Jul 3, 2020 | News
The ICJ deplores today’s conviction of former Amnesty International Turkey President Taner Kılıç, and former Chair of Human Rights Agenda Association Günal Kurşun, former Director of Amnesty International Turkey İdil Eser and human rights defender Özlem Dalkıran by the Istanbul 35th Heavy Penal Court, on clearly unfounded terrorism charges.
“These convictions, which were clearly revealed to be baseless during the trial, are an alarming setback to efforts to restore the rule of law in Turkey,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“This prosecution and conviction constitute harassment of human rights defenders, in violation of a number of Turkey’s international legal obligations. The Turkish authorities should be protecting human rights and supporting the important work of human rights defenders, but instead we have witnessed a continuing pattern of arrests on human rights defenders in the country,” he added.
Taner Kılıç has been sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment for “membership of a terrorist organization. Günal Kuşun, İdil Eser and Özlem Dalkıran were sentenced to one year and 13 months of imprisonment for “assisting a terrorist organisation”. This decision was taken by majority, with one dissenting opinion that called for their acquittal.
The Court acquitted the other defendants in the case: Nalan Erkem, İlknur Üstün, Ali Gharavi, Peter Steudtner, Veli Acu, Nejat Taştan et Şeyhmus Özbekli.
On 6 June 2017, Taner Kiliç, then President of Amnesty International Turkey was arrested on spurious terrorism charges. The other human rights defenders were arrested while attending a training in Istanbul on digital security and information management; also reported arrested were two trainers (reportedly a German and a Swedish national) and the owner of the training venue.
In Turkey, anti-terrorism offences are oftentimes abused and are applied in over-extensive terms to charge and prosecute human rights defenders and political dissenters, as it occurred in this case. The ICJ has highlighted this problem in several reports, including in its submission to the UN Human Rights Council on the universal periodic review of Turkey.
Jul 3, 2020 | News
In the lead-up to general elections on 10 July, today, the ICJ, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) urged all political parties and parliamentary candidates in Singapore to commit to respecting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as part of their mandate.
The organizations noted the ongoing abuse of legal frameworks by the State to limit the rights to freedom of expression, information, association and peaceful assembly in Singapore. These included the use of civil defamation suits and criminal defamation charges; contempt of court provisions including under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act; the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act; and the Public Order Act to penalize and harass individuals for mere exercise of their fundamental freedoms.
The organizations urged all political parties and parliamentary candidates to address concerns raised by these laws and ensure fundamental freedoms – including the rights to expression, information, association and peaceful assembly – remain at the forefront of the debate in Singapore.
The open letter is available here.
In a 2019 ICJ report on freedom of expression and information online across Southeast Asia, the ICJ highlighted how defamation provisions, the AJPA and POFMA had been wielded by the State to curtail free speech and access to information online by targeting critical dissent of the regime by human rights defenders, lawyers, independent media outlets and members of the political opposition. The report detailed problematic provisions in the laws and selected case studies detailing this trend.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, December 2019
Jul 3, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ published a legal memorandum concluding that the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC) Order to block access to specific websites is not compliant with international human rights law.
The legal memorandum also sets out various remedial options under Myanmar law to question the lawfulness of the Order.
The ICJ focused its human rights analysis on the rights to freedom of expression and access to information and the right to health, which includes access to health information. These rights are well established under general and customary international law. The right to health is guaranteed under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Myanmar is a party.
The MOTC, presumably invoking Section 77 of the Telecommunications Law, ordered telecommunication service providers in March 2020 to take down 2,147 websites found by it to have disseminated “fake news,” adult content, and child sexual abuse content. It is not clear if any of the information under sanction relates to COVID-19, although the pandemic was mentioned elsewhere in one mobile service provider’s press release. Immediately after the release of the MOTC Order, it was discovered that the ban included ethnic news media websites, such as Rakhine-based Development Media Group and Narinjara News, thereby prompting speculation as to the true reasons behind the ban.
The ICJ emphasized the following in the legal memorandum:
- Blocking access to specific websites engages a wide range of human rights concerns, including but not limited to the person’s right to freedom of expression and right of access to information protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and customary international law. While lack of transparency about the State rationale and evidence was an obstacle to a full analysis, the permissible conditions that would justify sweeping limitations on this right do not appear to have been met.
- In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the MOTC Order also undermines the right to health of all persons in Myanmar. The right to health guaranteed under the ICESCR is reserved to all persons without discrimination and includes access to health information. The MOTC Order effectively hinders access to health information by blocking legitimate sources of information.
- To challenge the MOTC Order, the following domestic legal remedies are available: (i) filing a complaint with the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission; (ii) filing an application for a constitutional writ before the Union Supreme Court and/or (iii) filing a declaration suit under the Specific Relief Act.
