG is steadfastly working towards a future where Myanmar will be known for its international cooperation and adherence to international law. ပြည်ထောင်စုသမ္မတမြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော် အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရ www.nugmyanmar.org ၂၀ ဩဂုတ် ၂၀၂၁ ပြည်ထောင်စုသမ္မတမြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၊ အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရသည် နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်ခုံရုံး၏ တရားစီရင် ပိုင်ခွင့်ကို လက်ခံသည်။ အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရ၏ ယာယီသမ္မတ ဒူဝါလရှီးလသည် ဇူလိုင်လ ၁ ရက် ၂၀၀၂ ခုနှစ် နောက်ပိုင်းတွင် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၌ ကျူးလွန်ခဲ့သော နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်မှုများနှင့် စပ်လျဉ်းသည့် ခုံရုံး၏ တရားစီရင်ပိုင်ခွင့်အား သဘောတူလက်ခံကြောင်း ကြေညာချက်ကို နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်ခုံရုံး၏ မှတ်ပုံတင်အရာရှိထံ တင်သွင်းခဲ့ပါသည်။ ဇူလိုင်လ ၁ ရက် ၂၀၀၂ ခုနှစ်သည် နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်ခုံရုံး၏ စာချုပ် (ရောမစာချုပ်)တွင် အစောဆုံး အကျုံးဝင်သော ရက်စွဲ ဖြစ်သည်။ အဆိုပါ ကြေညာချက်ကို နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်ခုံရုံးစာချုပ်၏ ပုဒ်မ ၁၂ (၃) နှင့်အညီ တင်သွင်းခဲ့ခြင်း ဖြစ်သည်။ ယင်းသို့တင်သွင်းခြင်းက ရောမစာချုပ်တွင် သဘောတူလက်မှတ် ရေးထိုးမထားသောနိုင်ငံကို ခုံရုံး၏ တရားစီရင်ပိုင်ခွင့်ကျင့်သုံးခြင်းကို သဘောတူ လက်ခံနိုင်စေသည်။ အဆိုပါ ကြေညာချက်ကို ဆက်လက် စဉ်းစားနိုင်ရန် ခုံရုံး၏ မှတ်ပုံတင်အရာရှိထံ ၁၇ ရက် ဇူလိုင်လ ၂၀၂၁ ခုနှစ်တွင် လွှဲပြောင်းပေးခဲ့ပါသည်။ အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရသည် လူ့အခွင့်အရေး ချိုးဖောက်မှု အားလုံးအတွက် တာဝန်ယူမှု သေချာစေရန်နှင့် ပြစ်ဒဏ်မှလွတ်ကင်းခွင့်အဆုံးသတ်စေရန် ကတိသစ္စာပြုထားပါသည်။ အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရသည် စစ်တပ်က ကျူးလွန်ဆဲဖြစ်သော ရက်စက်ယုတ်မာသည့် ရာဇဝတ်မှုများကို ဆက်လက်၍ သတိပြုမိသည့်အပြင် အတိတ်တွင် ကျူးလွန်ခဲ့သော ရာဇဝတ်မှုများ အားလုံးအတွက်လည်း တရားမျှတမှုကို ဖော်ဆောင်ရန် ကြိုးပမ်းလျက်ရှိသည်။ အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရသည် နိုင်ငံတကာနှင့် ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်မှုနှင့် နိုင်ငံတကာ ဥပဒေကို လေးစားလိုက်နာမှုအတွက် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံကို လူအများသိကြမည့် အနာဂတ်တစ်ခုသို့ ဦးတည်ကာ မဆုတ်မနစ် ကြိုးပမ်းဆောင်ရွက်လျက် ရှိသည်။.."
Source/publisher: National Unity Government of Myanmar
2021-08-20
Date of entry/update: 2021-08-20
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 38.26 KB 243.31 KB
more
Sub-title: New report finds Myanmar’s National Unity Government can grant jurisdiction to ICC
Description: "The National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar can delegate jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute mass atrocity crimes that occurred in the country since 2002, according to a legal analysis published by Fortify Rights today. The NUG can do this in two ways: First, by lodging what is known as an “Article 12(3) declaration” with the ICC, and second, by formally acceding to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the Court. “The NUG has an opportunity to bring Myanmar significantly closer to justice and accountability,” said Matthew Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Fortify Rights. “Our analysis finds that the NUG can enter Myanmar into the Rome Statute under international law, and U.N. member states would do well to support these efforts.” The 48-page legal analysis, entitled Ending Impunity in Myanmar, explains how the NUG could address past, present, and future atrocity crimes in the country by issuing a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute while also initiating the process to accede to the Rome Statute. An Article 12(3) declaration could provide immediate jurisdiction to the Court to address specific atrocity crimes in Myanmar, including past and future crimes. Full accession to the Statute would further entitle Myanmar to all the rights of a State Party to the Statute. Fortify Rights recommended the NUG pursue both paths without delay. Only State Parties to the Rome Statute can challenge a validly deposited accession to the Statute. As explained in the Fortify Rights report, the states that would be expected to challenge the NUG’s ability to accede to the Rome Statute—such as China, the Russian Federation, or certain Southeast Asian governments—are not parties to the Rome Statute, meaning they have no standing to challenge or contest the NUG’s accession to the Court. The Myanmar junta also could not challenge an accession to the Rome Statute by the NUG unless the junta itself became a State Party to the Statute. Therefore, according to the legal analysis, a successful challenge to the NUG’s accession to the Rome Statute is unlikely. “There are limits to the power of spoiler states to block international justice and accountability,” said Matthew Smith. “States that historically protected the Myanmar military from legal accountability would have no direct power to block this. The people of Myanmar are demanding justice, and while it will take time, the NUG can do its part to help deliver it.” In recent months, Fortify Rights presented the findings of this report to NUG Vice-President Duwa Lashi La and four NUG ministers in separate briefings. Representatives of the NUG have spoken publicly about engaging the ICC since the coup. Fortify Rights recommended the NUG delegate jurisdiction to the ICC for any atrocity crimes that may have occurred since 2002—the date that the Rome Statute came into force—and all future crimes. Myanmar’s many diverse ethnic minorities—the NUG’s constituents—collectively comprise a sizable share of the national population. They have faced mass atrocity crimes for decades with little to no access to justice or accountability. By lodging an Article 12(3) declaration and acceding to the Rome Statute, the NUG could help deter future crimes in Myanmar by requiring military leaders to consider the possibility of prosecution by a neutral international court. “While these measures alone would not suffice to end and remedy all ongoing atrocities, they would bring the country closer to ending deadly cycles of impunity,” the report says. As Ending Impunity in Myanmar explains, past practice suggests that governments with some level of international recognition can represent and act on behalf of the state even in situations where the government does not exercise effective control over the territory or people, such as in the case of a coup d’état. The people of Myanmar overwhelmingly recognize the NUG as their democratically elected government, and the NUG already has significant support from members of the international community. In September, the military junta and the NUG are expected to seek official credentials to represent Myanmar at the United Nations General Assembly. On August 6, U.S. authorities arrested two Myanmar men for allegedly plotting to harm or kill Myanmar’s U.N. ambassador, Kyaw Moe Tun—who denounced the coup at the U.N. General Assembly—unless he stepped down from his position as Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the U.N. On August 9, in a statement, the Myanmar junta denied any involvement in the plot but demanded the U.S. extradite Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun in order to prosecute him for high treason. Successfully engaging the ICC in the ways outlined in this report would help confer deserved political legitimacy on the NUG. It would also help deny the Myanmar junta political legitimacy, which is “crucial for promoting and protecting human rights and preventing atrocity crimes,” said Fortify Rights. The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty that came into force in 2002, providing the legal framework to establish the ICC in The Hague, the Netherlands. The ICC has the authority to investigate and prosecute mass-atrocity crimes as a “court of last resort”—that is, in situations in which the home state is unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute atrocities. There are 123 States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. By ratifying or acceding to the Rome Statute, states may delegate their jurisdiction to the ICC to prosecute individuals responsible for atrocities committed on their territory or by their nationals. For states that have not delegated jurisdiction to the Court, the ICC can only consider situations referred by the U.N. Security Council. For years, China and Russia have effectively blocked any meaningful action by the Security Council in response to atrocity crimes in Myanmar. On February 1, 2021, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and the Myanmar military overthrew the elected Government of Myanmar in a coup d’état. The junta immediately arrested President Win Myint, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, and other senior civilian leaders. The military and police have since killed more than 900 men, women, and children—primarily peaceful protesters—and imprisoned several thousand others for opposing the junta’s rule..."
