Jul 6, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in highlighting key outcomes of the 38th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) at the end of the session, read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud due to the limited time available):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolutions on civil society space, peaceful protest, on violence against women and girls and on discrimination against women and girls and the Council’s rejection of attempts to impede progress on protecting civic space, peaceful protest and the rights to sexual and reproductive health.
On civil society space, the resolution recognizes the essential contribution that civil society makes to international and regional organisations and provides guidance to States and organisations on improving their engagement with civil society. On peaceful protest, it sets out in greater detail how international law and standards protect rights related to protests.
On violence against women and on discrimination against women, we consider that ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights are vital in efforts to combat violence and discrimination against women, online and offline, as well as to ensure targeted and specific remedies to victims. We appreciate that the work of women human rights defenders towards this is recognised.
We consider the adoption of the resolution on the contribution of the Council to the prevention of human rights violations as an important opportunity to advance substantive consideration on strengthening the Council’s ability to deliver on its prevention mandate.
Following challenging negotiations, we welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on human rights and the Internet, reaffirming that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, and calling on States to tackle digital divides between and within countries, emphasising the importance of tools for anonymity and encryption for the enjoyment of human rights online, in particular for journalists, and condemning once more all measures that prevent or disrupt access to information online.
We welcome continued Council attention to Eritrea‘s abysmal human rights record. This year’s resolution, while streamlined, extends expert monitoring of, and reporting on, the country and outlines a way forward for both engagement and human rights reform. We urge Eritrea to engage in long-overdue meaningful cooperation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus under item 4 with an increased vote – as it is still the only independent international mechanism to effectively monitor human rights violations in Belarus – while remaining concerned over a narrative to shift the mandate to item 10 in the absence of any systemic change in Belarus.
We welcome the consensus resolution on the DRC, putting in place continued monitoring and follow up on the expert’s recommendations on the Kasais. However, given violations and abuses throughout several regions in the country, occurring against the backdrop of an ongoing political crisis, delayed elections, and the brutal quashing of dissent, we urge the Council to promptly move towards putting in place a country-wide mechanism that can respond to events on the ground as they emerge.
We welcome the strong resolution on Syria, which condemns violations and abuses by all parties, and appropriately addresses concerns raised by the COI about the use of chemical weapons, sexual and gender-based violence, and the need to address situations of detainees and disappearances. The Council cannot stay silent in the face of continued atrocities as the conflict continues unabated into its seventh year.
We welcome the joint statements delivered this session on Cambodia, the Philippines, and Venezuela. We urge Council members and observers to work towards increased collective action to urgently address the dire human rights situations in these countries.
On the Philippines, we emphasise that the Council should establish an independent international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ and mandate the OHCHR to report on the human rights situation and on moves toward authoritarianism.
The joint statement on Cambodia represents a glimmer of hope after the Council’s failure to take meaningful action against clear sabotage of democratic space ahead of elections. Close scrutiny of the human rights situation before, during and after the elections is paramount and the Council must take immediate action on current and future human rights violations in this regard.
We welcome the joint statement delivered by Luxembourg calling on the HRC President to provide oral updates on cases of alleged intimidation or reprisal, including actions taken, at the start of the Item 5 general debate of each Council session and also provide States concerned with the opportunity to respond.
Finally, the new Council member to replace the United States of America should demonstrate a principled commitment to human rights, to multilateralism and to addressing country situations of concern by applying objective criteria.
Signatories:
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- The Association for Progressive Communications
- The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jul 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ condemned today the forced retirement of 27 out of 72 judges of the Supreme Court of Poland in defiance of the most basic principles on the independence of the judiciary.
“The forced retirement of a third of the Supreme Court under the new law on the judiciary amounts to an arbitrary dismissal of judges” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, “It is a flagrant breach of a basic tenet of the independence of the judiciary, the security of tenure of judges.”
The government claims the law and its implementing measure of forced retirements are aimed at improving the administration of justice. However, the ICJ considers them to be a deliberate attempt to destroy judicial independence and install executive control.
“We call on the Polish authorities to follow the EU’s recommendations, abolish this draconian legislation and immediately reinstate the Supreme Court justices. Not to do so strikes at the very core of judicial independence”, said Róisín Pillay.
“Universal principles of judicial independence guaranteeing security of tenure were developed long ago exactly to safeguard the kind of abuse of political authority driving this forced retirement measure, whereby judges would serve at the pleasure of the government of the day,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the implementation of the new law on the Supreme Court and the dismissal of the 27 Supreme Court Justices directly contravenes the security of tenure of judges and, hence, the principle of judicial independence, as expressed in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Council of Europe standards, the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and the rule of law principle of the EU Treaties.
