Mar 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expresses serious concern that the deal concluded on Friday 18 March between the European Union and Turkey on the return of migrants and refugees to Turkey is likely to lead to serious violations of international and EU human rights and refugee law.
“This initiative carries high risks of infringing the right of asylum and the prohibition of non-refoulement, as well as the right to an effective remedy for potential violations of these rights”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
All EU Member States, including Greece, have obligations to protect these rights under international human rights law, and Member States and EU institutions have similar obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The agreement seeks to establish swift return from Greece to Turkey of any migrant or asylum seeker attempting to reach Greece who does not apply for international protection there or whose application is deemed unfounded or inadmissible.
In order to facilitate such returns, Turkey may be declared to be a “safe third country” which could allow for the dismissal of asylum requests in Greece based on this element alone, and the rapid return of applicants.
The EU and Turkey, in their joint statement, contend that these operations will not be carried out in violation of international and EU law, including the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits return to a country where the returned person faces a real risk of torture or other serious violation of human rights.
It is nevertheless unclear how the system proposed could lead to swift returns, while respecting international human rights and refugee law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Asylum Procedure Directive, for a number of reasons.
First, the ICJ stresses that Turkey cannot be considered a “safe third country” for the return of migrants and refugees.
Authoritative reports and international jurisprudence on Turkey demonstrate that neither the general human rights situation in Turkey, nor its asylum procedure and reception system are in line with international law, including Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment in article 3 ECHR.
Second, the ICJ affirms that the commitment of Turkey to adapt its asylum system to comply with international law and standards does not in itself allow for returns from EU countries in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.
International and EU law binding on Greece and other EU Members States requires an assessment of the situation in the country of return at the moment the return is effected to determine whether there is a real risk of violations of human rights.
Therefore, at present, and irrespective of the commitments made on reform, any return to Turkey would be at high risk of infringing the principle of non-refoulement and the returning country’s legal obligations.
Crucially for the prospects of the new system, it is also clear that the Greek asylum system is not in a position to proceed to a swift consideration of asylum applications in compliance with human rights, including procedural guarantees.
“As is clear from ongoing Council of Europe discussions about implementation of European Court decisions against Greece, the Greek asylum procedure cannot yet provide for an effective remedy for cases of arbitrary refoulement. Without respect for such guarantees, many migrants will be left vulnerable,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser at the ICJ.
The ICJ emphasises that, whatever co-operative arrangements are put in place, Greece and Turkey will have responsibility under international human rights and EU law as regards the rights of persons subject either to Greek or Turkish territorial jurisdiction or to Greek or Turkish authority and/or control.
Furthermore, through its direct involvement in and financing of these arrangements, the EU itself may be complicit in any breach of the right of asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsions, the prohibition of non-refoulement or the right to an effective remedy.
The ICJ is further concerned at the “one for one” resettlement mechanism that will be established to settle one Syrian refugee in a EU country for every Syrian returned to Turkey.
It is of serious concern that this mechanism contemplates the return of Syrians to Turkey. Syrians are prima facie entitled to international protection and would likely fall within one of the grounds of international protection of the EU Qualification Directive.
It would therefore be unlawful under EU law to return them to Turkey.
Full text and additional information on the content of the deal available here.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser, Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Mar 21, 2016 | News
The Maldives must stop undermining the independence and integrity of the judiciary through arbitrary and politically motivated actions against judges, the ICJ said today.
“The ICJ visited the Maldives last month for the second time in a year, and we were dismayed to see that the Maldives government has continued to erode the rule of law and weaken the independence of the judiciary,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“The government must immediately stop targeting judges and other public officials with arbitrary criminal proceedings, threats, intimidation and harassment,” he added.
On 7 February, Magistrate Judge Ahmed Nihan was arrested, along with former Prosecutor General and former Criminal Court Judge Muhthaz Muhsin, in connection with an alleged ‘forged’ arrest warrant against President Yameen.
