Feb 1, 2024 | Advocacy, News
As the absolute military rule enters its fourth year with an extension of the state of emergency, widespread and systematic human rights violations continue to be perpetrated daily against large number of peoples in communities throughout Myanmar with impunity, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
Arbitrary arrests and detentions and unsound convictions
Widespread gross human rights violations, many of which amount to crimes under international law, have taken place in a climate of near absolute impunity, with rampant arbitrary arrests, torture, detention and convictions for political reasons.
“Respect for human rights and the rule of law has disappeared three years after the coup d’état,” said Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The military junta has continued committing gross human rights violations, including by arbitrarily arresting, detaining, torturing and summarily executing those who have dared to oppose their illegitimate regime.”
The military junta has effectively weaponized its all-encompassing control over the legal and administrative system, with main targets including real or perceived political opponents, such as former government officials, human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and ethnic and religious minorities.
Credible information indicates that at least 25,000 individuals have been arbitrarily arrested and detained since the start of the coup, often solely in relation to their exercise of their right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. Around 8,000 have been convicted based on spurious charges, and at least 119 political prisoners remain on death row.
These figures are a grim reminder of the extent to which the rule of law has completely collapsed in Myanmar. The convictions of people for political reasons have taken place in proceedings that flagrantly violate the essential fair trial and due process guarantees established under international law:
- Many have been summarily tried and convicted in closed-door proceedings either in civilian courts located in prisons, or in military courts;
- Lawyers have been obstructed from meeting and representing detainees, and have themselves been subject to arbitrary arrests and detention in relation to their work;
- Convictions are typically based on spurious and unsubstantiated charges, and “confessions” that were reportedly obtained through torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment have been unlawfully relied on in these convictions; and
- Other violations include the suspension of habeas corpus; and particularly for closed-door military tribunal proceedings, violations of the right to be present at one’s trial, the right to be represented by counsel and the right to appeal.
Prison conditions and treatment of detainees
“Detainees are being held in prisons and detention facilities in horrific conditions that run afoul of international law and standards governing the treatment of prisoners. Violence, much of which amounts to torture, is a daily reality for detainees, with women and LGBT detainees being subjected to targeted forms of cruelty and abuse, as a form of punishment and to instill fear. Unlawful deaths in custody are a common occurrence and remain unaccounted for,” added Upreti.
There is credible evidence that detainees are being subjected to severe beatings with sticks, wire ropes and guns, electrocution, mock execution, and burying alive. Women and LGBT detainees have reported cases of rape, invasive strip searches, sexual harassment and mutilation of genitalia.
Furthermore, reports have emerged of the severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and sanitation, lack of access to healthcare and insufficient food in detention facilities. There are also credible reports of religious minorities being prohibited from practicing their religion while in detention.
Continued failure to restore democratic institutions and violence against civilians
These widespread systematic human rights violations are taking place against the backdrop of the military extending its unlawful declaration of a state of emergency on 31 January 2024 and prolonging its unlawful, arbitrary and abusive exercise of authority. This reneges on its promise to hold national elections in August 2023, which, even if they had been carried out, would likely have been shambolic amidst the ongoing crackdown on perceived political opponents.
Numerous separate armed conflicts continue to rage within the country, involving the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s army) and anti-military armed groups. In carrying out its military operations, the military has unlawfully attacked civilians taking no part in hostilities, including direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects from aerial bombings; mass extrajudicial executions of civilians and detained combatants and large-scale and intentional burning of civilian homes and buildings, including religious infrastructure. As noted by the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), these constitute “strong evidence indicating that serious international crimes are being inflicted against the people in Myanmar”.
Recommendations
“For Myanmar to return to the path of establishing itself as society based on rule of law, human rights and democracy, the first step is to end the state of emergency and all of the unlawful actions of the military regime that flow from it, including the prevailing impunity,” stressed Upreti. “The military regime and its members must be held accountable, the complicity that enables them must end and the human rights of all people in Myanmar must be fully restored.”
The ICJ reiterates its calls on the military to:
- Return the country to a civilian government and restore democracy;
- Immediately cease systematically violating the rights of persons for political reasons, including by releasing all people arbitrarily arrested and detained, and allowing the country’s institutions to function independently and impartially; and
- Immediately cease all practices of torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and flagrant fair trial violations.
The ICJ urges all UN Member States to:
- Keep up its pressure for the peaceful transfer of power to a democratically elected government;
- Increase support for coordinated documentation and accountability efforts by ensuring that the IIMM, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are given adequate resources to continue their important functions as effectively as possible; and
- Hold perpetrators of serious crimes under international law accountable, including by exercising universal jurisdiction over these crimes in domestic courts.
