Nov 19, 2019 | News
Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government must demonstrate that they will uphold human rights and rule of law, and ensure that Sri Lanka sustains its international obligations and commitments to justice and accountability, said the ICJ today.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa faces credible allegations of involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity that took place during the country’s armed conflict.
“The election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, after a highly polarizing campaign, has alarmed human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and abroad, who have little reason to believe that someone facing such serious allegations of perpetrating human rights violations can be relied upon to meet the country’s obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the presidency with 52.25% of votes, served as Sri Lanka’s Secretary of the Ministry of Defence from 2005 to 2015 during the tenure of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the height of the armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Both the military and LTTE perpetrated war crimes and gross human rights violations during the conflict, and particularly during its bloody final stages. As Defence Secretary, Gotabaya was accused of ordering the killing of surrendering LTTE fighters, ordering strikes on civilians and hospitals, and authorizing attacks on human rights defenders.
International condemnation of atrocities committed during the conflict led to the UN Human Rights Council demanding that the Sri Lankan government commit to a process of transitional justice, in view of the systematic failures of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka in the past, as documented by the ICJ in its submission to the Human Rights Council, and others. Despite commitments from the Sri Lankan government, the transitional justice process has effectively stalled and impunity has prevailed.
“The ICJ is deeply concerned that even the limited strides made over the past five years in Sri Lanka on transitional justice, positive constitutional amendments and institutional reform will be reversed,” said Rawski.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director, t +66 644781121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Nov 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Hungarian authorities to desist from instigating disciplinary proceedings threatened against Judge Csaba Vasvári, a judge of the Central District Court of Pest and a member of the Hungarian National Judicial Council.
The imminent threat of disciplinary action is a consequence of a preliminary reference Judge Vasvári made to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
“Judge Vasvári faces disciplinary action as a direct result of his request for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU on the very question of judicial independence in Hungary. This is an extremely concerning attempt to interfere with the independence of a judge in discharging his judicial function which, if it proceeds any further, will set a dangerous precedent.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia programme.
A motion to begin disciplinary proceedings against Judge Vasvári was brought by the Acting President of the Budapest Regional Court in October, following Judge Vasvári’s request in criminal proceedings before him last July, for a preliminary ruling the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In the request to the CJEU, Judge Vasvári raised questions regarding compliance with the principle of judicial independence under Article 19.1 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), in particular the appointment procedures for court presidents, and remuneration for judges, as well as questions regarding the right to interpretation in court.
Following a decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court in September that the reference was contrary to Hungarian law since it was irrelevant to the case, disciplinary action against judge Vasvári was sought on the grounds that in making the reference, he violated the requirement to conduct himself with dignity and refrain from action which would undermine the dignity of the judiciary.
The motion for disciplinary proceedings is now expected to be considered by a panel of the Service Court, which will decide if disciplinary proceedings will commence.
“The actions of Judge Vasvári in making a preliminary reference to the CJEU were an entirely legitimate exercise of his judicial functions in accordance with EU law. It is essential that judges are able to use all appropriate judicial avenues to address and uphold the rule of law, including to protect the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary” said Róisín Pillay. “It is also necessary for the proper application of EU law, that judges are able refer questions to the CJEU under Article 267 of the Treaty without undue hindrance.”
The ICJ recalls that under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges must decide matters before them impartially, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason (Principle 2, UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers specifies that “the interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in cases of malice and gross negligence.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary (principle 8) also affirm that “members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
Nov 13, 2019 | Advocacy, Multimedia items, Video clips
In a video interview with the BBC’s Burmese broadcasting service, ICJ senior legal adviser Kingsley Abbott explains to the Myanmar public how the International Criminal Court prosecutor plans to investigate the crime against humanity of deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh, which has affected around one million Rohingya.
Recorded on 24 August and published on 12 November 2019. The interview transcript is available in Burmese and English.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Nov 12, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ condemned the use of civil proceedings to harass Nakorn Chompuchart and Sira Osottham, lawyers representing labour rights researcher Andy Hall.
The ICJ called on Thailand to take measures to protect lawyers so that they can perform their duties without intimidation, harassment or improper interference.
On 12 November 2019, the Bangkok Civil Court conducted its first hearing in a tort case under the Civil and Commercial Code by a Thai fruit processing company, Natural Fruit Company Ltd. (‘the Company’), against the lawyers. The two lawyers represent Andy Hall in several criminal and civil proceedings brought against him seeking damages claimed to have resulted from his research into labour rights abuses allegedly committed by the Company. In the lawsuit against the lawyers, the Company is seeking 50 million Thai baht (approximately 1.65 million USD) as compensation for lost business.
“This legal action is part of a pattern of harassment by Natural Fruit against Andy Hall,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “It is a bedrock principle of the rule of law that lawyers should not be identified with their clients or their clients causes as a result of discharging their function.”
