Sep 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the public caning of two women, a punishment imposed upon them by the Terengganu High Court after conviction on charges of ‘attempting to have sexual intercourse’.
The ICJ called on the Government of Malaysia to immediately abolish the practice of caning as it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment prohibited under international human rights law and standards.
Furthermore, it also called on the Government to ensure that its laws, policies and practices at the local, state, and federal levels are in full compliance with its international legal obligations, including under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
On 3 September 2018, two women, aged 23 and 33, were publicly caned in front of a hundred people in Terengganu, a coastal state of Malaysia, located northeast of Kuala Lumpur.
The two women were convicted under Section 30 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Terengganu) Enactment 2001, for the crime of ‘Musahaqah’ (sexual relations between female persons).
“This punishment is a clear violation of Malaysia’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and prosecute all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Government of Malaysia should immediately abolish the practice of corporal punishment, which has been condemned by international authorities such as the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on torture,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“It is equally deplorable that Malaysia continues to criminalize consensual same sex relations. The criminalization of private consensual sexual activities – whatever the sex, gender identity and sexual proclivities of those involved, and whatever the actual sexual practices – violates international human rights law. It also undermines women’s enjoyment of their rights to privacy, personal integrity, and equality,” she added.
The Human Rights Committee has said that criminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults constitutes an arbitrary interference with privacy and cannot be justified.
It has also observed in a number of Concluding Observations that the criminalization of private consensual sexual activities between adults of the same sex violates the prohibition of discrimination, and the right of equality before the law.
The ICJ also notes that early this year, the CEDAW Committee recommended to Malaysia to “take effective measures to ensure that civil law and Syariah law are in full compliance with the provisions of the Convention at local, state, and federal levels” so as to guarantee the rights of all women throughout the country.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to abide by its obligations under international law and follow through with its commitment to human rights, non-discrimination and equality by abolishing the sentence of caning and the criminalization of consensual same sex relations in the country.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
On 8 April 2018, religious state authorities arrested the two women who were in a car and accused them of preparing to ‘commit sexual acts’, which is an offense in the State of Terengganu, under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Terengganu) Enactment 2001. The women pleaded guilty to the offence without being represented by a lawyer and did not appeal their case.
On 12 August 2018, the two women pleaded guilty and were sentenced by the Terengganu Shariah to a fine of RM3,300 ($800 USD) and six strokes of caning for attempting to have sexual intercourse.
This is the first case of caning of women for ‘Musahaqah’ (sexual relations between female persons) crime and its attempt in Malaysia and it marks a steady decline in Malaysia’s commitment to protect the rights of its sexual minorities and the members of the LGBTIQA community.
In Malaysia’s Criminal Procedure Code, under Federal law, it states that
“No sentence of whipping shall be executed by installments, and none of the following persons shall be punishable with whipping: (a) females;”
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution provides that Islamic law falls under the matters of State law, with the exception of the Federal States.
It is concerning that the Syariah legal system in Malaysia continues to carry out caning in a manner that is discriminatory against women, and women sexual minorities, as seen in the 2010 case, where three women were found guilty of ‘illicit sex’ by the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court, as well as the continuing use of Syariah legal enactments to harass, intimidate and prosecute the transgender community in Malaysia.
Sep 3, 2018 | News
The Yangon District Court’s decision today to sentence Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo to seven years’ imprisonment for violating the Official Secrets Act deals a massive blow to human rights and the rule of law in Myanmar, said the ICJ.
“The Court’s decision effectively punishes these two courageous journalists for exposing human rights violations, following a grossly unfair trial,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
“The decision is a miscarriage of justice that inflicts needless suffering on them and their families, threatens freedom of expression, damages Myanmar’s global standing, and undermines its justice institutions all at once,” he added.
The ICJ has monitored the case since the journalists’ initial detention in December 2017.
As previously noted by the ICJ, the detention and trial has violated numerous basic fair trial guarantees.
The prosecutors had a duty to drop charges and the judge should have dismissed the case given the lack of evidence and the unlawfulness of detention because of fair trail rights violations.
“The case is emblematic of how the justice system ends up reinforcing rather than challenging military impunity,” said Rawski.