Source/publisher: "Fortify Rights"
2021-08-19
Date of entry/update: 2021-08-19
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf pdf
Size: 4.98 MB 7.46 MB 172.58 KB
more
Description: "All countries must stop selling arms to Myanmar following the adoption of a resolution by the UN General Assembly condemning the use of lethal force and violence in the country, Amnesty International said today. The resolution, passed by an overwhelming vote of 119 to 1 with 36 abstentions, calls on member states to prevent the flow of arms into the country. It strongly condemns the worsening crackdown on peaceful protesters and civil society, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of arbitrary detainees and an end to restrictions on freedom of expression. “Today the General Assembly, as the voice of the entire international community, joins the Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council in condemning the Myanmar military’s killing spree against its own people,” said Lawrence Moss, Senior UN Advocate for Amnesty International. “The Myanmar military must immediately meet these calls, and the UN Security Council must act to enforce them. “All countries should heed the resolution’s call to prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar, and the Security Council should immediately make this mandatory by imposing a comprehensive global arms embargo on Myanmar. “It is a helpful sign that 11 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in support of this resolution. China and Russia, having abstained on the vote to adopt this resolution, should also now refrain from obstructing the will of the international community by vetoing a Security Council resolution to impose a comprehensive global arms embargo on Myanmar. “All states should urge China and Russia to heed the General Assembly’s call to prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar, and to cooperate in making this mandatory for all states by a Security Council resolution,” said Moss. Since the 1 February military coup overthrew the elected civilian government, 870 protesters, bystanders and other civilians have reportedly been killed, over 4983 arrested, and the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly drastically curtailed, including shutdowns of media outlets, the internet and social media. The UN resolution calls for the Myanmar armed forces to “immediately and unconditionally” release the elected civilian political leaders and all others who have been arbitrarily detained, charged or arrested, and to “end restrictions on medical personnel, civil society, labour union members, journalists and media workers and restrictions on the internet and social media.” The UN resolution also notes the ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into alleged atrocity crimes in Bangladesh and Myanmar. Amnesty International further calls for the Security Council to refer the situation in Myanmar as a whole to the ICC, and to impose targeted sanctions against the military officials responsible for crimes under international law, including the serious violations relating to repression of dissent following the 1 February coup. The text of the resolution was negotiated between nine member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a core group from amongst over 50 states sponsoring the resolution. “After negotiating this text, the failure of four ASEAN states – Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand – to support it when a vote was called does not augur well for the success of the dialogue and mediation process the ASEAN claims to lead,” said Moss. “For eight weeks, the ASEAN has failed to implement its own 24 April consensus statement or even name its special envoy. The ASEAN has now failed to take a united stand for the release of arbitrary detainees and against the flow of arms to Myanmar. “ASEAN states must use all their bilateral and regional leverage to ensure Myanmar complies with these demands, but the international community cannot wait any longer on ASEAN alone. The UN Security Council must act to enforce the General Assembly’s calls upon Myanmar.”..."
Source/publisher: Amnesty International (UK)
2021-06-18
Date of entry/update: 2021-06-19
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Topic: cooperate, Coup, Gambia, Genocide case, ICC, ICJ, junta, Military, National Unity Government, NUG, proceedings, provisional measures, regime, Rohingya, World Court
Topic: cooperate, Coup, Gambia, Genocide case, ICC, ICJ, junta, Military, National Unity Government, NUG, proceedings, provisional measures, regime, Rohingya, World Court
Description: "Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG) said that as the country’s lawful government it is taking all steps necessary to cooperate with the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on proceedings in a case in which Myanmar is accused of committing genocide against the Rohingya. After a brutal military crackdown in the western state of Rakhine in 2017 that forced more than 700,000 Rohingya to flee across the border to neighboring Bangladesh, Gambia in November 2019 brought a case at the ICJ—which is an organ of the UN and is also known as the World Court—accusing Myanmar of committing genocide against the Rohingya. State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi defended the country against the charge in December 2019. Gambia’s legal team listed the Myanmar military’s atrocities against the minority Muslim group in northern Rakhine state, including mass rapes, the burning of families in their homes and the killing of dozens of Rohingya children. As the case could take years, the African nation asked the ICJ to order “provisional measures” to prevent more violations. Going further than the measures requested by Gambia, the ICJ ordered Myanmar on Jan. 23 to report on its compliance with the provisional measures in four months and then every six months thereafter. The Daw Aung San Suu Kyi-led civilian government submitted two reports prior to its ouster by the military in a coup on Feb. 1. In a statement released on Sunday, the NUG said it is very concerned about the difficult situation facing the Rohingya, especially those who fled to Bangladesh in 2016-17. As the lawful government, ensuring continuity of representation before the court and being mindful of the timetable established by the court are among its duties, the NUG said. It added that it is also considering accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by a separate international court, the International Criminal Court, over the killings, torture and other crimes against civilians committed by the Myanmar junta since the coup on Feb. 1. The Myanmar military seized power from the democratically elected National League for Democracy government, detained civilian leaders and abolished the new Parliament on the day it was scheduled to convene. Since the coup, the Myanmar regime has killed at least 840 people and arrested more than 5,500, of whom 4,409 remain in detention, according to advocacy group the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners..."
Source/publisher: "The Irrawaddy" (Thailand)
2021-05-31
Date of entry/update: 2021-06-02
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Burma Campaign UK today releases a new briefing paper: ‘Why is Dominic Raab Refusing to Act on Accountability for Burmese Military Crimes? The paper details how, despite British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab and other government ministers repeatedly talking about holding the Burmese military to account for its crimes, in practice they are fiercely resisting pressure to take action on accountability. Dominic Raab refuses to say he supports referring Burma to the International Criminal Court. Dominic Raab refuses to join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice. Dominic Raab repeatedly blocked UK legislation which would have enabled the UK to make genocide determinations and take more action in response to genocide. For decades, the Burmese military has been committing human rights violations which break international law. They have enjoyed impunity for their crimes, encouraging them to commit further crimes. Holding the military to account for their crimes is essential to ending the decades long cycle of human rights violations and military dictatorship in Burma. The British government did not implement the recommendations of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, set up in response to the genocide of the Rohingya and violations of international law against other ethnic groups in Kachin and Shan States. The only action the British government took against the generals in response to genocide of the Rohingya was to stop a handful of generals from taking holidays in the UK (a visa ban). The briefing paper poses the question: “The British government and the rest of the international community need to reflect on whether the military being allowed to get away with genocide would have been a factor in their calculations as to whether they could get away with the coup without facing serious consequences from the international community.” “It is hypocritical of Dominic Raab to talk about accountability at the same time as refusing to act on accountability,” said Mark Farmaner, Director of Burma Campaign UK. “There are millions of good reasons to act on accountability, millions of people suffering under the military. There is no good reason not to act."..."
Source/publisher: "Burma Campaign UK" (London)
2021-05-20
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-20
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "This briefing looks at the gap between the words and the actions of the British government when it comes to action on accountability. At the same time as making repeated statements about holding the Burmese military to account for their crimes, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is refusing to publicly support referring Burma to the International Criminal Court, and refusing to join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice. One of many examples of a British Government Minister talking about accountability since the military coup on 1st February 2021 came on Saturday 27th March. Following the killing of more than 120 people by the Burmese military, Dominic Raab once again Tweeted about holding the military to account. He stated: “Today’s killing of unarmed civilians, including children, marks a new low. We will work with our international partners to end this senseless violence, hold those responsible to account, and secure a path back to democracy.”.....At the same time Dominic Raab: Refuses to publicly support the UN Security Council referring Burma to the International Criminal Court. • Refuses to join the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice. • Repeatedly blocked amendments to bills in the British Parliament to enable determinations of genocide to be made and more action to be taken in response to genocide.....Impunity has encouraged further human rights abuses: As has been well documented, the Burmese military has been violating international law for decades. It has done so with impunity at a domestic and international level. This impunity encourages further violations of international law and further horrific human rights violations. During the past ten years, as the British government heralded a so-called democratic transition in Burma, human rights violations against ethnic minorities, so serious that they violate international law, actually increased..."