Contact
Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, e: melissa.upreti@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Further Reading
ICJ, “Myanmar: Two years after the coup, country further than ever from democracy and the rule of law”, 2 February 2023
ICJ, “Myanmar: A year after military takeover, no rule of law or judicial independence”, 10 February 2022
Dec 15, 2023 | Advocacy, News
On the 11-year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals, strongly condemn the Lao government’s continued failure to provide necessary information as to his fate and whereabouts and reiterate our calls to the authorities to deliver truth, justice and reparations to his family.
International concerns over Sombath’s case, expressed by international civil society, United Nations (UN) human rights experts, and UN member states on last year’s anniversary of Sombath’s enforced disappearance, have been ignored by the Lao government.
On 25 September 2023, in a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee as part of its follow-up review of Laos under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Lao government repeated previous misleading statements and miserably failed to provide any additional information on the steps it said it had taken to find Sombath. The government claimed it “never stopped trying to find the truth” about Sombath’s fate “in order to bring the offender(s) to justice.” In reality, the Lao authorities have continued to disregard Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng Ng, and have not provided her with any updates on her husband’s case since 2017. The government then made the extraordinary assertion that its Task Force’s investigation had been “carried out on the basis of transparency, impartiality and accountability, including the use of modern investigative techniques consistent with international standards by the capable inquiry officials.” It concluded that the case of Sombath needed “more time for investigation” and added that the Task Force was “still active in the investigation” and had “not yet closed the case.”
These government statements are unequivocally false in suggesting any degree of transparency. Existing evidence is clear that the Lao government has been engaged in a continuous cover-up of the facts of Sombath’s case since he was forcibly disappeared in 2012, including providing misleading information about its actions to his family, the Lao public, and the international community, as stated above.
We deplore the unmistakable pattern of inaction, negligence, and obfuscation that various Lao authorities have repeatedly engaged in for more than a decade and we continue to resolutely stand in solidarity with Sombath’s family and all other victims of enforced disappearances in Laos.
We reiterate our calls on the Lao authorities to take real and effective measures to establish the fate or whereabouts of Sombath and all other victims of enforced disappearances in the country, identify the perpetrators of such serious crimes, and provide victims with an effective remedy and full reparations. We also urge the government to immediately ratify without reservations the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which it signed in 2008, and to fully implement it into national law, policies, and practices.
As upcoming chair for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Laos will be placed in a strategic position to lead the regional efforts to strengthen, promote, and protect human rights. However, its continued failure to act on Sombath’s enforced disappearance sends a message of inadequacy to head the regional bloc and to fulfill ASEAN’s purpose under Article 1(7) of the ASEAN Charter, which is to strengthen democracy, enhance good governance, and the rule of law and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We will continue to seek justice and accountability for Sombath. Until the truth is found and justice is delivered to his family, we will not stop demanding answers from the Lao government to the same question we have been asking for the past 11 years: “Where is Sombath?”
Background
Sombath Somphone, a pioneer in community-based development and youth empowerment, was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street of Vientiane on the evening of 15 December 2012. Footage from a traffic CCTV camera showed that police stopped Sombath’s vehicle at the checkpoint and that, within minutes, unknown individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual arriving and driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center. In December 2015, Sombath’s family obtained new CCTV footage from the same area and made it public. The video shows Sombath’s car being driven back towards the city by an unknown individual.
