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
Nov 14, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of a judge and a scholar that were arrested in the wake of the state of emergency in Turkey.
Mr Hakan Baş is a judge who was dismissed and arrested under emergency legislation following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Mr Seyit Ali Ablak is a teacher and was arrested in 2017 also during the state of emergency declared following the attempted coup.
They claim, among others, the violation of their right to a judicial review of detention under articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In this intervention, the ICJ addressed the following issues:
- the international legal and normative framework on the independence of the judiciary and the role of judges, in particular in implementation of obligations under articles 5.3 and 5.4 ECHR;
- the current situation of the independence, governance and administration of the judiciary in Turkey, with particular regard to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors and the role of the peace judges, and their conformity with State obligations under articles 5.3 and 5.4 ECHR. The situation will be assessed with reference to the findings of an ICJ mission undertaken in May 2018 and contained in the mission report Justice Suspended.
Turkey-icj-Bas-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention in Baş v. Turkey)
Turkey-icj-Ablak-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention in Ablak v. Turkey)
Nov 2, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a detained Member of the Turkish Parliament from the HDP party, Ms Burcu Çelik, arrested in 2017 under “terrorism charges”.
In this submission, the ICJ provides the Court with observations concerning the capacity of the Turkish legal system to provide effective remedies for violations under the ECHR with regard to detention, in particular detention of Members of Parliament, in light of its Convention obligations, in particular obligations under Article 5.4.
The ICJ presents its analysis of these aspects of the Turkish legal system based, in part, on information ascertained during a mission to Turkey undertaken in May 2018 and in its report Justice Suspended.
Specifically, the ICJ addresses the question as to whether the remedies of individual application before the Constitutional Court (CC) and under article 141.1 (a) and (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) may be considered as effective in light of the State’s obligations under articles 5.4 and 35.1 ECHR.
Turkey-icj-Celik-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention)
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ made submissions today to the European Court of Human Rights in support of the right of association of Azerbaijan’s lawyers representing applicants before the Court and highlighting the situation of harassment of the legal profession in the country.
The ICJ intervened today in the cases of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan and Mustafayev and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan.
In these cases, lawyer Asabali Mustafayev and its NGO challenged the compliance of the freezing of their assets and criminal proceedings for financial offences as arbitrary interferences with their work as human rights defenders and in representation of clients before the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The ICJ has intervened to highlight the case-law regarding the right to individual application before the Court under article 34 ECHR and its application to the work of lawyers and legal NGOs.
It further examined the systemic practice in Azerbaijan of harassment of lawyers and of NGOs established by lawyers for the purpose of providing legal advice or representation, including representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, the ICJ analyzed the implications of such practices with regard to the State’s obligations under article 18 ECHR read together with article 11 ECHR.
Azerbaijan-icj-DHRRC&other-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Question to the parties: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184179
