May 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ and other human rights organizations condemn the imminent executions of Kho Jabing in Singapore and at least 15 individuals which apparently includes, 4 Chinese nationals, 2 Nigerians, 2 Zimbabweans, 1 Senegalese, 1 Pakistani and 5 Indonesian nationals in Indonesia.
The organizations call on the authorities of the two countries to halt the impending executions.
On 12 May 2016, the family of Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national on death row in Singapore, received a letter from the Singapore Prisons informing them that he would be executed on 20 May 2016. Kho Jabing was convicted of murder in 2011.
Of particular concern is the fact that there was a lack of unanimity in sentencing Kho Jabing to death, which demonstrates that reasonable doubt exists as to whether he deserved the death penalty.
As regards the imminent executions that will be taking place in Indonesia, Indonesia would contravene her own international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right by executing these individuals.
The Association of South East Asian Nations Member States (“ASEAN”), including Singapore and Indonesia, have continuously emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the protection of rights.
The death penalty therefore stands out as an aberration.
In December 2014, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its latest resolutions calling on all States to adopt a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view towards abolition.
A record number of 117 Member States supported the Resolution.
Regrettably, Indonesia abstained and Singapore voted against the Resolution.
The ASEAN Member States must use the opportunity presented by this Resolution to align themselves with the global movement towards abolition.
Singapore has recently undergone its second Universal Periodic Review in January 2016.
The continued use of the death penalty was one of the key highlights of the review, with Singapore receiving over 30 recommendations related to the death penalty, including recommendations to abolish the death penalty.
In 2015, Indonesia, a United Nations Human Rights Council Member until 2017, executed 14 individuals convicted of drug-related offences amid strong international opposition.
The imminent executions would further damage Indonesia’s human rights record and erode her standing in the international community.
The death penalty has no place in the 21st Century.
Not only is there a real possibility of wrongful executions, it deprives inmates of their life and dignity, and creates new classes of victims.
We strongly urge the governments of Singapore and Indonesia to halt the upcoming executions, immediately impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards its eventual abolition.
List of signatories:
Anti-Death Penalty Network Asia (ADPAN)
Center for Prisoner’s Rights Japan (CPR)
Community Action Network (CAN, Singapore)
Free Community Church (Singapore)
Function 8 (Singapore)
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Maruah (Singapore)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Journey of Hope
Legal Aid Community (LBH Masyarakat, Indonesia)
Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR)
Ocean
Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia (The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies)
Reprieve Australia
Sayoni (Singapore)
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP)
The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS, Indonesia)
The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK, Indonesia)
The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR, Indonesia)
The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy of Indonesia (ELSAM)
The National Human Rights Society, Malaysia (HAKAM)
Think Centre Singapore
We Believe in Second Chances (WBSC, Singapore)
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
May 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported resignations of federal judges in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation following apparent pressure by the acting Head of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who had suggested that resignation would be the “most correct decision of their lives”.
The ICJ considers these statements, which appear to have led directly to the resignations of federal judges, to be inappropriate interference with the functioning and independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ calls on the Russian Federation judicial authorities to take all measures within their power to ensure that all judges’ security of tenure is preserved and that any allegations of misconduct are addressed through appropriate disciplinary proceedings that respect the right to a fair hearing.
The ICJ further calls on the executive authorities to refrain from any comments which may undermine the independence of the judiciary.
On 5 May, Ramzan Kadyrov, currently acting Head of the Chechen Republic, recommended that several named judges should step down.
In his post on social media, Kadyrov identified as problems unfair decisions of courts, procrastination in criminal cases, decisions regarding housing and inconsistent decisions.
He mentioned that although examples of such decisions were sporadic, they did not help build trust in the judiciary.
He then recommended that the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, Magomed Karatayev (photo) and three other judges, Takhir Murdalov, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, should resign “if they had a notion of honour and professional ethics”.
It was reported that two judges of the Urus-Martan City Court and Grozny District Court, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, submitted their resignations on the same day.
The President of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, Magomed Karatayev, and his deputy Takhir Murdalov, are reported to have already filed a request for resignation.
The resignations, apparently in direct response to criticism by the executive, undermine the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation.
Under international law, including the right to a fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.
The UN Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary enshrines “the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary” and provides the judiciary shall not be subject to “any restrictions, improper influences…pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason.”
While judges have an obligation to adhere to judicial ethics and should be held accountable for professional misconduct, the representatives of the executive must refrain from statements which jeopardize the independence of the judiciary.
The Council of Europe’s Recommendation on judges specifies that “the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary.”
Public pressure from the executive on judges to resign can nullify the security of tenure of judges protected under national and international law and standards.
According to Principle 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.”
Under international standards, allegations of misconduct against judges should be dealt with by the self-governing institutions of the judiciary, through fair disciplinary procedures.
