Feb 7, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has submitted a written statement on Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council ahead of its 40th Session in Geneva.
Almost ten years after Sri Lanka emerged from a period of conflict and massive human rights violations, the Government of Sri Lanka still has largely failed to implement its human rights obligations and commitments as reflected in Resolution 30/1.
The ICJ statement focuses on two of four transitional justice mechanisms which the Government committed to establish under the Resolution: (a) the judicial mechanism with special counsel to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; and (b) the office of missing persons. It highlights how female victims of war are uniquely impacted by the Government’s failure to implement the commitments made before the UNHRC and underscores the importance of holistically including women when such measures are implemented.
Recommendations:
The ICJ considers that the gravity and character of the crimes under international law committed in Sri Lanka, and the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to meet its obligations and commitments to ensure justice for such crimes including as provided for in resolution 30/1, means that referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability would be fully warranted. If however the Council does not choose to pursue these options at this stage, the ICJ urges the Council at minimum to:
- Continue the monitoring of Sri Lanka through the adoption of a new resolution to ensure that the Government complies with all its obligations and commitments as reflected in resolution 30/1.
- Provide for OHCHR to develop, with the Sri Lankan Government, an implementation strategy with definitive timelines to ensure that the time afforded under the new resolution is utilised to expedite the implementation of measures assured under Resolution 30/1.
- Encourage Member States to exercise universal jurisdiction in order to bring perpetrators to justice.
The ICJ urges the Government of Sri Lanka to:
- Take immediate measures to establish the judicial mechanism with international involvement as contemplated under operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 30/1. The mechanism should ensure gender parity, be accessible for women in civil society, and allow female victims to fully participate in the process.
- Spread awareness regarding the importance of certificates of absence and confirm to the community that issuance of a certificate will not result in the end of efforts to find the person.
- Ensure an overall gender strategy is integrated in all other transitional justice mechanisms that are yet to be established so that structural injustices against women, especially in terms of discrimination and lack of participation, are addressed.
(full text of submission, in PDF: UN-HRC40-SriLanka-WrittenStatement-2019-EN)
Jan 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) submitted a joint amicus curiae in criminal defamation proceedings against human rights defenders Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri for bringing to light alleged labor rights violations at Thammakaset Company Limited.
The defamation charges relate to a 107-second film, produced by the non-governmental organization Fortify Rights, which documents previous defamation complaints brought by Thammakaset against 14 of its former migrant workers from Myanmar.
Nan Win was one of the migrant workers featured in the film. Sutharee Wannasiri, former Human Rights Specialist with Fortify Rights, was charged in connection with making three Twitter posts relating to the film.
The brief aims to clarify the nature and scope of Thailand’s international legal obligations relating to the right to freedom of expression and points out that the imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines on a human rights defender risks having a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of freedom of expression, which Thailand is bound to protect pursuant to its international legal obligations.
The preliminary examinations of Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri will begin on 4 February and 11 March 2019, respectively.
During the preliminary examination hearing, is the Court will consider the case before it to determine if it is a prima facie case.
The preliminary examination hearing is a mandatory proceeding in matters involving prosecution claims brought by private individuals or entities, such as in the case of Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri.
If the preliminary examination finds that the cases are prima facie, the court will admit to trial only the charges relating to the counts deemed prima facie.
If the court finds no prima facie case, it can rule that the charges be dismissed.
Read also:
Thailand: Drop defamation complaints against human rights defenders Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri (3 December 2018)
Download:
Thailand-Nan Win Kratik_Amicus-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-ENG (full amicus in PDF, English)
Thailand-Nan Win Kratik_Amicus-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-THA (full amicus in PDF, Thai)
Jan 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
On 30 December 2018, the ICJ and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) jointly submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) directed against Thailand.
They did this as a State Party to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the CEDAW Convention) on behalf and with the consent of Angkhana Neelapaijit, regarding the alleged enforced disappearance of her husband, Somchai Neelapaijit.
Somchai Neelapaijit, a prominent lawyer and human rights defender, disappeared after being stopped on a road in Bangkok on 12 March 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since. More than 14 years after his alleged enforced disappearance, Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown.
Prior to his disappearance, Somchai had been defending clients from Thailand’s southern border provinces and had been doing extensive work to advocate for the rights of persons accused of terrorism, and to highlight the treatment of Malay-Muslims in the region.
The joint communication by ICJ and ISHR to the CEDAW Committee submits that Thailand has breached Articles 2(b)(c)(f), 5(a)(b), 15(1) and 16(1)(c)(d) of the CEDAW Convention, which relate to the rights of women to substantive equality and protection from all forms of discrimination, including in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, as well as to their right to an effective remedy for violations of the abovementioned provisions.
The communication further highlights the impact of enforced disappearance on family members of a disappeared person, noting its disproportionate impact on wives and female relatives, as most cases of enforced disappearance in Thailand involve male victims.
In addition to the CEDAW Convention and its Optional Protocol, Thailand is a party to a number of other international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In January 2012, Thailand also signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), thereby committing itself to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty, namely the prevention and prohibition of the crime of enforced disappearance.
The ICJ has consistently called upon the Thai authorities to comply with their obligations under international human rights law to independently, impartially and effectively investigate the case of Somchai Neelapaijit and all other reported cases of enforced disappearance, and provide the families of the victims in such cases with access to effective remedies and reparations, including regular updates on the status of the investigations.
The ICJ has also submitted recommendations to the Thai authorities on the current Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act, highlighting the crucial need for a domestic law to define and criminalize enforced disappearance and torture in line with Thailand’s international obligations.
Thailand-Communication to CEDAW-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Contact
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser & UN Representative, email: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Read also
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Thailand: ICJ marks 14th year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit’
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Thailand: pass legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture without further delay
On the 10th anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s alleged disappearance, the ICJ released a report ‘Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand’ documenting the legal history of the case.
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 11, 2018 | Advocacy
In a document presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ICJ Vice President Carlos Ayala explains that Venezuela’s denunciation of the OAS Charter remains without effect.
In April 2017, Venezuela lodged a notification with the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS) that Venezuela denounced the OAS Charter in order the withdraw its membership from the organisation.
In a document presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 4 December 2018, ICJ Vice President Carlos Ayala explains why the denunciation is unconstitutional and violates binding principles of international law.
According to Professor Ayala, who served as President of the Inter-American Commission between 1996 and 1999, the OAS Charter holds a constitutional status under Venezuela’s domestic law that does not permit withdrawal from the Charter on the basis of political interests.
Additionally, the Charter establishes that it will cease to be in force following a notification of denunciation only after the denouncing State has fulfilled its obligations under the Charter. Since Venezuela is the subject of several pending matters concerning its purported failure to fulfil Charter obligations, its denunciation remains without effect.
Venezuela-OAS denunciation-Advocacy-2018-SPA (see full document, in Spanish)
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
