Mar 31, 2014 | News
The indictment of General Pervez Musharraf on charges of treason marks a milestone for Pakistan’s judiciary, which must ensure his trial fully complies with international standards, the ICJ said in a briefing paper released today.
“General Musharraf’s treason trial is unprecedented in Pakistan’s political and legal history,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “This is an opportunity for Pakistan’s judiciary to demonstrate that no-one is above the law and that everyone accused of an offence has the right to a trial that is, and is seen to be, impartial, independent and expeditious.”
In its briefing paper, the ICJ highlights the legal framework and political context of the high treason trial against Pakistan’s former president and army general, Pervez Musharraf, in a Question and Answer format.
The Pakistan Government has established a special court to try General Musharraf for high treason on charges relating to his allegedly unconstitutional imposition of emergency rule and unlawful dismissal of judges on 3 November 2007. Under the law, high treason is punishable by death or life imprisonment.
On Monday, 31 March, Pervez Musharraf was formally indicted on five charges. He pleaded not guilty on all charges.
“This trial marks the first time a senior Pakistani military figure could be held to account for trampling on the rule of law and human rights in the country,” Zarifi said. “General Musharraf should be facing a proper trial for the many human rights violations that took place during his rule and under his command. But this case is at least a start.”
The lead-up to the trial has been marked by confusion, including erroneous reports last week suggesting that Justice Faisal Arab had quit the three-member special court, a move that could possibly have aborted the trial.
There have been many hurdles in the proceedings so far, including General Musharraf’s health, security threats, and concerns about whether he can be guaranteed a fair trial.
Many in Pakistan are celebrating the trial as a victory of rule of law, but others have expressed reservations about the selective nature of the proceedings: General Musharraf is only being tried for imposition of emergency rule on 3 November 2007, not for the military coup through which he usurped power in October 1999.
There are also serious allegations that widespread gross violations of human rights, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture, were carried out by the security forces while General Musharraf was the head of State and the military, yet no case has been instituted in relation to these gross violations of human rights thus far.
“Every effort must be taken to ensure that General Musharraf’s rights as an accused are protected and that the trial complies with Pakistani and international fair trial standards. If convicted of high treason he should be sentenced to life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty in all cases to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
To read the full text of the ICJ Briefing Paper, click on the following PDF file
icj pakistan – musharraf – Q&A
Contacts:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Mar 31, 2014 | News
The crisis for the rule of law in Nauru, triggered by actions by the executive government that undermine the independence of the judiciary, has deepened.
Nauru Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames resigned on 13 March 2014, two months after the Nauru government summarily dismissed and expelled a judge despite the Chief Justice’s orders to the contrary, and blocked the Chief Justice from returning to the country. A letter of concern ICJ wrote to the government of Nauru several weeks ago remains unanswered.
The decision of the Chief Justice to resign ended the stalemate the government had created by continuing to deny him entry to the country despite the legislature’s refusal to allow the government to impeach him on spurious grounds. It did not, however, end the continuing crisis the government’s actions have created for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Nauru.
The ICJ had earlier publicly expressed its deep concern about the removal of Magistrate Law from office in absence of any due process, and in violation of an injunction issued by the then Chief Justice Eames, and the arbitrary denial of the Chief Justice of access to Nauru. Chief Justice Eames has said that, even by the time of his resignation in mid-March, he had not received any explanation of the specific reasons for cancellation of his visa.
The ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) wrote to President Baron Waqa and relevant ministers of government on 8 March 2014 requesting information and calling upon the government to immediately reverse and remedy the actions taken against the Resident Magistrate and Chief Justice, and to adhere to concrete procedural safeguards to re-establish protection of the rule of law (PDF: Letter-Nauru-IndependenceJudiciary-03032014). To date, the ICJ has received no response.
Mar 27, 2014 | News
The UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish an international investigation into allegations of human rights violations and abuses committed by both sides in Sri Lanka’s civil war gives hope to tens of thousands of victims who continue to be denied truth and justice.
Mar 20, 2014 | News
Thailand’s caretaker government must remove emergency measures throughout the country following the lifting of the Emergency Decree in the capital Bangkok and its surrounding provinces this week, the ICJ said today.
