Mar 26, 2020 | News
The ICJ, Amnesty International, ARTICLE 19, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, CIVICUS and Human Rights Watch today called on Singapore authorities to drop investigations of human rights lawyer M Ravi and two other individuals under Singapore’s contempt of court law and cease their harassment of human rights defenders.
On 13 March, police raided the office of human rights lawyer M Ravi, editor of an independent news website, Terry Xu, seizing his phone, passport and firm’s laptop.
He is apparently under investigation for contempt of court under the Administration of Justice Act (AJPA).
The investigation followed the publication of articles on independent media website ‘The Online Citizen’ (TOC) relating to his client, Mohan Rajangam, a Singaporean who challenged the legality of his extradition from Malaysia in 2015.
The same day, police raided the home of Terry Xu, TOC’s editor, and confiscated his electronic equipment. He is also being investigated for contempt of court under the AJPA, after he published articles on Rajangam’s case. Two other individuals are also being subject to investigation, including Rajangam himself and a writer for the TOC.
Even as the police have stated that the publication online on TOC of parts of Rajangam’s affidavit breached contempt of court regulations, it is unclear what exact content poses a risk of prejudice to the court proceedings.
“The contempt of court doctrine under common law was, for years, used by authorities to curtail speech surrounding politically sensitive topics and cases,” noted Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“After the coming into force of the AJPA, the contempt regime is even more vulnerable for misuse – these current raids and investigations only evidence that how the law can be abused to violate the rights of individuals.”
Investigations of the four individuals for contempt of court continue. The ICJ has been informed that as of 15 March, M Ravi had put the police on notice that the contents of his mobile phone and laptop are subject to legal professional privilege and should remain confidential until a formal ruling is made by a court of law on the matter.
Terry Xu and M Ravi have been targeted and harassed constantly by authorities for information they have released in their professional capacities as an independent journalist and human rights lawyer respectively – notably through abuse of legal mechanisms. Terry Xu is currently fighting pending cases in court relating to alleged defamation of political officials and Singapore’s problematic Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). M Ravi has similarly faced action by the Attorney-General’s Chambers for his advocacy against the death penalty.
“In the lead-up to elections, it is even more crucial that the Singapore government ensure that freedom of expression, opinion and information are protected and that independent media is allowed to operate to ensure communication of a diversity of opinions and ideas and inform public opinion,” said Rawski.
“For these reasons we urge the authorities to cease harassment of the four individuals and call on them to drop investigations against them”.
Read the joint statement here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
In its 2019 regional report, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, the ICJ found that in Singapore contempt of court proceedings have been used to curtail freedom of expression and information under the guise of “maintaining orderly proceedings” and “protecting public confidence in the judiciary”, particularly in cases of online criticism touching on politically sensitive matters.
In October 2017, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 came into force, despite well founded concerns that its vague provisions could result in abusive interpretation and implementation, given existing trends of use of contempt of court under common law to limit freedom of expression.
The AJPA lowered the threshold for contempt in what is referred to as “scandalizing the Court”, expanding judicial powers to punish such contempt with increased and onerous penalties. Section 3(1) criminalizes the “scandalizing of court” through (i) “impugning the integrity, propriety or impartiality” of judges by “intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that… poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined” (section 3(1)(a)); and (ii) “intentional” publishing of any material which interferes with pending court proceedings, or sub judice contempt (section 3(1)(b)). Section 3(1)(a) reduced the threshold for “scandalizing” contempt to a mere “risk” of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, where the common law test established in the landmark case of Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan was to establish a “real risk” of such undermining of confidence. This exacerbated a standard that was already deeply problematic.
Section 12(1) of the AJPA increased the maximum penalty for “scandalizing” contempt to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of S$100,000 (approx. USD 72,051) or both, when under common law, a six-week imprisonment sentence and S$20,000 (approx. USD 14,410) fine had been deemed appropriate.
Mar 25, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called on the South African government to take urgent and immediate measures to ensure the full protection human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, in the context of the COVID 19 epidemic.
The call comes as South Africa’s 21-day nationwide lockdown is poised to commence tomorrow, 26 March 2020. As it stands the human rights of the majority of South African residents are under serious threat.
“The ICJ is calling on the South African government to take effective measures ensure that addressing one human rights crisis does need lead to new human rights pressures” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of or the ICJ Africa Programme.
“We therefore call on the authorities to take three urgent steps: 1) Declare a moratorium on all evictions; 2) Ensure emergency provision of water to all; and 3) publically repudiate xenophobic statements made by Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni and affirm non-citizens rights to work”.
