Dec 13, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) welcome the decision of Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha, acting as the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to lift certain restrictions on political activities.
The organizations highlight, however, that much more is needed to fully reinstate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Thailand ahead of elections scheduled to be held on 24 February 2019.
This order repealed Article 12 of HNCPO Order No. 3/2558, which prohibited the gathering of five or more persons for a “political purpose”, lifting a ban which had carried a punishment of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding 10,000 Baht.
“The lifting of the ban on political gatherings is welcome – however, the new order only lifts one specific restriction imposed by HNCPO Order 3. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed by other articles of HNCPO Order 3, such as the granting of broad, unchecked powers to military officers to investigate, arrest and detain persons for up to seven days, remain in force,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“We reiterate our call for the Thai government to immediately amend and repeal all laws, HNCPO Orders, NCPO orders and announcements inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”
ICJ and TLHR also express serious concern that even as nine orders and announcements have been repealed by HNCPO Order No. 22/2561, Article 2 of the order clarifies that “prosecutions, actions or operations” already in effect by virtue of those orders will not be affected by the coming into force of the Order.
Cases brought before 11 December 2018 under HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 to penalize persons exercising their rights to free expression, assembly and association can therefore legally continue to be prosecuted in courts.
“Cases brought under the now-repealed section of HNCPO Order 3 should be dropped or withdrawn. They should have never been brought before the courts in the first place,” said Abbott.
“In the lead up to elections next year, the Thai government must take further steps to expand space for free expression, assembly and association. This new order is welcome, but it is certainly not enough.”
Further information is available in the full statement below
Thailand-Lifting political ban-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Thailand-Lifting Political Ban-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-THA (full statement in Thai, PDF)
See also
ICJ, ‘Thailand: Lift ban on political gatherings and fully reinstate all fundamental freedoms in Thailand’, 1 October 2018
Further reading
ICJ, TLHR and Cross-Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Joint Follow-up Submission to UN Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
ICJ and TLHR, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Dec 3, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ joined fifteen other organizations to call on the Thai authorities and Thammakaset Company Limited to ensure that criminal and civil defamation complaints brought by the company against human rights defenders Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri do not proceed.
The charges have been leveled in connection with work by the two defenders to bring attention to labour rights violations at a Thammakaset-owned chicken farm in Thailand.
The organizations further called on the Thai authorities to act to ensure that no person is held criminally liable for defamation, including by decriminalizing defamation in Thai law and protecting individuals from abusive litigation aimed at curtailing the rights to freedom of expression and access to information and other activities of human rights defenders.
Today, the Bangkok Criminal Court will hold preliminary hearings on the criminal defamation complaints filed by Thammakaset Co. Ltd. against the two human rights defenders.
“This is the most recent in a series of spurious legal cases brought by companies in Thailand aimed at intimidating human rights defenders and curtailing their important work in defence of human rights,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“Thai authorities must take all necessary measures in law and in practice to ensure that private business entities do not misuse the law to interfere with human rights such as freedom of expression and access to information.”
On 12 and 26 October 2018, Thammakaset Co. Ltd. filed criminal and civil defamation complaints against Nan Win, a migrant worker from Myanmar, and Sutharee Wannasiri, a woman human rights defender and a former Human Rights Specialist with Fortify Rights.
The complaints related to a 107-second film published by non-governmental organization Fortify Rights on 4 October 2017 that called on Thai authorities to drop criminal defamation charges against 14 migrant workers at a Thammakaset-operated chicken farm and to decriminalize defamation in Thailand.
Nan Win was one of the above-mentioned 14 migrant workers and faces a criminal defamation suit for reportedly testifying about alleged labour rights violations he faced in the Thammakaset-operated farm. Sutharee Wannasiri faces criminal and civil defamation suits for reportedly sharing information about the Fortify Rights film on Twitter.
If convicted of criminal defamation, Nan Win faces up to four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 400,000 Thai Baht (more than US$12,150) and Sutharee Wannasiri faces up to six years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 600,000 Thai Baht (more than US$18,200). Thammakaset Co. Ltd. is also seeking five million Thai Baht (US$151,400) in compensation for alleged damage to the company’s reputation in its civil defamation suit against Sutharee Wannasiri.
“We urge the Thai government not only to uphold their own legal obligations, but also to remind business enterprises in Thailand that they are also responsible for upholding human rights under international standards and domestic law,” said Seiderman.