On 18 March, the caretaker government voted to lift the Emergency Decree (effective 19 March) that had been in place in Bangkok and surrounding provinces since 21 January 2014 in response to protests led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).
At least 20 people have died in protest-related violence and hundreds have been injured.
The Emergency Decree was replaced by the Internal Security Act (ISA), which also does not fully comply with international standards, but provides better remedies for victims of human rights violations than the Decree.
“The imposition of the Emergency Decree creates an environment conducive to abuse of power and human rights violations such as arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and enforced disappearance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Lifting the Emergency Decree in Bangkok is a positive step, but it is crucial that the authorities remove the Emergency Decree and other measures of emergency rule, including martial law, that are in force in all or parts of at least 30 of Thailand’s 77 provinces.”
These measures should be replaced by law and action that are consistent with international human rights standards, Zarifi said, adding that martial law should not be used as a political tool.
The caretaker government must respond to demonstrations, unrest and emergencies in a manner which complies with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other international standards, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in 1990.
These standards set out the circumstances in which resort to necessary and proportional force may be lawfully exercised. Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms states that “exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”
In order to safeguard the rule of law and enhance the protection of human rights in Thailand, the ICJ calls on the caretaker government to repeal the Emergency Decree and other emergency measures including martial law, and to ensure accountability for violent acts through the thorough and effective investigation of criminal acts and prosecution of those reasonably suspected of committing them, in the course of fair, human rights-compliant criminal proceedings.
CONTACT: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
For further reading on ICJ’s work on emergency laws in Thailand see: Thailand’s Internal Security Act, Risking the Rule of Law? (2010) https://www.icj.org/thailands-internal-security-act-risking-the-rule-of-law/ Implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree (2007) https://www.icj.org/thailand-implementation-of-thailand%C2%B4s-emergency-decree/ More Power, Less Accountability: Thailand’s New Emergency Decree (2005) https://www.icj.org/more-power-less-accountability/
Mar 18, 2014 | News
The arbitrary arrest and detention of prominent human rights defenders is an attempt to silence criticism and divert the spotlight from ongoing abuses, leading global and Asian human rights monitors said today in a joint statement.
The statement was issued by Amnesty International, Forum Asia, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and the International Commission of Jurists.
Ruki Fernando of the Colombo-based INFORM and Father Praveen Mahesan, a Catholic priest, were arrested in Kilinochchi on March 16, and are believed to be detained without formal charges under Sri Lanka’s notoriously draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
“The Sri Lankan authorities need to release Fernando and Father Praveen, and end the ongoing state harassment of human rights defenders,” said David Griffiths, Amnesty International’s deputy director for Asia Pacific. “How can the international community take Sri Lanka’s claims to respect rights seriously when rights defenders continue to face intimidation and criminal charges for demanding accountability and human rights protection?”
The police Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) detained and questioned Ruki Fernando and Father Praveen after they sought to ensure the welfare of 13-year-old Balendran Vithushaini, who had been ordered into probationary care following the arrest of her mother, Balendran Jeyakumari, on March 13. Both mother and daughter are active opponents of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka and have been prominently featured in international media coverage of demonstrations by families of the disappeared, most recently in Jaffna in November 2013 during a visit by British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Fernando and Father Praveen were questioned separately in two different buildings for more than three hours by several TID officers. Lawyers acting on their behalf were given contradictory information about the arrests and the reasons for their detention. The most recent information is that Fernando and Father Praveen have been taken to police Terrorism Investigation Division headquarters in Colombo, and their lawyers are still seeking access to them.
Fernando and Father Praveen have not been charged to date, but according to Sri Lankan Police spokesperson Senior Superintendent Ajith Rohana, they will be charged with “attempting to create instability among communities” and “allegedly promoting separatism” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The PTA has been widely criticized by Sri Lankan civil society, international monitoring organizations, and United Nations bodies. In its report, Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, the International Commission of Jurists documents how provisions of the PTA have resulted in arbitrary detention, contravened suspects’ right to a fair trial and due process, and facilitated torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances
The human rights groups said that the arrests are particularly disturbing since a resolution on Sri Lanka’s failure to address accountability is under discussion and will be voted on soon at the ongoing Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva. The international community has long called for Sri Lanka to take meaningful steps to end its culture of impunity.