For further information, please visit: https://www.sombath.org/en/
List of Signatories
Organizations:
- Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)
- Amnesty International
- Armanshahr Foundation | OPEN ASIA
- ARTICLE 19
- Asia Democracy Network (ADN)
- Asia Europe People’s Forum
- Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- AWAM Pakistan
- Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
- Boat People SOS
- Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
- Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
- Campaign Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)
- Campaign for Popular Democracy (CPD)
- Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR)
- Centre for Civil and Political Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
- Committee of the Relatives of the May 1992 Heroes
- Community Resource Centre (CRC)
- Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF)
- Dignity-Kadyr-kassiyet
- FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
- Focus on the Global South
- Fortify Rights
- Fresh Eyes
- Front Line Defenders
- Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights
- Human Rights Alert
- Human Rights and Development Foundation (HRDF)
- Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)
- Human Rights in China
- Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA)
- Human Rights Watch
- Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI)
- INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre Sri Lanka
- Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC)
- International Campaign for Tibet (ICT)
- International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Rivers
- Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw)
- Judicial System Monitoring Program (JSMP)
- Karapatan Alliance Philippines
- Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR)
- Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS)
- Lao Movement for Human Rights
- Law and Society Trust Sri Lanka
- League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
- Madaripur Legal Aid Association (MLAA)
- Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
- Maldivian Democracy Network
- Manushya Foundation
- MARUAH
- National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP)
- Odhikar
- Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee
- People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
- People’s Watch
- Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (PBHI)
- Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
- Progressive Voice
- Pusat Komas
- Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RRMRU)
- Solidarity for People’s Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL)
- Stiftung Asienhaus
- Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
- Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
- Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR)
- Think Centre
- Transnational Institute
- Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
- WOREC Nepal
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Individuals:
- Anne-Sophie Gindroz
- David JH Blake
- Nico Bakker
- Randall Arnst
- Shui Meng and Sombath’s family, Vientiane
Dec 6, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The second revision of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law), which was passed on 5 December 2023, does not comply with international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression and information, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
On 5 December 2023, the Indonesian House of Representatives passed the bill for the second revision of the ITE Law into law.
The ICJ is gravely concerned that the revised ITE Law fails to rectify the main flaws of its previous iteration, which has been used to wrongly criminalize and restrict free expression in online spaces. The criminal provisions contained in the revised law are inconsistent with international human rights law and standards, with added provisions having the potential to exacerbate repression of online expression.
“The retention of overbroad criminal provisions in the revised ITE Law signals the continuing failure of Indonesia to comply with its international human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression,” said Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The revision process lacked transparency, and important recommendations made by civil society to remove the ITE Law’s fatally flawed provisions have been disregarded.”
The ICJ is also concerned that the drafting process for the second revision was opaque, with public feedback on the draft having been ignored. The lack of transparency in the drafting process contravenes Indonesia’s obligation to ensure the effective exercise of the right to participate in public affairs, as guaranteed under article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The second revision of the ITE Law failed to capitalize on the opportunity for the Indonesian authorities to strengthen the protection of online freedom of expression and to reaffirm its commitment to respecting and protecting human rights in the online space. It is imperative that the revised law repeals or substantially amends the overbroad criminal provisions that have been used with concerning frequency to arbitrarily suppress online freedom of expression and create a climate of fear,” said Upreti.
In light of these concerns, the ICJ calls for the repeal or substantial amendment of the revised ITE Law to bring it in line with Indonesia’s human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression and information, through a transparent process that involves the effective participation of civil society.
Criminalization of free expression online
The revised ITE Law retains the overbroad and vague provisions criminalizing “contents that violate propriety” (article 27(1)); criminal defamation (article 27A); and “content that incites, persuades or influences” others that “causes feelings of hatred or hostility” based on protected characteristics (article 28(2)). A violation of these offences may result in imprisonment and criminal fines if found convicted (articles 45 and 45A).
Additionally, the revised law incorporates a new provision that imposes criminal liability for intentionally disseminating content that a person “knew contained false statements that cause public unrest” (article 28(3)), which may result in imprisonment if found convicted (article 45A(3)).
Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression and information must comply with the elements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality required under article 19(3) of the ICCPR. This means that any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be based on law that is precisely worded, and be necessary for and the least restrictive measure to respond to a legitimate aim. The only aims identified as legitimate in article 19(3) are ensuring respect of the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The criminal provisions in the revised law are unnecessary for any legitimate government purpose and risk making criminals of large numbers of ordinary internet users, and chilling many others from speaking online. They are clearly inconsistent with Indonesia’s obligations under article 19 of the ICCPR to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and information. They threaten unwarranted criminal sanctions for acts that are based on vague and overbroad language, which could be applied to unduly interfere with the rights of individuals and disproportionately impact those from disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
For instance, article 27(1) of the revised ITE Law threatens criminal sanctions for disseminating content that violates “propriety”, defined as “displaying nudity, genitalia, and sexual activity that contravenes with the values existing in society […]”. While the law now includes an exemption for public interest and self-defence (article 45(2)), this definition for “propriety” is vague and overbroad, having the potential to be weaponized to unjustly sanction any form of expression by individuals from marginalized groups, such as LGBTI-related content. Further, it could enable legal reprisals against victims/survivors of gender-based violence and lead to revictimization.