- Declaration of a moratorium on all evictions:
In the context of COVID-19, evictions are particularly dangerous and life-threatening. Evictions risk the further spread of COVID-19 and make it impossible to stay at home as the World Health Organization has advised.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing, has called for a global ban on evictions worldwide, stressing that: “The logical extension of a logical stay at home policy is a global ban on evictions. There must be no evictions of anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Simply put: a global ban on evictions will save lives”. In South Africa, local social movements and human rights organizations have called for a “moratorium” on evictions, as has Abahlali BaseMjondolo a movement of tens of thousands of “shack dwellers” across the country.
The ICJ calls on President Ramaphosa to declare a moratorium on evictions immediately before the commencement of the nationwide lockdown. South Africa must do so to meet its international legal obligations to protect the rights to housing and health.
- Provision of emergency access to water before the lockdown commences:
Many people in South Africa live in informal settlements and rural settings in which access to water, sanitation and basic services are inadequate or inconsistent. The simple instruction of washing one’s hands to prevent the spread of the virus is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many.
The President announced on 23 March that “emergency water supplies” would be provided in “informal settlements and rural areas”. However, reports from around the country suggest that with lockdown beginning tomorrow many major informal settlements, including Khayelitsha in Cape Town, still do not have sufficient access to such emergency water.
The ICJ calls on President Ramaphosa to ensure that provision is made for all South Africans to have access to basic services, including water, before the commencement of national lockdown. South Africa must do so to meet its international legal obligations to protect the right to water.
- Protecting the right to work of “everyone” including non-citizens:
On 24 March 2020 speaking on national television, Minister of Small Business and Development in South Africa Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said that only spaza shops “owned by South Africans and managed and run by South Africans” will be allowed to continue operating during nationwide-lockdown, ostensibly to ensure the quality of goods and food.
This statement is discriminatory and in violation of South Africa’s commitments in terms of its own Constitution and international human rights law, to ensure non-discrimination and equal protection of the law. It risks a resurgence of existing xenophobic sentiment at a time of crisis which South Africa can ill afford and threatens the livelihood of foreign nationals.
The ICJ calls on President Ramaphosa to withdraw the statement immediately and reaffirm the internationally recognized right to equality of non-citizens including their right to work.
Contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: tim.hodgson(a)icj.org ; c: +2782871990
Shaazia Ebrahim, ICJ Media Officer, e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org ; c: +27716706719
Background:
The global Covid-19 pandemic has led South African president Cyril Ramaphosa to announce a 21-day nationwide lockdown which will be effective on 26 March at midnight. This follows on from South Africa’s declaration of a “national disaster” on 15 March and the publication of disaster regulations governing the disaster response.
Global consensus on best practice to combat COVID-19, as recommended by the World Health Organization, is for people to stay at home, maintain social distance and intensify hygiene measures including through frequent washing of hands. However, South Africa has well-documented and extremely high levels of poverty and inequality. A number of problems in complying with global best practice in response to COVID-19.
The disaster regulations require that measures taken to combat COVID-19 are implemented “as far as possible, without affecting service delivery in relation to the realisation of the rights” including the rights to housing and basic services, healthcare, social security and education.
Mar 24, 2020 | News
As the Thai government moves to exercise its power under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (2005) (“Emergency Decree”) to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, the ICJ reiterates its recommendations made since 2005 regarding lawful and proportionate exercise of this power in a manner consistent with Thailand’s obligations under international law.
The ICJ urges the Thai Government to take these recommendations into consideration when imposing any measures to address the COVID-19 outbreak:
- A state of emergency used to justify any permissible derogation from obligations under international human rights law must meet the standard that an emergency “threatens the life of the nation”, as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Parliament should play an active role in providing oversight.
- Any limitations on or derogation from the exercise of internationally guaranteed rights should be limited in duration, strictly necessary, and proportionate to the specific threat posed.
- Derogating measures may only limit the scope of other rights to the extent strictly necessary to meet a threat to the life of the nation, but they may not suspend the applicability of any right in its entirety.
- This necessity must be continually re-assessed so that the derogating measures apply for the shortest time possible. Certain human rights, including the right to life, the right to life, the freedom from torture or ill-treatment, the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy can never be restricted even in a state of emergency.
- It should be clearly stated which officials have responsibility for implementing the provisions of the emergency law and what their powers and responsibilities are.
- All officials responsible for implementing the law should be explicitly stated to be under the authority of the ordinary law of Thailand, with no immunity for any criminal acts carried out in the exercise of their responsibilities.
- The decisions and actions of officials exercising powers under the emergency law should be subject to review by the courts.
Download the statement in Thai here.
Mar 23, 2020 | News
The ICJ called today on the Parliament of Hungary not to approve a Government bill that would extend indefinitely the emergency powers of the executive to counter the Covid-19 pandemic.
The proposed legislation would enable executive rule by decree, without parliamentary approval, and would impose harsh restrictions on freedom of expression.