Source/publisher: "Burma Campaign UK" (London)
2021-05-20
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-20
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 426.2 KB
more
Description: "In recent years, the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, particularly in conflict contexts, has become increasingly visible. Cultural heritage destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, and Syria drew the attention of the world’s media, caused public outcry, and in one instance led to a successful International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution (Burke 2016; González Zarandona, Albarrán, and Isakhan 2018; Kraak 2018; Moffett 2017; UN News 2017a). Although the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in Myanmar (Figure 1) has been less visible internationally, throughout the 2017 Rohingya refugee crisis there were numerous documented examples of cultural heritage destruction both by the Myanmar authorities and by ordinary residents of Myanmar (a country often still known as Burma1). The 2017 Rohingya refugee crisis drew world attention to the circumstances of this persecuted Muslim ethnic minority and to the nature of the military crackdown that caused around 700,000 Rohingya to flee their homes in Myanmar’s Rakhine state for Bangladesh (UN News 2017b; OCHA 2018; UNHCR 2018). During 2017, Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, partially or totally razed almost 300 Rohingya villages and destroyed numerous mosques in northern Rakhine state (Human Rights Watch 2017a, 2017b, 2018). The Myanmar authorities have subsequently remodelled large parts of northern Rakhine state which has included constructing at least one military base on lands previously occupied by the Rohingya (Amnesty International 2018a, 2018b; Associated Press 2018; Child 2018). Largescale destruction of heritage in Rakhine state did not begin in 2017. During 2012, conflict between Buddhists and Muslims caused the destruction of entire neighbourhoods around the Rakhine state capital, Sittwe, displacing more than 140,000 people, overwhelmingly Muslims (Human Rights Watch 2012; Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2013). In this article we map heritage destruction in Myanmar’s Rakhine state from the time of this 2012 violence to the present, and we consider the role of religion and recent political change in violence towards cultural heritage in contemporary Myanmar. We trace patterns of heritage destruction as legal and/or illegal iconoclasm specifying the key elements of heritage destruction in Rakhine state. Our analysis focusses on the use of heritage destruction as a tool of genocide, and we suggest that heritage destruction in Rakhine state ought to be understood as part of the authorities’ policies of genocide against the Rohingya. We conclude the article with a call for UNESCO to act to extend its ‘Unite4Heritage’ campaign to include the destruction of heritage by state actors. Traditionally, iconoclasm was considered the destruction of images – paintings and statues, mainly – for religious and political motives. Particular (Western) iterations of this phenomenon have been identified during the eighth and ninth centuries in Byzantium, and the Reformation in Europe, where religious images were considered idols and thus erased to avoid idolatry. Nonetheless, the concept of iconoclasm has gradually evolved to start considering other types of destruction, not only images, but also ideas, buildings, cultural property and heritage; the targets of iconoclasts because they reflect a part of a group’s identity (see Latour 2002 for an extended discussion). In this paper, we not only consider Rohingya heritage as those culturally significant sites for them, such as mosques and neighbourhoods, but also the traditions practised by the Rohingya for centuries in those sites. The paper does not point to a particular type of ‘heritage’, but rather it takes heritage in its broadest meaning. That is, we consider heritage not only the tangible expressions of Rohingya culture as exemplified by mosques, but also other forms considered intangible and moveable, and providing evidence of long-term Rohingya settlement in Rakhine state such as the presence of Rohingya villages (the destruction of which can serve to erase physical evidence of long-term Rohingya residency). In doing so, the aim of this paper is not to detail all the heritage which has been destroyed in Rakhine state, but to map the destruction of Rohingya heritage to demonstrate the link between heritage destruction and a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: International Journal of Heritage Studies
2019-09-21
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-14
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 2.09 MB
more
Description: "Today marks the 100th day our country comes under a military coup. The military council continues to commit human rights violations daily ignoring 100 days of demands from the people of Myanmar to return to democracy and ignoring international condemnation against the coup. Giving no respect to the people of Myanmar and disregarding the election results, taking the country's power by coup means an insult to human rights wherein "the people have the rights to the government of their choosing". Since the coup, the military shows nothing but disrespect to people's basic human rights by continuing to oppress violently, murdering innocent protesters and civilians, torturing the whole public, and use various forms of threats to quash the people's voices. The innocent civilians and peaceful protesters are not only met with extreme force but also are targeted and shot at even in their own homes by the military which uses arms and weapons with an intent to slain them.Worse is that some families are asked to pick up their loved ones who were arrested the previous day but they are picking up their loved ones' lifeless bodies and these dead bodies told the story of inhumane treatment and brute force that they endured during their detention. Moreover, there is verifiable news of women, girls, and persons of LGBTIQA+ being sexually assaulted and raped while under the military's detention. At the same time, the military continues to commit human rights abuses and violations against ethnic nationalities in ethnic areas. In addition to the enduring wreck of nearly a century-old civil wars, ethnic nationalities again become internally displaced people (IDPs) due to airstrikes carried out by the military. In several ethnic nationality areas, humanitarian aid is urgently needed now for children, women, and elderly people. All these violation and atrocity certainly are the crime against humanity by the international humanitarian and human rights standards. I would like to say I am very proud to see people's unwavering protests against the coup amid terrible oppressions and heroes of the Civil Disobedient Movement (CDM) and I am deeply humbled by all of these. I would like to express my gratitude to those supporters of our Spring Revolution from the international communities and those who voice their unity and solidarity to our movement even though they are in refugee and IDP camps after fleeing the military's brutal crackdown and offensive attacks. The military council is not only violating the basic human rights described in international human rights principles and standards but also committing crimes against humanity. The Ministry of Human Rights (MOHR) is determined to work our utmost best in bringing accountability to those who perpetrate these violations and atrocities by employing different ways and methods through diplomatic channels and the international legal system. Only by doing so, we will be able to transform our country and eliminate the longexisted culture of impunity and dictators who think they are above the law. However, we must warn that NOW is a time to stop abuses and violations of human rights, to stop terrorising the public, and to stop giving excuses that they are just following the order. All of us need to understand that no matter which role and capacity you are in, if you perpetrate human rights abuses and violations, you will be brought to justice and you will be held accountable for your actions and inactions, it is crucial time to answer the questions of would you be on the peoples' side or are prepared to appear before the international criminal court systems by continuing human rights abuses and violations. Our invitation is extended to the Army, Navy, Air Force personnel including those from Myanmar Police Force, that it is still a good time to side with justice and the people if you do not want to be charged and punished in the criminal justice system and if you do not want to be recorded in history as criminals..."
Source/publisher: National Unity Government of Myanmar
2021-05-12
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-12
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 94.19 KB 865.04 KB
more