Defamation should never be subject to criminal, as opposed to civil, sanctions. The UN Human Rights Committee, which authoritatively interprets the ICCPR, has called on States to end the use of the criminal law for such purposes and affirmed that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty [for defamation]”. While the revised ITE law now incorporates a public interest exemption, the retention of criminal defamation will continue to have a chilling effect on online freedom of expression and information. Indeed, the previous criminal defamation provision in article 27(3) of the ITE Law, has already been applied to target expression critical of the government.
The criminalization of disseminating content that incites “feelings of hatred or hostility” in article 28(2) cannot be used to justify the application of criminal law. While States must act under the ICCPR article 20 to protect against actual incitement to violence and discrimination, provoking mere “feelings” of ill-defined conceptions of “hatred or hostility” stands well below the threshold of actual acts of violence or discrimination. In any event, the use of the criminal law is a plainly disproportionate measure to address any legitimate objective. The ICJ notes that the previous criminal hate speech provision in the ITE Law has been applied in an arbitrary manner to charge journalists and convict forms of expression that do not give rise to substantial harm.
The addition of article 28(3) in the revised ITE Law to criminalize disseminating “false statements” that causes “public unrest” is vague, overbroad and imprecise, which is inconsistent with the legality principle. Authorities may not rely on the prevention of “public unrest”, vaguely defined as “conditions that disturb public order […]”, to justify the disproportionate threat of criminal sanctions, especially imprisonment. The ICJ notes how other criminal provisions sanctioning disinformation, based on colonial-era regulations, have been used to arbitrarily sanction legitimate expression protected under international human rights law, including public interest reporting or critical opinions concerning public officials.
This press release can be downloaded in Bahasa Indonesian here.
Contact
Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, e: melissa.upreti@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant, e: yogi.bratajaya@icj.org
Further reading
Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Indonesia: ICJ asks court to ensure that defamation and “false information” laws not be used to silence and criminalize human rights defenders
Indonesia: Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes and Online Gender-Based Violence Against Women
Silenced But Not Silent: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons’ Freedom of Expression and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Nov 30, 2023 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in an amicus curiae brief submitted today, has requested the East Jakarta District Court to give effect to Indonesia’s international legal obligations concerning freedom of expression and information in their adjudication of a case concerning criminal charges against two human rights defenders, Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti.
Oct 11, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) called the Human Rights Council’s (HRC) attention to the entrenched pattern of human rights violations in Cambodia, and called on the HRC to adopt a resolution to extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and ensure it has adequate resources and support.
Oral statement of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia
“Madam Vice President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) concurs with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that Cambodia has largely failed to implement the 20 human rights-related benchmarks proposed in his previous report to this Council.
In the lead-up to the national elections, there was a rapid escalation of the human rights and rule of law crisis in Cambodia. Human rights defenders and political opponents were convicted based on non-human rights compliant laws for exercising their right to freedom of expression, both online and offline, with new draconian laws on cybercrime and cybersecurity being drafted and considered.
The authorities have arbitrarily revoked licenses and blocked online access to independent media outlets without due process. The government at the highest level has employed rhetoric, reproduced online, to threaten and incite violence against political opponents with impunity, with credible reports of actual physical violence as an apparent consequence.
This systematic disregard for Cambodia’s international human rights obligations has been further exacerbated by the absence of an independent and impartial judiciary. The convictions of human rights defenders and political opponents were frequently accompanied by massive fair trial violations, including the effective application of a presumption of guilt.
It is imperative that the Council responds decisively to reverse this entrenched pattern of human rights violations in Cambodia by adopting a resolution to extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and ensuring it has adequate resources and support.
Thank you.”
Contact
Sandra Epal Ratjen, ICJ UN Representative and Senior Legal Adviser, e: sandra.epal@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Sep 27, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and four other organizations condemn in the strongest possible terms the arbitrary execution of Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh in violation of his right to life and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. He was executed despite credible allegations that Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh had been subjected to severe beatings amounting to torture by the police in order to extract a “confession,” which was relied on at trial to convict him.
Despite the public outcry and the persistent calls within the international community for an impartial, independent and effective review of his case, the authorities proceeded with the execution of Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh on 22 September 2023, in defiance of international law and contrary to the global trend towards establishing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and abolition of the death penalty.
According to the death certificate issued by Thu Phong village, Cao Phong district, Hòa Bình province that Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh’s family received on 23 September 2023, he was executed at 7am on 22 September 2023. His execution was carried out only four days after his mother had received the notification from the People’s Court of Thanh Hóa, informing her that as Mạnh’s relative, she could apply in writing to receive her son’s ashes or corpse.
