Jul 5, 2013 | News
The Government of Pakistan should renew the official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to definitively abolishing the practice in law, says the ICJ.
The Government signaled its intention to resume executions on Thursday, 4 July 2013 when it failed to renew a 2008 Presidential order imposing a moratorium on executions. It is estimated that approximately 8000 people are currently on death row in Pakistan.
“Resuming executions would be a major step backwards for Pakistan in protecting human rights,” says Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor for South Asia. “The prospect of lifting the moratorium is all the more alarming given the extraordinarily high number of people on death row.”
The announcement apparently comes as part of the newly elected Government’s strategy to tackle high levels of crime and insecurity in Pakistan.
The ICJ condemns the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel and inhuman punishment. Moreover, it is widely accepted that the practice cannot serve as a deterrent to crime or be administrated without error or discrimination.
More than 150 of the 192 United Nations members States have either abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its practice.
In December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its fourth resolution calling on all States retaining the death to place a moratorium on the practice with a view towards abolition.
Of the 186 member States present, 111 member States voting in favour and only 41 member States against, an increase from the previous three resolutions.
“Pakistan is part of a dwindling minority of States who continue to retain the death penalty and carry out executions,” Varadan. “The ICJ urges the newly elected Government of Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to upholding human rights and to desist from licensing the State deliberately to take the life any person in its custody.”
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Jun 26, 2013 | News
The ICJ condemns the attempted assassination of Justice Maqbool Baqir, a judge of the Sindh High Court, who also sits on the anti-terrorism court in Karachi, Pakistan.
A bomb blast injured Justice Maqbool Baqir and thirteen others and killed at least nine people.
“This is the second bombing targeting the Pakistani judiciary in under six months. The ICJ is extremely concerned that these attacks signal a renewed challenge to the ability of the Pakistani judiciary to function as an independent institution,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ’s South Asia Legal Advisor.
According to local media sources, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an armed group operating in northwestern Pakistan, has claimed responsibility for the bombing, admitting that it specifically targeted Justice Maqbool Baqir for his ‘anti-shariah’ judgments and ‘ruling against the mujahideen’.
“Any physical attack on a judge constitutes a serious threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. If the TTP or another armed group is deliberately targeting judges, it could constitute a crime under international law,” Varadan added.
Under international standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, Pakistan is responsible for taking measures to ensure the protection of members of the judiciary from acts of violence or other threats to their safety.
Earlier in March 2013, the ICJ condemned the suicide bombing inside a Peshawar courthouse killing four people and injuring thirty others.
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2013 | News
The recent Rana Plaza building disaster, in Bangladesh, could, and should, have been averted if the government had performed its obligation to adequately protect the workers, the ICJ said today.
“The Rana Plaza collapse, which killed 1,131 workers and injured close to 2,500 others, is the most recent in a long list of industrial disasters brought about by the government’s failure to regulate and monitor workplace conditions and sanction private entities violating the law,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor on South Asia. “To single out and focus solely on the role of multi-national companies does not reflect the full picture.”
“While the ICJ does not minimize the responsibility of private enterprises, unless the underlying systemic issues such as institutional weaknesses, corruption and lack of enforcement are addressed, such tragedies will continue to happen,” Varadan added.
Litigation is a vital tool to ensure accountability, remedy and reparations, where government agencies fail in their essential functions.
The Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), a leading national human rights organization, has been petitioning the Supreme Court over the past decade, obtaining orders against government agencies and seeking compensation for victims and their families in work-related disasters.
“The government of Bangladesh must take active measures to ensure its regulatory framework is adequate and effective; its laws are rigorously enforced; and victims are adequately compensated,” Varadan also said. “Failing to do so not only violates Bangladeshi law but is also in breach of Bangladesh’s obligations to protect human rights under international law.”
