Jul 29, 2016 | News
The ICJ condemns the executions of four persons in Indonesia. The ICJ vigorously calls on the Government of Indonesia to impose an immediate moratorium and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in the country.
“The execution of these four persons is reprehensible. Indonesia should stop further executions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“These executions damage Indonesia’s standing in the international community since they go against the growing international consensus around the world to abolish the death penalty,” he added.
The individuals executed shortly after midnight today were Freddy Budiman (Indonesia), Seck Osmane (Nigeria), Michael Titus Igweh (Nigeria), Humphrey Jefferson Ejike Eleweke (Nigeria).
Indonesia is a current member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, having been first elected in 2006.
The General Assembly resolution that created the Council specifically provides that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” (res 60/251, 2006, para 9).
According to the ICJ, one of the persons executed – Michael Igweh – was allegedly tortured by law enforcement authorities to extract his confession.
The Geneva-based organization, on several occasions, has called the Government of Indonesia’s attention to its violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. Any reliance on confessions extracted by torture would be a gross violation of the fairness of the trials.
“Because of the irreversible nature of the death penalty, trials in capital cases must scrupulously respect all international and regional standards protecting the right to a fair trial,” Zarifi further said.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment without exception and emphasizes the impact of the executions on the families of those who were executed.
The four persons executed were on a list of 14 people set to be executed soon. The other individuals are: Merri Utami (Indonesia), Zulfiqar Ali (Pakistan), Gurdip Singh (India), Frederick Luttar (Zimbabwe), Agus Hadi (Indonesia), Pujo Lestari (Indonesia), Eugene Ape (Nigeria), Okonkwo Nonso Kingsley (Nigeria), Ozias Sibanda (Nigeria) and Obinna Nwajagu (Nigeria).
The ICJ strongly urges the Government of Indonesia to stop any further executions, immediately impose a moratorium, and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 69/189, affirming for the fifth time that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling for countries that still maintain capital punishment to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of the ICJ, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Jul 27, 2016 | News
Thailand’s government should immediately stop allowing criminal defamation laws to be used to harass victims and human rights defenders who seek justice for alleged incidents of torture, the ICJ said today.
Yesterday, the government charged three human rights defenders (Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Somchai Homloar and Anchana Heemina, photo) under the criminal defamation provisions of the Penal Code and the Computer Crime Act, for publication of a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and other ill-treatment by the Thai authorities in the country’s restive deep South since 2004.
“Thailand must repeal or revise its vague and broad criminal defamation laws to prevent them from being used to silence human rights defenders and journalists working on important public interest issues,” said Wilder Tayler, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines under these laws has a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression – a right which is enshrined in treaties to which Thailand is a party and bound to uphold,” he added.
Also yesterday, the government used the same provisions to charge Naritsarawan Kaewnopparat, the niece of an army conscript who was killed after being severely punished by soldiers on a military base.
Although the Thai government has formally acknowledged that the death was caused by torture and compensated the family, none of the perpetrators have been held accountable for the death of Private Wichian Puaksom and have only faced military disciplinary sanctions of 30 days of detention or less, the ICJ reminds.
The case against Ms Kaewnopparat was brought by a military officer who alleges she accused him of being involved in her uncle’s death in the context of the family’s efforts to seek justice.
Last month, Thailand informed the Human Rights Council during its Universal Periodic Review that the Cabinet was considering a draft Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance.
It was reported that the Cabinet approved the draft law on 24 May 2016 and would forward it for approval to the National Legislative Assembly.
At the conclusion of the review, Thailand also adopted several recommendations to protect human rights defenders and investigate reported cases of intimidation, harassment and attacks against them.
“Prosecuting people who seek justice for alleged torture goes against the spirit of the proposed legislation,” Tayler said.
“Thai authorities have an obligation to investigate and ensure justice for incidents of torture, but instead they are harassing and intimidating those responsible for exposing these horrendous acts.”
On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 127 other states at the UN General Assembly in adopting a UN Resolution on human rights defenders.
The Resolution calls upon states to refrain from intimidation or reprisals against human rights defenders.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Thailand-HRDs defamation charges-News-Press releases-2016-ENG (full text of press release in English, PDF)
Thailand-HRDs defamation charges-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text of press release in Thai, PDF)
Jul 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ urges Turkish authorities to fully respect the rule of law and human rights under the recently declared state of emergency.
The ICJ is concerned that yesterday’s declaration of a state of emergency could further exacerbate the ongoing attack on institutions and professions that are guardians of the rule of law in Turkey, including the judiciary, the media and academia.
The ICJ reiterates its concern at the ongoing purge within the judiciary that led to the suspension of 2,745 judges and the arrest of hundreds.
Since then, Turkish authorities have summarily suspended, dismissed or arrested more than 50,000 academics, judges, including military judges, and public officials.
The ICJ is concerned that many of these measures are arbitrary and unlawful.
“Turkey needs to respect the tenets of the rule of law and human rights law during the state of emergency,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General.
