Sep 6, 2016 | News
The ICJ has deplored the arrest and detention on questionable charges of Jamshed Yorov (photo), a lawyer practicing in Tajikistan.
Following his arrest on 22 August 2016, the lawyer was remanded in custody in a pre-trial facility in Dushanbe for two months.
He was charged with “disclosure of State secrets” under part 1 of article 311 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan.
Jamshed Yorov was detained on Monday, 22 August 2016. On the next day, he called his family and informed them that he was in police custody and being questioned in connection with the alleged leaked publication of the text of a classified court judgment on the internet.
The judgment concerned the case of thirteen leaders and three members of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT), who had been sentenced on 2 June 2016 to various long-term custodial terms, including life-imprisonment.
Jamshed Yorov represented Mahmadali Hait, one of the leaders of the IRPT, who was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The ICJ is concerned that the decision to arrest Jamshed Yorov may have been in response to the legitimate exercise of his professional functions in representation of Mahmadali Hait.
Any such reprisal would be contrary to a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.
Additionally they must be able to perform all their profession functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
The principles affirm that lawyers must not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards or ethics.
The ICJ calls on the Tajikistan authorities to comply with all international human rights obligations of Tajikistan, including the right to a fair trial, in the case of Jamshed Yorov.
In accordance with the right to liberty as enshrined in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), pre-trial detention should be ordered in exceptional cases only as a last resort, and in any event there needs to be the possibility to seek bail.
The proceedings should take full account of Jamshed Yorov’s professional duties as a defense lawyer, and should ensure that he does not suffer any criminal or administrative sanction as a result of the discharge of these duties.
The ICJ is further concerned that Jamshed Yorov’s arrest is allegedly linked to disclosure of a ‘secret’ judgment.
Article 14(1) of ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, provides that all court judgments must be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires, or where the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
More generally, under international standards everyone has the right to seek, receive, use, and impart information held by or on behalf of public authorities, or to which public authorities are entitled by law to have access.
While there are narrow exceptions on national security grounds, these are subject to strict limits and safeguards which do not appear to have been met.
Background information
This arrest follows a pattern of arrests of lawyers in 2014-2016, which raises serious concerns about the protection of the right to a fair trial and compliance with international standards on the role of lawyers in Tajikistan.
These arrests, including the arrest of Jamshed Yorov, may have a significant “chilling” effect on the willingness of defense lawyers to take on cases of clients that may be considered sensitive, especially cases that involve accusations of breach of national security and are heard in closed sessions.
Jamshed Yorov is the brother of Buzurgmehr Yorov, who was arrested in November 2015 and who led, before his arrest, the defence for seven leaders of the IRPT Political Council.
Burzurgmehr Yorov remains in remand prison, together with another lawyer, Nuriddin Makhamov, who also represented the IRPR and has been in remand prison since November 2015. Their trial is ongoing.
The ICJ and other international NGOs earlier expressed their concern that this case may also be connected with the performance of laweyers’ professional functions.
The ICJ also expressed its concern at the conviction of lawyer Shukhrat Kurdratov on 13 January 2015 on charges of fraud and bribery for which he was sentenced to nine years in prison. Despite recent reports of a possible amnesty, his conviction will remain in force.
tajikistan-lawyer-yorov-case-news-web-stories-2016-rus (full text in Russian, PDF)
Sep 5, 2016 | E-bulletin on counter-terrorism & human rights, News
Read the 104th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...
Aug 31, 2016 | News
ASEAN meeting should highlight disappeared Lao leader Sombath Somphone, denial of liberties, said human rights and advocacy groups at a press conference held today in Bangkok.
On the eve of the annual ASEAN leaders summit in Vientiane, the groups (Human Right Watch, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, Civil Rights Defenders, Focus on the Global South, Mekong Watch and the ICJ) called upon the Lao PDR Government to commit to address its widespread violations of human rights, including instances of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention.
Visiting world leaders have a unique opportunity to publicly raise human rights concerns during the ASEAN summit in Vientiane from September 6-8. They should press the Lao government to cease the abuses that have consistently placed Laos at the bottom of rights and development indexes measuring rights, press freedom, democracy, religious freedom, and economic transparency, the groups added.
