Mar 9, 2017 | News
Amnesty International and the ICJ regret the decision of Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to further delay the passage of essential legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations call on the Thai government to cease its stalling measures and instead prioritize the amendment of the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Draft Act) in order to bring it into line with international law. The government should then ensure its passage into law without undue delay.
On 28 February, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that it had been informed that the NLA would not enact the Draft Act. The following day, an NLA official speaking to BBC Thai confirmed that the draft would be “returned [to the Thai Cabinet] for more consultations… with Interior officials, police authorities, the national security sector, military authorities and prosecutors.”
The Draft Act is the result of years of effort by government authorities, including by Ministry of Justice officials who consulted with our organizations and took account of many of our recommendations in elaborating it. The draft was approved by Thailand’s Cabinet in May 2016.
The recent decision by the NLA has indefinitely delayed the enactment of this important piece of legislation, which would represent a significant step towards preventing torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
The slow-tracking of this law in the face of all the commitments Thailand has made over the years right up to last year is extremely disappointing, especially for the victims of torture and enforced disappearances who have struggled to obtain justice in the absence of a clear legal framework.
The most recent version of the Draft Act addresses many existing gaps in Thailand’s current legal framework and could support Thailand’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. However, further amendments are needed to address significant shortcomings in the Draft Act.
In particular, the Draft Act omits key elements from the definitions of torture and enforced disappearances, does not criminalize acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and fails to define enforced disappearance as a continuing crime. Additionally, the Draft Act does not extend criminal liability beyond the direct commission of the act and fails to unequivocally bar the use as evidence in court proceedings of statements obtained by torture.
Thailand should make it a top priority to address these and other concerns and to enact the law as soon as possible. The urgent need to amend and enact the Draft Act is underscored by recent reports alleging the use of torture and other ill-treatment by state security forces and the continued failure to hold accountable perpetrators of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations remain committed to providing any necessary assistance to the Thai government in amending the Draft Act or otherwise acting to prevent torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
Background
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and has signed, but not ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The expert UN bodies overseeing the implementation of these treaties have consistently called upon states parties to criminalise torture and enforced disappearance as specific crimes.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR.
In Thailand’s 15 November 2016 reply to the Committee’s List of Issues,[1] it noted that it was in the process of passing the Draft Law which would “provide clear definition and set up specific offence on torture to be in line with the terms set forth under CAT” and “serve as an implementing legislation for ICPPED.”
It also noted that the Draft Act “aims to strengthen the prevention, suppression, and prosecution mechanism and to ensure remedy for victims as well as address the problem of misuse, and abuses of power by government authorities with regard to torture and enforced disappearances.”
It concluded by noting that “[o]n 24 May 2016, the Cabinet approved the draft Act in principle. The draft has been reviewed by the Council of State and is currently waiting to be submitted to the legislative branch for consideration.”
[1] Human Rights Committee, “Replies of Thailand to the List of Issues,” U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/THA/Q/2/Add.1, para 51.
Thailand-Joint Statement-Torture Legislation-News-2017-ENG (Press release in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, Tel: +66 94 470 1345, E-mail: Kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 8, 2017 | Events, News
During March to April 2017 the ICJ conducted consultations on draft Principles and Guidelines on the role of judges and lawyers in relation to large movements of refugees and migrants.
The initial consultation meeting took place in Geneva on Thursday, 9 March 2017, 15:00 – 16:30 at the Palais des Nations, Room XXI.
At this side event the ICJ presented and received feedback from States and civil society on draft ICJ Principles on the Role of Judges and Lawyers in relation to Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants.
The Principles were developed by the ICJ on the basis of consultations with senior judges, lawyers, and legal scholars working in the field of international refugee and migration law. The ICJ published the final version of the Principles, together with commentary, in May 2017.
