Mar 12, 2015 | News
Pakistan’s decision to fully reinstate the death penalty puts at imminent risk of execution more than 500 people on death row who have exhausted all avenues of appeal, with another 8000 facing death penalties, said the ICJ today.
“The total abandonment of the moratorium on the death penalty is a disaster for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director. “We fear a major acceleration in the flow of executions we have seen over the past few months—none of which do anything to protect the rights of the Pakistani people.”
25 people have been executed since 16 December 2014, when Pakistan lifted a moratorium on executions in cases of capital punishment related to terrorism. The decision to partially lift a six-year unofficial moratorium on executions was in response to an attack on a school in Peshawar, killing 150 people, almost all of them children. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
In January, Pakistan also amended the Constitution and the Army Act, 1952, empowering military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences.
“The Pakistani people face a very real threat from terrorist attacks, but there is no indication that the death penalty will decrease this threat,” said Zarifi. “Instead, the government is targeting hundreds of people on death row whose convictions had nothing to do with terrorism-related offenses.”
In Pakistan, capital punishment is prescribed for 27 different offences, including blasphemy, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, kidnapping or abduction, rape, assault on the modesty of women and the stripping of women’s clothes, smuggling of drugs, arms trading and sabotage of the railway system. Many of these crimes do not meet the threshold of ‘most serious crimes’ stipulated by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010. Article 6 of the ICCPR, guaranteeing the right to life, requires that states restrict capital punishment to only the ‘most serious crimes’. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has clarified that in the context of the death penalty, the definition of the ‘most serious crimes’ is limited to those cases in which there was an intention to kill, which resulted in the loss of life.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, that emphasizes that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and that calls on countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. An overwhelming majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of the call for a worldwide moratorium on executions, as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Pakistan should reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to definitively abolishing the practice in law,” said Zarifi.
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.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Mar 12, 2015 | News
Thailand must live up to its repeated promises to bring justice to the case of Somchai Neelapaijit, who was forcibly disappeared eleven years ago today, said the ICJ.
In multiple statements since Somchai Neelapaijit was abducted on a street in central Bangkok, the Royal Thai Government has pledged to resolve the case.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
In April 2014, Thailand gave assurances to the UN Committee that monitors the implementation of the Convention Against Torture in Geneva that the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) was continuing to investigate Somchai Neelapaijit’s case without any interference.
“Despite the passage of eleven years, Thai authorities have not carried out a comprehensive investigation or exhausted the possible sources of evidence,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “What is required is the DSI’s real and determined effort to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012.
Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention, which among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Torture and Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Suppression Bill, which, in its current form, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
“This new law must ensure there is no statute of limitations on enforced disappearance, which is not only a serious human rights violation but also a crime under international law,” added Zarifi. “Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unresolved, and his family continue to demand truth and justice from the authorities.”
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
The report highlighted several key problems, such as poor use of forensic evidence, failure to follow and develop leads, unduly restrictive interpretation of national and international law, and above all, a lack of political will to resolve a case that remains emblematic of the culture of impunity in Thailand.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 9, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ supported a statement commenting on the respective reports by the Independent Expert on the Environment and Human Rights and the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and its impact on Human Rights.
In the context of the Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Experts in the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council, Franciscans International and the Center of Concern, with the support of the ICJ, noted that the reports address, from different perspectives, a wide range of connections between the private sector and governments that many times result in human rights abuses.
The report by the Independent Expert on human rights and the environment, presented an encouraging set of good practices to mitigate environmental damage and its human rights impact.
The report by the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and its impact on human rights highlighted the links between private lending and the abuses committed by authoritarian regimes.
This report will be followed by another report on applicable legal standards and analysis of whether additional international standards are needed.
Universal-Statement on BHR at HRC28-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Mar 6, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its dismay that the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a judgment issued on 4 March 2015 declined to declare caning, a painful form of corporal punishment, to be unlawful.
The administration of caning violates the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.
Despite this prohibition, the Court of Appeal determined that any international legal prohibition had no effect on Singapore, since the legislature had not made it part of the country’s domestic law.
The ICJ emphasized that Singapore’s failure to prohibit caning in its own national law in no way makes caning a lawful act.
Under international law, caning remains wrong and illegal, irrespective of the country’s domestic arrangements.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that caning, administered as a form of judicially imposed punishment in Singapore, does not amount to torture.