“The arrest of a judge for issuing a warrant, a function which is well within the ordinary powers and responsibilities of the judiciary, clearly violates basic principles of judicial independence,” Narayan further said. “The fact that the alleged warrant was against the President further suggests that Judge Nihan’s arrest was politically motivated.”
“Moreover, the severity of a charge of ‘terrorism’ for such an act, even if taken at face value, cannot reasonably be viewed as proportionate to the alleged offense,” he added.
On 16 March, more than a month after his arrest, Judge Nihan was charged under sections 4(a)(1)-(2) and 5(a)(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for attempting to unduly influence the state, attempting to create fear among the public, and attempting to forcefully disappear or hold a person hostage.
The Constitution of the Maldives does not provide immunity for the president from criminal accountability even while still in office.
The ICJ was also concerned to find during its visit that Maldivian authorities have continued to undermine the independence of the judiciary by using the threat of transfer or removal of judges as a tactic of political retribution, harassment and intimidation.
On 14 February, former Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed was abruptly transferred from the Criminal Court to the Family Court following a sudden and late night meeting of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without being given an opportunity to appear on his own behalf during the meeting.
While the JSC has given no reasons for its decision, lawyers, human rights defenders and former government officials with whom the ICJ spoke suggested that the transfer had been taken in retaliation for Judge Abdullah’s failure to remand former Prosecutor General Muhsin following his arrest.
It was also suggested by those interviewed that a further motivation for the transfer was to ensure that Judge Abdullah could not indirectly influence the three-judge bench hearing the former Vice President’s criminal case in favor of the defendant. Judge Abdullah was reported to have close ties with both defendants.
In June 2015, Judge Azmiralda Zahir, one of only three female judges in the entire Maldivian judiciary and the only woman on the High Court, was arbitrarily and unexpectedly transferred by the Supreme Court from the Malé appellate bench to the southern regional bench, a transfer that amounts to a demotion, without formal notice or opportunity to challenge her transfer.
The Supreme Court has neither established clear criteria for its decision-making process in such matters nor informed Judge Zahir of the reasons for her transfer, of which she learned through media reports, despite repeated requests by her to both the Supreme Court as well as the JSC, the ICJ says.
“President Yameen’s government must quickly take genuine steps to restore the rule of law, strengthen the independence and integrity of the judiciary and restart the democratic transition process,” said Narayan.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Read also:
Maldives: political crisis erodes rule of law and human rights
Maldives: arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan further erodes judicial independence
Mar 21, 2016 | News
Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) must end its interference in the elections of the president and committee members of the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT), the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), said today.
The LCT in turn must ensure the elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
“International standards explicitly prohibit external interference in the elections of the executive body of a lawyers’ professional association by its members, and the association’s leadership must ensure that such elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner” said Matt Pollard, the Head of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. “Ensuring the independence and democratic representation of the legal profession is essential to safeguarding human rights and the rule of law, especially in the current circumstances of military rule in Thailand.”
On 29 February 2016, Mr Wichien Choobtaisong, a representative of the electoral group of the current LCT President, Mr. Dej-udom Krairit, wrote to the NCPO “seeking permission” to hold meetings and campaigns for the LCT’s regularly-scheduled elections, referring to the NCPO’s ban on political gatherings of more than five persons.
On 16 March 2016, the NCPO replied, stating that the elections “contradict” the ban on political gatherings, which “must apply equally to all groups and sectors in the interest of maintaining national security during the transition period,” and taking the position that that the elections must accordingly be postponed with the current committee continuing its term until elections are held. The NCPO’s reply also notes it received a letter from the LCT on 14 December 2015, which the ICJ and TLHR have not seen.
In its letter, the NCPO referred to NCPO Announcement 7/2014, which bans the political gathering of more than five persons (Announcement 7/2014 was later replaced by Order 3/2015). The ICJ reiterates that these arbitrary and unjustified orders and announcements should be repealed, and calls on the NCPO, in any event, to immediately withdraw its letter of 16 March, replacing it with written confirmation that the LCT elections will be able to proceed as scheduled, without external interference.
The LCT must then put in place procedures to ensure the elections proceed as scheduled and in a fair and impartial manner.