The execution notice issued by Thanh Hóa province police indicates that the responsible authorities had exchanged two official letters in August 2023 to uphold the decision to carry out Mạnh’s execution. This means they had waited for more than one month before notifying Mạnh’s family about his impending execution, hindering any efforts by his family and the public to call for an immediate halt of the execution. Additionally, the notification letter shared with the family did not include the date of the set execution and the family was not given the opportunity of a last visit – a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that international human rights bodies have repeatedly condemned.
Allegations of violations of due process and procedural irregularities
Lê Văn Mạnh had been convicted of robbery, rape, and murder of a 14-year-old girl – Hoàng Thị Loan – in July 2005.
According to the case’s official records, the victim, Hoàng Thị Loan, was raped and murdered in Yên Thịnh Ward, Yên Định District, Thanh Hóa Province, in March 2005. On 20 April 2005, Lê Văn Mạnh, who was 23-year old at the time, was arrested pursuant to a temporary arrest warrant issued by the investigative police unit of Đồng Nai Province for an entirely different matter earlier that month.
However, according to the criminal complaint, just three days later, by 23 April 2005, a “confession” letter, claimed to be written by Mạnh while in police detention addressed to his father, had surfaced, admitting guilt to the rape and murder of Hoàng Thị Loan. The police confiscated this letter and used it to prove Mạnh’s guilt. The criminal complaint further showed that the investigation relied on the testimony of a 9-year-old child – who was interviewed by the police without parental permission – for leads.
Between 2005 and 2008, Mạnh underwent a total of seven court hearings, including three trials, three appeals, and one cassation trial. In all of his court hearings, Mạnh vehemently denied all of the charges and retracted his earlier “confession”, alleging that he had to provide it after being beaten by both the police officers investigating his case and his cellmates who were acting under police’s instructions.
There was no physical evidence to tie Mạnh to the alleged rape and murder. The only evidence presented by the prosecution was Mạnh’s “confession” letter, which he had already retracted because it was allegedly obtained under duress and torture. Nevertheless, Lê Văn Mạnh was convicted of the rape and murder of Hoàng Thị Loan and sentenced to death.
Recommendations
The execution was arbitrary, as it took place as a consequence of a denial of the right to fair trial among other rights. The execution also is contrary to repeated resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the overall global trend towards establishing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolition. We strongly urge the authorities to:
- Immediately halt all pending executions and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in Việt Nam;
- Initiate prompt, impartial and effective investigations into the allegations of torture or other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment with a view to gaining a “confession” from Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh, noting that his was not the only case where there had been allegations of torture being used to extract a “confession” later used as evidence at trial, which resulted in the imposition of the death penalty; and
- Ensure that there is full transparency in the use of the death penalty, including through ensuring that essential information relevant to a specific planned execution is promptly provided to the prisoner and their family, and making publicly available information regarding death sentences, pardons, number of people on death row, notifications of any set executions and executions carried out.
Background
The UN General Assembly, in repeated resolutions and by overwhelming majorities, most recently in General Assembly Resolution 77/222 of 15 December 2022, has called on all States that retain the death penalty to impose an immediate moratorium on executions, with a view to abolition.
In line with opinions shared by many governments and the United Nations, we emphasize that the death penalty constitutes a denial of the right to life protected by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Việt Nam is a State party; and that it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, prohibited under Article 7 of the ICCPR and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Countries like Việt Nam where the death penalty is imposed, must ensure, at a minimum, that it is only used in cases of “the most serious crimes” (i.e. intentional killing) following a trial that meets the highest level of compliance with international law and standards of fairness.
As the UN Human Rights Committee noted: “Violation of the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14 of the Covenant in proceedings resulting in the imposition of the death penalty would render the sentence arbitrary in nature, and in violation of article 6 of the [ICCPR]” (General Comment No. 36 – Article 6: right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para. 41). Mạnh’s trial was clearly neither fair nor compliant with international human rights law.
Furthermore, as a State party to the UNCAT and the ICCPR, Việt Nam has an obligation to respect the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment at all times.
Article 15 of the UNCAT obliges State parties to “ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings.” International law prescribes that State parties must conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations when complaints of torture or other ill-treatment are made (Articles 12 and 13, UNCAT; and Articles 7 and 2(3), ICCPR). In addition, State parties must provide prompt and effective access to effective remedies and full reparations for victims of torture and other ill-treatment (Article 14, UNCAT, and Article 7 in connection with Article 2(3), ICCPR).
Signatories
Amnesty International
International Commission of Jurists
Legal Initiatives for Vietnam
People in Need
Vietnamese Advocates for Change