“The result undermines government claims that it can deliver accountability for human rights violations on its own, and does nothing to build trust that justice system can act independently and impartially after emerging from decades of military rule,” he added.
Members of security forces generally enjoy impunity for the perpetration of human rights violations, including for crimes under international law.
The ICJ has previously reported that victims and their families, as well as journalists, often face retaliation for publicizing human rights violations by the military.
Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested in December 2017, and held incommunicado for nearly two weeks, before being charged under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act for allegedly possessing documents related to the operations of security forces in northern Rakhine State, during “clearance operations.”
The two reporters had been reporting on human rights violations in Rakhine State, including the killing of Rohingya by the military in Inn Dinn Village.
In a report issued just last week, the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission found that security forces had perpetrated crimes under international law during these operations, including crimes against humanity and possibly the crime of genocide.
The detention and prosecution of anyone, including journalists, based solely on the collection and publication of evidence relevant to serious human rights violations, is a violation of international law and standards on freedom of expression, the right to participation in public affairs and on the role of human rights defenders.
Legal options remaining for the journalists include appealing of today’s decision, and requesting a Presidential amnesty.
Sep 2, 2018 | News
On 1 and 2 September, the ICJ held a “Workshop on the Independence of the Judiciary in the Context of the Inquisitorial Judicial System in Thailand” for members of the Thai judiciary in the north of the country.
Some 31 judges from 21 courts and the Administrative Office of the Court of Justice, Region V, attended the workshop, which was held in Chiang Mai.
The objective of the workshop was to discuss the role of judges and exercise of judicial power within the inquisitorial system, particularly in the context of adjudicating cases of human trafficking.
In an effort to combat human trafficking in Thailand, the Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases Act B.E. 2559 (2016) established inquisitorial system procedures for adjudication of cases of human trafficking.
With an increasing number of cases of human trafficking in Northern Thailand, judges in Northern Thailand are increasingly required to utilize inquisitorial processes in human trafficking cases.
Courts in Thailand generally adjudicate cases based on the adversarial judicial system.
In this context, the ICJ held the workshop in collaboration with the Administrative Office of the Court of Justice, Region V, in the North of Thailand, to share information and expand collaboration between Thai and international judges about inquisitorial processes.
Justice Aree Thecharuwichit, Chief Justice of the Office of the Chief Justice, Region V, Frederick Rawski, Regional Director of ICJ Asia and the Pacific, and Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, Vice-President of the ICJ, ICJ Commissioner, Acting President of the Belgrade Court of Appeals and Judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia delivered opening statements at the Workshop.
Justice Sittipong Tanyaponprach, Chief Judge of the Office of the Chief Justice, Region I, spoke about existing procedures in Thailand’s justice system to deal with human trafficking cases under the Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases Act 2016.
Justice Marcel Lemonde, Honorary President of Chamber in France’s Court of Appeal and an International Consultant in Judicial Matters, delivered an introduction to the inquisitorial system based on the French judicial system and spoke about existing challenges in inquisitorial processes.
Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, of the Supreme Court of Serbia and ICJ Vice-President spoke about judicial practice in cases involving human trafficking and shared her experience in adjudicating human trafficking cases in Serbia.
ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott moderated the workshop and provided an introduction to the ICJ’s resource materials on the independence of the judiciary and judicial accountability, including the ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability.
The ICJ ended the Workshop with a statement reiterating its commitment towards working with Thailand’s judiciary to strengthen the rule of law and administration of justice in Thailand.
This Workshop is the second workshop held by the ICJ for Thailand’s judiciary in the North of Thailand.
Jul 31, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the government of Kazakhstan to drop all charges of “knowingly disseminating false information” against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov related to his representation of a child who is the alleged victim of sexual abuse by older children.
“The prosecution of Bauyrzhan Azanov in relation to statements he made as part of his representation of a child violates the lawyer’s freedom of expression, and prevent him from effectively representing his client,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Instead of targeting a lawyer, the investigative authorities should use their resources to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in this case and ensure the protection of the rights of this child in accordance with Kazakhstan’s international obligations,” he added.
