May 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Publications
In a report published today, the ICJ called on the police and prosecutorial authorities in Myanmar to re-open the investigation into the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi in military custody in September 2014.
The report documented the many barriers that have prevented justice from being served in this case, as well as other cases of gross human rights violations in Myanmar.
The ICJ called on the Union Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act and other legislation that effectively provides immunity to military personnel accused of serious crimes. These and other barriers have been described at length in the ICJ’s 2018 report on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations.
“More than three years ago, the police abruptly ended their formal inquiry into the killing of Ko Par Gyi, without providing any justifiable legal rationale for its closure,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “In the intervening years, we have seen what happens when this culture of military impunity goes unaddressed.”
In the report, An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar, the ICJ evaluated the various investigations into the death and identified three key obstacles to justice in the case:
- the existence and operation of national laws like the 1959 Defence Services Act that shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, serving to deny victims and their families the right to truth about violations;
- sub-standard investigative practices that are vulnerable to political pressure and lacked independence, and simultaneous, separate and uncoordinated investigations that resulted in an unsystematic and ineffective approach to investigating the case; and
- a lack of transparency that denied the family their right to access information concerning the violations and accountability processes.
Ko Par Gyi was detained by police in Mon State and transferred to military detention on 30 September 2014. He died four days later in military custody. A deeply flawed inquiry carried out in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Defence Services Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. Those same provisions are commonly used to transfer cases involving military personnel from civilian to military court. Under international standards, military courts should not be used to try military personnel or others for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law.
“It is no surprise that an international investigative mechanism has been established to look into alleged serious human rights violations in Rakhine and elsewhere in Myanmar,” said Rawski. “Myanmar’s legal framework does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure independent investigation into and prosecution of serious human rights violations. What happened to Ko Par Gyi’s case illustrates that all too clearly.”
The UN Human Rights Council has established an Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) to collect evidence and prepare files for criminal prosecution of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011.
Key recommendations in the report include:
- To the Executive and the Union Parliament: amend the 1959 Defense Services Act to align it with democratic principles, the constitutional guarantee of equal legal protection, and the State’s international law obligation to protect the right to life, including by prosecuting serious violations.
- To the Tatmadaw: apply standards and procedures in military courts that conform to international law, ensure all crimes perpetrated against civilians are tried in the civilian judicial system, and reform rules of engagement to explicitly instruct soldiers to protect life, consistent with international law.
- To the Myanmar Police Force and the Union Attorney General’s Office: align investigative procedures and practices with international law and standards.
- To the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission: take an active and broad interpretation of the MNHRC mandate to address serious human rights violations including those which have gone before courts.
- To UN Member States and international organizations: ensure any organizational support to security forces is contingent on and enables demonstrable commitments to prevent and punish violations by its members.
This report was produced as part of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, which aims at combatting impunity and promoting redress for gross human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law
Download
An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar in English and Burmese.
Press statement with additional background information on Ko Par Gyi in English and Burmese.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 64 4781121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
May 1, 2020 | News
The decision by Nepal’s Supreme Court to reject a petition by the government asking that it review its 2015 ruling against amnesties for grave conflict-era crimes is an important step in securing truth, justice and reparations for the thousands of victims of the country’s decade-long conflict, the ICJ and other groups said today.
The armed conflict between Maoist and government forces ended in 2006, but victims of serious abuses by both sides are still awaiting justice, accountability and reparations.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, TRIAL International, and Human Rights Watch called upon the Government to revise the 2014 Transitional Justice Act and ensure its implementation in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgments, so as to assure access to justice for the victims of conflict-era abuses.
Nepal’s transitional justice law, which was passed by Parliament in April 2014, established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons.
However, it contained provisions that could allow for amnesties even for crimes such as torture, including rape and other sexual violence and ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
On 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the amnesty provisions and ordered the act to be amended accordingly. However, the government immediately petitioned to overturn the ruling. That petition was rejected by the court on April 27, 2020.
“With the Supreme Court’s decision, there can be no further excuse for government backsliding on ensuring truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. The government should immediately amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014 in line with the Supreme Court’s orders and its own international obligations,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International.
