Aug 29, 2013 | News
The Pakistani government should affirm its commitment to end enforced disappearances by ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
The call by the ICJ and Human Rights Watch comes on the eve of the third annual United Nations International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances (30 August 2013).
“Ratifying the Convention against Disappearances is a key test for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s new government,” said Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan director at Human Rights Watch. “The government would send a clear political message that it’s serious about ending ‘disappearances’. And it would show its commitment to ensuring justice for serious human rights violations.”
Pakistan’s participation in the United States-led “war on terror” since 2001 has resulted in hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals being “disappeared.”
In addition to those arbitrarily detained in counter-terrorism operations, journalists, human rights activists and alleged members of separatist and nationalist groups, particularly in Balochistan province, have been and continue to be forcibly disappeared.
“Pakistan’s failure to hold even a single perpetrator of enforced disappearances to account perpetuates the culture of impunity in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Regional Director of ICJ. “The prevalence of gross violations of human rights in the country today is partly a legacy of this impunity.”
Despite repeated denials by Pakistan’s security agencies, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acknowledged and human rights groups have documented evidence of the involvement of intelligence and security agencies in enforced disappearances.
In July, Pakistan’s attorney general admitted that more than 500 “disappeared” persons are in security agency custody.
“In Balochistan and beyond, Pakistani security forces have forcibly disappeared, tortured, and unlawfully killed people in the name of counter-terrorism,” Hasan added. “Pakistan has a responsibility to arrest and prosecute militants acting outside the law, but abuses against suspects cannot be explained away as a way to end terrorism.”
“All disappeared persons must be released or, if charged with recognizable crimes, brought without further delay before a court to see if their continuing detention is legal,” Zarifi concluded. “The government should also fully investigate and prosecute those who are responsible for ordering, participating or carrying out enforced disappearances.”
The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in its 2012 report on Pakistan found that the country’s anti-terrorism laws, in particular the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the FATA/PATA Action (in aid of civil powers) Regulations 2011, allowed arbitrary deprivation of liberty, which has enabled enforced disappearances.
Under international law, a state commits an enforced disappearance when its agents take a person into custody and then deny holding the person, or conceal or fail to disclose the person’s whereabouts.
Family members and legal representatives are not informed of the person’s whereabouts, well-being, or legal status.
“Disappeared” people are often at high risk of torture, a risk even greater when they are detained outside of formal detention facilities such as prisons and police stations.
An enforced disappearance removes an individual from the protection of the law, leaving the individual without protection from theirs.
It violates many of the rights guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Pakistan ratified in 2010.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity” and “a grave and flagrant violation” of international human rights law.
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch called on the Pakistani government to carry out a full review of security-related legislation and ensure that all laws conform to Pakistan’s international law obligations to prevent such violations.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 807 819 002 (mobile); email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Read also:
Justice for Pakistan’s “disappeared”
Aug 23, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Bangladesh authorities to immediately withdraw contempt of court charges against Human Rights Watch.
“Bangladesh must not impose contempt of court charges to restrict the important work carried out by human rights defenders, including international human rights groups,” said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes. “The contempt charges are inconsistent with Bangladesh’s obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to respect freedom of expression.”
On 20 August 2013, prosecutors for the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh charged Human Rights Watch with contempt of court for allegedly “scandalizing the judiciary” after the group had expressed concern that the trial of Ghulam Azam, former head of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami Azam’s trial was “deeply flawed” and did not meet international fair trial standards.
The group stated, based on credible media reports, that “judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution” and that there was “collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges”.
“It is paramount that those responsible for committing atrocities – notably unlawful killings and the widespread and systematic use of rape as a form of torture – during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, should be prosecuted before competent, independent and impartial courts in proceedings that meet international fair trial standards,” Conte added. “Muzzling voices that highlight the deficiencies of the ICT and prosecutions before it distract from that enormously important task.”
The ICJ, as well as several Bangladeshi and international observers, have expressed similar concerns that the International Crimes Tribunal does not adhere to international standards of a fair trial.
“The charges against Human Rights Watch are an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to attack a highly respected human rights group for pointing out serious and well-documented problems with the Bangladeshi International Crimes Tribunal. Attacking the messenger does not address nor resolve the very real concerns about the operations of the ICT,” said Conte.