In the complaint, Natural Fruit claims that Andy Hall and his lawyers “excessively exercise their rights”, “intentionally damage the Company’s reputation”, and “caused financial loss in their business” when they brought a case in 2017 against the Company, the Company’s lawyers, and public prosecutor for allegedly “giving false testimony” and “filing false complaint” in other criminal proceedings. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court who was of the view that the Company exercised its right in good faith.
“This is not the first time in Thailand that lawyers have faced the unwarranted threat of criminal or civil prosecution when representing their clients,” said Rawski. “As with the criminal proceedings brought against Sirikan “June” Charoensiri for her professional activities as a lawyer, such vexatious actions set a precedent that endangers the ability of lawyers to effectively represent their clients. The government must take prompt and effective measures to ensure that the safety and independence of lawyers is guaranteed in law and in practice.”
Background
This case was also initially brought against Andy Hall, but was later withdrawn because the Court could not send court writs to Andy as he does not reside in Thailand.
Criminal and civil proceedings have brought against Andy Hall were in relation to the report of a Finnish NGO, Finnwatch, published in January 2013, called Cheap Has a High Price, which alleged that labour rights violations were taking place at Natural Fruit Company.
Thailand is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees the right of the clients of the concerned lawyers to an effective defense.
UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also provides that “governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” Moreover, lawyers should not be identified with their clients or their clients causes as a result of discharging their function.
To download the statement in Thai, click here. (PDF)
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: verdict in Andy Hall case underscores need for defamation to be decriminalized
Thailand: amicus in criminal defamation proceedings against human rights defender Andy Hall
Nov 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The Government of Myanmar should adopt constitutional and legislative guarantees to enable the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) to better protect and promote human rights for all persons in the country, according to a new ICJ briefing note.
Entitled Four Immediately Implementable Reforms to Enhance Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission, the note analyzes the ability of the MNHRC to address various human rights violations, some of which have been found by experts to constitute the most serious crimes under international law. The briefing is available in Burmese and English.
“The NLD-led government should promptly reform the MNHRC Law, allowing for the selection of better qualified and representative Commissioners, and granting them the independence and resources necessary for their work. This reform is a low-hanging fruit for the NLD, and overdue” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser.
“At the same time, Commissioners should robustly pursue their mandate, including by advocating for the rights of society’s most vulnerable people,” he added.
The MNHRC itself has recognized the need for law reform, in its self-assessment of 2018, and in its reform proposals to the Government. Any law reform process should be opened up to genuine public consultation, enabling inputs from experts and the general public.
“The MNHRC generally fails to act on reported human rights violations, from crimes by soldiers in border areas through to regular attacks on the press, rendering it ineffective in providing redress to victims,” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser. “The MNHRC’s routine inaction in critical cases demonstrates its lack of the necessary independence to stand against state actors, particularly the military,” he added.
One illustrative case is the Commission’s reluctance to further pursue justice for the death in military custody of journalist Ko Par Gyi, whose killers were secretly tried and acquitted in a military court, despite the MNHRC’s finding that a public criminal prosecution was warranted. Commissioners have also been notably silent on gross human rights violations against Rohingyas, perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers in the context of “clearance operations”.
The note highlights that the Commission refrains from investigating alleged human rights violations by referencing Section 37 of the 2014 MNHRC Law. This provision is narrowly construed to effectively preclude the MNHRC from conducting inquiries on matters that are already the subject of a legal proceeding.
The composition of the Commission also does not reflect Myanmar’s ethnic, religious, regional and gender diversity, which further erodes its ability to address the conflict-related violations and abuses particularly prevalent in border areas such as Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states.
While amending problematic provisions in the 2014 MNHRC Law is warranted, a constitutional guarantee would also significantly improve the Commission’s institutional independence.
“A constitutional provision, in contrast to ordinary legislation, is subject to a stricter amendment process that would less likely render the MNHRC politically vulnerable,” said Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
“Myanmar can look to the experience of the national human rights institutions of East Timor and the Philippines, which were established by constitutional provision at a time that both countries were transitioning to a democratic and rule of law based order”,” she added.
Four immediately implementable reforms for the Government of Myanmar are recommended:
- To the Union President and the Selection Board: appoint Commissioners through a transparent and fully consultative process that enables its composition to effectively protect human rights and appropriately reflect the full diversity of the population of Myanmar, including ethnic, religious, regional, gender and sexual identities;
- To the Commissioners: adopt a broad and active interpretation of their mandate, including by taking steps to address the most serious violations, including crimes under international law, and certain human rights cases that have gone before courts;
- To the Myanmar parliament: amend the 2014 MNHRC Law to include provisions that strengthen the MNHRC’s capacity and independence, and improve the appointment process for commissioners
- To the Constitutional Amendment Committee: propose provisions guaranteeing the structural and financial independence of the MNHRC in amending the 2008 Constitution.
To download the press release in Burmese, click here.
Download
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-ENG (in English, PDF)
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-BUR (in Burmese, PDF)
Contact
Jen Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org, t: 09968134317
Daw Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org, t: 09428122794
Related material:
Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar: Baseline Study
Myanmar: Five years without justice for journalist Ko Par Gyi