With its latest ruling the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that there can be no amnesties for those suspected of criminal responsibility for crimes under international law and human rights violations. More than 13 years since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of November 2006 promised justice to the victims, no one has been made accountable for any conflict era crimes.
“The request filed by the Nepal Government to review the decision of the Supreme Court was another attempt to evade the real issue: accountability for mass human rights violations. We are delighted that the Supreme Court held its ground and reaffirmed the importance of fair and efficient transitional justice mechanisms,” said Cristina Cariello, the Head of Nepal Program at TRIAL International.
Amnesty International, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and TRIAL International have repeatedly expressed concerns about the faltering transitional justice process. Besides the failure to amend the law to uphold basic principles of justice, there have been long delays and repeated political interference in appointments to the two transitional justice commissions.
“Over the past decade, the Supreme Court of Nepal has produced some of the most human rights compliant jurisprudence in South Asia. This petition cynically sought to have the Court undermine its own judgement, so that the government could sidestep its responsibility to provide accountability for conflict-related human rights violations,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “The government has no excuse for not immediately amending the transitional justice legal framework so that it is consistent with the Court’s jurisprudence and Nepal’s international legal obligations.”
An effective transitional justice system requires strong legal foundations consistent with international law and standards, and the political will to address the demands of victims of the conflict, the organizations said.
“When Nepal stood for election to the United Nations Human Rights Council the government promised to uphold its human rights obligations, but 3 years later, as it seeks re-election, there has been nothing but impunity and evasion on transitional justice,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These are crimes under international law, subject to universal jurisdiction, and if justice is denied at home victims may take their cases abroad.”
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, +66644781121
Download
English
Nepali
Apr 28, 2020 | News
The ICJ today urged Taiwan to decriminalize adultery as soon as possible.
Echoing the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and practice, the ICJ stated that the criminalization of people who are not married to each other for engaging in consensual sexual relations is a violation of the right to be free from discrimination; the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination; and the right to privacy, among other rights. The criminalization of adultery also often leads to discrimination and violence against women.
The Constitutional Court of Taiwan is currently deliberating on the constitutionality of Article 239 of the Criminal Code, which provides that, “a married person who commits adultery with another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year; the other party to the adultery shall be subject to the same punishment.” On 31 March 2020, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of Article 239 after several judges requested an interpretation of the law. The Court is expected to release its opinion on the matter at the end of May.
“In many ways, the ongoing criminalization of adultery leads to dire consequences for women’s human rights in Taiwan,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of the International Commission of Jurists.
“The enforcement of criminal adultery provisions often leads to discrimination and violence against women. In Taiwan, for example, women are disproportionately the target of adultery lawsuits. While male adultery enjoys greater tolerance in Taiwan, women are being targeted because of harmful gender stereotypes and rigid constructions of femininity.”
The ICJ notes that women are twenty percent more likely to be convicted than men in adultery cases in Taiwan. Furthermore, to secure a conviction on adultery charges in Taiwan, given the criminal law standard of proof, there has been a resort to photographic evidence of the two accused individuals engaging in sexual acts in some cases. As a result, an entire industry of private investigators, often engaging in illegal behaviour, has developed in response to “market” demand for “evidence” capable of making criminal adultery charges stick.
Taiwan is not a Member State of the UN, but in 2009 it introduced legislation aimed at incorporating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as a matter of domestic law. In 2013, an International Review Committee composed of independent human rights experts working in their personal capacities recommended that Taiwan should take steps to abolish the adultery provision in its Criminal Code as it was not in conformity with Article 17 of the ICCPR.
“Continuing to criminalize adultery goes against the image that Taiwan wants to portray of itself, that it is a beacon of democracy and human rights in Asia,” Emerlynne Gil said. The ICJ urges Taiwan to decriminalize adultery as soon as possible by removing the above mentioned provision from its Criminal Code.
Additional Information
There have been several challenges in the past to the constitutionality of Article 239 of Taiwan’s Criminal Code. In 2002, in one of such challenges, the Constitutional Court issued Interpretation 554, holding that the freedom of sexual behavior was inseparably related to the personality of individuals, and every person was free to decide whether or not and with whom to have sexual affairs. However, the Court went on to say that such freedom was legally protected only if it was not detrimental to “the social order or public interest”, as provided in Article 22 of the Constitution and, therefore, “the freedom of sexual behavior” was subject to the restriction that marriage and the institution of the family imposed on it.
