Apr 9, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the passing of the amendments to the archaic 1948 Sedition Act by Parliament’s House of Representatives.
The amendments broaden and deepen even further the scope for this law to be abused by authorities in order to violate human rights.
The amendments were passed after a final vote that saw 108 MPs in favour and 79 MPs against the proposal.
“The passed amendments were part of a series of bills that were rushed through Parliament this week, including the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act”, said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser. “It is unfortunate that Prime Minister Najib Razak has chosen to renege on his promise to abolish the Sedition Act and instead went ahead to make the law worse than it already is.”
“It is undeniable that these amendments would send a further chilling effect on the freedom of expression in Malaysia that is already restricted,” Gil added.
The amendments will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, receive assent of the Malaysian King before it becomes law.
CONTACT:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org or mobile: +66 84 092 3575
Apr 9, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other leading human rights NGOs today publish a checklist of qualifications for use in the ongoing selection of a new UN expert on the right to privacy.
The UN is accepting applications for the newly-created Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, to be appointed at the June session of the Human Rights Council. The deadline for receipt of nominations is 30 April 2015.
The checklist was developed together with Access, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Article 19, the Association for Progressive Communications, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Privacy International. These NGOs, with the support of dozens of other civil society organisations from around the world, advocated for and strongly supported the establishment of the Special Rapporteur mandate at the March session of the Human Rights Council.
This checklist is intended to support governments, NGOs, academics, relevant professional networks, national human rights institutions and others in the identification of and outreach to highly qualified and independent candidates.
The checklist can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC29-CriteriaSRPrivacy-Advocacy-2015
The application and selection process is explained on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, here.
Apr 7, 2015 | News
The Malaysian government must cease efforts to strengthen the country’s draconian Sedition Act 1948, which has been used with increasing frequency and severity to suppress and punish criticism of the government, said the ICJ today.
An amendment to Malaysia’s Sedition Act tabled at parliament today would make sedition a non-bailable offence, aggravating the Sedition Act’s incompatibility with international human rights standards.
“The Sedition Act has been used against the government’s political opposition much more frequently than in previous years,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia. “Since January 2015, ICJ has recorded at least 36 academicians, lawyers, politicians, students, and activists have been investigated, arrested, or charged under the Sedition Act.”
According to the ICJ, this is a significant spike when compared to the total number of reported sedition cases recorded by Malaysian civil society in previous years: 2010 (5 cases); 2011 (3 cases); 2012 (7 cases); 2013 (19 cases); 2014 (42 cases).
“Instead of repealing or restricting the Sedition Act, the new amendment actually makes it worse by limiting the ability of courts to grant bail to people accused under the Sedition Act,” Gil added.
The amendment specifically states that if the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing that it would not be “in the public interest” to grant bail to the person charged with sedition, the person shall therefore not be released on bail, a matter otherwise normally determined by the courts in each case.
Denying bail based on a mere certificate by the Public Prosecutor removes any requirement that the court be presented with evidence to remand a person in custody and it may also preclude effective inquiry by the court into the lawfulness of the arrest and detention.
“The proposed amendment removes the court’s discretion to determine whether to grant bail or not when presented with a certification from the Public Prosecutor,” Gil said. “It appears therefore that the court has no power to require evidence or even articulation of the reasons to evaluate whether it is reasonable and necessary to remand the person charged with the offence in custody.”
Under international law, the right to seek provisional release before final conviction, for instance through posting bail, is closely linked to the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention.
Under international standards, a detention that complies with national law can nevertheless be considered arbitrary based on elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability.
In principle, anyone arrested on criminal allegations should have the right to seek release pending trial, including through bail proceedings before a court of law.
National laws should only allow bail to be denied where the facts of the individual case give rise to some specific reasonable ground for continued detention, such as preventing flight, or interference with evidence, or the commission of further violent offences.
Further, where the charges are incompatible with human rights – for instance when it is based entirely on protected freedom of expression – then there can be no basis whatsoever for pre-trial detention. Thus, any detention under the Sedition Act, a vague and ambiguously defined law, would be an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the ICJ recognizes that there have been instances when those arrested under the Sedition Act have allegedly committed acts that are recognizably criminal in character.
In these instances, other criminal laws in Malaysia could provide a proper basis for any investigation and detention.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia: emerlynne.gil@icj.org or +66840923575.
NOTE:
The figures above and the information contained in the chart and graph below are based on ICJ’s documentation in 2015 in comparison with the documentation of reported sedition cases for the past five years done by one of Malaysia’s leading organizations, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM).
Malaysia-Graph Sedition Cases 2010to2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full graph in PDF)
Malasia-Sedition table 2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full ICJ table in PDF)
Malaysia-SUARAM document Overview – Sedition cases 2010to2014-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full SUARAM table, in PDF)
Apr 7, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should intervene to stay the imminent execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, said the ICJ today.
Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 after an unfair trial, the ICJ says.
