Mar 11, 2019 | Advocacy
The “Independent Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) on Rakhine State, announced by the Government of Myanmar in May 2018 and established in July, has not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of meeting international standards of independence, impartiality or effectively contributing to justice or accountability for human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The ICOE is not transparent about how its information gathering will, if at all, shed light on the truth, or contribute to accountability and redress, while protecting individuals it comes into contact with. It is also yet to fulfill conditions called for by the UN Human Rights Council in its September 2018 resolution 39/2.
Any move to shift reference in the Council resolution currently under discussion, to include more positive recognition of the ICOE, would be wholly unjustified.
Furthermore, the government continues its unwillingness to address credible allegations of crimes under international law, including in its report to the CEDAW Committee in February in which rape allegations were dismissed as “wild claims.”
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in response to a “Call for Submissions” on 12 December 2018, inviting “individuals, groups, witnesses and alleged victims to submit their complaints or accounts, with supporting data and evidence,” wrote to the ICOE Chairperson with four questions, summarised as:
- Are any measures in place to protect complainants and witnesses against threats of violence, legal action or other forms of reprisals for providing information to the ICOE? What specific measures have been taken to ensure the confidentiality of any materials submitted, and to protect the identities and wellbeing of witnesses?
- Given statements by commissioners that accountability is not part of their mandate, as the ICOE is seeking submissions of data and evidence from victims and witnesses, please clarify the ICOE’s position on how these submissions will be utilized – including for possible criminal investigations.
- Can you provide information on any measures taken to deal with real or perceived conflicts of interests that may affect the public’s trust in the ICOE’s impartiality and independence, including victims and witnesses and others who may submit materials in response to your call?
- The recommendations of past Commissions of Inquiry have not been fully implemented. Given the sensitive nature of the ICOE’s mandate, what considerations have been taken into account to increase the likelihood that recommendations will be more effectively implemented than in the past?
The ICOE did not respond to these questions, despite having formally acknowledged receipt of the letter. The deadline for public submissions to the ICOE has now passed. Its silence in this instance illustrates a broader failure to demonstrate independence or transparency and underlines protection concerns.
The ICJ is unaware of efforts by the ICOE to genuinely seek cooperation with the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission or the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as has been called for by the Council.
Based on extensive experience and research in Myanmar and globally, and recalling a 5-page legal assessment of the ICOE published in September 2018, the ICJ remains of the view that the ICOE, like previous government-backed inquires, cannot effectively contribute to or deliver justice or accountability.
Myanmar-Inquiry Rakhine-Advocacy-2019-BUR (Burmese version, in PDF)
Mar 7, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ joined a list of 77 civil society organizations to call on relevant authorities in Myanmar to drop spurious charges against journalist Ko Swe Win, to decriminalize defamation, and to release human rights defenders currently imprisoned under repressive criminal defamation laws.
The statement reads:
On the second anniversary of the defamation charges brought upon Ko Swe Win, editor at online newspaper Myanmar Now, we, the undersigned 77 civil society organisations, call on the relevant authorities to drop the case against him. Spurious defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law were filed against him on 7 March 2017 by ultranationalists intent on suppressing free speech. The Government of Myanmar must take concrete steps in parliament to decriminalise defamation, repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law and drop the charges and release all activists and human rights defenders currently in prison and being charged under this repressive legislation.
Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law of 2013 was amended in 2017, but notably, defamation is still criminalised and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kyat or both. The law is still frequently used to stifle free speech in Myanmar and silence critics. To date, a reported 173 cases have been filed under Article 66(d) since its enactment.
The UN Human Rights Committee has called on all states to decriminalise defamation, indicating that imprisonment for defamation is a penalty that can never be appropriate or compatible with the right to freedom of expression. In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that defamation should be treated as a matter of civil rather than criminal law, stressing that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. In the case of Article 66(d), Myanmar law allows for agents of the offended party to file charges for defamation and initiate criminal proceedings on their behalf. In effect, this means that powerful organisations and individuals can operate via proxies to target those that they consider disturbing, a form of judicial harassment with severe implications for the individuals who are accused.
Ko Swe Win was charged with defamation under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law for sharing a story by Myanmar Now on Facebook. The story quoted a senior monk who said that well-known ultranationalist monk U Wirathu’s actions could be cause for him to be expelled from the monkhood as they violated the tenets of Buddhism. U Wirathu, notorious for using Facebook to agitate against Muslims, had previously expressed support for and thanked U Kyi Lin – the recently convicted gunman who shot and killed prominent lawyer U Ko Ni in January 2017. U Ko Ni was an expert on constitutional law and was working to change the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The plaintiff, a follower of U Wirathu, brought the charges in March 2017 and the court proceedings started in July 2017.
Since then, Ko Swe Win has had to travel regularly to the courthouse in Mandalay, where the charge was filed, from his home in Yangon and back – a distance of over 1,200 kilometres. The court hearings, now totaling 55, have been ongoing for almost two years, but the court has still only heard the plaintiff’s side, which has consistently been stalling the process. On some occasions, Ko Swe Win has travelled from Yangon only to find that the plaintiff or witnesses have failed to appear in court and that the proceedings have been postponed. The plaintiff himself was arrested in August 2017 and has since been detained, which has caused significant delays to the process.
U Wirathu has been summoned twice but failed to appear. On the first occasion, his lawyer informed the court that U Wirathu could not make the hearing because he was attending a donation ceremony. On the second occasion, U Wirathu’s lawyer requested that the hearing be held at his monastery compound. That request was denied by the township court, but U Wirathu appealed to the higher district court, which also denied the request. While the district court considered the request, no hearings could be held in the township court. Ko Swe Win however, was still required to make an appearance every two weeks before the township court judge just to be informed of the next date he was due to appear in court. This procedure, which required him to travel from Yangon to Mandalay, was typically over in a matter of minutes.
The many irregularities of this case highlight the lack of independence of the Myanmar judiciary. It appears that the authorities are determined to target those that are working to expose troubling truths and terrible crimes, rather than those who commit them. Those responsible for spreading dangerous speech and inciting violence face no consequences, while those who criticise such dangerous actions continue to be prosecuted. In a recent parallel case, also fraught with controversies, two Reuters reporters – Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo – were convicted to seven years in prison for exposing a mass killing of Rohingya men and boys carried out by the Myanmar military in northern Rakhine State.
In Myanmar, high-ranking military commanders, some of whom are accused by UN investigators for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide, remain at large, while journalists who expose the truth and report on human rights violations in the country are charged under repressive laws. This inverted idea of justice needs to come to an end if Myanmar is to continue its path towards democracy.
As long as Article 66(d) remains, people in Myanmar, especially those who criticise powerful individuals, officials and government policies online, will be at risk of being imprisoned for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
In light of the above, we call on the Government of Myanmar and its relevant authorities to:
- Drop the defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law against Ko Swe Win and other activists and human rights defenders and release those currently imprisoned under this repressive legislation;
- Repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, or at a very minimum, amend it to ensure that:
- defamation is no longer criminalised by deleting references to “defamation” as well as vague language such as “disturbing”;
- only a government prosecutor can file a criminal complaint under Article 66(d);
- where recognisably criminal acts such as “extortion” and “threats” occur in the law they are clearly and narrowly defined in line with international human rights law, to ensure it is not used to criminalise the peaceful expression of views.
Download
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-BUR (full statement in Burmese, PDF)
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 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
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)
