Apr 22, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations to the Council of the State calling for the repeal or amendment of National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and Head of the NCPO (HNCPO) orders and announcements in line with Thailand’s international human rights law obligations.
The ICJ was informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Council of the State had been tasked to review the necessity and relevance of announcements, orders, and acts of the NCPO and of the HNCPO in February 2019.
The review process is in line with Thailand’s declaration to the UN Human Rights Committee in its Follow-Up to the Concluding Observations of the Committee, submitted on 18 July and published on 10 August 2018.
In its submission to the Council of the State, the ICJ has called for the review process of HNCPO and NCPO announcements and orders to be carried out with increased public participation, openness, and transparency.
The ICJ has also made recommendations on the repeal and amendment of the following HNCPO and NCPO orders and announcements since they are clearly inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights law obligations and the 2017 Constitution, and are neither necessary, nor proportionate, nor relevant to the current situation:
- Orders that provide the military with superior powers beyond civilian authorities;
- Orders that allow military courts to prosecute civilians;
- Orders that infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, restrict media freedom and the right to information; and
- Orders that infringe on community and environmental rights.
As main priorities, the ICJ has recommended that:
a) the exercising of law enforcement powers by military personnel to arrest and detain suspects in places not formally recognized as places of detention without judicial review should end;
b) all cases of civilians facing proceedings before military courts be transferred to civilian courts, and all civilians convicted of an offence in military courts be guaranteed a re-trial in civilian courts; and
c) all other HNCPO and NCPO orders and announcements should be repealed or amended to bring Thailand in compliance with its international human rights law obligations, and to ensure that the rights to freedom of expression, opinion and assembly, and environmental rights, among others, be respected.
Thailand-civilian prosecutions military courts-Advocacy-Non-legal submissions-2019-ENG (PDF in English)
Thailand-civilian prosecutions military courts-Advocacy-Non-legal submissions-2019-THAI (PDF in Thailand)
Further readings:
Post coup’s legal frameworks
Thailand: ICJ alarmed at increasing use of arbitrary powers under Article 44
Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee by the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights
The ICJ and other groups made a joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee
Thailand: statement to UN on situation for human rights
ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human RIghts’ submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Thailand
Military officers in law enforcement missions
Thailand: immediately end the practice of arbitrarily detaining persons in unofficial places of detention
Thailand: The ICJ and Human Rights Watch express concerns over detentions
The Use of Military Court
Thailand: transfer all civilians to civilian courts
Thailand: End prosecution of civilians in military tribunals
Thailand: ICJ welcomes Order phasing out prosecution of civilians in military courts but government must do much more
Freedom of expression and assembly
Thailand: lifting of the ban on political activities is welcome but more is needed
Thailand: Lift ban on political gatherings and fully reinstate all fundamental freedoms in Thailand
Thailand: misuse of laws restricts fundamental freedoms (UN statement)
Community and environmental rights
“Development” and its discontents in Thailand
Thailand: ICJ submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Apr 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
The ICJ sent a letter urging Singapore’s government to refrain from passing into law the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2019 (‘Online Falsehoods Bill’) in its current form.
The letter was sent to Singapore’s Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Minister for Law and Speaker of the Parliament.
The bill is reportedly expected to be adopted and come into force in the second half of 2019.
The ICJ acknowledged the efforts of Singapore’s government to attempt to counteract potential infringements on human rights and fundamental freedoms which may emerge from abusive communications involving the spread of misinformation. It noted however that the bill may, contrary to the object and purpose of its introduction, result in far-reaching limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, opinion and information.
The ICJ indicated that its provisions present a real risk that it can be wielded in an arbitrary manner to curtail important discussion of matters of public interest in the public sphere, including content critical of the government. Critical dissent, free exchange and development of opinions, and free access to information are necessary to maintain an informed society and ensure transparency, accountability and informed debate on crucial matters of public interest.
The letter included a legal briefing highlighting the ICJ’s concerns regarding provisions of the bill which contravene international human rights law and standards.
