Feb 22, 2021 | Advocacy, News
On 13 and 20 February 2021, the ICJ, jointly with Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre), held two consultative sessions on international law and standards relating to the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the use of force in law enforcement operations.
The discussions took place against the backdrop of recent widescale protests in Thailand, in which people exercising the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression were met with sometimes unlawful force by security units.
Twenty-five Thai and international lawyers, civil society representatives and academics attended both discussion sessions, some participants in person and others online.
The 13 February session focused on relevant international law and standards relating to the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the use of force in law enforcement operations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a party, The sessions were led by Daisuke Shirane, CCPR Centre Asia Pacific Coordinator; Badar Farrukh, OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia Human Rights Officer; and Chonlathan Supphaiboonlerd, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
Participants considered the exercise in practice of the rights to freedom of expression and information, rights that have recently been unduly restricted in Thailand. Such restrictions were said to have resulted in violations of the rights of individuals who increasingly rely on online platforms, particularly social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, to share information on the protests and to express their opinions on the reform movement.
The session included a Q&A session with Christof Heyns, former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and Special Rapporteur on summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions. The discussion focused on the scope of the right of peaceful assembly, COVID-19 related restrictions, the State’s duty to facilitate peaceful assembly, and the international legal requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality on State’s response against the protesters.
In the 20 February consultation, Aram Song, attorney of the MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society from South Korea, shared with the participant his experiences representing victims of human rights violations arising from police responses to protesters. He discussed the unlawful use of force and the constitutionality of regulations and ordinance that restricting the right to expression and peaceful assembly in the courts. Thereafter, Gayoon Baek, Chief Secretary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea, gave her views on how to conduct advocacy through international human rights mechanisms to ensure the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
This workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts to bring existing Thai laws in compliance with international laws and standards that regulating the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ co-hosts round-table on right to peaceful assembly
Feb 19, 2021 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
In a letter of 17 February, the ICJ and ZimRights called on the Chairperson of the African’s Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Working Group on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to address Zimbabwe’s failure to meet its obligations to protect the rights of life and health of its population in respect of its COVID-19 vaccine policies.
Zimbabwe had failed to produce, publish and widely disseminate a comprehensive plan on vaccine acquisition and distribution. These are also necessary measures to secure the life and health of those living in neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe and therefore of broader concern within the Southern African Development Community in particular.
The ICJ and ZimRights called for an intervention of the Working Group and the wider African Commission with a view to ensure that vital information is made available by the Government of Zimbabwe about its national plan for COVID-19 vaccine procurement, distribution and roll-out including any resources it has set aside for these efforts.
To read the full letter, click
here.
Feb 18, 2021 | Advocacy, News, Publications
In a memorandum released today, the ICJ published guidance and recommendations aimed at assisting Lebanon’s criminal justice actors in addressing significant gaps in evidentiary rules, practice and procedures undermining the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) crimes in the country.
The 42-page memorandum, Sexual and Gender-based Violence Offences in Lebanon: Principles and Recommended Practices on Evidence (available in English and Arabic), aims to advance accountability and justice for SGBV, and is especially designed for investigators, prosecutors, judges and forensic practitioners.
“Criminal justice actors are indispensable to eradicating harmful practices and curbing entrenched impunity for SGBV in Lebanon,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Rather than buying into false, stereotyped narratives that impugn survivors’ credibility and call into question their sexual history, the criminal justice system must adopt and enforce gender-sensitive, victim-centric evidence-gathering procedures that put the well-being of SGBV survivors at the forefront.”
The memorandum provides criminal justice actors with guidance and recommendations on the identification, gathering, storing, admissibility, exclusion and evaluation of evidence in SGBV cases, as well as on their immediate applicability in practice, pending consolidation and reform of Lebanon’s existing legal framework and procedures for the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of SGBV offences.
“Lebanon’s legal framework fosters and perpetuates a systematic denial of effective legal protection and access to justice for women survivors of SGBV,” said Benarbia. “The justice system must counter harmful gender stereotypes and attitudes rooted in patriarchy, which continue to undermine survivors’ right to effective remedies.”
The memorandum’s release is particularly timely given the escalation of SGBV witnessed since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The memorandum builds on previous research undertaken by the ICJ in this area, including Gender-based violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies and Accountability for Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Guidance and Recommendations for Criminal Justice Actors.
Download
Lebanon-GBV-Memorandum-2021-ENG (Memorandum in English)
Lebanon-GBV-Memorandum-2021-ARA (Memorandum in Arabic)
Lebanon-GBV-Web-Story-2021-ARA (Web story in Arabic)
Lebanon-GBV-Web-Story-2021-ENG (Web story in English)
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Feb 17, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, together with ARTICLE 19, today addressed the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council on its work on “negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights”. They called on the Committee as it finalizes its report to resist attempts to deviate from the human rights focus at the core of its mandate.
The joint statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and ARTICLE 19 welcome the opportunity to engage in this discussion of the draft report on the negative effects of terrorism on human rights.
Given that we have not been able to review the current draft report, we must reiterate our call previously stated during the 24th session to consider the broader context into which this report will be delivered.
We ask the Committee to maintain its focus on the primary objectives of preventing and addressing human rights violations resulting from counter-terrorism measures, and promoting and ensuring protection of the human rights of victims of terrorism. This has been the longstanding focus of the Human Rights Council, despite the efforts of a few states to divert its attention away from core human rights concerns.
Any report addressing the “negative effects of terrorism” should maintain this focus, consolidating the extensive work already done in this regard by successive Special Rapporteurs and other UN and regional entities, as collected in the compilation published by the ICJ in 2019.