The Court of Appeal stated that caning did not “breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture.”
The ICJ notes that the international prohibition against ill-treatment extends not only to torture, but also to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The ICJ considers that caning constitutes both types of ill-treatment.
The ruling was issued by the Singapore Court of Appeals in the case of Yong Vui Kong, a 26-year old man who appealed against his sentence of 15 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment imposed as a punishment for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Upon his conviction in 2011, Yong Vui Kong had initially been sentenced to death.
Following changes in the law and an application for re-sentencing to the High Court, his sentence was modified in 2013 to life imprisonment and ‘15 strokes of the cane’.
In his appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Yong Vui Kong challenged this sentence on several grounds, including that caning constitutes torture, which is prohibited under international law.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is out of step with Singapore’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and punish all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. International human rights bodies have made clear that caning and other forms of corporal punishment violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it must be prohibited,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of the ICJ.
Laws in Singapore that permit the imposition of corporal punishment are inconsistent with Singapore’s obligation to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment at all times and in all circumstances.
Consequently, in 2011 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Singapore to “prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings”.
In addition, when Singapore went under the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, several States recommended that the authorities abolish all corporal punishment, including caning.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law and international treaties binding on Singapore, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The prohibition against torture is also a peremptory norm of international law, as recognized by numerous legal authorities and by all States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions.
The peremptory character of the norm means that it overrides all other laws, international or domestic. The Court of Appeal dismissed any effect that the peremptory character of the prohibition might have on its administration in Singapore.
The ICJ calls on the lawmakers in Singapore to act without delay to outlaw corporal punishment.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66840923575 ; e emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 5, 2015 | News
La CIJ urge a las autoridades a tomar las medidas para investigar y corregir esta situación.
Entre el 23 de febrero y el 4 de marzo visitaron Guatemala miembros de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega; el Presidente del Foro Democrático de Jueces de El Salvador y la ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia de Honduras.
Dicha visita se llevó a cabo en el marco del trabajo de la CIJ sobre el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho en Guatemala.
La oportunidad fue propicia para realizar reuniones y debates con miembros del Poder Judicial de Guatemala y con otros operadores de justicia.
Además se mantuvieron reuniones con el Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y otras magistradas de dicha corte; con la Fiscal General; con el Procurador de los Derechos Humanos; con el Comisionado de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad; con el representante de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, así como con otros actores relevantes de la sociedad guatemalteca, abogados y abogadas; dirigentes de Pueblos Indígenas y representantes de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales.
Al concluir su trabajo, la CIJ se encuentra alarmada por las presiones que existen en contra de jueces y juezas independientes que debido al cumplimiento de su función son frecuentemente objeto de denuncias y amenazas.
Entre las acciones que se están implementando en contra de jueces y juezas independientes, lo constituyen los traslados selectivos e injustificados que tienen como principal objetivo afectar y castigar a aquellos jueces que cumplen su función en forma independiente e imparcial.
Por otro lado, se suman denuncias infundadas en contra de los mismos, al tiempo que se configura un patrón de represión en contra de ellos, que tiene como objetivo que los jueces y juezas renuncien a su independencia judicial y “ajustar cuentas” por los casos que han juzgado.
Por otro lado, el caso relacionado con las sanciones impuestas el año 2014 en forma arbitraria por el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala en contra de la Jueza Iris Yassmín Barrios Aguilar, aún se encuentra pendiente de resolución final, sin que la Corte de Constitucionalidad de Guatemala resuelva el amparo presentado por dicha jueza.
Desde el año pasado, la CIJ expresó que dichas sanciones son arbitrarias e ilegales y que los jueces y juezas no pueden ser sancionados por un órgano como el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados, que carece de competencia para ello; además, manifestó que de conformidad con los estándares internacionales y la legislación interna, los jueces y juezas sólo pueden ser objeto de sanciones por parte de los órganos del Poder Judicial establecidos para tal fin (Juntas de Disciplina y Supervisión General de Tribunales).
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica expresó: “La situación es grave y urgimos a la Corte Suprema de Justicia a suspender cualquier medida que afecte la independencia de jueces y juezas y a implementar las reformas que se necesitan para promover y proteger la independencia del poder judicial como garantía para la ciudadanía y el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho.”