“Since the military took power, we have seen a marked increase in the number of individuals requiring legal aid for sensitive and political cases,” said Yaowalak Anuphan, the Head of TLHR and member of the LCT. “In this environment, it is even more essential that the Lawyers Council of Thailand is able to exercise its functions without external interference and that everyone has effective and equal access to the legal services of lawyers.”
Contacts
In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The Lawyers Council of Thailand was established in 1957. Its mandate and responsibilities are set out in the Lawyers Council Act 1985.
The objectives of the Council include maintaining the ethics of lawyers, promoting legal education and providing legal assistance.
It also registers lawyers and issues them with licenses to practice law in Thailand. Members of the Council elect the president and committee members every three years.
Article 24 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the UN in 1990, sets out that: “Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity.
The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”
Among other things, the UN Basic Principles also affirm that ensuring all persons have effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession is essential for adequate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
They note the vital role of professional associations of lawyers including in protecting their members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements. The Basic Principles specify that governments should respect and reflect the provisions of the Basic Principles in their national legislation and practice.
The UN Human Rights Committee has applied the Basic Principles as a necessary component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party.
The UN Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR at an upcoming meeting.
Thailand-ICJ and TLHR statment on LCT-News-press releasess-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 17, 2016 | News
The Indonesian House of Representatives should reject proposed amendments to the country’s Anti Terrorism Law that would actually contravene international law, said the ICJ and other human rights groups today.
“The horrific recent attacks in Jakarta highlight the Indonesian government’s obligation to protect people from acts of terrorism, but experience from around the world has shown that countering terrorism must occur along with protection of human rights, not in violation of Indonesia’s legal obligations,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), and the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (IMPARSIAL) noted that the proposed amendments would authorize unnecessarily prolonged detention of suspects, putting them at risk of torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention.
The amendments also include a provision on administrative detention.
“This is generally forbidden in international law, save in the most exceptional circumstances far narrower than as contemplated under the amendments,” Zarifi added.
A letter sent by the organizations to the House of Representatives lays out recommendations on how this provision may be revised so that it would not violate the rights of detainees.
“There is no reference anywhere in the amendments how detainees may challenge the lawfulness of their detention. It has to be clear in the law that these remedies are available to them,” said Haris Azhar, National Executive Coordinator of KontraS.
The three organizations also underline the amendment proposing stripping Indonesian combatants abroad of their nationality would be contrary to international law, if this would render them stateless.
“Nationality is what legally binds an individual to a particular State. It is an essential prerequisite to the enjoyment and protection of the full range of human rights,” said Poengky Indarti, board member of IMPARSIAL.
They also said that the proposed provision on incitement to terrorism would unduly limit political speech, especially those that are contrary to the views of persons wielding power and authority, such as opinions on self-determination or changes to the legal and constitutional structures.
The proposed amendments impose the death penalty on particular offences.
The ICJ, IMPARSIAL, and KontraS oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
In the letter, they remind the government of Indonesia to immediately impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to moving towards its total abolition.
The ICJ, IMPARSIAL, and KontraS urged the members of Indonesia’s House of Representatives to keep in mind that whatever measures Indonesia uses to counter terrorism must comply with international law and protect human rights.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Fatia Maulidiyanti, S.IP, International Desk of KontraS (Jakarta), t: +62 21 391 9097/98 ; e: fatia(a)kontras.org
Poengky Indarti, Member of the Board of IMPARSIAL (Jakarta), t: +62 812 8362 8659 ; e: poengky1970(a)gmail.com
Indonesia-Letter to Gvt-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text of letter, in PDF)
Mar 15, 2016 | News
Today’s acquittal of the only person facing charges for the killing of lands rights activist Chai Bunthonglek, highlights the urgent need for the Thai Government to protect human rights defenders in the country, said the ICJ today.
In addition to Chai Bunthonglek, a member of the Southern Peasant Federation of Thailand (SPFT), three other SPFT activists have been killed since 2010: Montha Chukaew and Pranee Boonrat in 2012 and Somporn Pattanaphum in 2010.
