Nov 26, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ joined other NGOs in condemning the Thai police’s use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020.
The statement reads:
We, the undersigned organizations, condemn the Thai police’s unnecessary and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020. We are concerned that authorities could employ similar measures when facing protesters who have declared they will march to the Siam Commercial Bank headquarters on November 25.
On November 17, police set out barriers and barbed wire to prevent a peaceful march organized by pro-democracy movements from reaching the parliament. Protesters planned to protest outside the parliament as members of parliament and senators debated seven different proposals for constitutional amendments, including an amendment proposed by the lawyers’ non-governmental organization iLAW (Internet Law Reform Dialogue), which was supported by the People’s Movement and its allies. Police refused to let protesters through the barriers, and when the demonstrators acted to breach those barriers, police crowd control units used water cannons laced with purple dye and an apparent teargas chemical, as well as teargas grenades and pepper spray grenades, to forcibly disperse thousands of demonstrators, including students, some of whom are children. Water cannons were first used at approximately 2:25 pm and police continued their efforts to disperse protesters, with constant use of water cannons, teargas and pepper spray into the evening.
Police also failed to prevent violence between pro-democracy protesters and royalist “yellow shirts” near the Kiak Kai intersection, near the parliament. Initially, riot police separated the two groups. However, video posted on social media later showed police officers informing the royalist protesters that they would withdraw and seconds later they vacated their position between the two groups. During the ensuing skirmishes, both sides were filmed throwing rocks and wielding clubs. Live broadcasts included sounds that appeared to be gunfire.
The Erawan Medical Centre reported that there were at least 55 protesters injured, mostly from inhaling teargas. It also reported that there were six protesters who suffered gunshot wounds. The injured included children: a kindergartener and elementary school students.
Although some pro-democracy protesters engaged in violent conduct in responding to royalist protesters, we emphasize that the overwhelming number of protesters were entirely peaceful. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that while specific participants of an assembly who engage in violence are subject to a response that is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate, they also retain all other human rights including the right to life, to security of person and to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
International human rights law, as expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand acceded to in 1996, protects the rights to freedom of expression (article 19) and peaceful assembly (article 21). But Thai authorities have routinely enforced censorship and stifled public assemblies, meetings, and discussions about human rights, political reforms, and the monarchy’s role in society.
In General Comment 37, which sets out the content Thailand’s legal obligations in guaranteeing the right of peaceful assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee—the body responsible for interpreting and applying the ICCPR—made clear that there is a presumption in favor of considering assemblies to be peaceful. Isolated acts of violence by individuals should not be attributed to others, to the organizers, or to the assembly as such. While the right of peaceful assembly may in certain cases be limited, the onus is for the State to justify any restrictions, which must pass the tests of legality, legitimacy, and necessity and proportionality.
Read the full statement in English and Thai.
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy
On 15 October 2020, Polish lawyer Roman Giertych was detained by the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA) on accusations of money laundering. His house and office were searched and prosecutors imposed preventive measures, including suspension of his right to practice law.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned that the manner in which these measures were taken is inconsistent with international standards on the independence of the legal profession.
Roman Giertych has worked on a series of high-profile cases against the governing Law and Justice party. He has also represented various prominent opposition figures, including Donald Tusk, the former Polish prime minister and head of the Civic Platform opposition party, and former president of the European Council.
Mr. Giertych’s arrest happened one day before the scheduled detention hearing in another politically significant high-profile case, concerning Leszek Czarnecki, in which Roman Giertych was appointed as defence counsel.
According to the information available to Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association, Mr. Giertych was arrested merely to serve him with charges. He was not given a chance to appear voluntarily.
On 22 October 2020, Mr Giertych’s defense lawyers filed four complaints with the court about the actions of the Poznań prosecutor’s office relating to his arrest and the search of his home and office.
Professional lawyers’ associations such as the National Council of Attorneys-at Law, the Association of Attorneys-At-Law “Defensor Iurius”, the Polish Bar Council and the Council of the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates have expressed “great concern” about Mr. Giertych’s detention, the search of his house and office, and the preventive measures that were taken against Mr. Giertych.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned about the circumstances of Mr. Giertych’s arrest, in particular the fact that the arrest seems to have only been made in order to present him with charges.
L4L, ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are also concerned by the fact that the searches of his house and office were conducted without proper safeguards of attorney-client privilege and by the suspension of Mr. Giertych’s right to practice his legal profession by a public prosecutor. We will continue to monitor the case of Mr. Giertych closely.
Download
Poland-Roman Giertych-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full statement with additional information, in PDF)
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to abandon a draft law which would dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as a means of retaliation for a decision adopted by the Court and in order to circumvent the decision.