Poland-Attacks on judiciary-News-web stories-2018-ENG (full story – with additional background information – in PDF)
Jul 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ held a workshop in Mawlamyine on 3 July attended by religious leaders and youth activists from southern Mon State in Myanmar’s southeast.
The workshop aimed to facilitate discussion on strategic litigation options for communities adversely affected by existing and proposed investment projects.
The ICJ and civil society organizations have extensively documented how human rights abuses continue to occur in the context of business activities in Myanmar.
Communities generally have limited understanding of their rights, while government actors and businesses regularly flout their legal obligations.
The ICJ’s international legal adviser Sean Bain first set out applicable international standards, with a focus on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
He identified Myanmar’s nascent legal framework for environmental protection as a key area of law with potential to deter rights abuses. He noted that while in December 2015 the Government of Myanmar issued the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, its provisions are rarely followed or enforced in practice.
Workshop participants, from two different areas of Mon State, shared experiences of community mobilization and ideas on how to use law to protect human rights.
Presentation on Corporate Social Responsibility
Prior to this workshop, also in Mawlamyine, on 29 June the ICJ’s legal adviser presented on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at invitation of the national assembly of MATA, the Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability.
Introduced to Myanmar only in recent years, CSR activities are increasingly invoked by foreign and local companies as evidence of responsible investment.
But in reality, many companies doing CSR have been and continue to be involved in unlawful business activities, sometimes constituting human rights abuses.
Participants from different areas of Myanmar shared stories of businesses using CSR activities in a non-transparent way without accountability.
Cases were described where CSR has allegedly been associated with corruption, undermining trust and cohesion in communities affected by large investment projects.
The presentation from ICJ pointed out that while CSR activities are voluntary and without a specific legal framework, all businesses are subject to national law and should respect human rights in accordance with international law and standards, including the UN Guiding Principles.
Lawful conduct that respects human rights lies at the core of any responsible business, and CSR activities do not change these obligations.
These activities in Mon State are part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to civil society actors in Myanmar, from community-level up to national level actors.
Jul 4, 2018 | News
Today the ICJ called on Thai prosecutorial authorities to immediately end the prosecution of five persons associated with academic activities in Chiang Mai. The five have been made subject to prosecution solely for exercising their rights to free expression and assembly.
Those subject to prosecution include Pakawadee Veerapatpong, an independent writer and translator; Chaipong Samnieng, a PhD candidate at Chiang Mai University; Nontawat Machai, an undergraduate student at Chiang Mai University; Teeramon Bua-ngam, a Masters student at Chiang Mai University and news editor; and Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, a Professor at Chiang Mai University.
The ICJ also called for the revocation or amendment of all laws, orders and announcements inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Today, the Region V Public Prosecutor in Chiang Mai province formally notified the five individuals that they would be prosecuted for violating HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 (2015) (‘HNCPO Order 3’) for merely expressing their opinions at an academic forum at Chiang Mai University in July 2017.
HNCPO Order 3 prohibits the gathering of five or more persons for political purposes, carrying a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding 10,000 Baht.
“The ongoing and abusive use of HNCPO Order 3 to stifle free expression in Thailand remains indefensible and an obstacle to the full restoration of the rule of law in Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The decision to indict these five individuals is clearly in breach of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and should be reversed immediately together with the termination of the proceedings and the revocation of HNCPO Order 3,” he added.
The Public Prosecutor’s decision to indict the five was made against a backdrop of recently increasing repression of fundamental freedoms in the country.
This year alone, at least 132 persons were reportedly charged under HNCPO Order 3 in 10 cases and six incidents in connection with a movement calling for elections to be held this year.
Twenty-seven of these individuals were also charged with a sedition-like offence, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Since the military coup of 22 May 2014, at least 378 persons have been reportedly charged in relation to 50 cases of violating the ban on political gatherings of five or more persons according to a report launched on 22 June 2018 by leading Thai NGO, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).
In March and June 2018, at the Human Rights Council, the ICJ called on Thailand to revoke or amend all laws, orders and announcements that are contrary to the rule of law and human rights protections.
“Four years have passed since the military coup resulting in numerous unjustifiable restrictions on fundamental freedoms – it is long past time for Thailand to undertake reform necessary to prevent the legal system from being misused to harass individuals who merely exercise their human rights,” said Abbott.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Background
The Region V Public Prosecutor’s decision in Chiang Mai province follows charges filed against the individuals by a military officer in 2017.
Pakawadee Veerapatpong, Chaipong Samnieng and Nontawat Machai had allegedly held up three A4-sized messages which read “an academic forum is not a military barracks” at the academic conference.