On Monday, 6 April 2015, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected Kamaruzzaman’s last-ditch petition for independent review of the sentence – he was claiming discrepancies in prosecution witness testimony during the trial – paving the way for his imminent execution.
“The ICJ has long supported the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 war to gain Bangladesh’s independence, but the death penalty, especially after a trial with procedural and substantive flaws, perpetuates the cycle of violence and is a perversion of justice,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that the ICT does not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of his review petition, Kamaruzzaman must now decide whether to seek clemency from the President, as the last resort.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment,” Zarifi said. “Especially where the death penalty is concerned, the trial process has to meet the highest standards of fairness and due process, but this case falls far short of that.”
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
In May 2013, the ICT found Kamaruzzaman guilty of mass killing during the 1971 Liberation War and sentenced him to death.
In November 2014, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on appeal upholding Kamaruzzaman’s conviction and death sentence.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
117 UN Member States, a clear majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Apr 7, 2015 | News
Venezuela is intimidating and harassing human rights defenders, and making unsubstantiated allegations that they are seeking to undermine Venezuelan democracy, 28 international and Latin American human rights organizations, including the ICJ, said today.
The authorities’ allegations concern the groups’ legitimate functions of documenting abuses and representing victims before international human rights bodies.
Venezuelan authorities should cease this tactic immediately, the groups said.
Governments participating in the Summit of the Americas in Panama on April 10-11, 2015, should press the administration of Nicolás Maduro to ensure that human rights defenders can do their job without fear of reprisals, the organizations said.
The government harassment is clearly intended to discredit and intimidate groups that document human rights violations, the groups said.
On February 12, Diosdado Cabello, president of the National Assembly and member of the governing party, stated on the website of his weekly TV show, Con el Mazo Dando, aired on the state-run Venezolana de Televisión, that “NGO representatives from the Venezuelan extreme right” would participate in hearings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in March.
Cabello had previously criticized Venezuelan human rights defenders who participated in the country’s review by the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva, or traveled abroad to conduct advocacy meetings.
On March 18, during his show, Cabello read a list of names of individuals and organizations who had traveled to Washington, DC, to participate in the IACHR hearings.
The list included leading human rights groups such as Provea, Espacio Público (Public Space), Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones (Venezuelan Observatory of Prisons), Transparencia Venezuela (Transparency Venezuela), Cofavic, Codevida, and Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social (Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflicts).
Cabello accused them of receiving instructions from the US Embassy in Caracas before traveling to the hearings.
Cabello contends that the information presented on the show had been provided by anonymous “patriotic informants” (patriotas cooperantes).
Twelve human rights defenders who arrived in Caracas on various flights between March 20 and 22 have said that they were followed by unidentified men from when they landed until they left the airport, were filmed or photographed, and/or that officials irregularly searched their bags.
On March 23, María Alejandra Díaz, a lawyer who represented the government at the IACHR hearings, said on Venezolana de Televisión that “The issue of human rights is just a façade” and that nongovernmental groups that participated in the hearings “say they are Venezuelan” but “play the imperialist game” and “lie in front of the IACHR to make Venezuela look like the devil.”
An article published on April 3 in the official newspaper Correo del Orinoco accused two well-respected human rights defenders of being part of the US Central Intelligence Agency’s “Venezuelan delegation” at the Summit of the Americas.
Their objective is to “legitimize destabilization actions” in Venezuela, the article says.
Under international law, governments must ensure that human rights defenders are allowed to pursue their legitimiate activities without reprisals, threats, intimidation, harassment, discrimination, or unnecessary legal obstacles.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held in 2003 that “[r]espect for human rights in a democratic state depends largely on human rights defenders enjoying effective and adequate guarantees so as to freely go about their activities.”
The rights to freedom of expression and association may be subject to limitations, but the limitations must adhere to strict standards so that they do not improperly impede the exercise of those rights. Any restrictions should be prescribed by law, be necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the aim pursued.
In 2012, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association called on countries to ensure that these rights “are enjoyed by everyone and any registered or unregistered entities” and that no one is subject to “harassment, persecution, intimidation or reprisals” for exercising them.
Signatories
Amnesty International
Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) (Peru)
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC) (Argentina)
Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña Tlachinollan (Mexico)
Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez, A.C. (Centro Prodh) (Mexico)
Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad (Dejusticia) (Colombia)
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
CIVICUS
Ciudadanos en Apoyo a los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (CADHAC) (Mexico)
Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Colombia)
Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) (Ecuador)
Corporación Humanas (Chile)
Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Peru)
Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR) (Uruguay)
Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) (Peru)
Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Direitos Humanos (Brazil)
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Frontline Defenders
Fundación Myrna Mack (Guatemala)
Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos (INREDH) (Ecuador)
Human Rights Watch
Observatorio Ciudadano (Chile)
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights
Transparency International
World Organization Against Torture
Venezuela-Harassment of HRDs-News-web stories-2015-SPA (full text in PDF, Spanish version)
Venezuela-Harassment of HRDs-News-web stories-2015-POR (full text in PDF, Portuguese version)
