Mar 23, 2017 | News
Cambodia should continue to investigate the killing of prominent political commentator Kem Ley in order to address key aspects of the case that appear to have been inadequately investigated, said the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch today.
On 23 March 2017, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court found Oeuth Ang guilty of the premeditated murder of Kem Ley on 10 July 2016 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Prior to the half-day trial, which took place on 1 March 2017, the authorities released almost no information about the investigation.
“The trial revealed that the investigation appeared to be deficient in several important respects,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser who observed the trial.
“Until there is an independent, impartial and effective investigation to establish whether anyone else was involved in the killing, the victims of this serious crime, including Kem Ley’s wife and children, will be unable to obtain justice,” he added.
Even the very identity of the defendant was at issue. At trial, Oeuth Ang maintained he is 39-years-old, unmarried, and named “Chuob Samlab” – which translates in English as “Meet to Kill” – from Banteay Meanchey province.
However, the prosecutor submitted that based on the fingerprint on the ID card of Oeuth Ang, he is satisfied that the defendant is in fact Oeuth Ang, married, born in 1972, from Siem Reap province.
“The proceedings may have established that Oeuth Ang pulled the trigger, but the investigation does not seem to have considered whether someone else loaded the gun,” said Champa Patel, the Amnesty International Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “It is clear that the authorities want to close the book on this case and move on but failures in the investigation of this heinous act can only serve to compound the injustice already suffered by the family of Kem Ley”.
The hearing commenced at 8:40 and concluded at 13:00. After Oeuth Ang gave evidence, ten witnesses gave oral testimony including two Caltex workers, seven officials who were involved in the investigation in different capacities, and a doctor who examined Kem Ley’s body at the scene of death.
Official reports and the statements of several witnesses were also read into evidence, and the prosecution played eight videos from different locations, including one captured by a closed circuit television (CCTV) camera inside the Caltex station where Kem Ley was killed.
Kem Ley’s widow, who was named as a civil party, did not appear at the trial but her civil party statement was read into evidence.
“The authorities’ failure to investigate so many clear gaps in the defendant’s story and the court’s unwillingness to examine them suggest that a quick conviction rather than uncovering all involved was the main concern,” said Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Kem Ley’s family have been outspoken in their disbelief that Oeuth Ang was solely responsible for the murder, and the trial’s conduct lends credence to their skepticism.”
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Cambodia-KemLey Verdict-News-Press releases-2017-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Mar 21, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Untied Arab Emirates (UAE)’ authorities to immediately release Ahmed Mansoor, the 2015 Laureate of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, and to ensure that he is not subjected to any form of ill-treatment as long as he remains detained.
On 20 March 2017, security officials raided the apartment where Ahmed Mansoor and his family resides and confiscated electronic devices. They took Ahmed Mansoor away at around 3:15AM local time. His present whereabouts remain unknown.
The authorities have not informed his family members of the reasons for his arrest, the authority that ordered such arrest, or the location to which he was taken.
The ICJ calls upon the UAE authorities to disclose, as a matter of urgency, Ahmed Mansoor’s place of detention and provide full information about his fate and whereabouts.
International law requires that detainees be held in officially recognized places of detention and that no one is held secretly in detention, whether in officially recognized detention facilities or elsewhere.
The ICJ fears that the arrest and secret detention of Ahmed Mansoor is likely related to his human rights work, protected under international law.
His activities involve the exercise of his right to the freedom of expression, including his use of social media to criticize attacks on human rights defenders in the UAE.
“Arbitrarily detaining Ahmed Mansoor and subjecting him to secret detention exemplifies the lengths to which the UAE authorities are prepared to go in their relentless campaign to suppress peaceful human rights work and to reduce to silence all those perceived to be critical of the authorities,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The UAE authorities must comply with their obligations under international law and release immediately and unconditionally all those individuals detained or imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association,” he added.
Mansor’s arrest and secret detention comes amidst a continuing crackdown on individuals calling for peaceful political reform.
Many of them were subjected to serious human rights violations, including torture and other-ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ has previously documented such cases.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, ICJ Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 41 22 979 38 17, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Ahmed Mansoor is a highly prominent human rights defender in the UAE and well known in the Arab region and around the world.
He has regularly monitored and raised awareness about cases of serious human rights violations in the UAE, including cases arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and violations of fair trial rights.
Since 2006, has faced repeated intimidation and harassment, including imprisonment in 2011 after being convicted of “insulting officials” and sentenced to three years’ in prison, although he was released after eight months.