The authorities should also refrain from any other actions, including harassment of judges, which undermine the independence of the Constitutional Court.
“This draft law constitutes a direct attack on the ability of the judiciary to exercise its functions independently. It is incompatible with basic principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and with international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“By the nature of their role, the judiciary, and especially constitutional courts may be required to decide on controversial matters. It is however essential that particularly in such cases, courts are able to operate without fear of retaliation or repression for the decisions they take,” she added.
The draft law on Restoring Public Confidence in the Constitutional Court, submitted by President Zelensky to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), aims to pronounce a decision of the Constitutional Court on anti-corruption legislation “void” and without legal consequences.
This runs contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution according to which “[d]ecisions and opinions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be binding, final and may not be challenged” (Article 151-2).
The draft law would terminate the mandate of the judges of the Constitutional Court, in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine as well as basic principles of independence of the judiciary, governing appointments, dismissal and security of tenure of judges.
The draft law provides that the powers of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in force at the time of the decision on the anti-corruption law would be terminated from the date of entry into force of the law.
According to the explanatory note to the Draft Law, one reason the adoption of the law would be justified is because there had not been a “proper substantiation” of its judgment on the anti-corruption law. The note alleges that Court’s decision was adopted in the private interests of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, that its proper substantiation was not provided and that it contradicts the principle of the rule of law and denies the European and Euro-Atlantic choice of the Ukrainian people. The ICJ considers these allegations are inappropriate as they directly interfere with the judicial function of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contrary to the national legislation and international law on the independence of the judiciary.
On 2 November 2020, Oleksandr Tupitsky, the President of the Constitutional Court was summoned for interrogation by the State Investigation Bureau in connection with allegations against him of committing crimes as part of an organized group. The ICJ fears that this may be a form of pressure in relation to the Constitution Court’s decision.
Following these incidents, the Constitutional Court has stopped working as four of the judges refuse to take part in its sessions. The Court therefore lacks the necessary quorum to operate.
The ICJ calls on Ukraine to withdraw the draft law, and to refrain from any further reprisals against judges for their decisions.
Download
Ukraine-draft law constitutional court-News-ENG-2020 (full statement with background information)
Nov 14, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On 12-13 November 2020, the ICJ co-hosted a discussion on “Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights: 1-Year Progress Review” in Bangkok. The forum was co-organized with other 11 organizations.
Participants on the first day included some 95 individuals representing populations affected by business operations from all regions of Thailand and members of civil society organizations. The considered reviewed the progress that has been made by Thailand over the past year towards fulfilling its commitments in the four priority issues in its First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP): (1) Labor; (2) Land, environment and natural resources; (3) Human rights defenders; and (4) Cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
Several participants noted a lack of any evident and tangible progress in the NAP implementation and questioned the effectiveness of the NAP because it does not have the status of a law but is merely a resolution from the Council of Ministers. They further expressed concern at the lack of a comprehensive monitoring system in place to monitor NAP and its achievement according to the key recommendations aligned with the UN Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights, and on legal harassment and intimidation faced by human rights defenders.
In the session regarding cross border investment and multi-national enterprises, the ICJ participants led the discussion regarding challenges to hold Thai companies accountable for human rights abuses which took place abroad. The participants looked into several obstacles to accessing to justice for victims of business-related human rights abuses in the context of cross-border investment. The discussion was based on the ICJ’s work and analysis in the draft report on the human rights legal framework of Thai companies operating in Southeast Asia, which is expected to be launched in December 2020.
Comments and recommendations raised by participants on the first day were presented to representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Thailand National Human Rights Commission, Global Compact Network Thailand and UN agencies, in the public seminar on the second day. The outcomes of the discussion and recommendations will also be submitted to the NAP Monitoring/Steering Committees, chaired by Director-General of Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice.
Background
On 29 October 2019, the Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019-2022), making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP emphasizes the duties of State agencies to review and amend certain laws, regulations and orders that are not in compliance with human rights laws and standards and ensure their full implementation; ensure accessibility of mechanisms for redress and accountability for damage done to affected communities and individuals; overcome the barriers to meaningful participation of communities and key affected populations; and strengthen the role of businesses to “respect” human rights on a variety of key priority issues.
The event was co-hosted with:
- International Organization for Migration (IOM)
- Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- EarthRights International (ERI)
- The Mekong Butterfly (TMB)
- International River (IR)
- Spirit in Education Movement (SEM)
- Thai Extra-Territorial Obligations Working Group (Thai ETOs Watch)
- Green Peace Thailand
- Green South Foundation
- Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC)
Further reading
Thailand’s Legal Frameworks on Corporate Accountability for Outbound Investments
Thailand: ICJ co-hosts discussion on National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Nov 11, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ, human rights advocates and other experts emphasized the State obligation to protect that right to health of all persons without discrimination at a public seminar held on 10 November 2020.