The Principles seek to help judges and lawyers, as well as legislators and other government officials, better secure human rights and the rule of law in the context of large movements of refugees and migrants. They are intended to complement existing relevant legal and other international instruments, as well as the Principles and practical guidance on the protection of the human rights of migrants in vulnerable situations within large and/or mixed movements being developed by the OHCHR.
The final version of the Principles is available here.
More information about the earlier consultations and overall process of development of the Principles is available here.
Mar 8, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
Today the ICJ submitted a brief opposing the current efforts by South Africa to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Court.
The brief was submitted in collaboration with a number of South Africa’s leading jurists to the South African Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services.
The brief was signed by Retired South African Constitutional Court Justices Laurie Ackermann; Richard Goldstone; Johann Kriegler; Yvonne Mokgoro, Kate O’Regan, Zak Yacoob. It was co-signed by Navi Pillay, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, former judge of the ICC and former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Wilder Tayler, Secretary General, signed on behalf of the ICJ
The ICJ and leading South Africa jurists call on South African Parliamentarians not to pass The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act Repeal Bill [B23-2016].
They also urge South Africa to remain a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC and engage, where appropriate with other African States, in actively pursuing appropriate reforms within the Assembly of State Parties, with a view to making the ICC more effective in advancing the objectives of international justice.
“South Africa should actively encourage other African states to put in place legislation required to empower domestic courts with the ability to try genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. South Africa should continue to work constructively with civil society on the advancement of international criminal justice,” the report stated.
“Pursuit of justice and pursuit of peace are complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives that South Africa will best achieve by remaining party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Its not an either or situation. Protecting heads of States from justice whatever they do compromises peace too much,” said Retired Justice Zak Yacoob.
The report also underscored the danger of an impunity gap if South Africa pulls out of the ICC, as there would be no other effective regional or international forum in which to prosecute the most serious crimes under international law.
“Given the devastating impact of impunity on the rule of law, on development efforts and on society at large, it is vital that South Africa projects itself as a leader in anti-impunity efforts in the region. Pulling out of the Rome Statute of the ICC would crush the best chances that Africa has today to tackle the pervasive impunity that affects the region and would be a most unfortunate move for South Africa and the wider international community,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ.
Background
South Africa is one of the earliest parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. It signed the Rome Statute on the day it was adopted, 17 July 1998, and ratified it on 27 November, 2000. Both during the negotiations preceding the Rome Conference that established the Court in 1998, and at the Conference itself, South Africa played a leading role.
However, the events of June 2015 surrounding the arrival of President Omar al Bashir of Sudan in South Africa appears to have engendered a shift in South Africa’s posture, leading many observers to call into question the country’s commitment to international justice.
The failure by South African authorities to arrest and surrender President al Bashir to the ICC, although he had been indicted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, led to the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) taking the government to court to compel it to fulfil its obligations both under the Rome Statute and the Implementation of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (Implementation Act).
On 19 October 2016, the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation gave notice of South Africa’s intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute.
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services put out a call for submissions to be made to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act Repeal Bill [B23-2016] to be made by 8th March 2017. The ICJ Brief was filed pursuant to that call.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Programme, arnold.tsunga@icj.org and +277 164 059 26
RSA-ICC Withdrawal-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017 (Analysis brief in PDF)
Mar 7, 2017 | News
The ICJ welcomes Thailand’s decision to drop spurious criminal defamation complaints against three prominent human rights defenders who had raised allegations of torture by security forces in Thailand’s restive deep South.
“It’s good news that the Thai military has dropped these unfounded complaints, but these charges should never have been brought. Thailand should now ensure the allegations of torture and ill-treatment are independently and effectively investigated,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Thailand should also work to repair the considerable damage that was caused to alleged victims of torture and civil society who have been intimidated into silence by the prosecutions,” Zarifi continued.
On 10 February 2016, three Thai organizations, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Duay Jai Group (Hearty Support Group), and the Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP), issued a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Thai security forces in the deep South since 2004.
