May 30, 2016 | News
The ongoing criminal trial in the Loei Provincial Court, where a verdict is awaited tomorrow, is an important test of Thailand’s commitment to hold those responsible for criminal offences against human rights defenders to account, the ICJ and Protection International said today.
On 31 May, the Loei Provincial Court will render its verdict following the trial of retired Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak, and his son, Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Col Poramin Pomnak, on criminal charges related to their alleged participation in a violent attack by a group of over 100 armed men against members of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group (KRBKG) in Nanonbong village in Loei and other villagers.
The victims were assaulted and held captive for over seven hours during the attack in the evening of 15 May 2014.
More than 20 people were injured, with seven requiring hospitalization for serious injuries.
KRBKG is a community-based group protesting what they allege is the damaging impact of mining operations on their health and their environment.
Most of KRBKG’s activities have focused on stopping the operations of the Phuthapfa gold mine operated by Thai company, Tungkum Ltd., situated in Loei Province.
“This case has become emblematic of the human rights abuses faced by human rights defenders trying to protect their communities in Thailand,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Many people are looking at this case to see whether the Thai government will follow through on its commitment to protect human rights defenders.”
The attack on Nanonbong village occurred after KRBKG and local residents barricaded the road to the gold mine, which passes through the village.
During the attack, the barricade was destroyed and at least 13 trucks were reportedly seen transporting materials from the mine site.
Partly based on the villagers’ testimony that Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were involved in the 15 May violence, the two were indicted on several charges, including offences of ‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’ and ‘false imprisonment’ (or illegal deprivation of liberty), under articles 295 and 309 of the Thai Criminal Code.
“Given credible reports that a group of over 100 armed men were involved, the ICJ is concerned that only two people have been indicted for the attack, and we are therefore calling on the Thai authorities to re-open investigations and ensure all those responsible are held to account and redress is provided for the victims concerned,” Zarifi added.
The case against Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak comes against a background of disputes between KRBKG and Tungkum Ltd.
The company filed at least 19 criminal and civil lawsuits against 33 members of KRBKG and other villagers in the past seven years.
One of those cases includes claims of criminal defamation against a 15-year old girl who allegedly made negative statements about the company’s activities on a television program.
Members of KRBKG have joined as plaintiffs in the criminal case and are demanding compensation from the two defendants.
Background
Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were formally indicted on the following charges of the Thai Penal Code: articles 295 (‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’) and 296 (sentencing for bodily harm), 309 (‘false imprisonment’ or ‘illegal confinement’) and 310 (sentencing for false imprisonment), 358 (‘offence of mischief’ or ‘damage to property’) 371 (‘offence of bearing arms’), 376 (‘offence of discharging a firearm’), 391 (sentencing for acts of violence not amounting to bodily harm) taken together with articles 32, 33, (‘forfeiture of property used in the commission of an offence’) 83, 84, (principals and accomplices, accessories or conspirators) 91, (articles 90 and 91 set out provisions for sentencing when an act constitutes multiple offences. Sentences can be awarded for each offence consecutively, but with a maximum time as prescribed by article 91); and articles 4, 7, 8bis, 72, 72bis of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act B.E.2490 (1947); article 3 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act (No.3) B.E.2501 (1958); No. 3, 6, 7 of the Order of the Announcement of the National Administrative Reform Council no.44 dated 21 October 1976.
Thailand has a legal obligation to protect all human rights defenders from retaliation for the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights. On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 126 other States at the UN General Assembly in adopting one of the latest UN resolutions on human rights defenders. General Assembly resolution 70/161 recognizes the importance of States’ protection of human rights defenders, in particular from being prosecuted for peaceful activities and against other threats, harassment and intimidation; and encourages States to investigate allegations of intimidation and reprisals, and to bring perpetrators to justice.
Thailand-Loei case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
May 25, 2016 | Advocacy, Open letters
More than 230 non-governmental organizations (NGO) world wide have called on members of the UN’s Economic and Social Council to reform the practice of the UN Committee on NGOs, and to ensure apolitical, fair and transparent consideration of NGO applications for access to UN processes.
The response has been sparked by the long-term practice of some States to delay or effectively block certain NGOs from participation at the UN, through perpetual questioning and multiple deferrals of applications for accreditation.
In doing so, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee on NGOs has turned what should be largely an administrative role into the obstruction of NGOs working on issues on which States disagree. Human rights organisations are amongst those facing the most obstacles.
The joint open letter may be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-NGOCommittee-OpenLetter-2016
May 15, 2016 | News
The ICJ hosted a workshop on “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law” in Yangon on 14 and 15 May 2016.
The workshop was the first of its kind in Myanmar to bring together such a varied group of people to discuss the topic of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) and international human rights law.
The event drew together a diverse group, including more than 50 lawyers from different parts of Myanmar, along with lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, inter-sex and queer (LGBTI) activists, members of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, and regional academics and lawyers and international experts.
Myanmar-SOGI workshop-News-Web Story-2016-ENG (full story in PDF)
May 13, 2016 | News
Nepal’s leading political parties should not bargain away justice for victims of serious human rights abuses as part of an agreement to form a new coalition government, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International said today.
A new agreement between the ruling parties threatens to entrench impunity for those who planned and carried out killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and other crimes in Nepal’s civil war, just as the country’s long delayed transitional justice process is finally about to get under way.
On May 5, 2016, presumably in a bid to retain the support of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) for the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) coalition government of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, the two ruling coalition partners agreed to a nine-point deal containing provisions that aim to shield perpetrators of abuses in Nepal’s decade-long civil war.