Under international norms, judges and the judicial process are not immune from public criticism. The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct clarify that “since judicial independence does not render a judge free from public accountability, and legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability subject to law, a judge should generally avoid the use of the criminal law and contempt proceedings to restrict such criticism of the courts”.
Similarly, the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government also stress that “criminal law and contempt proceedings should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions”.
The charges against Human Rights Watch were preceded by the arrest on 10 August 2013, of Adilur Rahman, Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar for allegedly “distorting information” on a police operation on a Hefazat-e Islam rally in May this year. Odhikar reported that 61 people had been killed in the police crackdown on the rally. The Government disputed the number of casualties.
“We are deeply concerned that the contempt of court charges against Human Rights Watch and the charges against Adilur Rahman, are expressly intended to silence dissent and discourage individuals and organizations from raising legitimate concerns about human rights violations and the rapid deterioration of the rule of law in Bangladesh,” Conte further said. “Rather than charging them with contempt, the authorities should investigate the allegations of rights violations made by Human Rights Watch and Adilur Rahman”.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.
The Declaration also highlights that human rights defenders have the right to “freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to hold opinions and draw public attention to the observance of human rights.
“We urge the Bangladesh authorities to immediately drop the charges against Human Rights Watch and Adilur Rahman, which are being used to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and allow human rights defenders to freely carry out their work,” said Conte.
Contact:
Alex Conte, Director, International Law & Protection Programmes (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Aug 22, 2013 | News
The ICJ called upon the Indian Government to halt the imminent execution of Professor Devinderpal Singh Bhullar.
In August 2001, Professor Bhullar was sentenced to death under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act following his conviction on charges related to the bombing of the All Indian Youth Congress in New Delhi in 1993.
“Those who commit acts of terrorism should be prosecuted before competent, independent and impartial courts that meet international due process standards”, said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director.
“However, while those responsible for such acts must be held to account, the ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, without exception as it is an inherently cruel and irreversible punishment that violates the right to life.”
“Furthermore, there are serious questions about whether Professor Bhullar’s trial was in accordance with the requirements of international law”, Schonveld added. “His conviction and death sentence are based solely upon an alleged confession he made in police custody, which he later retracted, claiming it was extracted under torture.”
The ICJ says that the execution of an individual in these circumstances would violate India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to respect the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the absolute prohibition of torture.
In May 2011, President Pranab Mukherjee rejected Professor Bhullar’s petition for clemency. The Supreme Court rejected his earlier plea on 12 April 2013 to commute the sentence to life imprisonment, and upheld its decision on 14 August 2013.
India ended an eight-year moratorium on the death penalty with the executions of Ajmal Kasab on 21 November 2012 and Mohammad Afzal Guru on 9 February 2013.
“The resumption of the death penalty by India is contrary to the global and regional movement towards the abolition of the death penalty”, said Schonveld.
The ICJ reminds that 150 countries worldwide, including 30 states in the Asia-Pacific region, have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.
The ICJ urges the Indian Government to immediately reinstate the moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty permanently and acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolition of the death penalty.
Over the years, the member states of the United Nations have adopted various instruments in support of the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution emphasizing that “that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity” and calling for the establishment of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty “with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.
The resolution was reaffirmed in 2008, 2010, and most recently in December 2012, when and overwhelming majority of 110 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: +977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Aug 13, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called on the Nepalese Government to release the body of Tibetan Monk Karma Nyidon Gyasto to the Tibetan community to carry out his last rites in accordance with Nepal’s laws and international obligations.
“We are deeply concerned about this rejection of Nepal’s laws and its international obligations,” said Asia Director Sam Zarifi.
On 5 August 2013, a Tibetan refugee, Karma Nyidon Gyasto self-immolated at the Boudha Stupa, in Kathmandu. He was taken to Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, where he was later declared dead. His body is apparently being held in the hospital’s mortuary.
On 12 August 2013, the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office, registered an application to the Office of the Chief District Officer in Kathmandu to perform funeral rites. The Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office is acting on behalf of Gyatso given the lack of clear legal status of the resident Tibetan refugee community.
This is the second protest by self-immolation in Nepal. The first was in February 2013. In that case the government refused to hand over the body for funeral rites.
The refusal to hand over the body contravenes Nepal’s national laws.
The Interim Constitution, under Article 23 guarantees the right to religion, including the right to practice and perform religious rites.
