Nov 27, 2019 | Advocacy, News
On 26 November 2019, the ICJ, jointly with the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre), hosted a round-table discussion on the right to peaceful assembly in Thailand. The discussion was held at the office of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).
Fifteen lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics attended the discussion.
The discussion began with an introduction to the UN Human Rights Committee’s draft General Comment No. 37, which when revised and adopted will constitute an authoritative interpretation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed under article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thailand is a State party to the ICCPR.
The UN Human Rights Committee – the body mandated to interpret and supervise the implementation of the ICCPR – made the draft General Comment available for all stakeholders to review between November 2019 and 14 February 2020. The Committee in its draft considers the obligations of States parties in respect of such right to peaceful assembly, including permissible limitations and duties and powers of law enforcement agencies.
During the meeting, participants discussed about Thailand’s existing law governing the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly – including the 2017 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand and the 2015 Public Assembly Act. The discussion also focused on comments on the draft General Comment that the participants may submit to the UN Human Rights Committee, and advocacy strategies to strengthen Thailand’s legal frameworks once the draft General Comment is adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee.
Participants identified challenges posed by in the implementation of certain domestic laws, particularly the Public Assembly Act, which may result in unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Thailand. These included the lack of a clear definition of “an assembly”; identification of “no-go” zones for protestors; problems arising from the use of notification systems where a failure to notify the authorities of an assembly was used as basis to render participation in the assembly unlawful and for dispersing the assembly; and overbroad powers delegated to authorities to impose conditions for assemblies regulating the time, place and manner of assemblies.
At the meeting’s conclusion, participants considered ways of provided input on the draft General Comment to the UN Human Rights Committee. They also strategies to work to bring existing Thai laws in compliance with international laws and standards that regulating the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Nov 25, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ held a two-day workshop on 23-24 November 2019 in Mandalay on the application in Myanmar of international law and standards on freedom of religion and belief. Some 40 participants from across the country, including human rights defenders, religious leaders and lawyers who work on issues of freedom of religion or belief, attended the event.
The two-day workshop was conducted in order to provide a safe platform for participants to discuss pressing issues concerning the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Myanmar, with a particular focus on protecting places of worship. It allowed participants to share challenges encountered in their spheres of activity and explore ways to address state regulations that disproportionately impact minority religions.
ICJ Associate Legal Adviser Jenny Domino introduced the international standards on FoRB applicable to Myanmar, including how FoRB affects other human rights such as the right to freedom of expression. She discussed the different constitutional approaches to protecting FoRB in Myanmar and the Philippines, and presented the applicable international standards relevant to the protection of places of worship in conflict settings. ICJ Legal Researcher Dr Ja Seng Ing shared the legal and practical challenges to protecting places of worship in Myanmar.
Based on their own independent research, the participants discussed restrictions placed on the practice of religion or belief, particularly with respect to places of worship. The participants shared challenges they encountered while working on FoRB issues, such as the shrinking civic space for inter-religious dialogue. They also discussed possible strategies to push for legislative and administrative reform to protect FoRB in Myanmar.
The workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors and lawyers in Myanmar with a view to advancing FoRB in the country, and builds on the ICJ’s regional work on this theme.
Contact
Ja Seng Ing, ICJ Legal Researcher, e: jaseng.ing(a)icj.org
Related material
Challenges to freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar, A Briefing Paper, October 2019
Primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, January 2019
Nov 22, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case challenging the blocking of the website Wikipedia by the Turkish Government throughout the country.
In its intervention the ICJ addressed issues related to the compliance of Turkey’s Internet law and its application in practice, with rights under Article 10 ECHR to freedom of expression and to receive information.
In particular it addresses:
- international standards relating to freedom of expression on the Internet;
- evaluation of the Turkish Internet Law by international authorities, including bodies of the Council of Europe and United Nations;
- blocking of websites and other internet under Article 8/A of Law no. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications, and the judicial safeguards applying to such measures; and
- whether remedies including the individual application to the Constitutional Court can redress the deficiencies of the law.
Europe-Wikimedia v Turkey_TPI-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2020-ENG (download the intervention)
Nov 13, 2019 | Advocacy, Multimedia items, Video clips
In a video interview with the BBC’s Burmese broadcasting service, ICJ senior legal adviser Kingsley Abbott explains to the Myanmar public how the International Criminal Court prosecutor plans to investigate the crime against humanity of deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh, which has affected around one million Rohingya.
Recorded on 24 August and published on 12 November 2019. The interview transcript is available in Burmese and English.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Nov 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The Government of Myanmar should adopt constitutional and legislative guarantees to enable the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) to better protect and promote human rights for all persons in the country, according to a new ICJ briefing note.