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Bangladesh-Rana Plaza-Public interest litigation-backgrounder-featured article-2013 (full text in pdf)
Bangladesh-WGBHR5-OralStatement-LegalSubmission-2013 (full statement to the Working Group on Business and Human Rights)
May 31, 2013 | Agendas, Events
Some 30 judges from the highest national courts from 16 countries in Asia and the Pacific will meet in Bangkok, Thailand on 2-4 June to discuss the role of the judiciary in the AIDS response.
The meeting is convened by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the ICJ as part of efforts to address concerns that legal environments, including laws and policies, law enforcement practices and access to justice across the Asia and the Pacific do not consistently protect people most at risk of HIV infection and those living with HIV from violations of their human rights including health, privacy, non-discrimination and freedom from violence.
The judges’ discussions will be supported by experts and resource people from communities living with HIV, representatives of sex workers and men who have sex with men, people who use drugs and transgender people and United Nations entities.
The ICJ has always believed that an independent judiciary is essential in delivering justice to vulnerable populations, including those living/infected with HIV.
As Mr. Sam Zarifi, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, said: “The judiciary has a crucial role to play in establishing a legal environment that assists the struggle against the spread of HIV. In Asia and the Pacific, those most at risk of contracting HIV are often among those with the least access to justice. An independent judiciary can help protect at-risk populations from discriminatory laws, negative stereotypes, and misguided policies.”
May 13, 2013 | News
On 13 May, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal granted W, a transgender woman, the right to marry her male partner. The ICJ, which made submissions in the case, applauds this decision.
W is a resident of Hong Kong who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, paid for by the Hong Kong Government, and who holds a national identity card and passport recording her sex as female.
In 2008 she applied to the Registrar of Marriages seeking confirmation that she could marry her male partner.
The Registrar denied her request on the grounds that “the biological sexual construction of an individual is fixed at birth and cannot be changed.”
Because “only an individual’s sex at birth counts,” the Registrar would not celebrate the marriage.
The trial court and court of appeal upheld the Registrar’s interpretation of the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance and ruled that it did not conflict with Hong Kong’s Basic Law or its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These courts relied on the 1970 British case of Corbett v. Corbett, which held that sex was fixed immutably at birth.
W won her case at the Court of Final Appeal, which ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance ignored the “psychological and social elements of a person’s sexual identity” and thus were inconsistent with the constitutional right to marry.
Furthermore, the ordinances were unconstitutional because they denied W the right to marry at all and thus impaired the very essence of the right.
While the Court granted the parties leave to make further submissions as to the exact nature of the declaratory relief, it held that “a transsexual in W’s situation” should in principle be granted a declaration that she is in law a woman within the meaning of the marriage ordinances and “therefore eligible to marry a man.”
Importantly, the Court also stated: “We would not seek to lay down a rule that only those who have had full gender reassignment surgery involving both excising and reconstructive genital surgery, qualify. We leave open the question whether transsexual persons who have undergone less extensive treatment might also qualify.”
“This is a historic decision,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Advisor at the International Commission of Jurists. “Not only has W won her own case at the Court of Final Appeal, her courage and commitment have changed the lives of transgender people in Hong Kong.”
The parties have an additional 21 days to file written submissions. The Court’s proposed order gives the Hong Kong legislature time to respond but indicates that even in the absence of intervening legislation, the marriage ordinances would be given a remedial interpretation to include W.
Photo by K.Y. Cheng: Michael Vidler, solicitor of the appellant, holds the judgment in his hand outside Court of Final Appeal.
May 5, 2013 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Benjamin Zawacki, Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia at the International Commission of Jurists.
Thailand’s government recently passed up an opportunity for a new approach to the deep South, by declining to replace the Emergency Decree, which violates international standards on human rights, with the somewhat less heavy-handed Internal Security Act (ISA).
Equally concerning is why the government has not looked beyond the South in reconsidering the use of its other extraordinary security legislation: no fewer than 31 of Thailand’s 77 provinces are at least partially under Martial Law.
International law is clear that the extraordinary powers under security laws like the Emergency Decree and Martial Law may only be invoked under a strict set of circumstances, none of which is even arguably applicable in Thailand outside of the southern insurgency (four of the 31 provinces).