No one has been prosecuted for these three killings, reportedly due to insufficient evidence obtained by the police.
“The result in this case underscores the pressing need for the Department of Special Investigations to investigate the pattern of killings of land rights activists in southern Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
Chai Bunthonglek was killed on 11 February 2015. All four SPFT activists killed since 2010 had been advocating for the land rights of poor farmers who are in a dispute with the Government and a palm oil company operated by Jiew Kang Jue Pattana Co. Ltd.
“Today’s acquittal means that no-one has been held accountable for the killing of Chai Bunthonglek, representing another failure to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against human rights defenders and, in particular, those trying to uphold social and economic rights in Thailand,” said Abbott.
“The ICJ calls on the Thai Government to ensure justice and effective remedies for human rights defenders.”
On 15 March, the Viangsra Provincial Court acquitted Santi Wanthong, who was accused of driving the motorcycle from which Chai Bunthonglek, 61-years-old, was shot six times and killed in front of his family in Klong Sai Pattana in Surat Thani Province.
Two other suspects initially arrested for the crime were not indicted.
The DSI has the power to assume jurisdiction over “special” criminal cases including complex cases that require special inquiry, crimes committed by organized criminal groups, and cases where the principal suspect is “an influential person.”
The trial court held today that prosecution witnesses could not properly identify the defendant, and that a cap and gun collected from his house could not be positively identified as belonging to the man who had been involved in attacking Chai Bunthonglek.
Chai Bunthonglek’s family intends to appeal the verdict, the ICJ has been told. They have 30 days to file an appeal.
Witnesses in the case, as well as members of SPFT, have expressed their fear of further attacks. Suraphon Songru, member of the Steering Group of the SPFT, told the ICJ: “the perpetrators – which the community believe may be linked to the local authorities in the area – are still out there, which means another killing could take place.”
The ICJ called on Thai authorities to ensure the safety of all witnesses and ensure the safety of all human rights defenders, including members of SPFT, in Surat Thani.
Background
Santi Wanthong was formally indicted on the following charges: murder of another person (section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code); jointly premeditated murder (section 289 of the Thai Criminal Code); possession of a firearm without a permit (section 371 of the Thai Criminal Code); and possession of ammunition for a firearm without a permit (sections 7, 8 and 72 of the Gun, Ammunition, Explosive Substance, Firework and Artificial Gun Weapon Act).
SPFT was formed in 2008 and campaigns for the right to agricultural land in the Khlong Sai Pattana and Permsub area, in Surat Thani Province and other areas in the region.
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and had its review before the Committee of the ICESCR in June 2015, where the killings of land rights defenders was particularly noted. The Committee urged Thailand to “adopt all measures necessary to protect human rights activists, including those working to defend economic, social and cultural rights, from any and all acts of intimidation, harassment and killings and to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.” The obligation to protect the right to life and other rights of human rights defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights, and to take effective criminal proceedings in response to such crimes, is also an obligation of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is recognized in numerous UN standards on protection of human rights defenders.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Chai case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 11, 2016 | News
The Joint Mobile Group is known for its courageous work in opening legal cases on behalf of victims of torture in Chechnya. On March 9th, they were travelling together with journalists and the group was physically attacked, their confidential notes stolen, and the vehicles they were in burned.
Their offices in Ingushetia were also attacked.
This is part of an ongoing pattern of threats and intimidation directed against the Joint Mobile Group.
As recently as December their offices in Chechnya were completely burned.
The Martin Ennals Award provides protection through publicity for Human Rights Defenders who are working at personal risk to protect the rights of others.
“Sadly it appears that the need for protection, in this case, remains as urgent as ever. We urge the responsible authorities to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice,” the ICJ says.
The Award laureate is selected by a jury of 10 global human rights organizations, including the ICJ.
The other members are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights and HURIDOCS.
For further information, you can also read articles on the BBC, The Guardian, Russia Today, and the report on the MEA 2013.
Picture: Igor Kalyapin, founder of the Joint Mobile Group.