“States of emergency, whatever the reason to invoke them, must never be allowed to become permanent,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Emergency measures that restrict human rights must be constantly reassessed to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. And even where measures are temporarily necessary, they should be subject to a “sunset clause” that ensure that it can be reviewed and will lapse if no longer justified ”.
The Hungarian emergency legislation includes offences of publishing false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or cause public alarm – offences which have the potential to significantly and unduly restrict freedom of expression.
International human rights law requires that any interference with freedom of expression must be in sufficiently clear terms to be adequately prescribed by law and must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim that it serves.
“This legislation is particularly worrying in a context where the Hungarian government has systematically undermined the rule of law and protection of human rights, including freedom of the media and civil society, and the independence of the judiciary in recent years,” Róisín Pillay added.
“The emergency powers are therefore particularly open to arbitrary or abusive application, without effective scrutiny by parliament or an independent judiciary.”
Background
The Bill on Protection against the Coronavirus (Bill T/9790) in the form of tabled by the Government will extend the state of danger that it had ordered by government decree from 11 March 2020.
The ICJ understands that the Bill will allow the government to rule by decree without Parliamentary scrutiny. The legislation would make it a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, to publish false or distorted facts that interfere with protection of the public or that alarm or agitate the public, or to interfere with a quarantine or isolation order.
Under international treaties to which Hungary is a party, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States may take emergency measures to derogate from their international human rights law obligations in times of crisis, only the extent strictly necessary to protect the life of the nation. Derogating measures may only limit the scope of certain rights to the extent strictly necessary to meet a threat to the life of the nation, but they do not entirely suspend the applicability of any right in its entirety.
This necessity must be continually re-assessed so that the derogating measures apply for the shortest time possible. Certain human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, and the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy can never be restricted even in a state of emergency.
Mar 20, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the execution today of four men who were convicted of raping and murdering a 23-year-old student in December 2012.
The ICJ denounced the executions, and urged the Indian Government to abolish the death penalty. It called on the Government to introduce systemic changes to the legal system that would deter violence and improve access to justice for women.
“State-sanctioned executions are little more than public theatre that risk celebrating and perpetuating violence at the expense of the rule of law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “As heinous as these crimes were, the imposition of the death penalty – the deterrent effect of which has been widely debunked – does nothing to improve the lives of women.”
According to senior lawyer Vrinda Grover, a renowned Indian human rights defender, “In 2013, the criminal laws were amended; however seven years later the graph of rapes has not diminished.”
Instead of compelling the state to invest in plugging the gaps in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual crimes and formulating victim oriented processes, the clamour for execution of the convicts has hijacked the discourse. Seven years later, the power of the state to extinguish life stands entrenched, while women and girls in India continue to struggle to live a life of freedom, safety and dignity, as equal persons, ” said Vrinda Grover.
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “[t]he death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception as a violation of right to life and to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ called upon the Indian Government to join the large majority of States and take immediate steps to end the practice of capital punishment, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
To download the full statement with background information, click here.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Read Also
ICJ, Press Release, September 2013 – India: Executing perpetrators of Delhi Gang Rape Case ‘counterproductive to preventing sexual violence’
Mar 20, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations on strengthening Thailand’s Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law to the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice is tasked to conduct a “study on the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP,” in accordance with Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022) (NAP).
Articles 161/1 and 165/2, which are intended to implement the NAP, entered into force on 20 February 2019 and 21 March 2019. They were introduced to end SLAPP lawsuits or similar forms of harassment through the legal process against any individuals, including human rights defenders. NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.
The use of SLAPPs and similar procedures frequently undermine human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly and the right to political participation. These are protected under Thailand’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
In the letter, the ICJ expressed its concern that these laws were inadequate to prevent harassment through the legal process and SLAPP. The ICJ therefore called for the adoption of a comprehensive stand-alone law, or the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to protect human rights defenders and others from harassment through the legal process.
Background
In an effort to give effect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), on 29 October 2019, Thailand’s Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP sets out plans to be followed by public and private stakeholders to ensure that businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations – respect human rights, and that the government fulfils its duty to ensure remedy and reparation in cases of business-related human rights violations.
The Thai government has identified in the NAP its four key priority issues: (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting human rights defenders, including:
- to study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP;
- to push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of human rights defenders, for example with respect to witness protection laws;
- to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, and ensure their safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures;
- to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights, and preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders;
- to provide trainings and enhance capacity of lawyers;
- to urge businesses to ensure that human rights defenders will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected;
- to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system; and
- to increase access to justice of human rights defenders.
However, NAP’s effectiveness is yet to be assessed because it does not have the status of a law, and is merely a resolution by the executive branch of the Thai government. The NAP was adopted in the form of a Cabinet Resolution, which is considered a “by-law” in accordance with section 3 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).
Download the letter to the Ministry of Justice in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ and HRLA express concern about inadequate protections for human rights defenders in draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022)