Martial Law may be invoked in Thailand “when a situation arises that makes it necessary to maintain law and order and to defend against the danger of attack”, or “when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”. All of Thailand’s provinces that are situated on one of the country’s four international borders are under Martial Law in whole or in part (including the 27 not in the deep South). Among them is Phitsanulok, whose shared border with Laos is roughly only 50km.
This province featured in Thailand’s last war, a three-month affair with Laos that ended in 1988.
Otherwise, Thailand’s border challenges are well-known: trafficking in persons, drugs, and weapons; landmines; refugees and migrants; smuggling of logs, oil, and other contraband; demarcation disputes. While doubtless all of these call for robust law enforcement, only the dispute with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple even arguably involves defending against the danger of armed attack.
Several minor but deadly skirmishes with Cambodian forces, as well as considerable mutual saber-rattling, have occurred in several districts of Si Sa Ket province since 2009. It is not credible to claim that Thailand needs to impose Martial Law because of external threats.
A more likely explanation is that Martial Law’s expansive application in Thailand is due to what is common to most security legislation around the region, namely vague language that lends itself to broad interpretation and granting wide powers to the military.
The Martial Law term “law and order”, in addition to more typically applying to civilian law enforcement agencies than to the military, could apply to any situation in which a law is implicated – which is nearly all situations. “Order” and “unrest” are particularly ill-defined.
Moreover, “maintain” suggests law and order need only be threatened to invoke Martial Law, rather than be lost and in need of being restored.
What constitutes an “attack” and the likelihood of such required for Thailand to be in “danger” are also essentially judgment calls. And when is an attack (or a series of attacks) tantamount to an “outbreak of war”?
A second and related reason that Martial Law is so pervasive in Thailand is the large number of military personnel empowered to invoke the law, coupled with, inversely, the difficulty in revoking it later.
While order by royal decree is required for invoking Martial Law on the first set of grounds, even local military commanders can invoke Martial Law in the area under their control on the second set (“when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”), affording them enormous discretion and authority.
In contrast, any and all revocations of the law require order by royal decree, a level of involvement as centralized and bureaucratic as a district military commander’s invocation is local and simple.
Martial Law’s use in Thailand historically supports the analysis that imprecise grounds combined with bureaucratic inertia account for the wide geographical application of the law.
Twice in the past 22 years, orders by royal decree referencing “law and order” have imposed Martial Law on the whole of Thailand, both times via coups d’état in 1991 and 2006.
On only three occasions after the 1991 coup (twice later the same year and once in 1998) was Martial Law lifted in some but not all of Thailand’s provinces. On the eve of the 2006 coup, it was still in effect in all or part of 18 provinces.
Similarly, following the blanket invocation of Martial Law on the whole country in 2006, on only two occasions since (in January 2007 and 2008, respectively) has an order by royal decree revoked the law in 46 of Thailand’s 77 provinces. Why not everywhere?
International law requires that extraordinary security legislation be invoked only in response to an exceptional situation.
Powers granted to security forces and any derogation from human rights must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the situation, and must have a time limitation attached to them.
None of these elements is met in the case of Thailand’s application of Martial Law to its international borders.
Indeed, Martial Law in Thailand allows security forces to arrest people without a warrant, and to detain them for seven days prior to charging them.
Critically, it does not require that detainees be promptly brought before a judge, in flagrant violation of Thailand’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This leaves detainees particularly vulnerable to torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces, which Thailand has also agreed to prevent and punish as a party to the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture.
In cases under Martial Law of alleged misconduct by security forces, victims are unable to institute a criminal prosecution (though they may initiate a civil action) or to choose their own lawyer; only a military prosecutor is entitled to institute a criminal charge. No appeal can be lodged against judgments or orders of military courts during this period.
The Thai government should reconsider its decision to keep the Emergency Decree in place throughout most of the deep South.
At the same time, it should take the long overdue step of lifting an equally heavy-handed Martial Law everywhere else.