Description: "On Feb. 1, 2021, the Myanmar military – the Tatmadaw – shattered the all too brief effort to transition to democracy in Myanmar. Over the past two and a half months, the Tatmadaw has continued its illegitimate effort to undermine the democratic elections from last year and prevent the elected government from taking power. In the face of mass popular opposition and international condemnation, the military has only escalated its use of violence against its own population – systematically stripping away rights and violently attacking protestors and dissidents, reportedly killing over 700 civilians as of Apr. 20, 2021, and detaining more than 3,000. Despite the continued threats and extreme violence, the people of Myanmar have stood their ground and refused to be silenced. On Apr. 16, opponents of the coup from across the political spectrum announced the formation of a National Unity Government (NUG) to resist the military. Just as importantly, the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), a grassroots movement aimed at disrupting state functions and crippling the economy in order to undermine the military’s attempt to rule, has been hugely successful in galvanizing collective action since early February. In addition to the tens of thousands of CDM participants walking out of their private and public sector positions, protests across the country have seen massive youth engagement on a scale not seen in a generation. The organizing power has been impressive. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok have been used to spread awareness and coordinate protests, strikes, and other forms of peaceful resistance. The military has taken notice of the CDM’s power, issuing threats against young people protesting and shooting indiscriminately at protestors of all ages, including children. Parallel movements have arisen in areas like neighboring Thailand, with Thai youth protesting their own authoritarian government in solidarity with activists from Myanmar. Today we launch a Just Security series that will take a deep dive into the situation in Myanmar. The series will provide insights that put the coup and civilian response into historical and modern context, deepen unexplored angles on the current crises, and survey possibilities and ways forward over the next six months to a year. This series also aims to elevate policy discussions on a number of issues, ranging from peace and accountability to religion and democracy, asking: What is happening now and why? Within the series, contributions from authors from Myanmar and others working closely on the situation will explore topics such as youth leadership in the CDM and protests, domestic and international solidarity, environmental concerns, the dissolution of rule of law in Myanmar, and what the coup means for ongoing international accountability efforts. Below, we offer an overview of the major themes of the series, along with a timeline of the struggle for democracy in Myanmar. The current uprising against military rule must be understood in the context of these decades-long struggles for peace, democracy, accountability, and justice..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: Just Security (New York)
2021-04-26
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-10
Grouping: Individual Documents
Category: Anti-coup protesters, Spring Revolution, Political prisoners and other violations in Burma - reports, Freedom of opinion and expression: - the situation in Burma/Myanmar - reports, analyses, recommendations, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, violations of, Right to Life: reports of violations in Burma, Freedom of Movement, violations of in Burma/Myanmar, Human Rights Defenders, Racial or ethnic discrimination in Burma: reports of violations against several groups, Discrimination against the Rohingya, International Criminal Court, Several Groups, Rohingya (cultural, political etc.), International Court of Justice (ICJ) - General, 2021 Burma/Myanmar coup d'état, National Unity Government (NUG), Various groups, Political History, Politics, Government and Governance - Burma/Myanmar - general studies, Politics and Government - global and regional - general studies, strategies, theory
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 257.17 KB
more
Description: "We live in a rapidly changing world in which people often seek about human rights. But it turns meaningless when we see the number of refugees around the world is increasing rapidly. It will be unbelievable to hear that,the present world is facing the most global refugee crisis and we are witnessing a massive shift of humanity due to racial violent disorder, religious virulence, extreme nationalism, political and social conflict. In recent worlds Rohingya Muslims refugee have been the focus of considerable loved ones public concern . It is believed that Rohingya Muslims are the most persecuted population all over the world.They have faced decades of systematic discrimination, stateless and targeted violence since the early 20th century. But the Rohingya affair has been largely ignored by the world community due to geopolitics , something that pushed some scholars to think that they represent a ghost and forgotten ethnic group, suffering slow burning genocide. The UN called the Myanmar authority to put an end the brutal security operation claiming the atrocities against the Rohingya as ‚a textbook example of ethnic cleansing‛ As Myanmar authorities are subjecting the Rohingya Muslim minority to collective punishment ,millions of Rohingya muslims crossed the international border and took shelter in Bangladesh. Bangladesh provided shelter for them from the humanitarian perspective as it was going on for many years with a significant spikes following violent attacks in 1978 ,1991-1992 ,2016 and finally in late August 2017. Following the co-ordinate attack on 30 police camps and an army base by so called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA)1 a group previously known as Harakah al-Yaqin on August 25, 2017,causing deaths of 12 police officers, the Myanmar military began a major crackdown in the villages of Northern Rakhaine State. The atrocities included attacks on Rohingya people and locations, looting and burning down Rohingya villages, mass killing of Rohingya civilians, gang rapes, and other sexual violence. As a result Rohingya Muslims started to flee to save their life to avoid ethnic and religious persecution by Myanmar’s security forces and as a neighbouring country their destination is of course Bangladesh. As of 15 October 2017, the Inter-Sector Coordination Group (ISCG)2 reported that 537,0001 Rohingya refugees have entered Bangladesh since the attacks.But anoher report says that at least 720,000 Rohingya fled after the bloody crackdown and entered Bangladesh to join some 300,000 already living in the camps who took shelter during past influx. More than 6,700 Rohingya Muslims including at least 730 children under the age of five were killed in the first month of the crackdown according to Medcins Sans Frontieres (MSF) an international humanitarian medical non governmental organization (NGO) of French but Myanmar claims officially the figure is only 400. Whatever the figure is, the question arises towards international community whether it will be regarded as ‚Genocide ‚or ‚Ethnic cleansing.‛.....Ethnic cleansing defined: Ethnic cleansing and genocide seems to be same in nature but completely two distinct concept. The term ethnic cleansing is a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase :‚etnicko ciscenje‛ , that is focused in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Youguslavia . But the roots of the term and who started the term is still unknown. It is believed that the term ethnic cleansing is invented by Slobodan Milosevic.3 The expression ethnic cleansing has been used in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and has acknowledged in judgements and indictments of the ICTY. There is no international treaty relating to the crime Ethnic Cleansing. As it has not been considered as an independent crime under international law ,so no exact definition will be given or what exact acts will be constituted for the purposes of the ethnic cleansing is not cleared. However a United Nations Commission of experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Youguslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area."4..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: Jagannath University (Dhaka)
2017-08-00
Date of entry/update: 2021-05-03
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 333.98 KB
more
Description: "The pro democracy unity government in Myanmar which includes members of Aung San #Su​ Kyi's party, says it will not enter talks until the junta releases all political prisoners. Souteast Asias regional bloc has been holding talks with the leaders of the miltiary who seized power on February 1st. Since then massive protests have been held against the coup, hundreds of civilians have been killed and many more arrested. Wai Hnin Pwint Thon campaigns officer at #Burma​ Campaign UK, and the daughter of a man currently serving a 65-year jail sentence in Myanmar for his part in the 2007 protests gave us her talke on the current situation. She says negotiations will have to happen but that talking with the #Myanmar​ military is futile..."
Source/publisher: "France24" ( Paris)
2021-04-28
Date of entry/update: 2021-04-29
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Your Excellencies, In alignment with the upcoming Special ASEAN Summit on Myanmar on 24 April 2021, we, the undersigned 744 individuals, 402 civil society organisations in Myanmar and 444 in other Southeast Asian nations and globally, call on the ASEAN, its leaders and Member States to come up with an effective and sustainable strategy jointly with the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and other international community actors in addressing the illegitimate and brutal coup and atrocity crimes committed by the military junta in Myanmar. We welcome the decision to hold the Special ASEAN Summit on Myanmar, based on the proposal made by President Joko Widodo of the Republic of Indonesia to discuss the worsening situation in Myanmar following the violent crackdown against peaceful protesters and the terror campaign against civilians launched by the junta. The decision hopefully constitutes a precedent and reflects the commitment of ASEAN Member States leaders to address Myanmar’s appalling situation using its highest-level policy-making body. However, in view of ASEAN Member States’ differing positions on the coup in Myanmar, we remain extremely concerned that the ASEAN Summit’s response might be to consider the crisis as solely within Myanmar’s domestic affairs and therefore deciding to refrain from any meaningful action in line with the “ASEAN Way” of non-interference and overzealous respect for ‘state sovereignty’. The differing positions of ASEAN Member States have made it difficult for ASEAN to reach a consensus and resulted in equivocations and delayed responses from ASEAN, while the military junta continued its deliberate, murderous attacks on Myanmar’s people, including various violence against women and girls, much to our sorrow and anger. As evidenced from the outputs produced by