Sri Lanka: Parliament should reject resolution undermining accountability and judicial independence

Sri Lanka: Parliament should reject resolution undermining accountability and judicial independence

The parliamentary resolution tabled by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa would aggravate Sri Lanka’s culture of impunity and undermine the rule of law, said the ICJ today.

The Resolution tabled on 9 April seeks the approval of the Sri Lankan Parliament to stop ongoing trials against military officials and other high-ranking officials accused of serious human rights violations, as well as family members of the President and Prime Minister currently facing charges of corruption.

“The Parliament should categorically reject this ‘impunity resolution’ that interferes with the ongoing work of the judiciary and the Attorney General’s office in their efforts to provide for at least a modicum of accountability for serious violations,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.

The Resolution seeks parliamentary approval to implement the recommendations of the so-called Commission of Inquiry on Political Victimization (COI), which were presented to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last December. The COI and its work have been widely discredited as an affront to the independence of judiciary and the rule of law and its report has not been made available to the public.

“The report by the COI calls for the withdrawal of investigations and convictions even in the handful of cases of serious human rights violations that have been brought before courts, including in cases where perpetrators have been convicted,” Seiderman said.

The recommendations made by the COI that would be implemented by the Resolution include the withdrawal of indictments filed by the Attorney- General and the discharge of several accused in cases that have been recognized as emblematic and referred to in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and in UNHRC Resolution 46/1. They also included similar dropping of cases of serious financial misappropriation.

Examples of emblematic cases where the COI recommends discharge of the accused include the case of alleged abductions of 11 persons by members of the Navy including Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda; unlawful killings of Tamil National Alliance MP Nadaraja Raviraj, Wasim Thajudeen, Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, Tamil National Alliance MP Joseph Pararajasingam; the alleged enforced disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda; and the abduction of Editor Keith Noayhr.

In certain cases that have resulted in convictions for murder or torture, including one case affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court, the COI has recommended that the Attorney-General review the convictions and discharge the accused.

The recommendations of the COI, incorporated in this “impunity resolution”, constitute an interference with the independent functioning of the judiciary as judicial decisions and court proceedings have been reassessed outside the judicial structure,” Seiderman stated. “Involving the Parliament in giving effect to these recommendations is contrary to the principle of separation of powers as provided for in the Sri Lankan Constitution.”

The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary makes clear that “the judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law” and that “there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision.”

The recommendations by the COI go even further and recommend the prosecution of investigators, lawyers and prosecutors in those cases under the Penal Code and the Bribery Act for “fabrication” of evidence and corruption.

“Recommending that action be taken against lawyers and prosecutors for carrying out their professional and statutory duties is an all-out assault on a free and independent bar and this recommendation must be summarily rejected,” Seiderman said.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers obliges the State to ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that they “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”

The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors establish that “States shall ensure that prosecutors are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability.”

Contact

Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org

Journalists and media platforms at increased risk in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic

Journalists and media platforms at increased risk in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic

Journalists and media workers face an increasingly repressive legal landscape amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, as outlined by the ICJ in a submission to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

“Laws in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam that do not comply with human rights law and standards have served to shrink the civic space in which the media operate,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General. “This stands to undermine the media’s crucial work in performing their investigative functions and their capacity to impart information to the public.”

The ICJ highlighted in particular how new laws have been enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that aim at or can be used by State authorities to control information about the pandemic. These laws contain provisions incompatible with human rights law and standards as their vague language makes them prone to abuses. In addition, some   prescribe excessive sanctions, including severe criminal penalties, which are incompatible with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The ICJ also underscored how the authorities in the three States continued abusing existing non-human rights compliant laws to arbitrarily restrict information and expression during the pandemic, by targeting journalists and social media users.

Although the ICJ recognizes the necessity to combat the spread of false information online to protect public health during the uncertainty of a pandemic, this objective can and must be carried out using the least intrusive means, rather than unnecessary and disproportionate measures like arrests, detentions, criminal prosecutions and onerous fines.

The submission called for the OHCHR to continue engaging with the relevant authorities in these three countries to better safeguard in law and practice the safety and work of journalists and media workers, and the right to health and right to freedom of expression and information.

This submission is aimed at providing the OHCHR information for a report it is preparing for the UN Human Rights Council pursuant to its Resolution 45/18 on the safety of journalists.

Download

The full submission is available in English here. (PDF)

Contact

Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org

See also

ICJ, ‘Southeast Asia: ICJ launches report on increasing restrictions on online speech’, 11 December 2019

ICJ, ‘New ICJ global report shows that the right to health must be central to State responses to COVID-19’, 1 September 2020

ICJ, ‘Vietnam: authorities must act to safeguard rights online and end harassment of those expressing themselves – ICJ new report’, 9 December 2020

Sri Lanka: New anti-terror regulations aimed at organizations further undermine the rule of law

Sri Lanka: New anti-terror regulations aimed at organizations further undermine the rule of law

The ICJ today condemned the promulgation by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa of new vague and overbroad anti-terrorism regulations, which make the already deeply flawed Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) open to further abuse.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of Extremist Organisations) Regulations No. 2 of 2021, published by way of Gazette notification on the 13 April 2021, outlaw 11 organisations identified as ‘extremist’ and provides criminal penalties for those accused of various kinds of associations with these and other organizations that may be similarly disfavoured.