Under the Basic Principles, the only basis for removal of judges is “incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The comments by Ramzan Kadyrov also run contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, which spells out in detail the procedure for disciplinary measures against judges in case of alleged professional misconduct.
RUSSIA-Chechen judges statement-News-web story-2016-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release human rights lawyer Malek Adly and to drop all charges against him. He was arrested on Thursday 5 May 2016, pursuant to an arrest warrant.
Malek Adly has been charged with a number of offences, including “attempting to overthrow the regime,” “spreading false rumors,” and “using force against a public servant.”
The Prosecuting authorities have not provided information on specific behaviour that would constitute criminal conduct.
The ICJ is concerned that the charges may be in retaliation for Malek Adly’s work as a lawyer and human rights defender, and are aimed to chill him and others from engaging in work perceived as threatening to or disfavoured by Egyptian authorities.
They came at the backdrop of his work as a human rights lawyer, his critical views on the rule of law situation in Egypt, and his legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and assembly in opposing transferring the sovereignty of Tiran and Sanafir islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the ICJ says.
“Malek Adly’s arrest, detention and prosecution for carrying out his work as a lawyer and human rights defender and for peacefully expressing his views is yet another attempt by the Egyptian regime to muzzle lawyers, the last line of defence for victims of human rights violations in Egypt,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The regime’s crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms has been worryingly extended to the very lawyers whose role is to challenge and protect against such crackdown,” he added.
Over the last three years, the ICJ has documented numerous cases of lawyers who have been subjected to human rights violations and reprisals in relation to the representation of their clients.
These include the cases lawyers Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi who were allegedly subjected to torture and subsequently died while in police custody.
International standards aiming to safeguard the role of lawyers provide that States have a duty to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their functions “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that lawyers must not be subject to prosecution or other sanction for carrying out their professional responsibilities, the Geneva-based organization reminds.
International standards on human rights defenders require States protect human rights defenders from attacks, threats, retaliation and arbitrary action.
The Egypt 2014 Constitution guarantees the “independence of the lawyer’s profession and the protection of its interests as a guarantee to protecting the right to defence”. In addition, it prohibits the arrest of a lawyer while he or she is exercising the right to defence, except in flagrante delicto crimes.
“The Egyptian authorities must live up to their obligations under the Constitution and international law and put an immediate end to their attacks against lawyers,” concluded Benarbia.
Contact
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-HR Lawyer MalekAdly-News-Press Releases-2016-ARA (full text in Arabic, PDF)
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the disbarment proceedings against lawyer Muzaffar Bakhishov that are taking place before the Narimanov district court.
The ICJ calls for the disbarment proceedings to respect international standards on the role of lawyers and to ensure that no sanction is imposed contrary to the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under international law.
The ICJ understands that the proceedings against Mr Bakhishov, following a recommendation for disbarment by the Plenum of the Bar Association, are related to critical statements he made in a media interview with the news website moderator.az on the functioning of the Azeri judiciary with regard to judicial review of detention.
In the interview, he criticized the arrests of large number of persons by officers of the Ministry of National Security and the tendency of judges to approve orders of detention without proper scrutiny. He further raised concerns about lack of accountability of judges for failure to protect against arbitrary detention.
Under international law and standards, lawyers, like other individuals, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, including in regard to their professional role. Protection of lawyers’ right to freedom of expression is not only important to the individuals in question. It also serves to safeguard the important public function played by lawyers in a democratic society to comment on matters related to the rule of law and the administration of justice. Lawyers must be able to carry out these and their other professional functions without interference or intimidation.
The right to freedom of expression is protected in international human rights law, including by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Azerbaijan is party to both of these treaties.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specify that lawyers “…shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights …” The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that lawyers are entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, provided that their criticism does not overstep certain bounds, based on principles of dignity, honour, integrity, and respect for the fair administration of justice.
The ICJ considers that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, solely for expressing criticism of the conduct or functioning of the judiciary, whether in the course of court hearings or elsewhere, constitute an unjustified interference with freedom of expression. As the European Court of Human Rights has noted in Maurice v. France, this is particularly the case where the allegations have been presented in good faith and are substantiated by evidence.
Azerbaijan-BakhishovDisbarment-Statement-2016-AZE (download statement in Azeri)
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 9793805, e-mail: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
May 9, 2016 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid must stay the execution of opposition political leader Motiur Rahman Nizami, said the ICJ today.
On 5 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh dismissed a petition by Motiur Rahman Nizami to review its previous decision confirming his death sentence.
He is now at imminent risk of execution.
“Bangladesh must stay this execution, and end its continued and unlawful use of the death penalty,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment.”
Motiur Rahman Nizami, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was found guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh, including genocide, torture, and the murder of intellectuals, and sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in October 2014.
The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and sentence on appeal earlier this year, following which Motiur Rahman Nizami filed his review petition.