“This ongoing campaign of reprisals against those speaking out against human rights violations shows the extent of the government’s impunity,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia director at the International Commission of Jurists. “The international community, through its voting at the Human Rights Council, must judge Sri Lanka not by its promises, but by its actions.”
In spite of two prior resolutions by the UNHRC in 2012 and 2013, Sri Lanka has taken no measurable steps towards ensuring justice for the victims of its civil war, and has instead launched an aggressive campaign against those who advocate for accountability. Human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and civil society members who are critical of the government have regularly been threatened and harassed. Those who have an international profile, such as Fernando, face particular government hostility.
“Sri Lankan authorities systematically clamp down on those who seek to reach out to the international community, especially around significant events such as the Human Rights Council sessions or the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the executive director of Forum-Asia. “Instead of protecting human rights defenders, the latest arrests show the Sri Lankan government is stepping up its aggressive stance towards those seeking justice and answers.”
The arrests also call into question the Sri Lankan government’s stated commitment to improving respect for human rights since the end of the armed conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009, the groups said.
“Arresting peaceful activists known for their work with victims of rights violations from all ethnic communities is not a way to build trust and restore relationships damaged by the war,” said Jonathan Prentice, the International Crisis Group’s chief policy officer. “If sustainable peace is to be more than an illusion, the rights of Sri Lanka’s victims and human rights defenders to speak freely and safely must be protected.”
The organizations stressed that Fernando and Father Praveen should be given full rights while they remain in detention. Under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a state party, people deprived of their liberty must be promptly informed of the reasons for their detention, be given prompt and regular access to lawyers, and be promptly brought before a judge or judicial officer.
“Human Rights Council members should demand the immediate release of Fernando and Father Praveen and be clear that this will not deter them from adopting a necessary resolution on Sri Lanka,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The arrest of these human rights defenders shows just how important it is for the international community to stand up for human rights in Sri Lanka.”
Signed by:
- Amnesty International
- FORUM-ASIA
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Crisis Group
- Human Rights Watch
For more information, please contact:
In London, for Amnesty International
In Bangkok, for International Commission of Jurists, Sam Zarifi: +66-857-200-723; orsam.zarifi@icj.org
In Bangkok, for International Commission of Jurists, Sheila Varadan: +66-857-200-723; or sheila.varadan@icj.org
Mar 12, 2014 | News
The ICJ condemned the High Court decision sentencing prominent Malaysian lawyer and chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party Karpal Singh with a criminal sanction. He was found guilty of sedition on 21 February 2014.
The sanction amounts to RM 4,000 fine (approximately US$1,220).
The High Court’s decision was based on a statement made by Karpal Singh at a press conference on 6 February 2009 that Sultan Azlan Shah’s decision to remove the Perak’s state Chief Minister from office in 2009 could be challenged in a court of law.
“The Malaysian government is brazenly utilizing a draconian and outdated sedition law to restrict freedom of expression in the country by lawyers and public figures,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia.
The Malaysian government on 21 July 2012 announced that it planned to repeal the colonial-era 1948 Sedition Act, but has been slow to act on its announcement.
“Public discussion, including debates on the interpretation of laws, are an integral part of the nature of the legal process and a crucial step in the strengthening of a country’s democracy and rule of law,” said Gil. “A lawyer’s right to freely and independently engage and express their views on the law fulfills an important aspect of their professional role.”
In June 2010, the High Court initially ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case and acquitted Karpal Singh. The prosecution, however, later appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and ordered a retrial.
Pursuant to article 48(e) of the Federal Constitution, Karpal Singh now risks losing his Parliamentary seat unless the High Court’s decision is overturned during appeal.
Karpal Singh was the lead counsel for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim during his Sodomy II appeal from 6 – 7 March 2014, which saw the Court of Appeal overturn his acquittal and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Karpal Singh is expected to appeal both the conviction and the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org