A person who acts in contravention of the regulations is liable to a term of imprisonment up to twenty years, while any person who “conspires to commit or attempts, abets or engages in conduct in preparation to commit an offence” may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to ten years.

“These ill-defined offences follow a similar pattern of the Sri Lankan executive unilaterally promulgating abusive regulations in the name of fighting terrorism over the years” said Ian Seiderman. “These latest ones come just a month after the decreeing of the ‘de-radicalisation’ regulations which allow for the Government to arbitrary detain people for up to two years without trial.”

Moreover, the listed acts shall amount to an offence not only in relation to the eleven

identified organizations, but also to any other organisation “representing or acting on behalf of such organisation or is connected with or concerned in such organisation or which is reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any of the activities”. This is in violation of the principle of legality as the State may ex post facto identify any organisation as having associated with the eleven banned organisations.

The ICJ said that the Regulations were in contravention of the guarantees under article 13 of the Sri Lankan Constitution and its international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A key precondition to a fair trial recognized internationally is that criminal offences must be prescribed by law and conform to the principle of legality. Vague laws undermine the rule of law because they leave the door open to selective and arbitrary interpretation and prosecution. The vague wording of a law also has an adverse impact on framing of the charge against the accused.

Following the promulgation of the ‘de-radicalisation’ regulations a number of persons belonging to minority communities were reportedly arrested under the PTA, including for ‘spreading Wahhabism via social media’ and ‘promoting terrorism related activities’.

“While the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to protect its inhabitants from the threat of terrorism, that protection is a part of, and must not be seen in conflict with, its overall duty to protect human rights; ‘threats to national security’ can never be used as a justification for contravening basic standards in relation to freedom from arbitrary arrest”, said Ian Seiderman.

The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. The ICJ reiterates its call for the repeal and replacement of this vague and overbroad anti-terror law and all regulations brought under it, in line with Sri Lanka’s international obligations.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her most recent report on Sri Lanka has reiterated the call for a moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for new arrests until it is replaced by legislation that adheres to international best practices.

Contact

Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org

Belarus: stop politically motivated prosecution and disbarment of lawyers

Belarus: stop politically motivated prosecution and disbarment of lawyers

Today, the ICJ called on the Belarus Ministry of Justice and other relevant authorities to end the recent practice of using legal proceedings against lawyers in retaliation for discharging their professional duties and to reinstate those already disbarred.

In recent months, in the context of widespread violations of the human rights of those protesting against the outcome of the disputed 2020 presidential election, there has been an unprecedented increase of cases of disbarment of lawyers especially those who comment on violations of the human rights of their clients. Among the most recently disbarred lawyers are Konstantin Mikhel, Maxim Konon, Mikhail Kirilyuk and Yulia Ivanchuk.

“This recent wave of criminal and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is highly worrying and it constitutes an attack on the independence of the legal profession. These proceedings, be they of criminal, administrative or disciplinary nature, should be discontinued or reconsidered as being contrary to the international human rights law concerning the independence of the legal profession,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

There is a clear pattern of the misuse of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers who represent political opponents of the government or those who openly criticize the government on issues of public significance.

Disciplinary proceedings in Belarus are not independent of the executive, since they are conducted by the Qualification Commission which operates under the Ministry of Justice.

Notably, disciplinary proceedings are pending against lawyer Dmitry Layevski, allegedly following his public comments on a pending Draft Law on advocates’ activities.

Dmitry Layevski is a lawyer representing Victor Babaryko, an opposition leader in Belarus currently in detention, and Maxim Znak, former legal representative of Maria Kolesnikova, another detained opposition leader.

Earlier, a number of lawyers, including Aleksandr Pylchenko, former legal representative of Viktor Babaryko and Maria Kolesnikova, and Lyudmila Kazak, former legal representative of Maria Kolesnikova, faced disciplinary sanctions, and Lyudmila Kazak incurred an administrative fine, as a result of discharging their professional functions.

Several lawyers involved in human rights cases have been called by the Qualification Commission to undergo an examination to re-certify their qualification to practice law and have failed the exam. This procedure appears to target lawyers working to defend human rights, as a means of harassment or reprisal.

For example, following comments in mass media, Sergey Zikraskiy, a lawyer who often represented Belarusian journalists, was called to pass extraordinary re-examination which he failed. The certification is carried out by the Qualification Commission.

Criminal cases are still pending against lawyers Ilya Saley and Maxim Znak, who appear to have suffered consequences as a result of their representation of opposition leaders Maria Kolesnikova and Victor Babaryko.

 “These disbarments have a significant chilling effect on work of the legal profession and undermine the ability of lawyers to defend human rights of their clients in accordance with international standards on the role of lawyers,” Shakirov said.