Teeramon Bua-ngam had reportedly taken a picture of himself standing next to the messages and posted the same on social media.
Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti had reportedly watched the display of the messages without asking for them to be removed, despite being an organizer of the conference.
Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the ICCPR guarantee the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Since the military coup, the ICJ has expressed its concern about the use of a new legal framework and pre-existing laws to clamp down on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, including criminal defamation (Articles 326-328 of the Thai Criminal Code), the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007), a sedition-like offence (Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code), and HNCPO Order 3.
Read also
ICJ and TLHR Joint Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
ICJ and TLHR Joint Follow-up Submission to the Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
Thailand-Academics indicted-News-Web Story-2018-THA (story in Thai, PDF)
Jul 2, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ, along with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, made a join statement about the special investigation of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen.
The investigation of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, should genuinely seek to establish Billy’s fate and whereabouts, continually and fully inform his family on developments.
The investigation should also bring persons identified as responsible, irrespective of rank or status, to justice in a fair trial, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
The organizations also called on authorities to expedite long overdue legal and administrative measures to provide better protection against enforced disappearance, in compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
On 28 June 2018, following a meeting of the Special Case Committee No. 1/2018, the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigations (“DSI”) made the welcome announcement that it had decided to recognize the apparent enforced disappearance of Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen an ethnic Karen activist, as a “Special Case” that must be “investigated in accordance with the Special Case Investigation Act, B.E. 2547 (2004)”, that is, by the DSI itself.
Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials in Thailand’s Phetchaburi province.
At the time of his apparent enforced disappearance, Billy had been working with ethnic Karen villagers and activists on legal complaints against the National Park officials for purportedly burning and destroying their houses, farms, and other properties.
The DSI’s announcement followed a long-standing request by Billy’s wife, Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, and years of advocacy by the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch calling on the DSI to assume jurisdiction over the case.
They are also calling the DSI to conduct a prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigation into his fate or whereabouts consistent with international law and standards, including the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in collaboration with the Thai Ministry of Justice on 25 May 2017.
The revised Minnesota Protocol states that if investigators are unable to locate a body or remains, they should continue to gather other direct and circumstantial evidence which may suffice for identifying the perpetrator(s).
Despite the existence of a wealth of information relevant to the circumstances surrounding Billy’s apparent enforced disappearance, the four-year-old police investigation has been marked by a significant lack of progress.
At the same time, Thailand has yet to honor its repeated commitments to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), which it signed on 9 January 2012.
Thai authorities have failed to implement Thailand’s international legal obligations to provide justice for the victims of enforced disappearance and their families. Perpetrators are able to evade penalties, at least in part because Thai laws still do not make enforced disappearance a specific criminal offence.
The Convention affirms that “no one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance” and places an obligation on states to investigate acts of enforced disappearance, to bring those responsible to justice, and make it a criminal offence punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its “extreme seriousness”.
On 10 March 2017, Thailand’s legislative body, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), voted in favor of ratifying the ICPPED. However, on 6 September 2017, the ICJ was informed by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a decision had been taken to delay the ratification of the ICPPED until legislation had been enacted to give domestic effect to the treaty.
Irrespective of ICPPED ratification, Thailand is also obliged to effectively investigate and prosecute the crime of enforced disappearance under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention against Torture (CAT).
Efforts to pass a law making torture, other acts of ill-treatment and enforced disappearance specific offences in Thai law have also stalled.
Thailand’s Ministry of Justice notes that a second round of public consultations on a Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (‘Draft Act’) has been concluded and that it is now in the process of evaluating the consultations.
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urge that this process be hastened.
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reviewed several versions of the Draft Act and are seriously concerned that adoption of the Draft Act as it currently stands will fail to bring the law into compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
On 30 August 2017, 23 November 2017, and 12 March 2018, civil society organizations, including the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, sent open letters to the Government, including to Thailand’s Minister of Justice, outlining amendments that would be necessary to bring the Draft Act in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott(a)icj.org
Full statement in English (PDF): Thailand-Special-investigation-Billy-News-Press-releases-June-2018-ENG
Full statement in Thai (PDF): Thailand-Special-investigation-Billy-News-Press-releases-June-2018-THA
Jun 28, 2018 | News
On 24-25 June, ICJ Commissioners from the Latin America region came together in Bogotá, Colombia, to consider and enhance ICJ strategies to combat past and resurging trends in extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances in the region.