The report must not enable the diversion of precious attention and resources to more diffuse questions of impacts of a macro-economic or similar character, in respect of which a human rights-based approach has little to add in terms of concrete recommendations or guidance to States.
The ICJ and ARTICLE 19 share and endorse the positions set out in the recent report of the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council as they relate to the effects of terrorism on the promotion and protection of human rights (UN Doc. A/HRC/46/36).
We agree with the Special Rapporteur’s observation that “reflection on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights in the terrorism and counter-terrorism arenas has been understated” (para. 32).
As the Special Rapporteur has stated, however, “there is no legal basis to view the State as primary victim of terrorism through the economic costs that may be experienced from acts of terrorism”.
Two principles, in this respect, should be reinforced: individuals and peoples are the primary rights holders under human rights law, and States have to carry out the legal obligations prescribed by international human rights law. Any confusion or suggestions otherwise may serve to undermine human rights law.
We agree with the Special Rapporteur that the lack of precise definition in terrorism and counter-terrorism and the blurring of lines between counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law will have a pernicious effect and will seriously tarnish human rights protection.
As highlighted before, we also concur that any work on effects of terrorism must be centred on the human rights of victims of terrorism, on the duty under international human rights law of all States to prevent, protect, investigate and redress any abuse to human rights.
We urge the Advisory Committee to include a clear recommendation to the Council that the exclusive focus of the Council’s work remain on violations in countering terrorism and a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism.
We call on the Committee to recommend against the Council entering into more diffuse macroeconomic issues.
We urge you to affirm that the existing and longstanding normative and institutional framework on counter-terrorism and human rights is already sufficient to address relevant impacts of terrorism from a human rights perspective.
Thank you.”
For further information contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, massimo.frigo@icj.org – +41797499949
Anna Oosterlinck, Head of UN, ARTICLE 19, annaoosterlinck@article19.org
Feb 17, 2021 | News, Non-legal submissions
In a joint letter to the President of the Lawyers Council of Thailand, the ICJ and Lawyers for Lawyers raised concerns on the disbarment proceeding against Mr. Anon Nampha, a lawyer and human rights defender. The organisations believe that the proceedings unduly interfere in his work as a lawyer and serves to impair the exercise of his human rights, including the right to freedom of expression.
Dear President of the Lawyers Council of Thailand,
Re: Disbarment Proceedings Against Mr. Anon Nampha
Lawyers for Lawyers is an independent and non-political foundation that seeks to promote the proper functioning of the rule of law by pursuing freedom and independence of the legal profession.
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), a global non-governmental organization composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers, works to advance understanding and respect for rule of law as well as the legal protection of human rights throughout the world.
We write to your office concerning the disbarment proceeding against Mr. Anon Nampha, a lawyer and human rights defender, that is taking place before the Investigative Committee that was established by the Committee on Professional Ethics of the Lawyers Council of Thailand during the Meeting No. 1/2564 on 13 January 2021. We are concerned that the proceeding unduly interferes in his work as lawyer, including in representation of clients, and serves to impair the exercise of his human rights, including the right to freedom of expression.
According to our information, we understand that the proceeding against lawyer Anon Nampha is related to a complaint motion filed to the Lawyers Council of Thailand on 7 August 2020 by Mr. Aphiwat Khanthong, Assistant Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister, claiming to be acting in his capacity as a private attorney at Or Amporn Na Takua Tung and Friends Law Office. Mr. Aphiwat Khanthong alleged that lawyer Anon Nampha’s behaviour violated the Lawyers Council of Thailand’s disciplinary rules as, he claims, it would “incite, intend to cause unrest, distort information and insult on the monarchy”. The alleged speech in question apparently called for reform of the monarchy, during a Harry Potter-themed protest at the Democracy Monument on Ratchadamnoen Avenue on 3 August 2020.
Under international law and standards, lawyers, like other individuals, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. A lawyer should be able to draw the public’s attention to issues relating to public affairs in their official capacity as well as in their private capacity. Suspensions or revocations of lawyer licenses as a result of exercise of their legitimate rights and freedoms do not only impact on the exercise of the rights of the lawyers, but also on the rights of their clients to be represented by the lawyer of their choosing.
Download the full letter in English and Thai.
Feb 12, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Myanmar, outlining violations to human rights and the rule of law occurring in the country since the coup d’état of 1 February.
The Special Session is expected to adopt a resolution to address “The human rights implications of the crisis in Myanmar.”
The ICJ statement read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists condemns the Myanmar military’s unlawful seizure of authority and the unconstitutional declaration of a state of emergency on 1 February.
These actions defy core rule of law principles and provide an illegitimate basis for the suspension and erosion of human rights.
Nearly 200 people, including human rights defenders, have been arbitrarily detained, some in unknown locations. Security forces have used excessive force against peaceful protesters, causing serious injuries.
Regulations imposed pursuant to the state of emergency grant military forces nearly complete impunity. Furthermore, these regulations suspend crucial judicial remedies for violations of rights, such as the writ of habeas corpus.
Judges, including from the Supreme Court, have been illegally removed and replaced, undermining the independence of an already embattled judiciary.
The military takeover further endangers the already grave situation of the Rohingya community.
The ICJ calls on the Human Rights Council to urge the military to immediately return authority to the civilian government and allow immediate access to the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar and other special procedures, the OHCHR, and the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, whose mandate includes investigating all serious human rights violations.
Member States should take necessary measures to ensure truth, justice and accountability for crimes under international law, including by supporting all relevant accountability mechanisms.
Thank you.”