Background

International law and standards 

According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the State authorities must guarantee that lawyers are able carry out their professional functions without hindrance, intimidation, harassment or fear of retaliation (Principle 16). The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” (Principle 16.c)  They further stipulate that lawyers must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions (Principle 18).

International standards also require the institutional independence of the legal profession.  The executive body of the professional associations of lawyers must be elected by its members and must exercise its functions without external interference (Principle 24, The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers).

Experts at ICJ webinar say Indonesia needs to do more to combat discrimination against women

Experts at ICJ webinar say Indonesia needs to do more to combat discrimination against women

The ICJ, together with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) in Indonesia, held a webinar on 6 April to consider ways to combat discrimination and violence faced by Indonesian women.

In particular, participants identified advocacy strategies towards strengthening Indonesia’s compliance with its international legal obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The webinar was broadcast live on Facebook and showcased the Bahasa Indonesia version of CEDAW video and attended by more than 50 women human rights defenders.  The participants discussed the adequacy of measures taken by the Indonesian government to implement recommendations issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) after it had reviewed Indonesia’s report in 2012. These recommendations included a call to repeal discriminatory by-laws adopted at the provincial level that restrict women’s rights in Aceh province and elsewhere; the adoption of  measures taken to ensure that the draft or proposed amendments to the Criminal Code Bill and other bills do not contain provisions that discriminate against women; the need to address gender based violence and sexual violence against women including indigenous women; and the protection of women human rights defenders.

Devi Anggraini, Chairperson of Association of Indigenous Women of the Archipelago (Perempuan Aman) said although Indonesia had ratified CEDAW through Law No. 7 year 1984 to protect the individual rights of Indonesian women, policies had yet to effectively protect the collective rights of indigenous women. She shared her concerns regarding discrimination against Indigenous women in the context of large-scale development projects, exploitation of natural resources, deforestation, and expansion of agriculture, as well as their access to land and resources.

“The Indonesian government does not seek ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ by the affected indigenous people, especially indigenous women and this has caused 87.8% of indigenous women to lose control of their traditional lands,” said Devi.

Dian Novita, Coordinator of Policy Advocacy Division from Legal aid for Women and Children (LBH APIK Jakarta) raised concern about discriminatory draft laws and provincial laws.

“LBH APIK assists many cases of women who are victims of gender-based violence in which their videos containing private sexual conducts were distributed online. However, they were criminalized under the pornography law and Electronic Information’s and Transactions (EIT) Law. We are currently trying to pursue judicial review of the ETI Law from women’s perspective”, said Dian.

Andy Yentriyani, Head of Komnas Perempuan said that despite existing challenges and new obstacles, there had been some progress in responding to the Recommendations of the CEDAW Committee from the previous cycle, such as the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation no.3 year 2017 on guidance for judges in adjudicating cases involving women and similar gender sensitive regulation released by the Attorney General’s Office and the Police. “It is now our duty to monitor that these policies and training are effectively implemented. For example, we gained extraordinary support from the civil society during the campaign urging the Government to adopt the Sexual Violence Bill and this expanded participatory space for constructive dialogue for public to understand more about State responsibilities to protect and promote the fundamental rights of women.”

Watch

Contact

Ruth Panjaitan, Legal Adviser for Indonesia, e: ruthstephani.panjaitan(a)icj.org

 

 

 

Tunisia: victims’ right to reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence must be at the forefront of the Specialized Criminal Chambers’ work

Tunisia: victims’ right to reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence must be at the forefront of the Specialized Criminal Chambers’ work

Victims of gross human rights violations must be provided with effective reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence by Tunisia’s Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), judges and prosecutors asserted during a workshop held by the ICJ and the Association of Tunisian Magistrates (AMT) on 3 and 4 April.

The workshop highlighted the need for the SCC to adopt restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction measures to achieve to the fullest extent possible reparation for material and moral damage suffered by victims of gross human rights violations in Tunisia.

Participants further emphasized that SCC decisions should include recommendations on guarantees of non-recurrence, including on legal and institutional reforms.

The workshop was attended by more than 25 Tunisian judges and prosecutors attached to the 13 Specialized Criminal Chambers. Discussions involved also international experts and ICJ representatives.

“It is important that the SCC, consistent with international standards, adopt a comprehensive notion of victims and persons entitled to reparation,” said Philippe Texier, ICJ Commissioner.

“In this respect, reparative measures should  focus  not only on direct victims, but also indirect victims, including the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims,” he added.

Federico Andreu-Guzmán, international expert, noted the non-derogable nature of the right to reparation under international law and that SCC should seek to ensure that all their decisions comply with this right.

“SCC decisions should include wide-reaching recommendations in order to guarantee that the violations will not be repeated,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.

The workshop also offered the opportunity to participants to discuss a set of recommendations targeting the High Judicial Council and its role in supporting the SCC.

The recommendations, which were developed by a group of SCC judges and prosecutors following the ICJ’s roundtable of 13-14 March, aim to find joint approaches to address ongoing procedural obstacles before the SCC and will be subject of future meetings and roundtable discussions organized by the ICJ and the AMT.

Contact

Valentina Cadelo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org

Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org

 

Translate »