the Informal ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting (IAFMM), ASEAN responses fall well short of meeting the will of the people of Myanmar. The chair’s statement of the IAFMM meeting neither specifically publicly called out the junta’s brutality nor called for stronger cooperation with the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council. Further, it also fails to mention ASEAN’s commitment to supporting targeted economic sanctions against military personnel and business entities and global arms embargo and referral of the Myanmar situation to the ICC. With the different interests and political will of ASEAN Member States at the moment, we are concerned to what extent the Special ASEAN Summit can create an immediate and meaningful intervention to resolve the situation of Myanmar. ASEAN’s collective and meaningful action to uphold democracy is warranted at this time. Any decision by the ASEAN leaders to treat the military junta as the legitimate representative of Myanmar in the Summit will serve to legitimize the military junta’s crimes and will thus damage not only the relationship of ASEAN with the peoples of Myanmar but the people’s movement for democracy and human rights in the region as a whole. Further, the ASEAN and its Member States must recognise the legitimacy of the National Unity Government (NUG), the legitimate and democratically-elected government of Myanmar, given that it represents 76% of elected Members of the Union Parliament, ethnic leaders, the civil disobedience movement, and general strike committees endorsed by the people of Myanmar. Therefore, Myanmar must be represented by the NUG; not by the illegal junta who is trying to take full control of the country through its unprecedented brutality. As we send this letter to the ASEAN Leaders, the violence and killings by the Myanmar military against protesters and supporters continue with no sign of abating. The junta have so far arbitrarily killed 739 and arrested 3,331 people, including women, elderly people and children.[1] In Karen and Kachin ethnic areas, the junta has been bombing villages, displacing more than 30,000 villagers.[2] In these bombing attacks, civilians including children lost their lives as well as faced difficulties not only about their safety, but also for health, shelter and food. Among those fleeing were women, children, elderly and pregnant women who are due to give birth. There was also a case of a woman who gave birth to her child while she was fleeing. Given the gravity of the situation, the increasing number of victims, and the impact of the crisis on the region’s security and political stability, we strongly urge ASEAN to take firm and effective actions to address the Myanmar coup through the Special ASEAN Summit. We urge all ASEAN leaders to listen to, strongly consider, and to heed the aspirations and will of the peoples of Myanmar. The voices of Myanmar people who have risked their lives in defense of democracy and justice must be the anchor, the conscience, behind any modality and outcome of the Special ASEAN Summit on Myanmar.....၂၀၂၁ ခုနှစ် ဧပြီလ ၂၄ ရက်နေ့တွင် ကျင်းပပြုလုပ်မည့် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံဆိုင်ရာ အာဆီယံအထူး ထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေးနှင့်အညီ အာဆီယံခေါင်းဆောင်များနှင့် အဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံများကို မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတွင် ဖြစ်နေသည့် တရားမဝင် ရက်စက်သော အာဏာသိမ်းမှုနှင့် စစ်အုပ်စုက ကျူးလွန်သော ရက်စက်ကြမ်းကြုတ်သည့် ရာဇဝတ်မှုများကို ကိုင်တွယ်ဖြေရှင်းရာတွင် ကုသသမဂ္ဂ လုံခြုံရေးကောင်စီ၊ ကုလသမဂ္ဂ လူ့အခွင့်အရေး ကောင်စီ၊ နိုင်ငံတကာ ရာဇဝတ်တရားရုံး (ICC) နှင့် အခြားသက်ဆိုင်ရာ နိုင်ငံတကာအသိုင်းအဝိုင်းများနှင့်အတူ ထိရောက်ခိုင်မာသော မဟာဗျူဟာတစ်ခုကို ပူးတွဲလုပ်ဆောင်ရန် အောက်တွင် လက်မှတ်ရေးထိုးထားသော တစ်သီးပုဂ္ဂလ ၇၄၄ ဦး၊ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံမှ အရပ်ဘက်လူထုအဖွဲ့အစည်း ၄၀၂ ဖွဲ့နှင့် အခြား အရှေ့တောင်အာရှနိုင်ငံများမှ အရပ်ဘက်လူထုအဖွဲ့အစည်း ၄၄၄ ဖွဲ့တို့က တောင်းဆိုလိုက်သည်။ အင်ဒိုနီးရှားနိုင်ငံ သမ္မတ ဂျိုကို ဝီဒိုဒို (Joko Widodo) ၏ အဆိုပြုချက်အပေါ် အခြေခံပြီး မြန်မာနိုင်ငံအတွင်း ငြိမ်းချမ်းစွာ ဆန္ဒပြသူများအပေါ် စစ်အုပ်စုမှ လုပ်ဆောင်သော အကြမ်းဖက် ဖြိုခွဲမှုများနှင့် အရပ်သားများအပေါ် ကြောက်မက်ဖွယ် တိုက်ခိုက်မှုများဖြစ်ပွားခဲ့သည့်နောက်ပိုင်း ပိုမိုဆိုးရွားလာနေသော အခြေအနေများကို ဆွေးနွေးရန်အတွက် အာဆီယံအထူးထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေးကို ကျင်းပပြုလုပ်ရန် ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်ကို မိမိတို့မှ ထောက်ခံကြိုဆိုသည်။ ယင်းဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်သည် အာဆီယံအဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံ ခေါင်းဆောင်များမှ ၎င်းတို့၏ အမြင့်ဆုံးအဆင့် မူဝါဒရေးဆွဲချမှတ်သည့်အဖွဲ့ကို အသုံးပြုပြီး မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတွင် ဖြစ်ပေါ်နေသော ဆိုးရွားလှသည့် အခြေအနေများကို ကိုင်တွယ်ဖြေရှင်းရန် ကတိကဝတ်ပြုမှုကို ထင်ဟပ်သည့်အပြင် လိုက်နာရမည့်ထုံးတမ်းစဉ်လာဖြစ်လာလိမ့်မည်ဟု မျှော်လင့်ပါသည်။ သို့ရာတွင် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံရှိ အာဏာသိမ်းမှုအပေါ် အာဆီယံအဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံများ၏ မတူကွဲပြားနေသော ရပ်တည်ချက်များကို ကြည့်ခြင်းအားဖြင့် အာဆီယံထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေးမှ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ အကြပ်အတည်းကို ပြည်တွင်းရေးသာဖြစ်ပြီး “အာဆီယံနည်း” အရ ဝင်ရောက်စွက်ဖက်မှု မပြုခြင်းနှင့် နိုင်ငံ၏ အချုပ်အခြာအာဏာအပေါ် အလွန်အကျွံ လေးစားမှုတို့ကြောင့် အဓိပ္ပါယ်ပြည့်၀သော အရေးယူ ဆောင်ရွက်မှု လုပ်ဆောင်ခြင်းမှ ရှောင်ကြဥ်သွားမည်ကို မိမိတို့မှ စိုးရိမ်မိပါသည်။ စစ်အုပ်စုမှ မြန်မာပြည်သူများအပေါ် တမင်ရည်ရွယ်သော သတ်ဖြတ်တိုက်ခိုက်မှုများ ဆက်လက် လုပ်ဆောင်နေချိန်တွင် အာဆီယံအဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံများအကြား မတူကွဲပြားသော ရပ်တည်ချက်များက အာဆီယံအတွက် ဘုံသဘောတူညီချက် ရရှိရန် အခက်အခဲဖြစ်စေပြီး မရေရာမှုများကို ထွက်ပေါ်စေခြင်းနှင့် အာဆီယံ၏ တုံ့ပြန်မှုများ နှောင့်နှေးကြန့်ကြာနေမှုသည် မိမိတို့အား ဝမ်းနည်း အမြတ်ဒေါသ ဖြစ်စေပါသည်။ အာဆီယံနိုင်ငံခြားရေးဝန်ကြီးများ၏ အလွတ်သဘော အစည်းအဝေး (IAFMM) မှ ထွက်ပေါ်လာသော ရလဒ်များက ဖော်ပြနေသည်မှာ အာဆီယံ၏ တုံ့ပြန်မှုသည် မြန်မာပြည်သူများ၏ ဆန္ဒနှင့် ကိုက်ညီမှု မရှိပေ။ IAFMM အစည်းအဝေး ဥက္ကဌ၏ ကြေညာချက်သည် စစ်အုပ်စု၏ ရက်စက်ယုတ်မာမှုများကို တိကျစွာ လူသိရှင်ကြား ဝေဖန်ရှုတ်ချခြင်း မရှိသကဲ့သို့ ကုလသမဂ္ဂ လုံခြုံရေးကောင်စီနှင့် ကုလသမဂ္ဂ လူ့အခွင့်အရေးကောင်စီများနှင့် ပိုမိုအားကောင်းသော ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်ရေးအတွက် တောင်းဆို ခဲ့ခြင်းလည်း မရှိပေ။ ထို့အပြင် အာဆီယံသည် စစ်အုပ်စု ခေါင်းဆောင်များနှင့် စီးပွားရေးလုပ်ငန်းများအပေါ် ပစ်မှတ်ထား စီးပွားရေးအရေးယူပိတ်ဆို့မှုများ၊ ကမ္ဘာတစ်ဝှမ်း လက်နက်ခဲယမ်း ပိတ်ဆို့မှု နှင့် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ အခြေအနေကို နိုင်ငံတကာရာဇဝတ်တရားရုံး (ICC) သို့ လွှဲပြောင်းရေး တောင်းဆိုချက်များအပေါ် ထောက်ခံရေး ၎င်း၏ ကတိကဝတ်ကို ဖော်ပြရန်လည်း ပျက်ကွက်ခဲ့သည်။ လက်ရှိအချိန်တွင် အာဆီယံအဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံများ၏ မတူညီသော အကျိုးစီးပွားနှင့် နိုင်ငံရေးစိတ်ဆန္ဒများ ရှိနေခြင်းကြောင့် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ အခြေအနေကို ဖြေရှင်းရန် အာဆီယံအထူးထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေးမှ လျင်မြန်ပြီး အဓိပ္ပာယ်ပြည့်ဝသော ကြားဝင်ဖြေရှင်းမှုကို မည်သည့်အတိုင်းအတာအထိ ဖော်ဆောင်နိုင်မည် ဆိုသည့်အပေါ် မိမိတို့မှ စိုးရိမ်ပူပန်သည်။ ယခုအချိန်တွင် ဒီမိုကရေစီ ထိန်းသိမ်းရေးအတွက် အာဆီယံ၏ အဓိပ္ပါယ်ပြည့်ဝသော စုပေါင်းအရေးယူဆောင်ရွက်မှုကို လိုအပ်သည်။ လာမည့် ထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေးတွင် အာဆီယံ ခေါင်းဆောင်များမှ စစ်အုပ်စုအား မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ တရားဝင်သော ကိုယ်စားလှယ်အဖြစ် သတ်မှတ်ဆက်ဆံရန် ဆုံးဖြတ်ပါက စစ်အုပ်စု၏ ရာဇဝတ်မှုများကို တရားဝင်စေမည်ဖြစ်သဖြင့် အာဆီယံနှင့် မြန်မာပြည်သူတို့၏ ဆက်ဆံရေးကိုသာမက ဒေသတွင်းတစ်ခုလုံး၏ ဒီမိုကရေစီနှင့် လူ့အခွင့်အရေးလှုပ်ရှားမှု ကိုလည်း ပျက်စီးစေလိမ့်မည်။ ထို့အပြင် အာဆီယံနှင့် ၎င်း၏ အဖွဲ့ဝင်နိုင်ငံများအနေဖြင့် ရွေးကောက်တင်မြှောက်ခံထားရသည့် ပြည်ထောင်စုလွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ် ၇၆%၊ တိုင်းရင်းသား ခေါင်းဆောင်များ၊ လူထုအာဏာဖီဆန်ရေး လှုပ်ရှားမှုနှင့် အထွေထွေသပိတ်ကော်မတီများဖြင့် ပါဝင်ဖွဲ့စည်းထားသော မြန်မာပြည်သူများ ထောက်ခံ ထားသည့် တရားဝင် ဒီမိုကရေစီနည်းကျ ရွေးကောက်တင်မြှောက်ခံ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ အစိုးရဖြစ်သည့် အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေးအစိုးရ၏ တရားဝင်မှုကို အသိအမှတ်ပြုရမည်။ ထို့ကြောင့် အမျိုးသားညီညွတ်ရေး အစိုးရကသာ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံကို ကိုယ်စားပြုရမည်ဖြစ်ပြီး ဆိုးရွားလှသည့်ရက်စက်ကြမ်းကြုတ်မှုများမှတစ်ဆင့် နိုင်ငံကို အပြည့်အဝ ထိန်းချုပ်နိုင်ရန် ကြိုးစားနေသည့် တရားမဝင် စစ်အုပ်စုက မဖြစ်ရပေ။ ဤစာကို အာဆီယံခေါင်းဆောင်များထံ ပေးပို့သည့်အချိန်တွင်ပင် ဆန္ဒပြသူများအပေါ် လုပ်ဆောင်နေသော စစ်အုပ်စု၏ အကြမ်းဖက်မှုများနှင့် သတ်ဖြတ်မှုများသည် လျော့နည်းလာမည့်လက္ခဏာ မရှိဘဲ ဆက်လက်ဖြစ်ပွားနေသည်။ လက်ရှိအချိန်ထိတွင် စစ်အုပ်စုမှ လူဦးရေ ၃,၂၂၉ ဦး မတရားဖမ်းဆီး ထိန်းသိမ်းထားပြီး လူပေါင်း ၇၃၇ ဦးကို သတ်ဖြတ်ခဲ့ကာ ထိုအထဲတွင် အမျိုးသမီး၊ သက်ကြီးရွယ်အိုများနှင့် ကလေးများ ပါဝင်သည်။[1] ကရင်နှင့် ကချင် တိုင်းရင်းသား နယ်မြေများတွင် စစ်အုပ်စုက ကျေးရွာများအား ဗုံးကြဲတိုက်ခိုက်ခြင်းကြောင့် အရပ်သားပေါင်း ၃၀,၀၀၀ ကျော် ထွက်ပြေးတိမ်းရှောင်နေကြရသည်။[2] ထိုဗုံးကြဲ တိုက်ခိုက်မှုများတွင် ကလေးငယ်များအပါအဝင် အရပ်သားများ အသက်ဆုံးရှုံးရမှုများအပြင် ၎င်းတို့၏ လုံခြုံမှုအတွက်သာမက ကျန်းမာရေး၊ နေထိုင်ရေးနှင့် အစားအသောက်တို့အတွက်ပါ အခက်အခဲများ ကြုံတွေ့ရသည်။ ထိုထွက်ပြေးရသူများထဲတွင် အမျိုးသမီးများ၊ ကလေးငယ်များ၊ သက်ကြီးရွယ်အိုများနှင့် မွေးဖွားခါနီး ကိုယ်ဝန်ဆောင်အမျိုးသမီးတို့ ပါဝင်သည်။ ထိုအထဲတွင် ထွက်ပြေးတိမ်းရှောင်ရင်း မီးဖွားခဲ့ရသော အမျိုးသမီးတစ်ဦး၏ ဖြစ်ရပ်လည်း ရှိခဲ့သည်။ အခြေအနေ၏ ဆိုးရွားမှု၊ ကျူးလွန်ချိုးဖောက် ခံနေရသူ အရေအတွက် များပြားလာမှုနှင့် ဒေသတွင်း လုံခြုံရေးနှင့် နိုင်ငံရေးတည်ငြိမ်မှုတို့အပေါ် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ အကြပ်အတည်း၏ သက်ရောက်မှုကြောင့် အာဆီယံထိပ်သီး အစည်းအဝေးမှတစ်ဆင့် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ စစ်အာဏာသိမ်းမှုကို ဖြေရှင်းရန်အတွက် အာဆီယံအနေဖြင့် ခိုင်မာထိရောက်သော အရေးယူဆောင်ရွက် မှုများ လုပ်ဆောင်ရန် မိမိတို့မှ တိုက်တွန်း တောင်းဆိုသည်။ အာဆီယံ ခေါင်းဆောင်များမှ မြန်မာပြည်သူများ၏ ရည်မှန်းချက်များနှင့် စိတ်ဆန္ဒကို နားထောင်ပြီး အလေးအနက်ထား ထည့်သွင်းစဥ်းစားလုပ်ဆောင်ရန် မိမိတို့မှ တိုက်တွန်းတောင်းဆိုသည်။ ဒီမိုကရေစီနှင့် တရားမျှတမှု ကာကွယ်ရာတွင် ၎င်းတို့၏ အသက်များကို စတေးထားသော မြန်မာပြည်သူများ၏ အသံများသည် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံဆိုင်ရာ အာဆီယံအထူးထိပ်သီးအစည်းအဝေး၏ လုပ်ဆောင်မှုပုံစံနှင့် ရလဒ်များ၏ အခြေခံကျောရိုး ဖြစ်ရမည်။..."