In response, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) brought criminal defamation complaints against the three co-editors, Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet (Director of the CrCF), Mr. Somchai Homlaor (Senior legal advisor to CrCF and Hearty Support Group), and Ms. Anchana Heemmina (founder and Director of the Hearty Support Group).
On 26 July 2016, the Thai police charged the three human rights defenders with criminal defamation by means of publication under Article 326 and 328 of the Penal Code, and importing false information to a computer system under Article 14 (1) of the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007).
The ICJ has been concerned by the abuse of criminal laws, including the already problematic criminal defamation law, as a means of effectively silencing human rights defenders.
“Thailand should now drop other outstanding criminal complaints against human rights defenders, including the complaint of sedition made against human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri, and ensure that they are protected from retaliation,” Zarifi said. “We look forward to the ISOC following through on its commitment to working with civil society to end torture and ill-treatment and bring any perpetrators to justice.”
Background
On 7 March 2017, the ISOC 4 Forward Command – created to resolve the situation in the deep South – and the three human rights defenders, held a joint press conference.
The ISOC 4 Forward Command announced the ISOC will drop the complaints, citing the need for authorities and NGOs to work together collaboratively to address alleged human rights violations. ISOC 4 Forward Command also announced the establishment of a “joint fact-finding committee” which will be made up of officials and NGOs to look into allegations of human rights violations and to explore preventative measures.
The dropping of the charges occurs against the backdrop of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) referring a draft law criminalizing torture and enforced disappearance back to the Cabinet, effectively delaying its passage indefinitely, despite Thailand’s repeated assurances on the international stage that it will pass the law in the near future.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a State Party.
In a joint submission to the Committee, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) called for an end to the legal harassment of human rights defenders and for all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance to be independently, impartially, and effectively investigated.
Further reading
https://www.icj.org/thailand-stop-use-of-defamation-charges-against-human-rights-defenders-seeking-accountability-for-torture/
https://www.icj.org/thailand-immediately-withdraw-criminal-complaints-against-human-rights-defenders/
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, ICJ, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org or mobile: +66 94 470 1345
Thailand-HRD dropped charges-news-2017-THA (Statement in Thai, PDF)
Mar 7, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the move of the Philippines’ House of Representatives to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
The ICJ has called on the country’s Senate to block this serious threat to human rights.
Earlier today, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 4727 on third and final reading by 216 votes. 54 voted “no”, and one abstained. The bill as amended reinstates the death penalty for drug-related crimes, more than 10 years after the Philippines had legally abandoned executions.
The approved bill will be transmitted to the Senate, where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
“The passage of the death penalty bill in the Philippine House of Representatives represents a turning point in the country, but one that is for the worse. It puts the Philippines in direct conflict with its international legal obligations,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Now it’s up to the Philippine Senate to stop this terrible and unconscionable move and preserve the Philippines’ status as a regional leader against the death penalty,” Gil added.
Since 2007, the Philippines has been a Party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), requiring all parties to abolish the death penalty in law and practice. Under the ICCPR and the Second Protocol, States are prohibited from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
“Passing this law will send a negative message to the international community that the Philippines is incapable of observing in good faith the international obligations it has expressly bound itself to,” Gil said.
Ever since it abolished the death penalty in 2006, the Philippines has been viewed by many observers as a regional and global leader on the drive to abolish capital punishment. Not only was it the very first Southeast Asian country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, it also played an instrumental role in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.
Since 2007, the Philippines has consistently co-sponsored multiple UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to its total abolition. These resolutions have been adopted with large majorities.
“The Duterte administration had already engaged in hundreds, if not thousands, of extrajudicial killings justified by unsubstantiated claims that such wholesale crimes will somehow respond to the country’s drug problem. The resumption of the death penalty compounds the horrors of this bloody campaign without any evidence whatsoever that this odious practice will in any way improve the alleged drug problem in the country,” Gil said.
Rather than the death penalty, studies have demonstrated that heightened enforcement efforts which increase the chances of actually being caught and punished are more effective in deterring criminal conduct.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Senate of the Philippines to reject in full the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty in the country in accordance with the Philippines’ international obligations.
