ICJ Hears Oral Arguments on Whether to Issue Provisional Measures Against Venezuela’s Consultative Referendum Questions

By: Megan Mary Qualters

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The Co-Republic of Guyana (Guyana) is asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue provisional measures against the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela) regarding their border conflict and the Agreement that governs it. The ICJ, after establishing its jurisdictional authority in this situation, heard initial oral arguments from each country on Tuesday, November 14th and Wednesday, November 15th, 2023.

 
Photo map of Venezuela and Guyana and the region known as the “Guayana Esequiba.” | Photo courtesy of WLRN Public Radio and Television.
  

Background:

The Arbitral Agreement of 1899 (Agreement) established the boundary line between the “Colony of British Guiana” (Guyana) and the “United States of Venezuela” (Venezuela). However, a strip of land called the “Guayana Esequiba” is highly contested territory between the two countries. The Agreement establishes that the Guayana Esequiba is administered to Guyana, but Venezuela claims that the Guayana Esequiba is its own territory. The dispute originates from the colonial powers; Venezuela declared its independence from Spain in 1811, and Guyana only received independence from the United Kingdom in 1966. Venezuela contends that the Agreement was fraudulently imposed, despite the fact that it did not contest the border upon the Agreement’s inception. The dispute between the countries is before the ICJ upon referral from the Secretary-General acting within the authority of the Geneva Agreement of 1966. The Geneva Agreement established how a peaceful settlement was to be reached between border controversies should countries not reach their own agreement; Venezuela and Guyana are both a party to this agreement.

What’s New:

On October 3rd, 2023, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council published a list of five questions that it plans to use in a public “Consultative Referendum” on December 3rd, 2023. Notably, the first question is “Do you agree to reject, by all means in accordance with the Law, the line fraudulently imposed by the 1899 Paris Arbitral Award, that seeks to strip us of our Guayana Esequiba?” The third question is about ignoring the jurisdiction the ICJ has over this controversy. The fifth question calls for the creation of a Guayana Esequiba State with a plan to present that territory’s citizens with Venezuelan citizenship, and incorporate it into Venezuelan territory. Guyana asserts that these questions reflect Venezuela’s intention to unilaterally and unlawfully seize, annex, and incorporate the Guayana Esequiba. Therefore, Guyana asked the ICJ on October 27th, 2023 to issue provisional measures that would prohibit Venezuela from publishing questions and any other attempt to “seize annex or incorporate” any land that belongs to Guyana. The ICJ agreed to hear oral arguments regarding this issue on November 14th and 15th, 2023.  

What is a Provisional Measure Issued by the ICJ:

A provisional measure is an interim order issued for immediate protection of an individual’s rights under a treaty or convention, if those rights are at “a real imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed, before the Court gives its final decision, of suffering irreparable prejudice absent enactment measures.”

Guyana’s Call for Urgent Action:

In Guyana’s request for provisional measures from the ICJ, Guyana argues that if Venezuela holds the Referendum on December 3rd, it can anticipate being annexed unlawfully. Guyana argues that if annexation happens, it will be irreparably prejudiced in the ICJ proceedings regarding the validity of the Agreement. Furthermore, the Guyana argues that it will be unable to recover even if the ICJ later holds the Agreement to be valid or settles the dispute in a way which grants Guyana any part of the Guayana Esequiba.  Guyana urges that according to Article 41(1) of the Statute of the ICJ, the ICJ must issue provisional measures.

For further information, please see:

United Nations – Agreement to Resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (Geneva Agreement) – May 6 1966

ICJ – Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, (Guyana v. Venezuela) – Accessed November 9, 2023

UN: Political and Peacebuilding Affairs – Boarder Controversy between Guyana and Venezuela – ND

ICJ – Case Concerning Arbitral Award of 3 Oct. 1899, (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Lieber Institute – The ICJ’s Provisional Measures Order: Unprecedented – Mar. 17, 2022

ICJ – Press Releases – Nov. 9, 2023

WLRN – Venezuelans Say Most Of Guyana Is Theirs. Guyanese Call That A ‘Jumbie’ Story – Sept. 14, 2021

ECHR Finds Italy Violated Residents’ Human Rights Over Pollution from the Campania Garbage Crisis

By: Johannah Brown

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NAPLES, Italy – In the case Locascia and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the applicants. The case, initially filed in 2010 by nineteen residents from the Caserta and Naples provinces, revolves around a state of emergency declared in 1994 over the mismanagement of the waste cycle that lasted for more than a decade. The ruling found that Italy’s handling of the 15-year-long garbage crisis violated the human rights of the residents. The Court determined that Italian authorities had contravened Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to respect for private life and home. The violations stemmed from their failure to ensure proper waste collection, treatment, and disposal and neglecting to take the necessary precautions to protect the applicants’ human rights.

 
Streets of Naples strewn with uncollected Garbage 2010 | Photo Courtesy of AFP/Roberto Salmone
  

In 1994, Italian authorities appointed a special commissioner to take control of the waste cycle, which had previously been under the unofficial control of organized crime (the Camorra). The Camorra had been profiting from controlling dumps in the region and engaging in the illegal business of transporting waste from the northern industrial areas and dumping it in local sites. Over time, both legal and illegal dumps filled, interrupting service and accumulating garbage in the streets and neighborhoods. The crisis disrupted daily life, impacting mobility, prompting school closures, and affecting local markets, forming the basis for the Article 8 complaints.

The court’s ruling also addressed the environmental effects of a dumping site outside Naples called Lo Uttaro. Three decades of illegal dumping and burning of trash led to severe groundwater contamination, resulting in multiple bans on the use of groundwater in the area and air pollution affecting residents’ health. Despite the site being closed in 2001 and the awareness of environmental hazards, authorities reopened the site in 2007. During this period, several environmental studies, including one by the World Health Organization (WHO), revealed significantly higher cancer mortality rates in the provinces of Naples and Caserta compared to the rest of the Campania region, as well as more frequent signs of congenital malformations. According to the court, Italy has still not fully implemented plans to secure and clean up the site, and there was no clear timeframe to do so.

The recent ruling by the ECHR was based on these studies, as well as various judicial and administrative decisions, including judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). While the court did not pinpoint responsibility for the crisis, it ruled—concerning the inadequate handling of waste collection, treatment, and disposal—that the Italian authorities had violated the applicant’s right to private life and home. Regarding the complaint about the clean-up of Lo Uttaro, the Court ruled that authorities failed to take the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ rights, therefore violating Article 8 of the Convention.

The judgment is a Chamber Judgment and is not final. If the ruling is upheld, Italy must submit a plan outlining the actions they intend to take in response to the ruling.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Court judgment finds violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights – 19 Oct. 2023

ECHR – Communicated Case – 19 Residents of Italy claiming a violation of Article 2 and Article 8 based on the Campania Garbage Crisis from 1994-2009 – 05 Mar. 2013

EU Law Live – ECtHR finds violation of human rights in Campania Waste Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

ABC News – European Court finds Italy violated human rights over Naples Garbage Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

Reuters – Mafia involvement in Naples Garbage Crisis – 9 Jan. 2008

 

 

ECHR’s Grand Chamber to Hear Case Against World Athletics Regulations Requiring Hormone Treatment for Female Athletes

By: Garrison Funk

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On November 6, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted the referral of Semenya v. Switzerland, a case challenging the decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s refusal to overturn regulations issued by World Athletics restricting eligibility for women’s athletic competitions.

 
Caster Semenya after winning the woman’s 800m at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in Australia | Photo Courtesy of AP News, Mark Schiefelbein
  

The case, filed by two-time Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya, challenges the 2018 regulations instituted by World Athletics which limit hormone levels in female athletes for certain athletic events.

Born with differences of sexual development (DSD), Semenya has naturally elevated levels of testosterone. Under the World Athletics regulations, Semenya and all other female athletes with DSD would be required to submit to hormone-suppressing treatment for six months in order to compete in female track events between 400m and the mile.

This is not World Athletics’ first attempt to institute hormonal restrictions on women’s athletics. World Athletics (formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations) first introduced “hyperandrogenism” regulations in 2011, which instituted a ban on any female athlete who’s androgen levels fell within the male range.

These regulations were challenged by Dutee Chand in 2014 after World Athletics deemed her ineligible to compete. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) partially upheld Chand’s appeal and subsequently suspended the World Athletics regulations.

Following this decision, World Athletics withdrew the regulations. In 2018, it instituted the “Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development” regulations at issue which require any female athlete with DSD to reduce her blood testosterone to below five nmol/L for six months prior to competition and maintain these levels in order to compete.

In compliance with her arbitration clause, Semenya originally filed her case with CAS on June 18, 2018. The CAS found the World Athletics regulations to be discriminatory but held that such discrimination was a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate means of upholding the integrity of female athletics. Semenya’s subsequent appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) was dismissed.

Following dismissal by the SFT, Semenya filed the present case against Switzerland in the ECHR, alleging violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 for failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural protections against discrimination and Article 13 for breaching her right to an effective remedy.

The ECHR ruled in Semenya’s favor on July 11, 2023, and the Swiss government subsequently requested the matter be referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration. The grant of referral was approved on November 6, 2023.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Caster Semenya: Double Olympic Champion ‘not ashamed of being different’ – 7 Nov. 2023

CAS – Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics Federations – 30 Apr. 2019

CNN – Caster Semenya says she went through ‘hell’ due to testosterone limits imposed on female athletes – 6 Nov. 2023

ECHR – Referral to the Grand Chamber – 6 Nov. 2023

Strasbourg Observers – Caster Semenya v. Switzerland: Eligibility of Intersex Female Athlete in Female Athletic Events – 27 Sept. 2023

World Athletics – IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification – 26 Apr. 2018

World Athletics – IAAF to introduce eligibility rules for females with hyperandrogenism – 12 Apr. 2011

AfCHPR Orders the Tunisian Government to Allow Medical and Legal Access of Their Choice to Political Dissidents

By: Paola Andrea Suárez Luján

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

ARUSHA, Tanzania – Family members of Tunisian prisoners Rached Ghannouchi, Noureddine Bhiri, Ghazi Chaouachi, Said Ferjani, and the son of the deceased member of the Ennahda Party Ridha Bouzayene have asked the African Court on Human and People’s Rights to order the Tunisian government to provide the detainees “unimpeded access to their lawyers and to doctors of their choice” and to “provide particulars of the legal and factual grounds” of their detention and prosecution. They have also requested the suspension of the conviction of Rached Ghannouchi and the release of the prisoners.

 
Protestors in Tunis, Tunisia, carry images of political prisoners under President Saied’s government and Tunisian flags | Photo courtesy of The Guardian/Anadolu Agency.
  

The Court granted the request of the families to allow the detainees access to lawyers and doctors of their choice, as well as access to complete and adequate information regarding the basis for their detention. However, the Court refused to review the merits of the arrest or to order the release of the detainees at this stage of the proceedings.

Rached Ghannouchi, at 81 years old, is the leader of the Ennahda Party, the largest political party in the Republic of Tunisia. He was convicted on the charges of glorifying terrorism and conspiring against state security after he affirmed in the funeral eulogy of Farhat Al-Abbar, a former Ennahdha member and Al-Jazeera Correspondent, that the deceased “did not fear poverty, ruler or tyrant”. Amnesty International has declared that “the sentencing of Rashed Ghannouchi shows a growing crackdown on human rights and opposition and a deeply worrying pattern”. Ghannouchi is but one of over 40 opposing political targets who have been detained due to political charges against the Tunisian government.

The accusations came after Tunisian President Kais Saied’s self-coup in 2021, when he fired the prime minister, assumed all executive power, suspended the parliament, and dissolved the government. President Kais Seid’s strategy includes the arbitrary imposition of travel bans on political opposition, members of parliament, civilians, and journalists, and trials in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Decree-law 54. President Saied has also obtained the power to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council formed in 2016 under Decree-law 22 and established a temporary one himself, with members of his choosing. Under Decree-Law 35, President Saied can also object to any judge’s appointment, promotion, transfer, or dismissal; he can fire judges directly and the government can assume disciplinary procedures against judges.