Furthermore Article 17 provides that every community in Nepal has the right to preserve and promote its culture.
The action also contravenes Nepal’s international obligations.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Furthermore, General Comment No 22 on Article 18 of the ICCPR states that this right includes ritual and ceremonial acts.
Under the Covenant, the Government of Nepal is obliged to respect and ensure the religious and cultural rights of the Tibetan refugee community, who have a legitimate right to receive the body and hold a funeral according to their religion and culture.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Aug 12, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling for the immediate release of Adilur Rahman Khan, a prominent Supreme Court lawyer and human rights defender in Bangladesh.
Mr Khan is the Secretary of Odhikar, a Bangladeshi human rights organization that has documented human rights violations allegedly carried out by Bangladeshi security forces.
Plainclothes police officers arrested Mr Khan from his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.
“Adilur Rahman Khan is being charged for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression, so Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against him and release him,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director. “Until the charges are dropped, he must be released on bail.”
Adilur Rahman Khan was charged on 11 August under section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, for distorting information regarding a police operation on a Hefazat-e Islam rally in May this year.
Odhikar reported that 61 people had been killed in the police crackdown on the rally. The government denied any casualties.
He was not allowed to speak with his family or his lawyers until August 11, when a Magistrate’s Court refused bail and remanded him for a further five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order, directing that Mr. Khan be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the prison.’
“Adilur Rahman Khan’s arrest is illustrative of a deeply worrying government strategy to muzzle and discredit the work of human rights defenders and distract attention from human rights violations,” added Schonveld. “The High Court’s stay of the remand order is a positive development. However, the Bangladesh government must uphold its obligations under domestic and international law to guarantee freedom of expression and allow human rights defenders to carry out their work.”
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a party, guarantees ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.’
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their work ‘without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.’
Further, lawyers shall, in particular, have the right to take part in public discussions of matters concerning the law, administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders clarifies that States must create an enabling environment for human rights defenders and take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders ‘against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of his or her rights.’
CONTACT:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director (Kathmandu), t: +977 14432651; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 9, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called for the immediate release of Le Quoc Quan, after the People’s Court of Hanoi announced on 8 July 2013 the postponement of his trial, without setting any new dates for the case. The reason given for the hastily informed adjournment was that the judge had suddenly taken ill.
The ICJ considers that Le Quoc Quan’s continued detention is in violation of Vietnam’s penal law and the State’s international legal obligations.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender, was arrested on 27 December 2012 and charged for tax evasion under article 161 of Vietnam’s 1999 Penal Code.
The postponement of the trial appears to signal that Le Quoc Quan will continue to remain in jail. Since his arrest last year, he has already been detained for more than six months.
“The continued detention of Le Quoc Quan is akin to him being punished even before the trial has commenced. This is a clear violation of his right to being presumed innocent,” said Andrew Khoo from the Malaysian Bar Council, an expert appointed by the ICJ, who had traveled to Hanoi to observe Le Quoc Quan’s trial.
On 29 December, two days after Le Quoc Quan’s arrest, his wife filed an application for bail to the police and procurator. She had also applied for release on his own recognizance. There are no specific detailed procedures spelled out in law governing bail procedures. Under article 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only family members are permitted to act as guarantors. To date, neither the police nor the procurator have replied to her applications.
Under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a party, it should not be the general rule that persons are detained while awaiting trial, and release pending trial may only be subject to conditions to ensure appearance at the trial.
“There is no reason to believe that if released Le Quoc Quan would not appear for trial, and in any event his family has made representations to act as guarantors”, said Emerlynne Gil, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia, who was also in Hanoi to observe the trial. “The People’s Court of Hanoi must order Le Quoc Quan’s release either on bail or his own recognizance.”
The ICJ notes that the postponement also violates Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial. Under international law, including ICCPR article 14, an accused has the right to be tried without undue delay and within a reasonable period of time. This prevents any unnecessary continuing deprivation of liberty and ensures that the interest of justice is properly served.
“We would expect that the People’s Court of Hanoi will notify promptly the public of the next date of Le Quac Quan’s trial and ensure that his right to a fair and public trial is upheld,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ looks forward to returning to Vietnam to continue monitoring this case and ensuring that the rights of Le Quoc Quan, including his right to liberty and to a fair trial, are fully respected and protected.
CONTACT:
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 6198477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