At the event organized by The Sombath Initiative at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand in Bangkok, the groups also released a set of briefing papers on forcibly disappeared civil society leader Sombath Somphone (photo), Laos’ restrictions on democracy and human rights, lack freedom of expression, failure to meet human rights obligations, and impacts of foreign aid and investment.
“More than three and half years after he disappeared, the Lao government still has provided no clear answers to what happened to my husband, Sombath Somphone, who was taken away in truck at a police checkpoint in Vientiane,” said Shui Meng Ng, wife of Sombath and board member of The Sombath Initiative.
“President Obama, the United Nations, and ASEAN and its dialogue partners should urge the Lao Government to urgently resolve the case of Sombath’s enforced disappearance and return him safely to me and my family. They should also demand the Lao Government end enforced disappearances, so that the ordinary people of the country can respect their government rather than fear it.”
“The fact that the Lao PDR government’s last detailed report on the progress of the investigation was released over three years ago suggests the Lao authorities are not carrying out an effective investigation into this case as they are required to do under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, a Senior International Legal Adviser with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).
“It is not enough for the Lao government to simply keep asserting on the international stage that it is investigating this case. International law obliges Lao PDR authorities to conduct an investigation that is credible and effective, and provide regular updates on its progress including to Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng,” he added.
Basic civil and political rights are systematically denied in Laos, and government authorities move quickly to arbitrarily arrest those expressing critical views of the government, either in day to day life or more recently on-line.
In March 2016, police arrested three Lao migrant workers who had posted critical comments about the Lao government while they were working in Thailand, and continues to detain them arbitrarily. A Lao court also sentenced activist Bounthanh Khammavong in September 2015 to 4 years and 9 months in prison for posting critical comments on Facebook.
Laos also imposes onerous restrictions on the right to freedom of association that are incompatible with its human rights obligations.
The government strictly controls the registrations of organizations such as non-profit associations (NPAs), and closely monitors the work plans and budgets of NPAs that it does approve to operate.
Any person who dares to organize and operate an unsanctioned organization faces arrest and prosecution.
Workers are compelled to belong to the Lao Federation of Trade Unions and organizing unions outside that framework is illegal. At the village level, mass organizations controlled by the ruling Lao People’s Revolutionary Party are often the only organizations operating.
Public protests or assemblies are strictly forbidden without government permission, and any efforts organize such events face immediate suppression by the police and security forces.
“Civil society in Laos remains under a hostile spotlight from the government, and UN rights officials have noted that there are few places in the world where they have encountered greater fear and intimidation among community organizations and NGOs,” said Walden Bello, former member of the Philippines Congress and Vice Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
“Laos has now become one of the most rights repressing countries in ASEAN: leaders in the region and from around the world must stop looking the other way, and demand Vientiane end its asphyxiation of independent civil society,” he added.
Read the full text and quotes here: Laos-End to Human Rights Abuses-News-Press Releases-2016-ENG (in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 9 4470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Pakistan’s Supreme Court’s rejection of petitions by families of 16 people sentenced to death who complained of unfair trials in the country’s military courts seriously set back respect for human rights and the rule of law, the ICJ said today.
“The Supreme Court failed to use an important opportunity to show that human rights protect all people, including those who are accused of terrorist acts or other heinous crimes,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Pakistan’s very serious problem with terrorism can only be addressed with more respect for human rights and the rule of law, not less, and certainly not through deeply flawed military tribunals that provide neither justice nor truth.”
Families of sixteen civilians sentenced to death by military courts in secret proceedings challenged their convictions and sentences in the Supreme Court on fair trial grounds. In its 182-page judgment, a five-member bench Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali held the petitioners had failed to prove the military violated their constitutional right to a fair trial. At convicts are now at imminent risk of execution.
The ICJ is calling on the government of Pakistan to desist from executing these or other convicts, and to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty it held from 2008 to 2014.