Entitled Four Immediately Implementable Reforms to Enhance Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission, the note analyzes the ability of the MNHRC to address various human rights violations, some of which have been found by experts to constitute the most serious crimes under international law. The briefing is available in Burmese and English.
“The NLD-led government should promptly reform the MNHRC Law, allowing for the selection of better qualified and representative Commissioners, and granting them the independence and resources necessary for their work. This reform is a low-hanging fruit for the NLD, and overdue” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser.
“At the same time, Commissioners should robustly pursue their mandate, including by advocating for the rights of society’s most vulnerable people,” he added.
The MNHRC itself has recognized the need for law reform, in its self-assessment of 2018, and in its reform proposals to the Government. Any law reform process should be opened up to genuine public consultation, enabling inputs from experts and the general public.
“The MNHRC generally fails to act on reported human rights violations, from crimes by soldiers in border areas through to regular attacks on the press, rendering it ineffective in providing redress to victims,” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser. “The MNHRC’s routine inaction in critical cases demonstrates its lack of the necessary independence to stand against state actors, particularly the military,” he added.
One illustrative case is the Commission’s reluctance to further pursue justice for the death in military custody of journalist Ko Par Gyi, whose killers were secretly tried and acquitted in a military court, despite the MNHRC’s finding that a public criminal prosecution was warranted. Commissioners have also been notably silent on gross human rights violations against Rohingyas, perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers in the context of “clearance operations”.
The note highlights that the Commission refrains from investigating alleged human rights violations by referencing Section 37 of the 2014 MNHRC Law. This provision is narrowly construed to effectively preclude the MNHRC from conducting inquiries on matters that are already the subject of a legal proceeding.
The composition of the Commission also does not reflect Myanmar’s ethnic, religious, regional and gender diversity, which further erodes its ability to address the conflict-related violations and abuses particularly prevalent in border areas such as Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states.
While amending problematic provisions in the 2014 MNHRC Law is warranted, a constitutional guarantee would also significantly improve the Commission’s institutional independence.
“A constitutional provision, in contrast to ordinary legislation, is subject to a stricter amendment process that would less likely render the MNHRC politically vulnerable,” said Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
“Myanmar can look to the experience of the national human rights institutions of East Timor and the Philippines, which were established by constitutional provision at a time that both countries were transitioning to a democratic and rule of law based order”,” she added.
Four immediately implementable reforms for the Government of Myanmar are recommended:
- To the Union President and the Selection Board: appoint Commissioners through a transparent and fully consultative process that enables its composition to effectively protect human rights and appropriately reflect the full diversity of the population of Myanmar, including ethnic, religious, regional, gender and sexual identities;
- To the Commissioners: adopt a broad and active interpretation of their mandate, including by taking steps to address the most serious violations, including crimes under international law, and certain human rights cases that have gone before courts;
- To the Myanmar parliament: amend the 2014 MNHRC Law to include provisions that strengthen the MNHRC’s capacity and independence, and improve the appointment process for commissioners
- To the Constitutional Amendment Committee: propose provisions guaranteeing the structural and financial independence of the MNHRC in amending the 2008 Constitution.
To download the press release in Burmese, click here.
Download
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-ENG (in English, PDF)
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-BUR (in Burmese, PDF)
Contact
Jen Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org, t: 09968134317
Daw Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org, t: 09428122794
Related material:
Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar: Baseline Study
Myanmar: Five years without justice for journalist Ko Par Gyi
Nov 11, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ, the AIRE Centre, ECRE and DCR have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a 2017 rescue operation of migrants, including refugees, in the Mediterranean Sea that involved the SeaWatch rescue vessel.
The case, S.S. and Others v. Italy, concerns the facts occurred during a rescue operation coordinated by the Maritime Research and Rescue Centre of Italy in Rome in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.
It is currently litigated before the European Court of Human Rights where the victims of human rights violations at the hand of the Libya Coast Guard during the operation are suing Italy for breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
During the operation, the involved the rescue boat SeaWatch, a French navy vessel and a Libyan Coast-Guard boat. It is reported certain migrants were taken and ill-treated by the Libyan Coast Guard and sent back to Libya.
It is also alleged that actions undertaken by the Lybian Coast Guard boat during the rescue operation caused the death of several persons to be rescued, including children.
The ones rescued by the SeaWatch vessel could join safety on Italian shores.
The interveners have submitted that, in accordance to the Court’s jurisprudence under the European Convention on Human Rights, other sources of international human rights law and international maritime law standards, Italy had jurisdiction for the purpose of the Convention and had, therefore, to ensure that persons involved in the rescue operation would not be exposed to serious violations of their human rights.
ECtHR-SS_v_Italy_final-JointTPI-ICJECREAIREDCR-English-2019 (download the joint third party intervention)
Video
Watch our interview with ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo as he further defines S.S. and Others v. Italy and what ICJ intends to do.