Provision 7, which directs the authorities to withdraw all wartime cases before the courts and to provide amnesty to alleged perpetrators, is particularly problematic.
“This political deal between the ruling parties is extremely damaging to the credibility of an already deeply politicized and flawed transitional justice process in the eyes of Nepal’s victims,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“Moreover, it flies in the face of Nepal’s international human rights obligations and the rulings of its own Supreme Court by trying to wash away the crimes of the conflict by attempting to coopt pending criminal cases and provide blanket amnesty to alleged perpetrators,” he added.
The Supreme Court of Nepal has in several instances reaffirmed the principle under international law that amnesties are impermissible for serious international crimes.
However, Nepal authorities have consistently ignored the orders from the country’s highest court.
Nepal has an obligation under international law to investigate and, where sufficient evidence exists, prosecute crimes under international law, including torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both treaties to which Nepal is a party – require states to ensure the right to an effective remedy and reparation for victims of human rights violations.
“The political deal by the ruling parties to grant amnesty to those responsible for conflict-era human rights abuses is a callous attempt to disregard Nepal’s international treaty obligations by violating victims’ right to an effective remedy,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Nepal’s political deal jeopardizes the war victims’ last best hope for justice and accountability.”
The applicability of this international obligation under Nepali law was reaffirmed by the Nepal Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in the Suman Adhikari case, striking down provisions of the Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014 (TRC Act) that it ruled were inconsistent with international law and ordering the government to amend the TRC Act, the May 2014 legislation creating the two transitional justice mechanisms, the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (COID) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The Supreme Court ruled in the same decision that criminal cases already before the judiciary could not be transferred to the two commissions, confirming that the judiciary and not the commissions had the authority to determine the criminality of conflict-era human rights violations.
“Nepal’s ruling parties cannot bargain away victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation by using the commissions as a substitute for their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute human rights abuses through the criminal justice system,” said Champa Patel, South Asia Regional Office Director at Amnesty International.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, along with Nepali civil society, victims’ groups, the United Nations, and the international diplomatic community, have consistently called for the Nepal government to amend the TRC Act in line with Nepal’s international obligations as well as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, in order to ensure a credible transitional justice process that safeguards victims’ rights and conforms to rule of law principles.
In a flagrant display of deliberate disregard for the rule of law, however, the ruling parties’ deal to amend the TRC Act by attempting to reinforce the same amnesty provision that has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court ignores both the country’s international legal obligations and the binding judgments of its own apex court, and further threatens the prospects for post-war justice and accountability in Nepal.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International therefore call upon the Nepal government to take immediate and effective steps to safeguard victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation through a credible transitional justice process that is free of any political interference or any forms of pressure or intimidation.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-318-7821 (mobile); e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
May 13, 2016 | Uncategorized
The workshop, held in Yangon on 12-13 May, brought together lawyers and activists from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines to share experience and best practice on access to remedy in the area of business and human rights.
“The ASEAN Economic Community and economic growth in Southeast Asia have not occurred with corresponding improvement in human rights,” said Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights.
“The ICJ has identified supporting the right to a remedy as a key factor in ensuring that regional economic growth does not come at the expense of rights,” he added.
The Yangon workshop was designed to promote regional networking and sharing of experiences. In particular, participants discussed how to use strategic litigation to change a culture of impunity in South East Asia.
Strategic litigation can bring about significant changes in the law, practice or public awareness via taking carefully selected cases to court.
The clients involved in strategic litigation have been victims of human rights abuses that are suffered by many other people.
But strategic litigation does not happen entirely in the courts. Successful litigation will include social mobilization, awareness-raising, and skillful use of media.
Lawyers shared case studies revealing human rights abuses committed by business enterprises, fuelled by rapid, unregulated investment.
Unresolved and endemic disputes over land in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar have given rise to human rights abuses and even conflict.
Illegal labour practices and the plight of migrant workers highlight the legal difficulty of prosecuting companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions.
Many of the abuses discussed concern the rights of communities, often the most marginalized.
Retaliation against communities and their lawyers for opposing development projects is common.
They fear legal action, intimidation and violence as a result of asserting human rights.
The workshop made clear that ASEAN states are not fulfilling their responsibility to protect human rights and are not providing adequate remedy for abuses by corporations.
“Despite diverse legal and political systems, the challenges facing these lawyers are strikingly similar,” said Daniel Aguirre, ICJ International Legal Adviser based in Yangon. “Protective laws are unimplemented in practice, individuals and communities lack effective access to remedy and they are often persecuted for asserting their human rights.”
Aside from outlining their important cases, participants at the workshop explained the strategies employed to affect change.
They discussed social mobilization and marches in the Philippines, the promotion of local culture and the use of media in Thailand, the engagement of civil society with lawyers in Cambodia and the struggle for land rights in Myanmar and Laos.
Participants took advantage of simultaneous translation to compare approaches.
Many participants pointed to a culture of impunity, where business activities often went unregulated, and corrupt authorities failed to implement and enforce laws.
Lawyers explained the difficulty of collecting evidence when so few locals were aware of the law and their human rights.
Moreover, crimes of a transnational nature present additional challenges, as people from different languages, cultures and legal systems must cooperate to enforce laws.
Underpinning all of these problems is the lack of independent judiciaries. “The lawyers all agreed that access to remedy is undermined by partial authorities that lack independence,” said Aguirre. “Even if they manage to get to trial, the courts are not always independent, impartial and competent.”
Contact:
Daniel Aguirre, ICJ International Legal Adviser, Yangon. daniel.aguirre(a)icj.org
Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights, Geneva. carlos.lopez(a)icj.org
