ICJ Kenya position paper on the Crime of Aggression and Articles 8 & Article 124 of the Rome Statute and the Stocktaking issues at the ICC Review Conference

An amendment to the Constitution of Cote d’Ivoire differentiates against foreigners and their descendants by restricting their rights to enjoyment of property on the mere basis of their nationality. This different of treatment constitutes unfair discrimination and violates the right to freedom from discrimination. Furthermore, it violates the rights of foreigners to compensation in case of deprivation.

South Africa is a party to all the major International Human Rights Instruments, many of which guarantee the right to freedom of information to an extent, as well as a qualified guarantee to the right to housing. In the present case, South Africa’s domestic legislation provides more protection of both of these rights for its citizens. Under South Africa’s Constitution and domestic legislation, the State is obliged to prevent Private actors from denying persons information without reasonable justification where such a denial leads to a violation of the right to housing, the right to freedom of information, or the right to non-discrimination.

The issue for decision in this case can be briefly stated: What human rights claims exist under international human rights conventions and Nigerian law for an employee - in this case Taire Johnson- who has been dismissed from private employment on the basis of an erroneous diagnosis of HIV/AIDs arising from an employer’s mandatory testing.

The applicant, a woman is claiming custody of her children whom her husband took away from her. Nigeria is a signatory to the UDHR and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is bound by these instruments to apply certain standards with regard to child custody. This case primarily concerning questions on the custody of the children should focus on the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.

Tanzania is bound by the Convention on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEDAW), as well as the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women (Women’s Protocol). Tanzania is also a signatory to most other major international human rights instruments, including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention in the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under its international obligations, Tanzania is required to guarantee the rights of women in effect as well as to interpret legislation so as to meaningfully apply these rights.

Tanzania is under international obligations to ensure that women are not discriminated against. Tanzania is bound by the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as various other international and regional instruments that guarantee the right to non-discrimination. The present case overtly treats women differently to men in relation to citizenship rights of a spouse. By denying the applicant (Sion Gabriel) the same rights as men to confer citizenship on her spouse, merely because she is a woman is in clear violation of international human rights law.

Kenya is bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC) and is also a signatory to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Kenya has implemented these international instruments domestically through the Children’s Act, 2001. The failure of the government to provide free legal assistance to children where necessary is in violation of both domestic and international law.

The applicant is a registered trade union whose objectives include seeking the membership of all workers employed in Hotels, Bakeries, Food Processing Industries, meat processing and packing and any related industries. In pursuance of this objective, the applicant recruited over 51% membership from each of the following companies; Hotel Equatoria, Fang Fang Hotel and restaurant and Britania Allied Products (U) Ltd.

Zimbabwe is in clear violation of international law in the present case. The facts of the case involved the deportation of Andrew Mullen despite his being acquitted of the charges against him, and despite the existence of a stay on his deportation order by the judiciary. Zimbabwe has violated the rights of aliens, as well as the right to a fair hearing. Zimbabwe is a signatory to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as well as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it will be seen that the present case violates both of these international instruments. All levels of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary must ensure that the rights and fundamental freedoms are upheld.

The right to housing is protected in many international instruments, in primis the International Covenant on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights, a treaty to which the State of Ghana is party. Forced evictions are allowed only in exceptional circumstances, with due procedural forms and with the provision of compensation and alternative and adequate resettlements. Governments are responsible under the Covenant that there are no homeless as a result of the evictions.