Thailand-Drop defamation Nan Win Sutharee Wannasiri-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-ENG (Joint Statement, English, PDF)
Thailand-Drop defamation Nan Win Sutharee Wannasiri-Advocacy-Joint Statement-2018-THA (Joint Statement, Thai, PDF)
Background
On 12 October 2018, Thammakaset Co. Ltd. filed a criminal defamation suit under sections 326 and 328 of Thailand’s Criminal Code against Sutharee Wannasiri, a former Thailand Human Rights Specialist with Fortify Rights, for three comments she was alleged to have made on Twitter related to the Fortify Rights film.
On 26 October 2018, Thammakaset Co. Ltd. filed a criminal defamation suit under sections 326 and 328 of Thailand’s Criminal Code against Nan Win, one of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, for two interviews he gave in a Fortify Rights film and during a Fortify Rights press conference on 6 October 2017.
On the same day, Thammakaset Co. Ltd. also filed a civil defamation suit against Sutharee Wannasiri citing the above mentioned alleged Twitter comments and demanding five million Thai Baht (more than USD 142,000) in compensation for alleged damage to the company’s reputation.
The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that defamation laws must ensure they do not serve, in practice, to contravene the rights to freedom of expression and information protected under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and enshrined under articles 34, 35 and 36 of the 2017 Constitution of Thailand. While civil penalties are appropriate to achieve a lawful aim of protection of reputation, the imposition of such penalties must be proportionate and strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose.
Thailand has an obligation under international human rights law, including the ICCPR, to protect persons against the action of businesses that impair the exercise of human rights. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights also clarify that business entities have a responsibility to uphold human rights. In August 2018, Thailand launched a revised draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in order to implement the U.N. Guiding Principles.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, email: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Other reading
For recent ICJ advocacy on similar criminal defamation proceedings launched against labour rights defender Andy Hall, see:
ICJ, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, ‘Thailand: amicus in criminal defamation proceedings against human rights defender Andy Hall’, 26 July 2016
ICJ, ‘Thailand: verdict in Andy Hall case underscores need for defamation to be decriminalized’, 20 September 2016
For recent ICJ advocacy on the misuse of defamation laws in Thailand against human rights defenders, see:
ICJ, ‘Thailand: immediately stop criminal defamation complaint against torture victim’, 15 February 2018
ICJ, ‘Thailand: ICJ welcomes decision to end proceedings against human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture’, 1 November 2017
ICJ, ‘Thailand: stop use of defamation charges against human rights defenders seeking accountability for torture’, 27 July 2016
Oct 19, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists participated in the fourth session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights that took place at the Palais de Nations from 15-18 October 2018. Below are the interventions the ICJ made at this session.
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 general debate-Advocacy-ENG-2018
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 prevention-Advocacy-ENG-2018
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 legal liability-Advocacy-ENG-2018
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ makes a submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in advance of Committee’s examination of South Africa’s initial periodic report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
South Africa ratified the Covenant in 2015. This is the first time that the Committee has the opportunity to review a report from South Africa on the implementation of its Covenant obligations.
The ICJ’s oral submissions will focus on the rights to work and an adequate standard of living.
The ICJ’s full written submissions also include emphasis on the rights to education, work and housing of persons with disabilities and recommend that the Committee recommend that the Government of South Africa make time-bound commitments to participative processes leading to:
1. The full domestication of Covenant in South African law
2. A comprehensive review of South Africa’s domestic laws and policies on ESC rights to ensure that they are implemented consistently with South Africa’s obligations in terms of the Covenant; and
3. The ratification of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In a joint statement with other civil society organizations, ICJ Legal Adviser Timothy Fish Hodgson said: “Unlike the South African Constitution, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains a right to work. By ratifying the Covenant in 2015, the government has made a legally binding commitment to progressively eliminate unemployment and ensure that all work – whether in the formal or informal sector – is decent work.”
“As a result, for example, “both the level of the national minimum wage and measures taken by the government to combat South Africa’s 37.2% unemployment rate, should be evaluated in terms of the rights to work and the right to an adequate standard of living,” he added.
The ICJ’s oral submission is available here: South Africa-South Africa Review-Advocacy-Non Legal Submission-2018-ENG
The ICJ’s full written submissions are available here
The South African government’s full report to the Committee is available here
A live stream for the Committee’s proceedings is available here
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the International Commission of Jurists made a submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) in view of its forthcoming review of Nepal’s implementation of and compliance with its obligations under CEDAW in light of the State party’s sixth periodic report under Article 18 of the Convention.