“There are human rights that can never be restricted even in a state of emergency, notably 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,” he added.
“The current allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees and arbitrary arrests already point to serious violations of human rights. Widespread arrests and suspensions of judges, which began before the declaration of any state of emergency, threaten the right to a fair trial,” Tayler further said.
“The state of emergency must not be used as a means to subvert the rule of law and human rights.”
The ICJ remains concerned at President Erdoğan’s statements that he would allow for a reinstatement of the death penalty.
The ICJ firmly opposes the death penalty under any circumstances, and its reintroduction in Turkey which would also be incompatible with Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Background information
The Council of Ministers, chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declared yesterday a three-month state of emergency throughout the whole territory of Turkey in accordance with article 120 of the Turkish Constitution.
The declaration must be ratified by the National Assembly. He has not yet announced what specific measures will be introduced.
Turkey is a party to many human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Under these treaties, the declaration of a state of emergency must remain within the strict boundaries of the law, in particular constitutional and international law.
Any measures derogating from them must be strictly necessary to meet a threat the life of the nation.
Certain human rights obligations cannot be derogated from even under a state of emergency. All rights must continue to be respected, although lawful derogating measures may restrict their scope of application.
Jul 18, 2016 | News
At a critical moment for Turkish democracy, the ICJ today urged the government to uphold the rule of law and respect Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law.
The ICJ condemns what appears to be a wholesale attack on the judiciary, implemented within hours of the failed coup attempt of 15 and 16 July.
“At such moments of crisis, it is crucial that the independence and security of tenure of judges is respected, so that public confidence can be maintained in the fairness of the justice system,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General.
“Purging the judiciary now endangers the deepest foundations of the separation of powers and the rule of law. An independent judiciary will be critical to ensure a functioning administration of justice for all people in Turkey as the country emerges from the crisis,” he added.
Reports indicate that on 16 July 2,745 judges were suspended by the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). Arrest warrants were issued for more than a hundred judges.
Two judges of the Constitutional Court, and ten members the HSYK itself, are reportedly among those detained. The ICJ fears that many of these detentions may be arbitrary.
Allegations that the judges concerned were linked to the attempted coup have not been supported by evidence, and it defies credulity that such a high number of judicial authorities could have been involved in the planning or execution of the military coup d’etat.
According to the ICJ, the measures are arbitrary, and contrary to fundamental rule of law principles.
In June, an ICJ report, Turkey: the judicial system in peril, analysed the increasing government control of the Turkish judiciary, including the HSYK, and arrests and dismissals judges, in violation of international standards.
“This weekend’s mass suspensions and arrests of judges represent a dramatic escalation of an attack on judicial independence that was already underway,” said Tayler.
“Disciplinary proceedings against judges should not proceed until it is clear that they will be heard by a body that is fully independent of the executive, and in accordance with the right to a fair hearing,” he added.
The ICJ is also deeply concerned at suggestions by the government that the death penalty may be introduced for those involved in the failed coup.
Re-introduction of the death penalty would violate Turkey’s obligations under Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute in all circumstances a violation of the right to life and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Additional information:
Under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The ICJ recently published its Practitioners’ Guide N°13 on Judicial Accountability, a major study on international law and standards on the accountability of judges.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
Jul 18, 2016 | News
Indian authorities must immediately, independently and thoroughly investigate all incidents of excessive, particularly lethal, use of force in Kashmir over the past week, the ICJ said today.
Indian security forces have an obligation to comply with Government commitments to avoid using excessive force to quell protests, and must be held to account for any violations.
Violent clashes between protesters and security forces broke out in Kashmir after a popular Kashmiri militant leader, Burhan Wani, was killed, along with his two associates, by security forces on 8 July.
More than 35 people have been killed, including one security officer, and over 2000 injured. In some areas, protestors threw stones and attacked police stations. Security forces used tear gas, pellet guns and firearms.
“Security forces must respect the right to life at all times, and only use force when strictly necessary and in a manner proportionate to the legitimate performance of their duties,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Director.
“The number of persons injured over the past week, as well as the nature of their injuries, indicates the urgent need for investigations. If security forces use any kind of weapon, they are governed by international standards that require force to be used as a last resort in self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and in a manner to minimize injuries,” he added.
Indian security forces began using pellet guns routinely after 2010 following heavy criticism of their misuse of firearms against protesters.
But during the recent protests, the use of pellet guns, considered non-lethal weapons by security forces, has resulted in serious and potentially permanent health consequences for persons affected, including eye injuries and organ damage, which have required urgent treatment.
A recent report has suggested that at least a 100 people have sustained eye injuries. Pellet guns have also injured non-protestors, including children.
“Indian authorities should stop the use of pellet guns until they can assess whether these weapons can be used in a manner that is consistent with human rights standards on the use of force, including whether they are inherently inaccurate, indiscriminate and arbitrary; and ensure that the use of all non-lethal weapons is strictly regulated, because they have the capacity to cause serious and permanent injury,” Zarifi said.
