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This order repealed Article 12 of HNCPO Order No. 3/2558, which prohibited the gathering of five or more persons for a “political purpose”, lifting a ban which had carried a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ICJ and TLHR also express serious concern that even as nine orders and announcements have been repealed by HNCPO Order No. 22/2561, Article 2 of the order clarifies that “prosecutions, actions or operations” already in effect by virtue of those orders will not be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“Cases brought under the now-repealed section of HNCPO Order 3 should be dropped or withdrawn.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)
Sep 26, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the steep decline for human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement, made during an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, read as follows:
“Mr President,
The findings reported by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (A/HRC/39/73; A/HRC/39/73/Add.1), detailing the steep decline for human rights and rule of law in Cambodia prior to and during the 2018 national elections, demonstrate the utter inadequacy of the Human Rights Council’s current focus on technical assistance and capacity-building in Cambodia.
The elections, neither free nor fair, resulted in the ruling party winning all seats in the National Assembly. Post-election, the Government continues to misuse laws to violate rights and harass journalists, human rights defenders, political opposition members and ordinary individuals, as evidenced by the following updates to cases highlighted by the Special Rapporteur.
Unjustified espionage charges hang over two journalists, who spent eight months in detention before being released pending trial.[1] A filmmaker, sentenced to imprisonment for alleged espionage after flying a drone over an opposition rally, was only released by royal pardon after more than a year in jail.
Days after release from two years in jail for conducting a peaceful protest, a land rights activist was handed a six-month suspended sentence for a politically-motivated charge from 2012.[2] Following his release after 18 months in prison for alleged defamation and incitement offences, a political commentator fled Cambodia when fresh politically-motivated charges were mounted against him.[3]
Treason charges remain active against Kem Sokha, leader of the now-dissolved main opposition party, now under house arrest.[4]
A barber and a school principal remain imprisoned for allegedly sharing information online in breach of a lese-majeste law.[5] A woman remains imprisoned for alleged insult and incitement offences for throwing a shoe at a ruling party billboard.[6]
Today, four senior staff from a prominent civil society organization and a National Election Committee official were convicted under politically-motivated charges and handed five-year suspended imprisonment sentences.[7]
Madam Special Rapporteur, what approach should the Council, governments and civil society take to ensure human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, given that technical assistance and capacity-building alone seem clearly not to be having the necessary effect?
Thank you.”
[1] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 42.
[2] A/HRC/39/73, para 13.
[3] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 35.
[4] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, paras 18 and 19.
[5] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 46.
[6] A/HRC/39/73/Add.1, para 30.
[7] A/HRC/39/73, para 13; A/HRC/73/Add.1, para 35
Sep 18, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today urged the UN Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to preserve evidence of crimes under international law occurring in Myanmar, with a view to eventual prosecution of those responsible.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN International Fact Finding Mission, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has monitored justice and human rights in Myanmar for more than five decades. The ICJ has an established presence in the country supporting justice actors to protect human rights through the rule of law.
With this experience, the ICJ views the Independent International Fact Finding Mission’s conclusions as painting an authoritative picture of the general situation in Myanmar, particularly in its highlighting of the pervasive damage of military impunity upon human rights, rule of law and the nascent democratic process.
The rule of law cannot be established, let alone flourish, without accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations and redress for victims and their families.
The Fact Finding Mission’s findings of crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states, and the identification of alleged perpetrators, necessitate immediate action.
The Government of Myanmar is unwilling and unable to effectively and genuinely provide justice for crimes, particularly when perpetrated by security forces. International action must not be deterred or delayed by the latest government inquiry, which is incapable of providing accountability or redress and may promote impunity by undermining credible international justice mechanisms.
The ICJ calls for a unified Council resolution at this session to establish an International Impartial and Independent Mechanism. This is urgently required to preserve evidence before its further deterioration, and to demonstrate a commitment to justice. Failing to act now risks further denying justice for victims and emboldening perpetrators.
Violations against Rohingya constitute an egregious yet emblematic example of systematic persecution of minority groups that has persisted in Myanmar for decades.
The ICJ would like to ask the Fact-Finding Mission: how can the Council best ensure accountability for the full range of crimes under international law committed against minorities throughout Myanmar and prevent their continuation and recurrence?”
For more information see:
Myanmar: why an IIIM and Security Council referral are needed despite the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh
Myanmar: Government’s Commission of Inquiry cannot deliver justice or accountability
Sep 17, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ emphasised the importance of effective investigations capable of leading to truth and justice, highlighting recent developments in Manipur, India as an example.
The statement read as follows:
“Justice processes in situations of conflict or transition require fighting impunity and re-establishing public trust.[1] An example is the new prospects for justice in relation to 1528 alleged extrajudicial killings cases in Manipur, India, which would make an important contribution to a transition out of the long-standing conflict.
In July 2016, in response to a petition filed on behalf of the victims, the Indian Supreme Court stated that “there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial…”,[2] opening the door to ending impunity. As of August 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered 29 complaints against security forces.[3] Recent reports suggest that the Government is also considering amending the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to remove or restrict existing overbroad authorizations for use of lethal force.[4]
These are welcome developments. However, concerns remain, as the investigation status of the majority of the cases is unknown. Two UN Special Rapporteurs in July 2018 also affirmed that justice must be done in all cases.[5]
The ICJ calls on India to ensure independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all cases in Manipur, amend AFSPA, and to uphold the right to truth of victims and society about acts committed and the identity of perpetrators, in line with its international and national legal obligations, including as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
[1] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, A/HRC/39/53 (25 July, 2018), http://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/39/53.
[2] Para 163, Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129/2012.
[3] TNN, “Army Major named in FIR for killing 12-yr-old in fake Manipur encounter”, Times of India, August 3, 2018, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/imphal/army-major-named-in-fir-for-killing-12-yr-old-in-fake-manipur-encounter/articleshow/65252258.cms.
[4] “In AFSPA, Government Considering Crucial Changes”, NDTV, September 13, 2018, available at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-afspa-government-considering-crucial-change-sources-1915706.
[5] Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, “India: UN experts call for urgent progress in investigation of hundreds of ‘fake encounter’ killings” (4 July 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23323&LangID=E .