“Trial of civilian suspects in military courts is anathema to human rights and international standards are clear that military courts should only have jurisdiction over military officers for military offences,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan’s military tribunals in particular offer nothing like a fair trial and should be immediately dismantled.”
As highlighted by the ICJ in a briefing paper released in June, proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall well short of national and international standards requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts: judges are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied. In addition, the procedures of military courts, the selection of cases to be referred to them, the location and timing of trial, and details about the alleged offences are kept secret.
“The ICJ supports the pursuit of justice for all victims of terrorism in Pakistan,” added Zarifi. “However, justice will not be done by subverting the foundational pillar of justice: the right to a fair trial for all suspects –regardless of how serious the offence.”
Since January 2015, when Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, 11 military courts have been constituted to hear cases related to terrorism.
These 11 military courts have thus far concluded the trials of 128 people, finding the defendants guilty in 104 cases. A hundred people have been sentenced to death and four have been given life sentences. At least 12 people have been hanged after trials that are grossly unfair.
The ICJ has called on the Pakistan government to roll back the system of “military injustice”, and ensure that all terrorism suspects are guaranteed basic fair trial protections.
The ICJ has also urged that Pakistan reinstate a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in law and practice, reflecting the call of an overwhelming majority of States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions. The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a from of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In January 2015, Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences as part of its 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted by the Government following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar.
The expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians was accomplished through the 21st Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution and amendments to the Army Act, 1952. These amendments allow military courts to try offences related to “terrorism” committed by those who claim to, or are known to, belong to a terrorist organization “using the name of religion or a sect”.
Both amendments are set to expire on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a “sunset clause”, after which they will cease to be in effect, although there is a risk that they could be renewed.
In August 2015, the Pakistani Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 21st amendment and the trial of civilians by military courts for terrorism-related offences.
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Tens of thousands of enforced disappearances in South Asia can only be addressed if all the region’s governments immediately criminalize this serious human rights violation, said today lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The call came at a Conference on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, organized by the ICJ and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) on the eve of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.
South Asia has among the highest number of alleged victims of enforced disappearances in the world: tens of thousands of cases have been documented in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and India, and since 2009, there has also been a surge in enforced disappearances in Bangladesh.
“Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance and its pledge to criminalize the practice is a welcome step,” said I. A. Rehman, Secretary General for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
“Other States in the region should now follow suit and show that they are serious about their commitment to human rights by making enforced disappearance a specific crime in their domestic law,” he added.
Under international law, an enforced disappearance is the arrest, abduction or detention by State agents, or by people acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or by concealing the fate or whereabouts of the “disappeared” person which places the person outside the protection of the law.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity”.
At present, enforced disappearance is not a distinct crime in any South Asian country, which is one of the major hurdles to bringing perpetrators to justice.
In the absence of a legal framework on enforced disappearance, unacknowledged detentions by law enforcement agencies are considered “missing persons” cases.
On the rare occasions where criminal complaints are registered against alleged perpetrators, complainants are forced to categorize the crime as “abduction” or “kidnapping”.
These categories do not recognize the complexity and the particularly serious nature of enforced disappearance, and often do not provide for penalties commensurate to the gravity of the crime.
They also fail to recognize as victims relatives of the “disappeared” person and others suffering harm as a result of the enforced disappearance, as required under international law.
“Despite thousands of cases of enforced disappearance across South Asia, the governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“South Asian governments have done very little to support the victims and survivors of enforced disappearance, or to ensure the rights of their family members to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.
Other barriers to bringing perpetrators to account are also similar in South Asian countries: military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention; members of law enforcement and security forces enjoy broad legal immunities, shielding them from prosecution; and military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military, even where these crimes are human rights violations.
Victims’ groups, lawyers, and activists who work on enforced disappearance also face security risks including attacks, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.
A comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to end the entrenched impunity for enforced disappearances in the region – criminalizing the practice would be a significant first step, said ICJ and the HRCP.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Read also
ICJ Practitioners’ Guides No. 9 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction and No. 10 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: the Right of Family Members, which provide legal practitioners, activists and policy-makers with detailed and practical references on international standards on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
South Asia-International disappearances day statement-News-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