Thus far, four individuals have been executed based on convictions by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid were executed in November 2015; Muhammad Kamaruzzaman was executed in April 2015; and Abdul Qader Mollah was executed in 2013. Several others have been sentenced to death.
“The perpetrators of the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence must be brought to justice and held to account for their crimes,” said Zarifi.
“However, another execution on the basis of a flawed trial that is inconsistent with international human rights standards undermines justice, and must be stopped,” he added.
Bangladesh is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges it to respect the right to a fair trial.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT are not in compliance with Bangladesh’s international legal obligations, and international standards for fair trials.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedural flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
Background information
In a statement on 8 April 2016, the UN Office of the High Commission of Human Rights reaffirmed that trials before the ICT in Bangladesh did not met international standards of fair trial and due process, and that the imposition of a death sentence in such circumstances constitutes a violation of the right to life.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that 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.
May 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned at the recent legal harassment of several Cambodian human rights defenders and perceived political opponents, which raises serious questions as to the impartiality of the investigators, prosecutors and judges involved.
The ICJ calls on the Government to immediately conduct an independent review of the decision to pursue these cases, to end the prosecution of those who have been charged if the allegations are found to be groundless or the proceedings to have been unlawful or abusive, to cease the use of judicial and prosecutorial processes to harass and intimidate human rights defenders and perceived political opponents, and to respect its international obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
“The decision to proceed with these cases should be subject to a careful and independent review and any charges that have resulted must be dropped if the allegations are found to be without merit or have been carried through unlawful or abusive procedures,” said Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia with the ICJ.
“The strong appearance of bias present in these cases flies in the face of the absolute right of all accused to have their case considered by independent and impartial prosecutors and judges at every stage of the process,” he added.
The different proceedings all stem from allegations centered on an alleged affair between Khom Chandaraty (also known as Srey Mom) and Kem Sokha, acting leader of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP).
After a voice recording appeared on social media, allegedly of a conversation between them, the Cambodian Counter-Terrorism Directorate of the Government’s Central Directorate for Security “invited” Srey Mom for questioning, which prompted her to seek human rights assistance from a leading Cambodian NGO, the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC).
On 11 March 2016, the Counter-Terrorism Directorate questioned Srey Mom. She denied the suggestions she had a relationship with Kem Sokha and that she was the female voice on the recording.
On 19 April 2016, after having met with ADHOC on a number of further occasions, Srey Mom was asked in a closed session with a prosecutor at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to answer allegations of having provided false testimony and of having engaged in prostitution.
On this occasion, Srey Mom admitted to a relationship with Kem Sokha.
On 22 April 2016, Srey Mom alleged in an open letter that ADHOC staff had attempted to persuade her to lie to the authorities.
On 2 May 2016, an Investigating Judge in Phnom Penh charged four staff members of ADHOC, Nay Vanda, Ny Sokha, Yi Soksan, and Lem Mony, with “bribery of a witness”.
A former staff member of ADHOC, Ny Chakrya, and a staff member of the Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Sally Soen, were also charged with being accomplices, notwithstanding Sally Soen’s immunity from prosecution under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
The allegation of bribery appears to relate to the fact that ADHOC reportedly provided Srey Mom with a small sum of money to cover food and transport costs, including to attend questioning by judicial authorities.
“While Cambodia has a positive legal duty under international law to protect human rights defenders from attacks arising out of their work, these proceedings appear to be aimed at intimidating and silencing Cambodian civil society and are the latest in a series of laws and actions directed against them,” said Abbott.
Last year, the Government passed the Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO), which Abbott stated would “severely restrict the ability of members of civil society to exercise their rights to freedom of association and expression which Cambodia has a duty to protect under its international obligations.” Abbott further stated that the Governments intention was to “…weaken the impact of NGOs, including human rights defenders.”
Under Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, States have an obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, including against any threats, pressure, retaliation or arbitrary action as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of their rights under the Declaration.
In other proceedings, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court summoned Kem Sokha to answer allegations of criminal defamation and two other members of the CNRP, Pin Ratana and Tok Vanchan, have been questioned about allegations of prostitution.
Political commentator, Ou Virak, has been summoned to appear in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court on 12 May 2016 to answer allegations of criminal defamation for expressing the view that the ruling Cambodian Peoples Party (CPP) was exploiting the alleged affair between Kem Sokha and Srey Mom.
On 24 April 2016, a CNRP commune chief, Seang Chet, was arrested and detained on charges of bribery after Srey Mom alleged Seang Chet had attempted to pay her mother US $500 to encourage her to deny the affair.
Read also:
Cambodia: the ICJ condemns Senate’s approval of draft Law on Associations and NGOs
Cambodia: approved NGO law poised to hobble the work of civil society
Cambodia: withdraw draft law on associations and non-governmental organizations – joint letter
Cambodia: ICJ and other rights groups urge end to NGO law
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