Background
The bill approved by the House of Representatives (Lower House) will be transmitted to the Senate (Upper House), where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
If the bill is approved upon the third reading at the Senate without amendments, it will be presented to the President. The bill would become a law if and when it is signed by the President.
If, however, there are amendments on the bill at the Senate and the House of Representatives do not agree with these amendments, the differences would be settled by a Conference Committee of both Houses.
The recommendations of the Conference Committee would have to be approved by both Houses.
Contact
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, tel. no. +66 840 923 575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 3, 2017 | News
The ICJ today urged the Philippine Congress to bring a halt to the Government’s attempt to bring back capital punishment.
The Philippine Congress’s attempt to restore this heinous practice is in blatant breach of its international legal obligations.
The ICJ condemned the approval on second reading of a bill to restore the death penalty by the Philippines’ House of Representatives on 1 March 2017 and called on legislators to vigorously oppose it and prevent it from being passed on final reading.
If adopted, the legislation will place the Philippines at odds with its legal obligation under international treaties to which it is party, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the manner in which the bill was effectively railroaded through the Philippine House of Representatives this week when it passed on second reading House Bill 4727, which seeks to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
House Bill 4727 will be put to a final vote on third reading next week. Nominal voting will be done on the third reading of the bill, which means that one by one, legislators would be called to explain their vote.
To marshal enough support for the bill, pro-death penalty legislators struck off all other crimes that were proposed in the original bill to be punishable by death, such as plunder, treason, and rape.
As it stands now, House Bill 4727 imposes capital punishment only on commission of drug-related crimes. Proponents of the bill claim that this is to support the President’s “war on drugs”.
The controversial measure was approved only eight session days after it reached the plenary for debates on 1 February 2017.
“It is obvious that proponents of State killing as means of “justice” were intent on rushing the passage of the death penalty bill by thwarting any substantial discussion thereon and by pressuring into silence those who oppose it,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
A similar bill proposing to bring back the death penalty has been filed at the Philippine Senate. The Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the first hearing on the bill last 7 February 2017. The Committee Chair, Senator Richard Gordon, indefinitely suspended the hearing until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol.
“Until recently, the Philippines had set an example of regional and global best practice on the abolition of the death penalty. Reintroducing the death penalty will be an enormous move backward for the country,” Gil emphasized.
The move by the Philippines goes against a global trend towards abolition of the death penalty.
In December, the United Nations General Assembly voted by a large majority, for the sixth time, to adopt a resolution which called on states that have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it. It also called on all retentionist States to impose a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all cases and considers its use to be a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
Background
The leadership has sought to bypass normal procedures in hastily pushing through the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty at various stages of the Philippine Congress.
9 November 2016: the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms began hearings on the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty.
29 November 2016: the Sub-Committee approved the bill after it rushed through the proceedings, ignoring important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for such legislation. The bill was thereafter referred to the Committee on Justice for further deliberation.
7 December 2016: the Committee on Justice approved the bill and moved that it be debated in plenary.
1 February 2017: the plenary debate on House Bill 4727 began.
8 February 2017: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in a closed-door caucus among members of the supermajority, threatened that those who oppose the bill will be stripped of their leadership posts in Congress, i.e. committee chairmanships and Deputy Speakerships.
28 February 2017: amidst vehement objections from the opposition, the debate in plenary was ended. This was done despite the fact that only nine out of at least 50 members of Congress who had registered to interpellate the sponsors of the bill had been given the opportunity to do so.
1 March 2017: during the period of individual amendments, the sponsors of the bill invoked omnibus rejection to all proposed amendments, rejecting every proposal that was deemed inconsistent with the House leadership’s agenda of immediately passing the bill. Later that day, the period of individual amendments was ended, despite calls from legislators who wished to make further changes to the bill.
Contact
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, tel. no. +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