Bauyrzhan Azanov, a prominent lawyer in Kazakhstan, took up a high-profile case in which he represented a minor, an alleged victim of sexual and physical abuse over a prolonged period.
The case became public in March 2018 through media reports.
Once the case became public several district police officers were fired, and two heads of schools and some other state agents were suspended from office, reportedly in relation to their failure to report and investigate the case.
In his statements in the social media, Azanov alleged the investigation had been obstructed due to corrupt reasons.
In reaction to this, on 21 May 2018, the mother of the minor submitted a complaint against Azanov where she expressed concerns about “social tension”, “forming a negative image of the investigative body” and herself “as a mother”.
Following the mother’s complaint, on 24 July, the General Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the lawyer for knowing dissemination of false information, which alleged that:
“The information disseminated by lawyer B. Azanov was deliberately distorted and untrue, which created a false idea among the public about the alleged corruption of justice system, investigative bodies, the mother of the child and other persons. This caused psycho-emotional and social tension among the public and created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation, thereby creating a threat of violation of public order.”
Through the media, Azanov has denied the allegations against him and has stated that he acted in the best interests of his client and sought to ensure accountability for criminal acts.
On 1 June 2018, Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan commented on the case stating that unreasonable prolongation of the investigation is connected with the nepotism in the police and higher investigative authorities.
The Ombudsperson, members of the Kazakhstan Bar Association and human rights activists have made public statements in support of Bauyrzhan Azanov.
In these circumstances, the ICJ is concerned that criminal charges against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov for public comments in which he raised concerns about possible violations of human rights of his minor client, may violate the lawyer’s right to freedom of expression.
The right to freedom of expression is protected under international treaties to which Kazakhstan is a party, including by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the UN Human Rights Committee stated in its General Comment 34 on the freedom of expression:
“When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”
According to the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers, lawyers have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization (Principle 23).
It is of particular concern that the Prosecutor’s Office document uses vague concepts that may amount to arbitrary use of grounds for restriction of freedom of expression of the lawyer.
In particular, it is unclear how prosecutorial authorities measured “psycho-emotional and social tension of the public” or that on what basis the lawyer’s comments may have “created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation” creating a threat to the public order.
These broadly and atypically worded justifications for prosecution are likely to lead to arbitrary interference with freedom of expression.
Prosecution of the lawyer for his attempts to raise human rights-related issues of his minor client, unsupported by any evidence or explanation what they may refer to, is also likely to have a chilling effect on those who defend human rights of victims of abuse.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Kazakhstan-Lawyer Azanov-News-web story-2018-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Kazakhstan-Lawyer-Azanov-News-Web-story-2018-RUS (full story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 30, 2018 | News
The killing of Serbian defense lawyer Dragoslav Ognjanović must be independently, promptly, and thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, the ICJ said today.
Dragoslav Ognjanović (photo), a prominent lawyer who had defended Slobodan Milosovic and had also represented defendants in cases of organized crime, was shot dead outside his home in Belgrade late on Saturday 28 July.
“Safety of lawyers is essential to the fair operation of the justice system and to protection of the rule of law. The Serbian authorities now need to take urgent steps to re-establish confidence that they can ensure the safety of lawyers who may be under threat, and to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of this crime,” said Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, of Serbia’s Supreme Court, Vice-President of the ICJ.
“Investigation and prosecution of this case will be a significant test for the Serbian authorities and the legal system,” she added.
The Serbian and Belgrade bar associations have called a week-long suspension of work by lawyers in order to express their concern at the risk of violence against lawyers.
Serbian authorities have blamed an ongoing turf war between organized crime groups competing to control the narcotics trade.
“The concerns of the Serbian legal profession should be taken seriously by the government and the prosecution service, and the bar associations should be consulted on means to ensure the safety of lawyers,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe Programme.
Additional information
International human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights to which Serbia is a party, requires that states take steps to protect the life and physical integrity of persons who they know or ought to know are at real risk of violence.
In addition, the right to life, protected under Article 2 of the European Convention as well as under other international law standards, requires states to ensure an independent, prompt and effective investigation into killings, with a view to bringing to justice those responsible.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (principle 16). The UN Basic Principles specify that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (principle 17).