The ICJ sponsored the event on “Human Rights, Right to Health, and the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic” in collaboration with the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, and the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Rights and Liberties Protection Department.
Participants in the event included interested members of the public, students, human rights academics, and members of civil society organizations.
Welcome remarks were delivered by Giuseppe Busini, Deputy Head of the European Union Delegation to Thailand and Professor Jaturon Tirawat, Director of Thammasat University’s Public International Law Centre.
Dr. Seree Nonthasoot, Member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in an opening address recalled the obligations of Thailand under International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to protect the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. This includes ensuring the right of access to health facilities, goods and services on a non-discriminatory basis. Among these elements are access to housing and sanitation, potable water and essential drugs. He also highlighted the need to implement a national public health strategy and plan of action to make COVID-19 vaccine a global common good.
ICJ Legal Adviser Timothy Fish Hodgson provided a briefing about human rights effects wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, as exposed in the ICJ report – Living Like People Who Die Slowly: The Need for Right to Health Compliant COVID-19 Responses. He emphasized the particularly acute and discriminatory impact of the pandemic on already marginalized people around the world, particularly on non-citizens, older persons, women and girls, LGBT persons, persons deprived of their liberty, persons with disabilities, sex workers and healthcare workers.
A panel discussion regarding the economic social and cultural rights during and post COVID-19 pandemic, moderated by Chonlathan Supphaiboonlerd, Associate National Legal Advisor of the ICJ, addressed the measures taken by the Thai government to control the spread of COVID-19 and to mitigate social and economic impacts of the pandemic, especially their human rights effects on persons with disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers, persons deprived of their liberty, indigenous peoples and migrant workers in Thailand.
The panel included Nareeluc Paichaiyapoom, Director of International Human Rights Law Division, Department of Rights and Liberties Protection, Ministry of Justice; Dr. Lalin Kovudhikulrungsri, Faculty of Law, Thammasart University; Naiyana Thanawattho, Executive Director, Asylum Access Thailand; Dr. Siwanoot Soitong, Bangkok Legal Clinic, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University; Nattaya Petcharat, Stella Maris Seafarer’ Center Songkhla; and Suebsakun Kidnukorn, Researcher, Area Based-Social Innovation Research Center (Ab-SIRC), Mae Fah Luang University.
Watch the recording of the seminar here.
Further reading
Thailand: The ICJ and other human rights groups make supplementary submission to the UN Human Rights Committee
Nov 3, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ, jointly with Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project presented a submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on the Execution of the judgment Kavala v. Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project have reported to the Committee of Ministers that new charges against Osman Kavala lack concrete evidence and have been brought in disregard of the ECtHR’s judgment whose execution the Committee is supervising.
The three NGOs have invited the Committee of Ministers to:
- consider adopting the relevant recommendations formulated in their submission of 29 May 2020;
- take further steps to end immediately Mr. Kavala’s ongoing detention, which has now exceeded three years;
- recognise at its 1390th 1-3 December 2020 meeting that the continuing detention of Osman Kavala violates Article 46 of the Convention concerning the binding nature of final judgments of the ECtHR and may trigger Article 46(4) infringement proceedings against Turkey; and
- take the necessary general measures identified in the NGOs submission of 29 May 2020 to implement the ECtHR’s ruling concerning Article 5 and 18 of the Convention in Kavala v. Turkey and its findings in relation to human rights defenders.
In their initial submission dated 29 May 2020, the NGOs underlined that decisions taken to prolong Mr. Kavala’s detention had been guided by political expediency and there had been a concerted political effort by the Turkish authorities to prevent Mr. Kavala’s release. These bases for their action are evident in the sequence of court orders prolonging Mr. Kavala’s detention, the actions of the executive and prosecutors in relation to the judicial procedures against him, and the lack of due consideration of the ECtHR’s findings and objective deliberation as to the legality of any deprivation of liberty. The NGOs made several recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, on the issues of the general and individual measures, to ensure full implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment and Mr. Kavala’s immediate release on the ground that the Court’s judgment clearly applies to his ongoing detention.
In its judgment on Kavala v. Turkey, the EUropean Court of Human Rights, on 10 December 2019, found violations of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 5(1). The Court required the Government of Turkey to take measures to end the detention of human rights defender Osman Kavala and to secure his immediate release. The Court stated that any continuation of Mr. Kavala’s detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the Court’s judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention. The judgment became final on 11 May 2020.
Despite the Court’s clear findings and mandatory order, Mr. Kavala remains in detention as of the date of this submission.
Turkey-Kavala_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission2-HRWICJTHRLP-2020-ENG