Download
Myanmar-Memo-on-MOTC-Order-Legal-Memorandum-2020-ENG (PDF)
Contact
Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org
Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org
Related work
Publication: Myanmar’s ongoing Internet shutdown and hostilities threaten right to health during COVID-19
Statement: Government must lift online restrictions in conflict-affected areas to ensure access to information during COVID-19 pandemic
Report: Curtailing the Right to Freedom of Expression and Information in Myanmar
Publication: Four Immediate Reforms to Strengthen the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
Publication: Strategic Litigation Handbook for Myanmar
Jul 1, 2020 | News
On 30 June, the ICJ and five other organizations sent open letters to the Prime Minister of Vietnam and the European Union (EU) calling for the immediate and unconditional release of human rights defenders, Dr. Phạm Chí Dũng, Nguyễn Tường Thụy and Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn.
The ICJ, Boat People SOS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights in their address to the Prime Minister, urged the Vietnamese government to cease all harassment of other activists from the Independent Journalists Association of Vietnam (IJAVN).
In November 2019, Dr. Phạm Chí Dũng, founding member and Chairman of IJAVN, was arrested in Ho Chi Minh City for allegedly “making, storing, distributing or disseminating materials” that “oppose the State” in violation of article 117 of Vietnam’s Penal Code. He has since been held in incommunicado detention.
Following Phạm’s arrest, a number of persons were subjected to various forms of harassment up to and including arrest and prosecution in connection with their IJAVN membership. In May and June 2020, two IJAVN members, journalist Nguyễn Tường Thụy and law student Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn, were arrested in Hanoi and Quang Nam provinces on similar charges.
In their letters, the ICJ and other organizations raised concerns that Phạm had been targeted and arrested for his human rights advocacy. From 2013 till his arrest, Phạm wrote independently on key rights issues in Vietnam, including on freedom of expression, labour rights, detention of human rights defenders, and harassment of independent civil society. In July 2012, he was arbitrarily arrested under charges of “conducting propaganda against the State” and released in February 2013 after months in prison without trial. In 2014, he was prevented by Vietnamese authorities from travelling to Geneva to participate in a United Nations Human Rights Council side-event connected to the Universal Periodic Review of Vietnam, following which his passport was confiscated.
The organizations noted that the arrest and arbitrary detention of Phạm, Nguyễn Tường Thụy and Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn contravened article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, as they appeared to have been politically motivated to curtail the rights of the three individuals to freely express their opinions and share information relating to domestic affairs.
In a 2019 ICJ report on freedom of expression and information online across Southeast Asia, national security-related provisions in Vietnam’s Penal Code, including article 117, were shown to have often been abused to curtail free speech and access to information online.
The organizations further noted that the prolonged incommunicado detention of Phạm constituted a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment, the right to liberty and the right to be treated with dignity under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the ICCPR.
They further called on Vietnam to protect and facilitate the work of human rights defenders in line with the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Human Rights Defenders Declaration).
The letter to the Prime Minister of Vietnam by the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network is available here.
The letter to the European Union by the ICJ, Boat People SOS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights is available here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, December 2019
Jun 30, 2020 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
In a wide-ranging interview recorded on June 4 2020, ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Ajit Prakash Shah, called on the Indian judiciary to exercise its responsibility to protect peoples’ human rights and “reprise its role as protector of Indian people” in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic.
In April and May 2020, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed several petitions and applications concerning the rights of internal migrant workers.
These included petitions demanding that migrant workers be moved to shelter homes and provided with basic needs and that payment of minimum wages be made to all migrant workers for the lockdown period.
The Court was also requested to direct the District Magistrates to identify those who are walking and ensure that they are provided with shelter and food and reach their destination, following the death of 16 internal migrant workers killed while sleeping on railway tracks while on their way back to their hometowns.
Finally, on 26 May 2020 the Court took suo moto cognizance of their predicament and, on 28 May 2020 ordered the Government to: register internal migrant workers; provide internal migrant workers free transportation home; and provide internal migrant workers with shelter, food, and water until they reach their homes.
This action was followed by another order on 9 June by which the Court ordered that: internal migrant workers are identified and sent to their hometowns within 15 days; and that all cases registered against those who had allegedly violated COVID-19 lockdown orders be considered for withdrawal.
In the interview, Justice Shah accented, in particular, the role of the Indian judiciary “as protector of Indian people” in respect of marginalized and disadvantaged people, including people living in poverty.
In addressing the question about internal migrant workers who were stranded during the recent COVID-19 lockdown, Justice Shah observed that for two months (March 24 2020 – May 28 2020) between the initiation of the lockdown and the rulings of the Supreme Court the Court appeared to have “remained skeptical” and in “denial” about petitions filed seeking redress for internal migrant workers.
