Publications

This commentary has been submitted in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights' call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the human rights implications of UK extradition policy. Jurisdiction over international crimes committed abroad by suspects in the UK is firmly established by a robust legislative framework with few “impunity gaps”. Despite this, there have been very few prosecutions. Rather, the apparent policy seems to be to leave cases in limbo in the hope of a successful extradition, even where an attempt to extradite has already failed. This approach is wrong is principle, and is at variance with the UK’s obligations under international law. Redress calls for a holistic policy of extradition aimed at ensuring accountability for the most egregious crimes within our jurisdiction.

This submission concerns Clause 151 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill, which, if adopted, would signals to those responsible for international crimes that this jurisdiction is increasingly ‘perpetrator-friendly’, and one where the important role of civil society organisations seeking to end impunity for grave violations is obfuscated. REDRESS has a long-standing interest in the strengthening and enforcement of universal jurisdiction legislation and principles in the UK. In January 2010, along with five other NGOs, REDRESS submitted a briefing to parliamentarians opposing proposals for the Attorney General to interfere in the arrest warrant procedure. Most recently, in November 2010, REDRESS together with FIDH, published a report examining the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in all Member States of the European Union, focusing on trial strategies from the perspective of victims and witnesses of international crimes.

This report, co-authored by REDRESS and the International Federation for Human Rights, aims to increase general knowledge of the issues surrounding the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and universal jurisdiction in particular, in the European Union. To that end, this publication provides an overview of the current laws and practices of 27 EU member states, as well as that of Norway and Switzerland, concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction for prosecution of crimes under international law. In doing so, this report demonstrated that many states have built up considerable capacity in this area, are now exercising significant extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to such crimes. Finally, we offers an assessment of the common trends and hurdles presented by the legislation.

This submission - co-authored by Redress, Asian Human Rights Commission, and the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims - calls on the UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts to call on the the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law during the final stage of the conflict in Sri Lanka. Should this recommendation not be accepted, we submit that the Panel should recommend the establishment of a fact-finding mission in order to request Sri Lanka itself take appropriate action against the perpetrators.

Redress, in collaboration with the International Federation for Human Rights, has published an in-depth report highlighting recent advances at the national level in the fight against impunity. The report seeks to illustrate the manner in which - with institutional commitment and political will - national authorities can effectively investigate and prosecute serious international crimes. These methods include the implementation of universal jurisdiction and the establishment of ‘specialised units’ to detect, investigate and prosecute individuals suspected of perpetrating serious international crimes.  

For the last six years, the International Federation for Human Rights and REDRESS have been collaborating to facilitate a common approach between the Member States of the EU on the implementation of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This report summarises the findings of a recent conference, in which our organisations brought together different national and international actors, including lawyers, human rights organisations, investigators, prosecutors and EU officials. Discussions focused on the central challenges relating to the exercise by Member States of extraterritorial jurisdiction, mutual cooperation, and the challenges associated with the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

This submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Sudan - co-authored by Redress and the Sudanese Human Rights Monitor - highlights the need for legislative reforms in Sudan to address persisting discrepancies between the country's domestic laws and its international human rights obligations, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The report includes an analysis of the Sudanese Bill of Rights, with a view to identifying critical aspects that should form part of the new constitution following the end of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement interim period in mid-2011. This submission forms part of our Project on Criminal Law Reform in Sudan with the Sudanese Human Rights Monitor and Sudanese civil society.

These comments to the ICCNGO Bi-annual Consultations concern the International Criminal Court’s Draft Guidelines governing the relations between the Court and Intermediaries. Intermediaries at the ICC are generally motivated as stakeholders in the justice process, and often put themselves them at personal and professional risk in the course of their obligations. With this in mind, our submission strives to facilitate fruitful, mutual understanding and sustainable working relationships. This paper builds on a previous comments made by the Victims’ Rights Working Group in February 2009, which provided a preliminary review of the role and relationship of intermediaries with the ICC, reflecting the types of work and challenges faced by them in their daily work.