In its submission, the ICJ focused on the transitional justice processes in the country, and noted that the Government of Nepal has failed to effectively address human rights violations experienced by women during the armed conflict that ended in 2006.
The submission highlighted the failure of the authorities to ensure criminal accountability for serious crimes, including rape and other forms of sexual violence during the conflict, and to ensure effective and meaningful participation by women in political and public life.
In its submissions the ICJ urged the authorities of Nepal to implement a number of recommendations with a view to ensuring that the above-mentioned concerns be effectively addressed in a manner that complies with the country’s obligations under the CEDAW and other relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ’s full submission is available here: Nepal-CEDAW Report on Nepal-Advocacy-Non Legal Submission-2018-ENG
Sep 28, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other civil society organisations in addressing the UN Human Rights Council, on the successes and failures of its 39th session, concluding today.
The statement, read by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), was as follows:
“This session, the Council adopted landmark resolutions on several country situations, further enhancing its contribution to the protection of human rights.
On Myanmar, we welcome the creation of the independent investigative mechanism, which is an important step towards accountability for the horrific crimes committed in Myanmar, as elaborated in the FFM’s report to this session. The overwhelming support for the resolution, notwithstanding China’s shameful blocking of consensus, was a clear message to victims and survivors that the international community stands with them in their fight for justice.
On Yemen, the Council demonstrated that principled action is possible, and has sent a strong message to victims of human rights violations in Yemen that accountability is a priority for the international community, by voting in favour of renewing the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts to continue international investigations into violations committed by all parties to the conflict.
Furthermore, we welcome the leadership by a group of States on the landmark resolution on Venezuela, and consider it as an important step for the Council applying objective criteria to address country situations that warrant its attention. The resolution, adopted with support from all UN regions, sends a strong message of support to the Venezuelan people. By opening up a space for dialogue at the Council, the resolution brings scrutiny to the tragic human rights and humanitarian crisis unfolding in the country.
While we welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi, to continue its critical investigation and work towards accountability, however we regret that the Council failed to respond more strongly to Burundi’s record of non-cooperation and attacks against the UN human rights system.
We also welcome the Council’s adoption of the resolution on Syria, which among other things condemns all violations and abuses of international human rights law and all violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict.
However, on other country situations including China, Sudan, Cambodia and the Philippines, the Council failed to take appropriate action.
On Sudan, we are deeply concerned about the weak resolution that envisions an end to the Independent Expert’s mandate once an OHCHR office is set up; a “deal” Sudan has already indicated it does not feel bound by, and which is an abdication of the Council’s responsibility to human rights victims in Sudan while grave violations are ongoing. At a minimum, States should ensure the planned country office monitors and publicly reports on the human rights situation across Sudan, and that the High Commissioner is mandated to report to the Council on the Office’s findings.
We also regret the lack of concerted Council action on the Philippines, in spite of the need to establish independent international and national investigations into extrajudicial killings in the government’s ‘war on drugs’, and to monitor and respond to the government’s moves toward authoritarianism.
In addition, we regret the Council’s weak response to the deepening human rights and the rule of law crisis in Cambodia, failing to change its approach even when faced with clear findings by the Special Rapporteur demonstrating that the exclusive focus on technical assistance and capacity building in the country is failing.
We share the concerns that many raised during the session, including the High Commissioner, about China’s own human rights record, specifically noting serious violations of the rights of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang province. It is regrettable that States did not make a concrete and collective call for action by China to cease the internment of estimates ranging up to 1 million individuals from these communities.
On thematic resolutions, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on equal participation in political and public affairs but would have preferred a stronger endorsement and implementation of the Guidelines.
The resolution on safety of journalists, adopted by consensus, sets out a clear roadmap of practical actions to end impunity for attacks. Journalism is not a crime – yet too many States in this room simply imprison those that criticize them. This must end, starting with the implementation of this resolution.
We welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights in humanitarian settings. Women and girls affected by conflict have been denied accountability for too long. The implementation of this resolution will ensure that their rights, including their sexual and reproductive health and rights, are respected, protected and fulfilled.
Finally, the Council’s first interactive dialogue on reprisals was an important step to ensure accountability for this shameful practice, and we urge more States to have the courage and conviction to stand up for defenders and call out countries that attack and intimidate them.”
Signatories:
- The African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
- Amnesty International
- Article 19
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS
- DefendDefenders
- FIDH
- Forum Asia
- Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