Source/publisher: 744 individuals, 402 civil society organisations in Myanmar, 444 in other Southeast Asian nations and globally via "Progressive Voice"
2021-04-23
Date of entry/update: 2021-04-23
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf pdf
Size: 155.85 KB 317.76 KB
more
Description: "Did migration processes into colonial Burma – from India and elsewhere – amount to a “transfer of civilians” into an occupied territory, a practice prohibited by international law today? Should the international community reconsider such colonial-era population movements as a “colonial wrong”, conceding that a historical injustice has been committed by European colonialism, in order to make contemporary Myanmar political and military actors more ready to accept accountability for the severe human rights violations committed against the Rohingya? These questions, based on problematic assumptions about history and with potentially dangerous political implications, were discussed at a meeting of international lawyers in Yangon, the proceedings of which were recently published online (Morten Bergsmo, Wolfgang Kaleck and Kyaw Yin Hlaing (eds.): Colonial Wrongs and Access to International Law; Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher 9 November 2020). International criminal justice faces a crisis of legitimacy. The International Criminal Court (ICC, constituted by the Rome Statute and operative since 2002) especially stands accused of applying what Wolfgang Kaleck has called “double standards”. Its prosecution of severe human rights violators focuses on persons from countries with little power in global politics, many of them in Sub-Saharan Africa so far. At the same time, the Court finds it virtually impossible to prosecute perpetrators protected by major powers in the international system, especially the United States. The argument of “double standards” can be extended by giving it a postcolonial pitch: international criminal law is unable to address “colonial wrongs” – crimes committed by colonial powers – and thus cannot deal with the history behind current governance failures and violent conflicts that contributed to the very human rights violations it tries to prosecute. In order to address such questions, senior international law specialists and academics met for a conference in Yangon in November 2019. Myanmar constituted a very conscious choice of location for the conference and provided the backdrop to discuss questions such as: Did the migration of substantial non-indigenous populations (primarily from India) into colonial Burma constitute a “transfer of civilians” into an occupied territory – a practice that is regarded as a crime against humanity under today’s international criminal law? And if so, how should this be taken into account as a “colonial wrong” when prosecuting perpetrators of severe human rights violations, especially those perpetrated against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State in 2016-7? (The conference volume includes papers on systematic legal aspects and a few other country case studies, especially on the fate of indigenous populations in European settler colonies. However, it does not include studies on other historical examples of colonial-era population movements that could have put the Burma case into a broader historical perspective.) The decision by the Yangon conference organizers to discuss their agenda through the lens of Burmese history (and, of course, to hold it in Myanmar itself) could be seen as courageous; one may regard it as hazardous as well. The hazard is likely obvious to students of Myanmar history and contemporary politics: Does this “transfer of civilians into occupied territory” line of argument really do justice to Burma’s actual colonial history? And does it not risk undermining the citizenship rights of people whose ancestors migrated into Myanmar a century or more ago – and whose very citizenship rights are already severely embattled in Myanmar today? The organizers of the Yangon conference were of course aware they were entering a particularly difficult territory. They did so for good reason. In his concept paper laying the groundwork for the conference (first published in August 2019), Morten Bergsmo observes an “unusually polarised climate” in Myanmar around the issue of human rights violations in Rakhine. The official Myanmar narrative frames the issue primarily as one of “illegal migration” and “suppression of terrorism”. By contrast, a major strand in the international narrative (in reality mostly that of Western countries, U.N. institutions and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) discusses “the Rohingya genocide” and calls for prosecution under international criminal law. Bergsmo suggests that a recognition of “colonial wrongs”, especially the destruction of the sovereignty of the precolonial Burmese kingdom and the following mass migration of people from India into Burma, enabled by the British, may help to create a bridge, enabling a more fruitful dialogue. I certainly agree with Bergsmo’s observation on the “unusually polarized climate” around Myanmar today that currently makes meaningful dialogue about severe human rights violations very difficult, if not impossible. However, I very much doubt that the acceptance of what may be called a “postcolonial guilt theory” of acknowledging “colonial wrongs” in Burma will contribute to any greater degree of acceptance for ICC proceedings in Myanmar. I doubt this not merely because the argument is based on weak legal and misleading historical foundations. Even worse, such a line of reasoning – if it ever enters mainstream political debate – obviously risks strengthening the militant exclusionary nationalism in Myanmar that stands at the root of the Rohingya crisis. And it risks doing so for all the wrong reasons. To be sure, Bergsmo and the other international lawyers involved in this project do not want to trade responsibilities: In their view, this is not about downplaying or relativising responsibility for killings and other human rights violations against the Rohingya or others. It is about creating a dialogue that may lead to greater acceptance of international judicial proceedings on these violations. The book itself includes an explicit warning by the only Myanmar contributor and editor, Kyaw Yin Hlaing of the Centre for Diversity and National Harmony in Yangon. In his chapter, he reviews how contemporaries perceived the migration of Indians, and especially Indian Muslims, into colonial Burma as a result of the colonial situation, stoking fears of indigenous people being overwhelmed, of indigenous men losing their land and their women to foreigners; he also recalls how these sentiments were systematically fuelled further by military rulers as part of anti-colonial narratives since the 1960s. Kyaw Yin Hlaing cautions that, within this context, legal arguments about historical wrongs run a high risk of being misused to undermine peaceful coexistence among different ethnic groups today: “Promoting accountability and the legitimacy of international law are valid considerations, but are less important than the lives and well-being of the populations (of all kinds) living in former colonies” (362). The remainder of the volume, however, does not take much notice of this warning. Instead, rather than reflecting the concrete historical and social context that their legal arguments about “colonial wrongs” may meet in Myanmar today, the contributors proceed, with what they appear to think of as their righteous “postcolonial” approach, into very treacherous legal and historical territory. On the legal side, the limitations of the argument are obvious and even acknowledged accordingly by contributors. The “transfer of civilians” into “occupied territory” constitutes an international crime only since the (Fourth) Geneva Convention of 1949. The Convention explicitly outlawed such a practice informed by the experiences of Nazi Germany’s exterminatory policies in occupied Eastern Europe. (In more recent decades, the concept has usually been applied to legally attack Israeli settlement policies in the West Bank, though not for example, against Moroccan population settlement policies in the former Western Sahara). “Transfer of civilians” was reaffirmed as a “crime against humanity” and “war crime” under the Rome Statute that created the ICC. Legally, therefore, any “transfers” before 1949 – including nearly all population movements under European colonial rule in Africa and Asia – are not covered under these prohibitions. Nonetheless, various contributors to the volume set out to develop lines of argument designed to describe actions by European colonial states as legally relevant “colonial wrongs” or “grievances” that may have led to atrocities later on. Not being a lawyer myself, I am not in a position to judge whether and how any such arguments have a potential to become part of relevant international law; the authors are surely committed to this. Beyond the immanent logic of these legal arguments, however, we also need to ask whether they make sense in the concrete case of the history of colonial Burma. It is one thing to assert historical and political responsibility of former colonial powers for obvious atrocities committed during their rule, such as the 1904-8 genocide of the Herero and Nama people in what was then German South West Africa (Namibia), or the issue of British capital punishment practices in colonial Kenya during the Mau Mau war in the 1950s. It is an entirely different – and very wrong – matter to group British migration policies in colonial Burma into the same (or a similar) class of “colonial wrongs”. The volume under review includes two contributions, by Jacques Leider and Derek Tonkin, which document the history of migration into Arakan / Rakhine in great detail. While there has been a presence of Muslim communities in Arakan for centuries, they show specifically that labour-related cross-border migration from the Chittagong area of Bengal began even before British colonial rule and expanded rapidly under it, especially