Download the statement in Mandarin Chinese here.
Contact
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser – Access to Justice for Women, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Apr 22, 2020 | News
In a joint letter to EU Member States, the ICJ and other human rights NGOs have urged them to recognize the grave implications for human rights and the rule of law, of the Hungarian government’s recent emergency measures.
Ahead of the Council of the EU videoconference of EU Affairs Ministers to discuss the response to COVID-19, Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights Watch, the ICJ, Open Society European Policy Institute and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urged the Council to take immediate steps to protect the principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is particularly needed in light of the already deteriorated state of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary, which warranted the activation, in September 2018, of the procedure laid down in Article 7.1 TEU.
The organisations urged the member states of the European Union to:
- include in the agenda of the upcoming session of the EU General Affairs Council an Article 7.1 TEU hearing on the situation in Hungary, including recent developments in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak, and address to the government of Hungary, as a matter of urgency, concrete recommendations to safeguard respect for the rule of law and human rights in the country, that the Hungarian government must implement by a set deadline;
- commit to assessing the implementation of the recommendations in a timely manner in order to reach a determination under Article 7.1 TEU and, should conditions warrant it, move forward under Article 7.2 TEU.
- ensure enhanced monitoring of the Hungarian government’s use of EU funding, including funds aimed at supporting member states during the public health crisis.
The organisations urged both the Council and the Commission to cooperate with each other, and with the European Parliament and national parliaments, to ensure a coordinated, consistent and effective response to the situation.
The full letter is available here: CSO Letter to GAC -rule of law in Hungary April 2020
Apr 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ called upon the Sri Lankan authorities to respect human rights in the conduct of their investigation of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, including ensuring that investigations into the alleged involvement of Sri Lankan lawyer, Hejaaz Hizbullah, are conducted in accordance with due process and fair trial guarantees under international law.
Specifically, the authorities must specify the charges against him, grant him full and immediate access to a lawyer, and investigate the circumstances of his arrest for potential rights violations.
Sri Lankan Lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah was arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police (CID) on April 14, 2020 pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and has since been kept in detention. No reasons were provided at the time of the arrest. During a media briefing, a police spokesperson stated that he was arrested as a result of the evidence found against him during investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings. The ICJ understands that no remand or detention orders authorising his continued detention have been served even after the lapse of 72 hours as required by Sections 7 and 9 of the PTA. Moreover, Hizbullah was only granted limited access to legal counsel on April 15 and 16, under the supervision of a CID official, who had insisted that the conversation be in Sinhala, in breach of attorney-client privilege. Legal access has been denied at least since April 16, 2020.
“No one questions the government’s need and obligation to investigate the horrendous Easter Sunday attacks, but these investigations must be conducted in a way that is consistent with international law and the Sri Lankan Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “Not serving Hizbullah a remand order as required by law, and denying him full and confidential access to legal counsel is unacceptable and in violation of international standards on the right to liberty.”
A Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Hizbullah’s father on April 17 seeking his release from detention, and demanding that he be given access to his attorneys. According to the application, five persons posing as officials of the Ministry of Health entered his home and interrogated him, after placing him in handcuffs. They demanded access to two of his case files, recorded a statement from him and subsequently took him into custody at the Criminal Investigation Department.
“By allowing warrantless entry, search of premises and the arrest of persons, the Prevention of Terrorism Act violates basic due process guarantees under international law,” added Rawski. “This legal provision is one of many problematic provisions of the PTA. The ICJ reiterates it calls for the PTA to be repealed, and replaced with an a law that conforms with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations.”
According to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.” Article 14 entitles anyone charged of a criminal offence “to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing”. Similar guarantees are enshrined under Article 13 of the Sri Lankan Constitution.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that, “Governments shall further ensure that all persons arrested or detained, with or without criminal charge, shall have prompt access to a lawyer, and in any case not later than forty-eight hours from the time of arrest or detention.”
The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. The ICJ reiterated its call for the repeal and replacement of this vague and overbroad anti-terror law in line with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