Hospitals in Kashmir are struggling to cope with the high number of patients. There have also been reports that security forces have stopped ambulances carrying injured people, and disrupted the functioning of hospitals.
“All allegations of excessive use of force and other unlawful behaviour by the security forces must be investigated immediately. At the same time, protesters who resort to violence or injure other people must also be properly investigated and brought to justice by proper trials,” he added.
“Security forces absolutely must not interfere with access to health care. In addition to prompt, independent and effective investigations on this, the Government must proactively ensure that all injured persons are able to safely access necessary and quality health care,” he added.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called on security forces in Kashmir to exercise “absolute restraint”.
The Chief Minister, Mehbooba Mufti, has committed to ensuring accountability in all cases where excessive force was used by security forces.
It is crucial that the Government follows through on this promise, and conducts thorough, independent and prompt investigations.
In the past, violations by security forces have largely enjoyed impunity in Kashmir for several reasons, including laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act that shield security forces from legal accountability for human rights violations.
For example, in 2010, clashes between protestors and security forces in Kashmir resulted in over 100 deaths. Very few, if any, of these have been credibly investigated to date.
Current events also cast doubt over whether the reforms introduced since have improved policing practices and made security forces more accountable.
The ICJ is therefore calling on Indian authorities to:
- Order that security forces desist from using excessive and unlawful force, comply with international human rights law, and only use force when strictly necessary and in a manner proportionate to the legitimate performance of their duty;
- Promptly, independently and effectively investigate all allegations of excessive and lethal uses of force by security forces, make the results of these investigations public, initiate prosecutions where appropriate, and ensure that all victims are provided with effective redress;
- Provide necessary and quality health care to injured persons, ensure they are able to access it, that hospitals are stocked and equipped to deal with the increased patient load, and that all allegations of security forces attacking ambulances and hospitals are immediately investigated.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
India-Kashmir statement-News-Press release-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Jul 18, 2016 | News
The Maldives must immediately commute the death sentence imposed on Hussain Humam Ahmed and reinstate the 60-year old moratorium on capital punishment with a view towards abolishing it in law, the ICJ said today.
The Maldives Supreme Court on 24 June 2016 upheld the death sentence of 22-year old Hussain Humam Ahmed, convicted in 2012 for the murder Afrasheem Ali, a Member of Parliament (MP).
The execution, which the Government has expressed its intention to carry out within thirty days of the ruling, would be the first in the country since 1953.
“The reintroduction of the death penalty after 60 years, even as an increasing majority of nations are moving towards its abolition, is a tremendous blow to the already weak human rights situation in the Maldives,” said Nikhil Narayan, the ICJ’s South Asia senior legal adviser.
“Maldivian authorities must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent executions and reinstate the moratorium as a first step towards getting rid of it outright,” he added.
On 7 July 2016, just two weeks after upholding Humam’s death sentence, the Supreme Court upheld a second death sentence, this one against Ahmed Murrath, a 32-year old convicted for the 2012 murder of Ahmed Najeeb, a prominent lawyer.
Hussain Humam was first arrested in October 2012 for the stabbing death of Afrasheem Ali, an MP for the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).
The trial, conviction and Supreme Court decision come even as the prosecutor’s office has admitted that the investigation into the murder is still ongoing.
The Supreme Court ruling also ignored a last-minute request by the victim’s family to delay enforcement of the death sentence until the conclusion of the investigation.
Human rights groups and independent observers have highlighted a number of fair trial and due process irregularities in Humam’s investigation and trial.
Humam’s conviction was based solely on his “confession” at a May 2013 hearing, after initially pleading not guilty.
Humam later retracted the confession and claimed that the police had obtained it through coercion.
“Proceeding with Humam’s execution on the basis of a deeply flawed trial, particularly in a context in which the Maldivian Supreme Court and criminal justice system are already under considerable criticism for their lack of independence, impartiality and failure to adhere to international fair trial and due process standards, would amount to a further violation of his rights to life and human dignity,” said Narayan.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life.
“The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment, which cannot be reversed once carried out, and neither serves the interests of justice for victims nor as a deterrent against future crimes,” Narayan added.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, on 30 June, the Maldivian Government amended regulations to enforce the death sentence by lethal injection.
The new regulations require the president to order Humam’s execution within three days of endorsement of the death sentence by a committee comprising of the chief prosecutor, the commissioner of prisons, and the chief justice.
The execution must then be carried out within seven days of the president’s order. The president may then only halt the execution on a direct plea from the victim’s family.
President Yameen’s administration has maintained its resolve to implement the death sentence within thirty days of the 24 June Supreme Court ruling.
The Maldives must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent execution, reinstitute the moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards its eventual abolition in law and practice, the ICJ says.
Background:
The ICJ has previously detailed the human rights crisis in the Maldives, and the deep politicization of the Maldivian judiciary and criminal justice system, in its August 2015 fact-finding report.
The Maldives is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges the Maldives to respect the rights to life, human dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to a fair trial.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-3187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org.