Since being jailed in 2011, he has been denied a passport and banned from travelling.
Mar 21, 2017 | News
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) held a consultation conference on case and docket management system in Harare on 21 March 2017. The ICJ provided technical support.
The consultation conference was intended to validate findings of the field and desk research conducted in respect of case management in Zimbabwe.
The ICJ engaged consultants reviewed the case and docket management system as it relates to other justice actors such as the judiciary, police, prisons and legal aid providers.
The case and docket management assessment was measured against regional and international comparative standards.
The assessment focused on how case and docket management systems address the rights of vulnerable groups’ including women, unrepresented minors, juveniles and persons with disabilities.
From these consultations and field work, the NPA will be supported with a comprehensive, specific and detailed proposal with practical steps for adopting an improved case and docket management system.
Further, the findings will make recommendations on strengthening the case management system in Zimbabwe and how to address the needs and interests of the various justice sector stakeholders.
The consultation conference was attended by the Acting Prosecutor General, Deputy Prosecutor General, National Director of Public Prosecutions, senior law officers, senior magistrates, clerks (criminal courts), representatives from Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services (ZPCS), Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), and Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC).
Civil society representatives included directors and senior staffers from Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) among others.
This consultation was held with financial support from the Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) Magna Carta Fund, through the British Embassy in Harare.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716 405 926, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Mar 14, 2017 | News
The ICJ urged the Pakistan government to withdraw its proposal to reinstate and widen the scope of military trials for civilians.
“Bringing back military courts is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue: the Government’s failure to enact reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system during the two years the 2015-2017 military courts were in operation,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Bills to amend the Constitution of Pakistan and the Army Act, 1952, to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to try a wide variety of terrorism-related offences, were introduced before the National Assembly (lower house of parliament) on Friday, 10 March.
The “terrorism-related” offences include, among others: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The new amendments are also applicable in all cases where the accused commit “grave and violent acts against the State”. The mandatory requirement to belong to a group that uses “the name of religion or sect”, as introduced by the 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act introduced in 2015, is no longer applicable.
“The expansion of military courts’ jurisdiction over all ‘grave and violent acts against the State’ creates the possibility that these courts could be used against a wide variety of people, including those who are legitimately exercising their rights to speech, association, and assembly,” added Zarifi.
According to the preambles of the bills, an “extraordinary situation” and a “grave and unprecedented threat to the integrity of Pakistan” still exist in the country, and military courts are being revived because they “yielded positive results in combatting terrorism” in the two years they were in operation.
“The military courts have not had any positive results in combating terrorism, given the country’s ongoing problem with acts of terrorism and armed insurgents,” said Zarifi. “Instead, military trials of civilians have further eroded the rule of law and weakened the government’s legitimacy in providing justice and defending the rights of people in Pakistan.”
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017. Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 17 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging. The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ recalled that the use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Mar 10, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ made a joint statement on the report of the Open-ended intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises.
The intervention was made at the United Nations Human Rights Council on behalf of Franciscans International, International Commission of Jurists, Colombian Commission of Jurists and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH). All are members of the civil society coalition: “Treaty Alliance”.
The statement read as follows:
Our organizations welcome the report on the second session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to human rights.
We are encouraged by the growing participation of States and other stakeholders in interesting and constructive discussions but remain concerned by the failure of some States to truly engage constructively with the process.
Civil society groups documented in these years countless cases of business involvement in human rights abuses. This demonstrates that existing mechanisms could be useful but are not sufficient and that a new binding instrument at the global level is needed.
The treaty should address all business enterprises and give States the tools to tackle the particular challenges posed by transnational corporations, providing the necessary protection to victims of human rights abuses, including Human Rights defenders who are targeted for their work and opinion.
Access to effective remedy and reparations remain problematic at the domestic and cross-border levels. In order to achieve the effective protection of human rights from business related abuses, the treaty should build on and go beyond existing international human rights standards and instruments.
We call on the Chair-Rapporteur to present a draft elements paper in accordance with the mandate of the Open ended Working Group. This paper should be as detailed as possible and reflect the discussions of the first two sessions, in order to facilitate the start of meaningful negotiations at the third session in October 2017.
We urge all stakeholders, especially States, to engage in constructive and substantive discussions on the content and scope of this instrument in the perspective of the third session.
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC34-Joint Statement-IGWG Transnational Corporations-Advocacy 2017