in the latter years of the 19th and the early 20th century. Labour needs of local ethnic Rakhine landlords were a major factor; settlement and land acquisition by the migrants followed. Over time this led to a concentration of Muslim agriculturalists in Northern Rakhine who later acquired the Rohingya ethnonym (a fact disputed by Rohingya nationalists who claim a much earlier origin of the term). Until 1937, all this happened within the single territory of British India of which Burma was a part, without any internal border controls. Migration into colonial Arakan, with no force by the colonial power involved, was driven by economic needs and interests, and it was pursued by local individual and group agency. To categorize this process as a “colonial wrong” constitutes an ahistorical narrative which in effect denies agency to any colonial subjects. Likewise, Indian migration into the mainland and the urban centres of colonial Burma, especially Rangoon, was driven by the economic interest and agency of those who migrated, mostly from other parts of British India (while some came from China as well). Again, no forced labour was involved here. British policies played a stronger role than in Rakhine, in so far as the colonial state and the colonial economy created a demand for business professionals, traders and urban workers from India to move to Burma. In addition, civil servants and soldiers were temporarily transferred into colonial Burma, and some of them may have decided to settle there later on. For all of these groups, the colonial state made movement and long-term settlement possible, for example by creating an enabling environment of transport systems and urban facilities. All this led to social tension and instances of violence by the 1930s and contributed to the prominent anti-Indian streak within Burmese anti-colonial nationalism. However, the policies and incentives employed by the British in Burma were pretty much standard practices of “development policy”, as conceptualized by colonial powers in the first half of the 20th century; some of them were even continued after independence. To describe resulting migration processes under colonial rule as a “transfer of civilians” into an “occupied territory” (with the connotation that they were designed to overwhelm, drive out or exterminate the local Burmese population) does not only constitute a severe category error. It risks feeding into the “anti-foreigner”, xenophobic narrative within Burmese (and Rakhine) nationalism that has its historical roots in the late colonial period but has become ever more extreme under military rule since 1962. In effect, this narrative culminated in the discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law and contributed to the perception of the Rohingya as “illegal aliens”, leading to violence and ultimately resulting in their flight and expulsion, in 2017. Of course, the experts advancing the “colonial wrongs” argument who contributed to the volume under review do not intend to condone any such discrimination or violence. But they appear to underestimate the fact that a core element of the very narrative they are proposing in order to increase global acceptance for international criminal law – that colonialism committed a crime by bringing in “foreigners” – is in fact already a core element of the exclusionary narrative of Burmese nationalism. It has been in use for decades, has been worsening over time, and it has already led to extreme marginalization and violence. Does all this matter? Clearly, a more balanced approach – one that does not just let powerful perpetrators off the hook while prosecuting only those who are already out of power – is very necessary in order to secure the very legitimacy of the international criminal law system. However, the Myanmar example shows that an inappropriate application of a simplistic, if not outright wrong postcolonial narrative is risky. Defenders of the Myanmar official position on the Rohingya issue hardly need international lawyers to remind them that “Indians”, “Bengalis” or other foreigners who migrated into the country in colonial times came in as a result of a “colonial wrong”. They have been making this point all along, but now they can do so with innovative phrasing and the international academic and legal legitimation provided by this volume. Disturbingly, they appear to do so already: Derek Tonkin (281-2, and email communication, 18.11.2020) documents the first two instances of the verbatim use of the “transfer of civilians” argument employed by high-ranking Myanmar officials in U.N. contexts, within weeks after the publication of Morten Bergsmo’s concept paper. It is difficult to think of this as a mere coincidence. The military coup of February 1st, 2021, has led the country into a massive crisis. The outcome is anything but clear at this point in time, and Myanmar may face an extended period of military rule, violent conflict, economic decline and even state failure. But the broad resistance against the military takeover and the political dynamics since the coup also have a potential to do away with long-established, outdated ideas and institutions in Myanmar’s political and legal system, in order to create a true break with the past. Many in Myanmar and internationally no longer see the Myanmar military as a legitimate partner in any substantive discussion about the political future of the country; in their view, the Tatmadaw has to return to the barracks without claiming special political prerogatives, or it has to disappear as an institution. A Rohingya voice has been emerging in the protests against the regime, and there is hope that the community will gain broader acceptance among the Burmese majority population. The declaration of the Federal Democracy Charter and the intent to abolish the 2008 constitution by the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) on March 31st, 2021, imply an outright rejection of fundamental political ideas and institutions imposed by the Tatmadaw over decades. This could and should include a rejection of the very concept of belonging represented by the idea of “national races” (taingyinthar), and of the system of graded citizenship rights, based on an individual’s real or putative migratory background. Instead, Myanmar should acquire a new citizenship law that follows globally accepted standards, is inclusive and provides equal rights to everyone living in the country, not subject to political or bureaucratic manipulation. I have shown in this article that arguments about real or imagined “colonial wrongs” in the debate and legal discourse about contemporary human rights violations, when applied to Burma/Myanmar, were highly problematic even before the coup. Now and in any future processes of transitional justice, however, they deserve to be discarded in their entirety, as a misguided attempt of appeasing perpetrators of human rights violations on a grand scale and their political allies. Dr. Axel Harneit-Sievers, a historian by professional background, has been the country director of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung’s Myanmar office in Yangon from 2018 until May 2021. Opinions expressed here are personal and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung..."
Source/publisher: "Tea Circle" (Myanmar)
2021-04-19
Date of entry/update: 2021-04-19
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
Format : pdf
Size: 219.72 KB
more
Description: "China and Russia face pressure to prevent genocide in Myanmar after Thursday’s decision by an international court called on the South Asian country to stop the killing, says Canada’s special envoy to the crisis. The unanimous decision by the International Court of Justice is a strong signal to Russia and China, which have blocked the United Nations Security Council from referring the violence to the International Criminal Court, said Bob Rae, who the Liberal government tapped to take part in diplomatic efforts to address the deadly crisis. Rae and Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne both urged Myanmar to fully comply with the ruling from The Hague-based court, which demanded it protect its minority Muslim Rohingya population from genocide. Champagne said Canada will work with its allies to keep the pressure on Myanmar. The 17 judges on the panel called on Myanmar to do everything in its power to stop what it said was a genocide against the Rohingya. The court flatly rejected Myanmar’s plea — put forth by the country’s civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi — that the case be thrown out. Suu Kyi, a one-time icon of peace who has since been stripped of her honorary Canadian citizenship, denied there was a genocide..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "Toronto Star" ( Toronto)
2020-01-23
Date of entry/update: 2020-01-24
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fear that Myanmar may have a “state policy” to attack the Rohingya population in Rakhine state, said ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on Friday. “The judges accepted that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there may have been a state policy [in Myanmar] to attack the Rohingya population,” she said. The made the statement following ICC’s approval to commence an investigation into crimes committed against Rohingyas. As per the judges’ observation, the prosecutor said there were many sources indicating heavy involvement of several Myanmar government forces and other state agents along with members of Myanmar armed forces [Tatmadaw] in the crimes committed against humanity on the land. “These coercive acts could qualify as the crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution on grounds of ethnicity and/or religion against the Rohingya population,” the prosecutor said. Saying that the judges authorised the investigation with broad parameters, Bensouda termed it as a “significant development against atrocity in Myanmar”. On November 14, the ICC judges of Pre-Trial Chamber III authorised the prosecutor office to commence an investigation into the “situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar”..."