The meeting was the first of its kind to bring together ICJ Commissioners on a regional basis: Carlos Ayala (Venezuela); Miguel Carbonell (Mexico); Gustavo Gallón (Colombia); Roberto Garretón (Chile); Juan Mendez (Argentina); Victor Rodriguez Rescia (Costa Rica); Alejandro Salinas Rivera (Chile); Mónica Pinto (Argentina); Belisário dos Santos Júnior (Brazil); and Wilder Tayler (Uruguay).
The meeting was followed by a preparatory mission (involving two Commissioners and the ICJ’s legal representative in Colombia) on the transitional justice mechanisms envisaged under the Havana Agreement, with a particular emphasis on the jurisdiction and operation of the ‘Special Jurisdiction for Peace’. A full high-level mission will follow in September, at which time the ICJ intends to identify minimum benchmarks for the effective operation and sustainable impact of those mechanisms.
In all regions of the world, recourse to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings continues; victims and their families (the overwhelming majority of whom are women, children and indigenous peoples from rural areas dominated by poverty and social and political exclusion, as well as trade unionists and human rights defenders) struggle to obtain prompt and effective remedies and reparation; and perpetrators enjoy impunity through inadequate or improper laws, ineffective institutional frameworks, selective recourse to accountability mechanisms and/or political interference in the functioning of those mechanisms.
The meeting confirmed that these challenges are particularly evident in Latin America, where there has been a resurgence in recourse to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in countries throughout the region and where violations of the past have in very many cases been inadequately addressed. By way of example:
- In Brazil, official statistics from 2016 attest to the occurrence of 62,000 violent deaths and potentially up to 22,000 enforced disappearances each year.
- 45 years after the coup d’état in Chile, about 800 people have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, but those figures belie the extensive occurrence and levels of responsibility for gross violations of human rights that occurred.
- In Colombia, more than 70,000 cases of enforced disappearance were documented by the Attorney General for the period 1970-2015 and there is general consensus that the number of missing persons likely exceeds 100,000. The wide and persistent extent of extrajudicial killings has been noted by UN and Inter-American experts and bodies as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
- In Guatemala, only 34 convictions for conduct involving conflict-era violations have been secured, despite the fact that the internal armed conflict of 1960-1996 involved massive and systematic human rights violations. Impunity has undermined redress and accountability and severely weakened the prevention of violations, with the National Civil Police having recorded more than 25,000 people ‘disappeared’ in 2003-2014, more than half of which were women.
- Peru’s internal armed conflict of 1980-2000 resulted in more than 69,000 people killed and ‘disappeared’, but less than 100 convictions have been secured under the judicial subsystem established in 2004 that specializes in accountability for gross human rights violations.
- In Venezuela, civil society reports at least 12,000 real or perceived political opponents having been arbitrarily detained between January 2014 and April 2018; and almost 6,000 alleged extrajudicial killings between 2012 and 2016.
In all the countries from which the Commissioners originate, several common factors were identified:
- The intrinsic risks to continuation of and lack of redress and accountability for gross human rights violations posed by executive action that undermines the rule of law;
- Also inherent to the rule of law, the critical need for independent and impartial judicial mechanisms and individual judges and lawyers to allow for transitional justice, in particular for victims and their families to access effective remedies and reparation and for the holding to account of perpetrators;
- A high level of correspondence between impunity for gross human rights violations and the corruption of public officials;
- The increased, and in some cases extensive, recourse to arbitrary and detention, which in many cases precede and allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances;
- A similar inter-relationship between enforced disappearances and the occurrence of torture and other forms of ill-treatment;
- The detrimental impact to ensuring accountability for violations of the past when omitting non-State and paramilitary actors from transitional justice processes; and
- The increase in highly conservative (political and popular) sentiments and movements within the region and the corresponding need to tailor responses depending on the democratic versus autocratic nature of government and its institutions.
Noting that the ICJ has long sought to combat extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, including through the development of UN and regional instruments and standards and through its action in Latin America and the globe, the ICJ’s Commissioners urged the ICJ to continue and expand its engagement. Noting also the increasing call by local civil society actors for support and intervention by the ICJ, the meeting considered the organization’s role in seeking redress and accountability for, and prevention of, gross violations of human rights.
Commissioners reinforced, and commented on the effective parameters of, the ICJ’s strategic and victim-centred approach to address and prevent gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. Having regard to the ICJ’s mandate and worldwide network of judges and lawyers, Commissioners emphasized the unique role that the organization has by grounding its work on the transformative role of the law, justice institutions and justice actors.
The particular means by which this role can be achieved by the ICJ were discussed against the background of recent and planned activities in the region and beyond. Commissioners overwhelmingly supported these plans and the Secretariat is now poised to continue implementation of its strategies in its current programmes of work and in the development of future projects.