Speaking in this context, Justice Shah reminded the Indian judiciary that Indian courts have historically been at “the forefront of giving effect to India’s international legal obligations,” including its economic, social, and cultural rights obligations encapsulated in International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
They had done so in landmark cases such as PUCL v. UOI (in which it held that the right to life with dignity includes a right to food and a right to be free from hunger and starvation) and Chameli Singh v. UOI (in which it held that right to shelter includes adequate living space includes light, air, water, civil amenities, and sanitation).
While commending the Courts interventions in May 2020, Justice Shah pointed out that their lateness to react was damaging.
“Courts should have intervened earlier. They could have monitored the process of the return of the migrants to their home states and ensured basic wages were fixed and delivered.”
Justice Shah expressed hope that the 28 May 2020 order represented a turning point:
“Hopefully, going forward, the Court will act in the same spirit … to grant some reliefs to suffering migrant communities. In the future, the Court should take the lead and monitor these processes, serving as a guide to both the center and the state authorities and the bureaucracy for addressing these issues.”
Commenting on the role of lawyers during the COVID-19 crisis, Justice Shah expressed concern that law officers were castigating lawyers for approaching courts with petitions.
Watch the video
Additional Reading
- Briefing Papers
- India on the Brink of Hunger Crisis during COVID-19 Pandemic
- The Right to Water in India and the COVID 19 Crisis
- COVID-19 Pandemic Exposes India’s Housing Crisis
- Press Release: COVID-19: Indian authorities must act immediately to protect internal migrant workers stranded under intolerable conditions
Download (with additional information)
India-Justice-Shah-Interview-Web-Story-2020-ENG (PDF)
Jun 26, 2020 | Cases, News
The ICJ today welcomed the judgment by the Court in the case of Bagirov v. Azerbaijan. It found that the suspension from legal practice and subsequent disbarment of Khalid Bagirov violated his rights to freedom of expression and to respect for private life under Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Khalid Bagirov’s suspension from the practice of law was based on his public criticism of ill-treatment by the police, following the wide media coverage of the death of an individual in police custody. Later he represented the victim as a lawyer in the proceedings.
His subsequent disbarment arose from his remarks about a judge made in the courtroom when representing his client in another high-profile case.
The ICJ intervened in this case as a third party, providing an evaluation of the State’s obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression of lawyers in light of international standards on independence of the lawyers and the consequences of disciplinary proceedings for lawyers’ rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.
The ICJ calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to fully and promptly implement the judgment, including by taking steps to restore Khalid Bagirov as a member of the Azerbaijan Bar Association.
“Khalid Bagirov must now be reinstated as a lawyer and be allowed to resume his legal practice in Azerbaijan,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“But in addition, this judgment shows that measures need to be taken to address the systemic problem of unjustified disbarments of lawyers who seek to defend human rights in Azerbaijan. Reforms are needed to ensure that the disciplinary process is independent and fair and that penalties are proportionate.”
In its judgment of 25 June 2020, the Court held under Article 10 of the Convention that the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of Khalid Bagirov’s disbarment were not relevant and sufficient, and that the sanction imposed on him was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having highlighted that “the disbarment cannot but be regarded as a harsh sanction, capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel”.
In relation to Article 8 ECHR, the Court further noted that “…in a series of cases it has noted a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists and human rights defenders … Against this background, the Court underlines that, notwithstanding the duties, in particular, with respect to their conduct, with which all lawyers must comply, the alleged need in a democratic society for a sanction of disbarment of a lawyer in circumstances such as this would need to be supported by particularly weighty reasons” which had not been established in this case.
In respect of the suspension of the lawyer, the Government contended that the interference with Mr Bagirov’s rights to private life and freedom of expression had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Court found that, he was not the victim’s lawyer when he made the impugned statements about the police, furthermore, the Court mentioned that it did not find any provision of domestic law preventing a lawyer from calling for peaceful protests against police brutality for the purpose of preventing violence.
The Court further found that while Mr Bagirov’s remarks, about a judge’s lack of capacity, were capable of being offensive, the sanction imposed on him did not struck a fair balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the need to protect his rights to private life and freedom of expression.
In this connection, the Court stated that inter alia, Mr Bagirov had confined himself to making a statement in a courtroom as a lawyer, in the context of his objections to the shortcomings of the proceedings.
Background
In addition to its intervention in Bhagirov v Azerbaijan, the ICJ has also intervened as a third party in other cases of lawyers from Azerbaijan (Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 6477/08 and 10414/08, § 54, 19 April 2018).
In 2019, the ICJ published recommendations to the Azerbaijan Bar Association on the role and independence of Lawyers,
In 2016, the ICJ published a mission report Defenceless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan
