Jun 20, 2020 | News
As the general internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin states reaches one year, the ICJ repeated its call for the Myanmar Government to end mobile internet restrictions and temporarily halt hostilities with the Arakan Army.
The ICJ also called for an amendment of Section 77 of the Telecommunications Act, pursuant to which the government can order telecommunications providers to suspend internet services.
“The internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin states stifles freedom of expression, prevents information-sharing, and exacerbates the plight of affected communities by impeding humanitarian and health access during a global pandemic,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “Such a drastic measure is disproportionate and unnecessary. The government should focus on fighting COVID-19, instead of waging a battle against its own population.
The shutdown was first imposed on 21 June 2019 by the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC), purportedly to facilitate government objectives in the armed conflict with the Arakan Army.
Section 77 of the Telecommunications Law authorizes the the MOTC to “direct the licensee to suspend a Telecommunications Service, to intercept, not to operate any specific form of communication, to obtain necessary information and communications, and to temporarily control the Telecommunications Service and Telecommunications Equipments” in the event of an “emergency situation” for the “public interest.” However, the law does not define the scope of an “emergency situation.” The ICJ previously described Section 77 to be vague, and warned of abuse by authorities in the absence of independent judicial oversight by civilian courts.
In April, as Myanmar encountered its initial cases of COVID-19, the ICJ highlighted how arbitrary and unnecessary online media restrictions not only violate a person’s right to freedom of expression and information, but also deny access by affected communities to essential health information. Access to health information is a component of the right to health protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Myanmar is a party.
“The internet shutdown effectively deprives large swathes of the population in ethnic minority states of the benefits of government services, and information about its COVID-19 response,” said Frederick Rawski. “Such a blanket internet shutdown is not necessary for reasons of national security, and undermines the government’s own public health efforts.”
The ICJ recalled that the ICESCR requires States to observe the principle of non-discrimination in enacting measures to protect the right to health. The internet shutdown clearly has a disproportionately adverse impact on the human rights of members of ethnic minorities.
Despite appeals from UN officials, rights groups, ethnic armed organizations, and ambassadors to Myanmar, the Myanmar Government still refuses to hold a ceasefire throughout the country, including areas of Rakhine and Chin states where the Arakan Army operates. The conflict has resulted in deaths, many from unlawful killings, as well as serious physical and emotional injury, and mass displacement of persons.
Download
Myanmar-Internet-Shutdown-Press-Release-2020-BUR (PDF)
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, e: Frederick.rawski(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
Jun 17, 2020 | Feature articles, News
While reports suggest a decrease in crime during lockdown due to restricted movement, violence against women, including gender-based violence (GBV), continues unabated, and has likely worsened throughout Africa, replicating global trends in this regard.
Africa has a serious GBV crisis, which domestic legislative frameworks and accountability mechanisms have failed to fully address.
Various factors contribute to the increasing incidence of GBV in Africa. These factors are facilitated by the failure of States to adequately discharge their obligations to protect persons from gender based violence, through legal reform and administrative actions.
The issues manifest in gender insensitive actors and institutions that administer justice, impunity for abuses, and limited capacity of justice actors to properly handle cases due to lack of training and resources.
There are also challenges in issuance of restraining and protection orders. All these problems are reinforced by a widespread lack of willingness to recognize, understand and engage with women’s rights by State actors.
In Africa, more than one in three women (36.6%) report having experienced physical, and/or sexual partner violence or sexual violence by a non-partner. Studies have also found that the highest prevalence of child sexual abuse is in Africa.
This GBV crisis in Africa has been worsened by the coronavirus pandemic, which has contributed to a surge in GBV. The pattern of rape, sexual violence, and killing of women continues to spread across the continent, even during this health crisis.
On 27 May, the news of the rape and killing of a 22-year-old student while she studied in an empty church in Nigeria sparked outrage and protests in many parts of the country.
In South Africa, the body of 28-year-old woman Tshegofatso Pule was found on 8 June. She had been stabbed and hanging from a tree; she was eight-months pregnant at the time.
There have been several reports of femicide since some COVID-19 restrictions were lifted in South Africa. In Zimbabwe, increasingly there have been reports of rape and other sexual violence being used as political weapons to suppress political opposition in Zimbabwe.
Recently, there have been reports that three leaders of the MDC-A party were abducted and subjected to torture which included sexual violence after staging a flash demonstration against failure of the government to address livelihood issues during the Covid-19 lockdown.
While the demonstrations were led by both men and women, allegations focused on sexual violence against women by State agents have been made on numerous occasion especially following protests against the government. In both instances the response by the State authorities has been to challenge the allegations before conducting a thorough investigation.
In the recent case of the MDC-A leaders, officials have not only refuted the allegations but also charged the victims for breaching Covid-19 regulations and recently arrested them for allegedly ‘faking abduction’ and lying about torture..
Global Standards
All States must protect against gender based violence, whether by State or private actors, pursuant to their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Prevention of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most African countries are parties to these international treaties.
In addition, States of the African Union are bound to respect a range of international law and standards which prohibit gender based discrimination and sexual violence, most notable are the African Charter, and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women (the Maputo Protocol) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol provides that “every woman shall be entitled to respect for her life and the integrity and security of her person. All forms of exploitation, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.
States parties shall take appropriate and effective measures to enact and enforce laws to prohibit all forms of violence against women, including unwanted or forced sex whether the violence takes place in private or in public.” Article 16 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child includes sexual abuse of children as a form of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
As explained by the CEDAW Committee, all States, including African States, have a due diligence obligation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish rape and other GBV.
It is noteworthy that, 17 years into its existence, not all African countries have ratified or signed the Maputo Protocol, with only 42 out of 55 AU member states having ratified the convention. Of the few countries which have comprehensive domestic legal frameworks to eliminate all forms of violence against women, they too often face challenges in implementation.
States have the primary responsibility to take effective measures to eradicate GBV. States have an obligation to take the necessary action at all levels to ensure the elimination of harmful gender norms and stereotypes, as well as to ensure the elimination of GBV.
African countries need to urgently respond to the scourge of GBV in the region. The ICJ intends to publish a series of legal briefs on the “State of Rape Law” as provided in various jurisdictions in Africa, in order to highlight the challenges in criminal justice systems in relation to addressing the crime of rape and to provide concrete recommendations for reform.
Jun 16, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ condemned the prosecution and conviction of journalists Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos, Jr. after the Manila Regional Trial Court found them guilty of cyber-libel for an article published on the news website Rappler. The ICJ called for the judgment to be reversed on appeal.
The ICJ also called on the Philippines to reform its laws to remove the possibility of criminal sanction for defamation and libel offenses, in line with its international legal obligations. The ICJ recalled that imprisonment for such offenses is never permissible.
“The guilty verdict is a new low for the Duterte administration, and adds to an atmosphere of intimidation that creates a chilling effect on online expression, especially for journalists seeking to hold the government to account,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“The conviction is not only a miscarriage of justice in this particular case; it also sets a terrible precedent for the use of criminal defamation laws to prosecute speech online in the Philippines and elsewhere in the region.”
Ressa and Santos were convicted pursuant to Section 4(c)(4) of the 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Act (CPA), and sentenced to imprisonment of up to six years and a fine of PhP 200,000 (approx. USD 4,000). Ressa is the executive editor of Rappler while Santos was the author of the article. Ressa’s conviction comes after years of legal harassment, forming part of a pattern of attacks upon the press by the Duterte government and placing the Philippines in violation of the right to freedom of expression under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a party.
The charges involved an article first published in May 2012 on the Rappler website, months before the CPA was enacted in September 2012. The article reported on businessman Wilfredo Keng’s alleged involvement in “human trafficking and drug smuggling.” Keng initiated the criminal proceedings against Ressa and Santos in October 2017, five years after the article was published.
However, the trial court considered the article to have been “republished” on 19 February 2014 when Rappler updated the article on its website to fix a typographical error. Further, since the CPA does not expressly mention the prescriptive period, the trial court held that Republic Act No. 3326 applies, which provides a 12-year prescriptive period for offenses punished under a ‘special law’ such as the CPA. In contrast, ordinary libel under the Revised Penal Code carries a one-year prescriptive period.
“Regardless of the merits of the case, criminal sanction involving imprisonment must never be imposed for defamation,” said Rawski.
“On top of this general consideration, the judgment even sets a dangerous precedent by expanding the prescriptive period and ‘publication’ requirement for the crime of libel, contradicting well-established protections against ex post facto laws and that any ambiguity in penal laws must be resolved in favor of the accused.”
The right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR extends to political discourse, commentary on public affairs and journalism. The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, has called on States to abolish existing criminal defamation laws and reserve defamation for civil liability. The Committee concluded in 2012 that the Philippines’ criminalization of defamation, including under the CPA, breaches its obligations under the ICCPR. Article 15 of the ICCPR also prohibits the prosecution of persons for acts that were not considered a crime at the time of commission.
The Committee and the UN Human Rights Council have affirmed that these safeguards apply online as well as offline, as Article 19 protects expression regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has consistently called for decriminalization of defamation as a criminal offence, which is inherently harsh and encourages self-censorship.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, +662 619 8477 (ext. 206), emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Download
Philippines-Maria-Ressa-Press-Release-2020-ENG (PDF)
Related work
Report: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Philippines: order to major media outlet to stop airing violates freedom of expression and access to information
Jun 15, 2020 | News
Member States convening today for the resumption of the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council should support the establishment of an international investigative mechanism to document and preserve evidence of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL) committed in Libya, said the ICJ and Lawyers for Justice in Libya.
The escalation in armed conflict in recent months and ongoing impunity for an increasing number of violations and abuses being committed in Libya lend particular urgency to the establishment of a mechanism for a period of at least one year to investigate all gross human rights violations and abuses and serious violations of IHL, with a view to preserving evidence and holding perpetrators accountable.
“Horrific reports documenting the discovery of mass graves are the latest addition to a long line of well-established atrocities perpetrated across Libya,” said Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “Impunity for these crimes has proven only to prompt further violence and prolong the conflict.”
On 11 June 2020, the United National Support Mission to Libya reported the discovery of at least eight mass graves, located predominantly in Tarhuna, a town located southeast of Tripoli.
Though exhumations have only just commenced, initial reports by the Government of National Accord (GNA) indicate that they could contain hundreds of bodies, including of women and children.
Reports further indicate that the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), and their foreign allies, have laid anti-personnel landmines and other booby-traps in buildings as they withdrew from Tripoli, leading to causalities including among civilians returning to their homes after long periods of displacement.
Reports of incidents involving “retributive crimes”, including the parading of corpses and looting of perceived opponents’ houses and public property, by GNA-affiliated armed groups have also surfaced.
“The systematic and ubiquitous nature of these violations reinforces the need for States to urgently push for mechanisms designed to address accountability and fight prevailing impunity. The establishment of an international investigative mechanism would not only pave the way towards obtaining justice for the victims and preserving evidence necessary for doing so, but also send a strong and unequivocal message that those who commit crimes will be held accountable,” said Marwa Mohamed, Head of Advocacy and Outreach at Lawyers for Justice in Libya.
An international investigative mechanism would bolster accountability efforts in the country, which have, thus far, been impeded by cycles of violence, weak and ineffective law enforcement agencies, the arbitrary exercise of policing and detention powers by armed groups and an inadequate legal framework for holding perpetrators of crimes under international law accountable.
States will vote on the resolution on Libya (UN Doc A/HRC/43/L.40) following the interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Report on Libya on 18 June 2020.
The 43rd session of the Human Rights Council commenced in February 2020, but was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contact
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31624894664 ; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org;
Background
A variety of armed groups have been engaged in recurrent waves of armed conflict since the 2011 uprising. These include the forces of the GNA, established in 2016, which is the internationally recognized State governing authority and is supported by armed groups acting either under their control or in alignment or alliance with it, and the LAAF, which is headed by Khalifa Haftar, who was endorsed by the House of Representatives after launching his military campaign in 2014, and is composed of a mixture of military units and armed groups.
The GNA generally has control over territory in the west, and the LAAF exercises a significant degree of control over territories in the east and parts of the south. In April 2019, the LAAF marched on Tripoli gaining further territorial control in parts of the west, but such gains have been reduced over recent weeks following the escalation in hostilities with the GNA and the LAAF’s consequent retreat.
Reports by UNSMIL and other international bodies and non-government organizations document the gross human rights violations and abuses and serious violations of IHL being committed by all parties to the conflicts in Libya. These include unlawful killings resulting from direct, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against persons not engaged in hostilities; attacks on civilian objects including medical facilities and equipment; torture and ill-treatment, including acts of sexual violence and the crime of rape; arbitrary arrests and detention; forced displacement; enforced disappearances; and extrajudicial killings. These violations and abuses have led to mass internal displacement, including of over 200,000 people since April 2019 from Tripoli and its outskirts.
Libya-Atrocities need investigation-News-2020-ARA (story in Arabic, PDF)
Jun 9, 2020 | News
As of 9 June, at least ten prominent lawyers have been arrested and criminally charged in Zimbabwe.
Among them, Advocate Thabani Mpofu (photo), Advocate Choice Damiso, Mr Tapiwa Makanza and Mr Joshua Chirambwe have been arrested and charged with the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
These lawyers are alleged to have falsified information in the papers filed in a legal matter in which they were representing a citizen, who was challenging the legality of President Mnangagwa’s decision to appoint Mr Kumbirai Hodzi as the Prosecutor General.
Mr Dumisani Dube was arrested on similar charges but his charges arise from a different case.
Mr Patrick Tererai was charged with disorderly conduct after he demanded access to his client who had been detained at a police station.
The ICJ notes that the criminal charges laid against all the six lawyers are linked to the performance of their duties as legal practitioners.
The ICJ reminds the Government of Zimbabwe of its domestic and international obligations pertaining to the right to fair trial and protection of the independence of lawyers, as underscored in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa
These elaborate standards relevant to the right to a fair trial including under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Of particular significance is Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles which states that “Governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference;…. and [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.”
In addition, Principle 20 provides that “Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.” Similar provisions are included in Part I of the African Principles and Guidelines.
A lawyer would not generally be immune from criminal proceedings where allegations of perjury or intentionally providing false information to a court were well-founded.
In relation to this recent group of cases, the Law Society of Zimbabwe has expressed the concern that the arrests appear calculated to hinder the members of the profession from undertaking their professional duties.
In this context, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that the right to fair trial for these lawyers is fully respected and that the criminal charges brought against these lawyers are not abused to subvert the independence of the legal profession.
“The arrest of ten lawyers within one week on criminal allegations arising from the performance of their duties as legal practitioners is a cause of concern. The state must ensure that these cases are handled fairly and that the criminal justice system is not abused to harass and intimidate lawyers who represent clients who are perceived as political opposition to the sitting government,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
Of late, Advocate Thabani Mpofu has represented opposition leader Mr Nelson Chamisa in a series of cases. These include the presidential election petition and the cases in which Mr Chamisa’s rise to the leadership of the opposition party has been challenged.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +263 77 728 3248, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Jun 5, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the proclamation by the Sri Lankan president to establish a Presidential Task Force dominated by the security forces and called for the proclamation to be rescinded.
On June 2, 2020, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa issued an extraordinary gazette establishing a 13-member “Presidential Task Force to build a Secure Country, Disciplined, Virtuous and Lawful Society.” The Task Force is composed entirely of military, intelligence and police officials. It is to be headed by Defence Secretary, Retired Major General Kamal Gunaratne.
“This Presidential Task Force constitutes another act of over-reach by a government seeking to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to further expand its powers,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Its mandate is overbroad, and it empowers its military and police membership – including alleged war criminals – at a time when strong, independent, civilian-led policy-making is what is needed.”
The Task Force is given a sweeping mandate which includes:
- “taking necessary immediate steps to curb the illegal activities of social groups which are violating the law”
- “taking measures for prevention of the drug menace…”
- “taking legal action against persons responsible for illegal and antisocial activities conducted in Sri Lanka while locating in other countries”
- “investigating and preventing any illegal and antisocial activities in and around prisons.”
The task force also has the power to “conduct investigations and to issue directions as may be necessary in connection with the functions entrusted to it.” This includes issuing instructions to government officials to comply with its directives or be reported to the President.
The ICJ raised concerns that the task force has not been established on proper legal foundations. It is apparently pursuant to the broad, but ill-defined presidential powers under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The ICJ said that the task force could effectively usurp the powers and functions normally reserved for civilian authorities, under rule of law principles and as established by the Constitution and relevant enabling legislations.
Article 42 (1) of the Constitution provides that the “Cabinet of Ministers shall be charged with the direction and control of the Government.” Law enforcement and public officials under the direction of the relevant Minister have been designated under existing laws to specifically address drug-related offences and any other illegal and/ or criminal activity that seemingly fall within the mandate of this Task Force. The independence of public officials will be compromised if they are compelled to report to a military-dominated body. The Gazette provides no detail on how this reporting process would operate, or the legal consequences of refusing to act as instructed.
“Few doubt that this task force will be used as another tool to suppress speech and target critics of the Sri Lankan government. It is disturbing that such a potentially consequential body has been formed pursuant to broad presidential powers, with no reference to judicial or parliamentary oversight,” said Rawski. “Vague and overbroad language such as ‘anti-social activities’ could effectively criminalize expression protected under international law. Such provisions are inconsistent with the rule of law and contravene the principle of legality.”
The task force’s military and police membership follows a pattern of recent military appointments to civil administrative positions by the incumbent President. The military personnel appointed include officials credibly accused of war crimes. Chairman Major General Kamal Gunaratne was the commander of the 53rd division and Major General Shavendra Silva was the commander of the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan Army. Both units were identified by multiple UN investigatory bodies as having been involved in the commission of serious crimes and human rights violations during the last stages of Sri Lanka’s decades-long armed conflict which ended in 2009.
The ICJ called upon President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to rescind the extraordinary gazette establishing the Presidential Task Force. The role of the military in public life must be strictly circumscribed and matters pertaining to civil administrcation should be executed by elected and public officials in respect of the rule of law and principles of democratic governance.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