Ghannouchi and other detainees have undertaken hunger strikes in protest of what they consider a “judicial sham” and a violation of their right to a fair trial. As the number of human rights violations and political persecution increases, the detainees’ families have moved to continue their pleas to the International Criminal Court, in their hope that the Court will investigate the actions of the Tunisian government and order the release of their relatives.

For further information, please see:

AfCHPR – The Matter of Moadh Kheriki Ghannouchi and Others v. Republic of Tunisia – 28 Aug. 2023

Agencia Anadolu – Tunisie : Ghannouchi demeure libre après avoir été entendu par le pôle judiciaire de lutte contre le terrorismo – 21 Feb. 2023

Amnesty International – Human Rights Under Assault Two Years After President Saied’s Power Grap

Amnesty International – Tunisia: Drop trumped-up charges against arbitrarily detained political dissidents – 10 Oct. 2023

Amnesty International – Tunisia: President must lift arbitrary travel bans – 26 Aug. 2021

Associated Press – Families of imprisoned Tunisian dissidents head to the International Criminal Court – 25 Oct. 2023

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – One Year Later, Tunisia’s President Has Reversed Nearly a Decade of Democratic Gains – 22 July 2022

Le Monde – Tunisia: Opposition party leader Rached Ghannouchi sentenced to a year in prison – 15 May 2023

IACHR Notifies Brazil of Filing of Case Regarding Lack of Investigation Into Extrajudicial Executions of Teenagers

By: Rafael Sbeghen Freitas

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

BELÉM, Brazil – On June 16th, 2023, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the IDH Court the 12,398 case of Brazil, regarding the extrajudicial execution of teenagers Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Roseval Melo Mendes, and Luís Fábio Coutinho da Silva, during a slaughter that took place on December 13th, 1994 and became to be known as “The Massacre of Tapanã.”

 
Four of the accused policeman facing trial twenty four years after the executions | Photo Courtesy of Portal G1
  

The accusation reports that the Military Police officers received orders from higher authorities to locate and apprehend the murderers of Military Police Corporal Waldemar Paes Nunes, who had been a victim of robbery-murder moments earlier in an area nearby the “Tapanã Highway” in Belém, Pará. The information indicated that the perpetrators of the corporal’s murder had also stolen his firearm. The officers took police vehicles to carry out the order and brought with them the victim’s property caretaker as a witness, who had allegedly seen the corporal being murdered after his weapon was stolen.

According to court records, the police officers reportedly spotted Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Rosenaldo Melo Mendes, and Luiz Fabio Coutinho da Silva, who were recognized by the witness as the perpetrators of the robbery-murder that claimed the corporal’s life. After being approached, the suspects were handcuffed and executed. Eyewitnesses reported that four young individuals were apprehended: two of them were handcuffed and executed even before they entered the police vehicle and the other two had apparently tried to escape into the nearby wooded area, but were also executed after a pursuit.

The trial of the seventeen accused policemen happened only twenty four hours after, and resulted in the acquittal of all of them based on lack of evidence. The prosecutor did not appeal the decision.

Historically, in Brazil, the violent use of police force evolved from being a means of political control during the military dictatorship into a tool for social control, particularly in the context of managing criminality in the current days. The country still struggles to maintain civilian control of the military police and the military itself, notoriously being unable to properly investigate, prosecute and discipline the majority of crimes committed by those forces.

In that context, the Commission determined that the State violated the victims’ right to life and personal integrity and concluded that the operation did not adhere to the appropriate regulations for the use of force, and the agents failed to apply the criteria of necessity and proportionality. It was also stated that these events occurred within a context of state permissiveness towards police abuses and that the victims had endured torture prior to their execution.

The Brazilian state was notified of the filing on September 25th, and now has the opportunity to present a countercharge.

For further information, please see:

Brasil de Fato – What is Behind Police Brutality? – 06 Oct. 2023

Humans Rights Watch – Prosecutors Should Lead Police Killings Inquiries – 12 Sep. 2023

IACHR – Caso Cley Mendes y Otros vs. Brasil – 16 Jun. 2023

IACHR – IACHR Files Case with IA Court on Lack of Investigation Into Extrajudicial Executions of Adolescents in Brazil – 28 Aug. 2023