Source/publisher: "The Daily Star" (Bangladesh)
2019-11-24
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-25
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "The recent atrocities perpetrated against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar (and against other religious minorities in Myanmar) require investigation and the prosecution of those responsible. The atrocities have included the forcible deportation of over 700,000 people from Myanmar to Bangladesh “through a range of coercive acts and that great suffering or serious injury has been inflicted on the Rohingya through violating their right of return to their state of origin.” The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already looking into the atrocities after on November 14, 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber III authorized the Prosecutor to proceed with an investigation. The court has recognized its jurisdiction to consider the situation despite the fact that Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute. Similarly, the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) will be considering the atrocities perpetrated in Myanmar, after the Gambia initiated proceedings against Myanmar. Yet, it will take many years before some of those responsible for the atrocities face justice. However, the long pursuit of justice should not distract us from advocating that other steps be taken to ensure that the minorities that were targeted by the recent atrocities are safe in Myanmar and can re-establish their lives..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "Forbes" (USA)
2019-11-18
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-24
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: Buddhist-majority Myanmar is accused of genocide against Rohingya in a 2017 crackdown by the country's military.
Description: "Myanmar's leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi will head a delegation to the United Nations' top court to argue against a case accusing the mainly Buddhist country of genocide against the Rohingya, the government said. More than 730,000 Rohingya, most of them Muslims, fled to neighbouring Bangladesh following a 2017 crackdown by Myanmar's military, which UN investigators said was carried out with "genocidal intent". More: Rohingya crisis through the eyes of Al Jazeera's journalists Lawsuit: Aung San Suu Kyi 'committed crimes' against Rohingya Gambia files Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar at UN court The Buddhist-majority country has repeatedly justified the crackdown on the Rohingya as necessary to stamp out fighters. It also insists its own committees are adequate to investigate allegations of abuse..."
Source/publisher: "Al Jazeera" (Qatar)
2019-11-21
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-21
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: There should be negotiations with other countries, and it will be easier for Bangladesh to talk about the issue, Prof Imtiaz Ahmed said
Description: "Foreign affairs analysts have said Bangladesh needs to utilize the growing global pressure on Myanmar until a solution to the Rohingya crisis is found. The pressure is not only building on Myanmar, rather it is a pressure for Myanmar’s friends too who kept mum amidst questions of why other countries cannot do the same as Gambia and Argentina, one of the foreign affairs analysts said. “The pressure on Myanmar should be there until there is a solution. I think it will not be wise for us to give up until a solution is found. We should not stop here,” Prof Imtiaz Ahmed of Dhaka University’s (DU) International Relations department said, reports UNB. There should be negotiations with other countries, and it will be easier for Bangladesh to talk about the issue, he added. Prof Imtiaz said, there are already questions around why the European Union (EU), Canada, France or other countries cannot do the same on the legal front as they talk much about human rights..."
Source/publisher: "Dhaka Tribune" (Bangladesh)
2019-11-16
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-18
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "Just taking legal action against Myanmar and putting global pressure on Myanmar as to the repatriation process of the displaced persons who fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar can’t settle the on-going issue. Bangladesh should follow the repatriation process agreed by both sides, said Zaw Htay, the spokesperson of the President Office. “The international community is putting pressure on Myanmar regarding the repatriation process. The ICC is suing Myanmar. The complex issue remains in Bangladesh. Bangladesh should use the problem-solving approach. The problem can’t be settled by suing Myanmar. We will have to negotiate the problem with Bangladesh. Especially, Bangladesh should follow the repatriation process and cooperate with Myanmar according to the bilateral agreement. Our problem will still remain as long as Bangladesh doesn’t cooperate. Bangladesh needs to understand this point,” said Zaw Htay. There were those who fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar in 1993. Collaborative efforts resulted in a success in the repatriation process. Cooperative measures are of great importance. The repatriation process remained deadlock as Bangladesh failed to cooperate. Only with the collaborative efforts can settle the problem, said Zaw Htay. “Bangladesh and Myanmar carried out the repatriation process two times in the past. According to this knowledge, mutual cooperation can solve the problem and these were examples. Both sides have physical arrangements to implement the agreed points. Working groups have been already formed. The root cause of the unsuccessful repatriation process is that Bangladesh fails to cooperation and this is a point,” said Zaw Htay..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: "Eleven Media Group" (Myanmar)
2019-11-18
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-18
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: ICC investigation into alleged crimes against Rohingya 'not in accordance with international law', says government.
Description: "Myanmar has rejected an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into alleged crimes against the Rohingya, as its faces mounting global legal pressure over its treatment of the minority ethnic group. The Hague-based court on Thursday approved a full probe into Myanmar's bloody 2017 military crackdown against the mostly-Muslim group - a move welcomed by the rights groups. "The investigation over Myanmar by the ICC is not in accordance with international law," government spokesman Zaw Htay said at a news conference on Friday. More: UN chief 'deeply concerned' over Rohingya crisis ICC approves probe into Myanmar's alleged crimes against Rohingya What will happen to the Rohingya people? Zaw Htay repeated that Myanmar's own committees would investigate any abuses and ensure accountability if needed. A brutal army campaign in August 2017 forced more than 740,000 Rohingya to flee Myanmar's Rakhine State, most seeking refuge in overcrowded camps across the border in Bangladesh..."
Source/publisher: "Al Jazeera" (Qatar)
2019-11-16
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-16
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "At long last international arrest warrants may be headed the way of Myanmar’s top military and political leaders, including the country’s de facto prime minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, for crimes against Rohingya Muslims. Neither the Nobel peace prize nor her Oxford PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) degree will be able to save the state counsellor if the Argentinian court, where the lawsuit was filed on Wednesday by human rights groups, has its way. Argentina — whose law allows its court to exercise universal jurisdiction — has in the past heard cases involving Spanish dictator Francisco Franco and the Falun Gong movement in China. Earlier on Monday, Gambia filed a genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Unlike the Argentinian case, the Gambian genocide case filed at ICJ is a novelty. At best, it might end up being a verdict on how badly the world is tackling genocide and other crimes against humanity. Gambia and other Organisation of Islamic Cooperation countries that filed the case, citing the little-used 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, just want to pass the message to the world how miserably the United Nations and its courts — especially the International Criminal Court (ICC) — have failed humanity. Take the case of the UN. The Rwandan genocide is a good place to start. There, in one estimate, between 800,000 and one million Tutsis and Hutus were killed under the watch of UN peacekeepers. It was an abject failure for the world body.But slow learning UN remains a slow learner..."
Source/publisher: "New Straits Times" (Malaysia)
2019-11-16
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-16
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Sub-title: Judges approve request to investigate alleged crimes against humanity over Myanmar's crackdown against ethnic group.
Description: "The International Criminal Court (ICC) has approved a full investigation into Myanmar's alleged crimes against the Rohingya, as the Southeast Asian nation faces mounting legal pressure worldwide over the treatment of the minority ethnic group. ICC judges on Thursday backed a prosecution request to investigate allegations of crimes against humanity and persecution over Myanmar's bloody 2017 military crackdown against the majority-Muslim group. The ICC's decision came after Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar's de-facto civilian leader, was named in an Argentine lawsuit over crimes against the Rohingya and Myanmar faced a separate genocide lawsuit at the United Nations's top court. More than 740,000 Rohingya were forced to flee over the border into sprawling camps in Bangladesh, in violence that the UN investigators said amounted to genocide..."
Source/publisher: "Al Jazeera" (Qatar)
2019-11-15
Date of entry/update: 2019-11-15
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more
Description: "When Min Aung Hlaing, head of the Burmese military, launched his military offensive against Rohingya civilians in August 2017, there was international outrage. One year on, the European Union (EU) has yet to implement a single practical sanction or other action to hold Min Aung Hlaing to account for his crimes. In a submission to the British Parliament?s Foreign Affairs Committee, Burma Campaign UK detailed the role the EU played in enabling the crisis, amounting to complicity. By consistently backing down over the rights of the Rohingya since 2012, the EU sent a signal to the military that it considered the Rohingya expendable and would not act on abuses against them. It was a green light to Min Aung Hlaing. Despite what the United Nations describes as ethnic cleansing and possible genocide, one year on, the EU approach to the Burmese government and military remains barely changed..."
Creator/author:
Source/publisher: Burma Campaign UK
2018-08-20
Date of entry/update: 2018-08-22
Grouping: Individual Documents
Language:
more