ICCPR, RABAT PLAN OF ACTION AND SRI LANKA

 

This AI-generated article presents facts that are crucial to analyse the present context related to ICCPR in Sri Lanka.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. It is one of the two International Covenants on Human Rights, alongside the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ICCPR sets out a number of civil and political rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom from torture, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial.

The purpose of the ICCPR is to protect the civil and political rights of individuals. It does this by setting out a number of rights that States Parties to the Covenant are obliged to respect and ensure. The ICCPR also establishes a number of mechanisms to ensure that States Parties comply with their obligations, including the Human Rights Committee.

The ICCPR is an important instrument for the protection of human rights. It has been ratified by 173 States Parties, and it is used by human rights lawyers and activists around the world to challenge violations of civil and political rights.

Here are some of the specific purposes of the ICCPR:

• To protect individuals from arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence.
• To ensure that individuals are free to express their thoughts and opinions, without fear of reprisal.
• To guarantee that individuals have the right to freedom of assembly and association.
• To ensure that individuals are entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
• To prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• To guarantee that individuals are not subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
• To ensure that individuals have the right to a nationality.

The ICCPR is an important milestone in the development of international human rights law. It has helped to raise awareness of the importance of civil and political rights, and it has provided a framework for the protection of these rights around the world.

Sri Lanka endorsed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 12 September 1977 and ratified it on 11 May 1980. The ICCPR is an international treaty that sets out a number of civil and political rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom from torture, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial.

Sri Lanka has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which allows individuals to submit complaints to the Human Rights Committee if they believe that their rights under the ICCPR have been violated. The Optional Protocol was ratified by Sri Lanka on 14 December 1998. The Human Rights Committee is a treaty body of the United Nations (UN) that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR.

The ICCPR has been used by human rights lawyers and activists to challenge violations of civil and political rights, and it has helped to raise awareness of the importance of these rights in the country.

However, there have been concerns about the implementation of the ICCPR in Sri Lanka. In particular, there have been allegations that the Sri Lankan government has violated the right to life, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial. The Human Rights Committee has raised these concerns in its concluding observations on Sri Lanka’s periodic reports to the Committee.

The Sri Lankan government has committed to implementing the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol. However, there is still work to be done to ensure that the rights protected by these instruments are fully realized in Sri Lanka.

The Rabat Plan of Action is a set of guidelines for States on how to implement Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Plan of Action was adopted by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in 2012, and it is based on the following principles:

• The need to protect freedom of expression, while also ensuring that incitement to hatred is prohibited.
• The need to take into account the context of the speech, the speaker, the intent, the content, the extent of the speech, and the likelihood of harm, when determining whether a particular statement constitutes incitement to hatred.
• The need to involve all stakeholders, including the media, religious leaders, and civil society, in the fight against incitement to hatred.

The Rabat Plan of Action has been endorsed by a number of States, and it is used by human rights experts and lawyers to guide their work on incitement to hatred. The Plan of Action is also a valuable resource for journalists, teachers, and other individuals who want to understand the challenges of combating incitement to hatred in a way that respects freedom of expression.

Here are some of the key provisions of the Rabat Plan of Action:

• States should adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that includes provisions prohibiting incitement to hatred.
• States should ensure that the definition of incitement to hatred is clear and narrowly tailored, so that it does not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
• States should establish independent and impartial bodies to investigate and prosecute cases of incitement to hatred.
• States should promote tolerance and understanding among different groups in society.

The Rabat Plan of Action is an important tool for protecting freedom of expression and preventing incitement to hatred. It is a valuable resource for States, human rights experts, and individuals who want to work to build a more tolerant and peaceful world.

Sri Lanka endorsed the Rabat Plan of Action on 29 January 2014. The Plan of Action is a set of guidelines for States on how to implement Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

The endorsement of the Rabat Plan of Action by Sri Lanka is a significant step towards the prevention of incitement to hatred and the protection of freedom of expression in the country. It is a reminder that Sri Lanka has a responsibility to protect its citizens from harmful speech, while also ensuring that freedom of expression is not unduly restricted.

The following are the key provisions of the Rabat Plan of Action that Sri Lanka has committed to implementing:

• States should adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that includes provisions prohibiting incitement to hatred.
• States should ensure that the definition of incitement to hatred is clear and narrowly tailored, so that it does not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
• States should establish independent and impartial bodies to investigate and prosecute cases of incitement to hatred.
• States should promote tolerance and understanding among different groups in society.

The implementation of the Rabat Plan of Action in Sri Lanka will require a number of challenges. These include:

• The need to raise awareness of the Plan of Action among government officials, law enforcement officers, and the general public.
• The need to strengthen the capacity of the Sri Lankan government to investigate and prosecute cases of incitement to hatred.
• The need to promote tolerance and understanding among different groups in Sri Lankan society.

Despite the challenges, the endorsement of the Rabat Plan of Action by Sri Lanka is a positive step towards the prevention of incitement to hatred and the protection of freedom of expression in the country.

The Sri Lankan government has been accused of misusing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act to silence critics and suppress dissent. The Act, which was passed in 2007, prohibits the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

However, critics have argued that the Act has been used to target minority groups and silence dissent. For example, in 2019, the government arrested and charged a Muslim woman with violating the Act for wearing clothing that was perceived as offensive to Buddhism. The woman was later released, but the case again highlighted the potential for the Act to be used to target minority groups.

The Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR, has expressed concern about the misuse of the Act in Sri Lanka. In its concluding observations on Sri Lanka’s periodic report to the Committee, the Human Rights Committee said that the Act “has been used to restrict freedom of expression and association, and to target particular groups, including religious minorities.”

The Committee also said that the Act “lacks clarity and precision” and that it “does not provide adequate safeguards to protect freedom of expression.”

The Sri Lankan government has defended the Act, saying that it is necessary to protect national security and religious harmony. However, critics have argued that the Act is being used to suppress dissent and silence minority voices.

The misuse of the ICCPR Act is a serious concern in Sri Lanka. The Act has the potential to be used to stifle freedom of expression and target minority groups. The Sri Lankan government should take steps to ensure that the Act is not misused and that it is used in accordance with international human rights standards.

The Buddhist monk arrested by the Sri Lankan government in 2018 for violating the ICCPR Act is Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero. He was arrested on April 1, 2018, for making a speech that was critical of the government and that was perceived as offensive to Buddhism. The speech was made at a religious gathering in Kurunegala, Sri Lanka.

Gnanasara Thero was charged with violating Section 3 of the ICCPR Act, which prohibits the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. He was also charged with violating Section 291B of the Penal Code, which prohibits the publication of any matter that is likely to cause religious disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.

Gnanasara Thero was released on bail on April 9, 2018, and the case against him is still ongoing. He has denied the charges against him and has said that he was simply exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The arrest of Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero was met with criticism from human rights groups, who said that it was a violation of his right to freedom of expression. They also said that the arrest was politically motivated, as Gnanasara Thero is a vocal critic of the government.

The Sri Lankan government has defended the arrest, saying that it was necessary to take action against Gnanasara Thero for his inflammatory speech. The government has also said that it is committed to protecting freedom of expression, but that this freedom must be balanced with the need to maintain religious harmony.

The case of Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero is a reminder of the challenges of balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect religious harmony. It is also a reminder of the importance of ensuring that laws that are designed to protect religious harmony are not used to stifle dissent or silence minority voices.

Shakthika Sathkumara is a Sri Lankan writer and civil servant who was arrested in April 2019 on charges of violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act and the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from a short story that Sathkumara had published on Facebook, which was critical of Buddhism and its clergy.

Sathkumara was held in pre-trial detention for 127 days, and his case was widely criticized by human rights groups. In February 2021, the case against Sathkumara was dropped by the Sri Lankan Attorney General.

The Shakthika Sathkumara case is a reminder of the challenges of balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect religious harmony. It is also a reminder of the importance of ensuring that laws that are designed to protect religious harmony are not used to stifle dissent or silence minority voices.

Here are some of the key details of the case:

• Sathkumara was arrested on April 1, 2019, for publishing a short story on Facebook that was critical of Buddhism and its clergy.
• The story was titled “Ardha” (Half), and it explored the themes of sexuality and religion.
• Sathkumara was charged with violating Section 3 of the ICCPR Act, which prohibits the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
• He was also charged with violating Section 291B of the Penal Code, which prohibits the publication of any matter that is likely to cause religious disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.
• Sathkumara was held in pre-trial detention for 127 days, before the case against him was dropped in February 2021.
• The case against Sathkumara was dropped by the Sri Lankan Attorney General, who said that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges.
• The case was widely criticized by human rights groups, who said that it was a violation of Sathkumara’s right to freedom of expression.
• The case also highlighted the challenges of balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect religious harmony in Sri Lanka.

The Shakthika Sathkumara case is a reminder of the importance of protecting freedom of expression, even when it is controversial or offensive. It is also a reminder of the need to ensure that laws that are designed to protect religious harmony are not used to stifle dissent or silence minority voices.

Adapted from praja.lk