Singapore-online regulation bill letter-advocacy-open letter-2019-ENG Letter (PDF)
Singapore-online regulation bill briefing-advocacy-open letter-2019-ENG Briefing (PDF)
See also
ICJ, ‘Singapore: Parliament must reject internet regulation bill that threatens freedom of expression’, 4 April 2019, https://www.icj.org/singapore-parliament-must-reject-internet-regulation-bill-that-threatens-freedom-of-expression/
Apr 11, 2019 | Advocacy
Today the ICJ joined twenty organizations in calling for Myanmar’s new Constitutional Amendment Committee to fully protect the right to freedom of expression in the Constitution, in line with international law and standards including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The statement reads:
“20 expert organisations urge Myanmar to fully guarantee the internationally protected right to freedom of expression in the Constitution
11 April 2019 — A new parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing Myanmar’s constitution is an opportunity for the government to guarantee the democratic rights to free expression, media freedom, and access to information.
We welcome the government’s creation of the Constitutional Amendment Committee, established to review and propose amendments that will support Myanmar’s transition to democracy.
Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution does not include the guarantees required in a democracy to protect freedom of expression. Those that it does include do not meet relevant international human rights standards. This threatens the transition to and quality of Myanmar’s democracy as can be seen for example in the wide range of laws used to prosecute journalists and human rights defenders.
We call on the Constitutional Amendment Committee to recommend:
- Replacement of the current heavily prescribed guarantee for freedom of expression in Articles 354(a) and 365 with a single article that guarantees the right to freedom of expression in accordance with international standards, so that it fully reflects the requirements of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- A new separate article guaranteeing the right to access information held by public authorities.
- A new separate article guaranteeing media freedom, which should prohibit prior censorship of the media or licensing of the print media and individual journalists, and should protect journalism as well as the independence of the Myanmar Press Council, Myanmar Broadcasting Council, and any future public service media.
- Each guarantee should include only those limitations that are provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
We are committed to supporting Myanmar’s transition to democracy and would be happy to provide further information and guidance as the Committee conducts its review.”
Signed by 20 organizations with the support of 13 other organizations.
Full statement and list of organizations available in English and Burmese here: Myanmar-Joint Statement on FoE and Const Ref-Advocacy-2019-BUR
Mar 20, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today called at the UN for prompt establishment of a judicial accountability mechanism with international involvement, for Sri Lanka.The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue on the OHCHR report on Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the comprehensive report of the OHCHR on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka (A/HRC/40/23). We share OHCHR’s observation that there is a lack of progress and absence of a comprehensive strategy for implementation of all commitments made under Resolution 30/1.
ICJ is particularly concerned about the lack of progress in the area of criminal accountability (as noted in Paragraph 27 of the report). We believe that there is an urgent need to establish a judicial mechanism with the involvement of foreign judges. We echo the sentiments of the OHCHR regarding the inability of the Sri Lankan courts, on their own, to address the impunity of security forces for crimes under international law.
Failure of the criminal justice system to effectively address emblematic cases (as reflected in Paragraph 38 of the report) clearly indicates the level of capacity and willingness on the part of the State even today to prosecute and punish perpetrators of serious crimes when they are linked to the security forces or other positions of power.
ICJ also notes that women are grossly under-represented in the judiciary in Sri Lanka, which prevents women human rights defenders and female victims from having confidence in the ordinary criminal justice system, impeding their full engagement and participation in pursuing accountability for crimes committed against them during the conflict and other transitional justice processes.
A judicial mechanism with the involvement of foreign judges is particularly urgent for women in conflict-affected areas who still live in a highly militarized environment and are compelled to live among their perpetrators – those who have been accused of war crimes including rape and other forms of sexual violence.
We therefore reject calls for a purely domestic mechanism. Indeed, the ICJ considers that the continuing failure of the Government to ensure justice means that referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability would be fully warranted. The draft resolution before this session of the Council, reaffirming all elements of resolution 30/1, thus already represents a deep compromise and anything less than the existing text would be wholly unacceptable.
Mar 13, 2019 | Advocacy
This important blog by ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott was first posted to Opinio Juris. It has been translated into Burmese language as a resource for individuals, institutions and organizations in the country.
Documenting criminal human rights violations in the Myanmar is critical, so we must be careful not to create problems for future efforts at establishing criminal responsibility.
In his article, Kingsley Abbott, discusses the important role of the documentation of serious human rights violations in Myanmar by civil society, UN bodies and journalists.
This effort has played a critical role in raising awareness of the situation inside and outside the country and in getting responses from the international community.
Read the article in English
Read the article in Burmese
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for Global Redress & Accountability e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
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)
