The Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam case: An international campaign within the realm of possibility

India’s refusal to accept individual complaints under the ICCPR leaves political prisoners without international recourse, unless civil society chooses to act.
The Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam case: An international campaign within the realm of possibility
Published on

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India barring Mr. Umar Khalid and Mr.  Sharjeel Imam, from applying for bail for a year, to put it mildly, is astounding. They have both been under-trials for over 5 years. Other commentators have called into question much of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in their rejection of the bail application. Their sound criticism does not bear repetition here. 

This piece only seeks to underline both the apparent ignorance and pusillanimity of the political class, and most of civil society in not educating public opinion for the need and ability to access remedial international human rights mechanisms when domestic judicial or executive remedies are unequal to the task of undoing a wrong.

The unused architecture of international human rights remedies

Reference here is to the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by ratification. India has been a party to the main ICCPR treaty since 1979, it is among the countries that differentiate the acceptance of substantive rights from the acceptance of international individual complaint mechanisms.

By not ratifying this protocol, India does not recognize the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee to receive and consider "communications" (complaints) from individuals within its jurisdiction who claim their rights under the ICCPR have been violated.
Loading content, please wait...
The Leaflet
theleaflet.in