Mar 6, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its dismay that the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a judgment issued on 4 March 2015 declined to declare caning, a painful form of corporal punishment, to be unlawful.
The administration of caning violates the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.
Despite this prohibition, the Court of Appeal determined that any international legal prohibition had no effect on Singapore, since the legislature had not made it part of the country’s domestic law.
The ICJ emphasized that Singapore’s failure to prohibit caning in its own national law in no way makes caning a lawful act.
Under international law, caning remains wrong and illegal, irrespective of the country’s domestic arrangements.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that caning, administered as a form of judicially imposed punishment in Singapore, does not amount to torture.
The Court of Appeal stated that caning did not “breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture.”
The ICJ notes that the international prohibition against ill-treatment extends not only to torture, but also to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The ICJ considers that caning constitutes both types of ill-treatment.
The ruling was issued by the Singapore Court of Appeals in the case of Yong Vui Kong, a 26-year old man who appealed against his sentence of 15 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment imposed as a punishment for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Upon his conviction in 2011, Yong Vui Kong had initially been sentenced to death.
Following changes in the law and an application for re-sentencing to the High Court, his sentence was modified in 2013 to life imprisonment and ‘15 strokes of the cane’.
In his appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Yong Vui Kong challenged this sentence on several grounds, including that caning constitutes torture, which is prohibited under international law.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is out of step with Singapore’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and punish all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. International human rights bodies have made clear that caning and other forms of corporal punishment violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it must be prohibited,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of the ICJ.
Laws in Singapore that permit the imposition of corporal punishment are inconsistent with Singapore’s obligation to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment at all times and in all circumstances.
Consequently, in 2011 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Singapore to “prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings”.
In addition, when Singapore went under the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, several States recommended that the authorities abolish all corporal punishment, including caning.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law and international treaties binding on Singapore, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The prohibition against torture is also a peremptory norm of international law, as recognized by numerous legal authorities and by all States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions.
The peremptory character of the norm means that it overrides all other laws, international or domestic. The Court of Appeal dismissed any effect that the peremptory character of the prohibition might have on its administration in Singapore.
The ICJ calls on the lawmakers in Singapore to act without delay to outlaw corporal punishment.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66840923575 ; e emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 5, 2015 | News
La CIJ urge a las autoridades a tomar las medidas para investigar y corregir esta situación.
Entre el 23 de febrero y el 4 de marzo visitaron Guatemala miembros de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega; el Presidente del Foro Democrático de Jueces de El Salvador y la ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia de Honduras.
Dicha visita se llevó a cabo en el marco del trabajo de la CIJ sobre el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho en Guatemala.
La oportunidad fue propicia para realizar reuniones y debates con miembros del Poder Judicial de Guatemala y con otros operadores de justicia.
Además se mantuvieron reuniones con el Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y otras magistradas de dicha corte; con la Fiscal General; con el Procurador de los Derechos Humanos; con el Comisionado de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad; con el representante de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, así como con otros actores relevantes de la sociedad guatemalteca, abogados y abogadas; dirigentes de Pueblos Indígenas y representantes de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales.
Al concluir su trabajo, la CIJ se encuentra alarmada por las presiones que existen en contra de jueces y juezas independientes que debido al cumplimiento de su función son frecuentemente objeto de denuncias y amenazas.
Entre las acciones que se están implementando en contra de jueces y juezas independientes, lo constituyen los traslados selectivos e injustificados que tienen como principal objetivo afectar y castigar a aquellos jueces que cumplen su función en forma independiente e imparcial.
Por otro lado, se suman denuncias infundadas en contra de los mismos, al tiempo que se configura un patrón de represión en contra de ellos, que tiene como objetivo que los jueces y juezas renuncien a su independencia judicial y “ajustar cuentas” por los casos que han juzgado.
Por otro lado, el caso relacionado con las sanciones impuestas el año 2014 en forma arbitraria por el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala en contra de la Jueza Iris Yassmín Barrios Aguilar, aún se encuentra pendiente de resolución final, sin que la Corte de Constitucionalidad de Guatemala resuelva el amparo presentado por dicha jueza.
Desde el año pasado, la CIJ expresó que dichas sanciones son arbitrarias e ilegales y que los jueces y juezas no pueden ser sancionados por un órgano como el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados, que carece de competencia para ello; además, manifestó que de conformidad con los estándares internacionales y la legislación interna, los jueces y juezas sólo pueden ser objeto de sanciones por parte de los órganos del Poder Judicial establecidos para tal fin (Juntas de Disciplina y Supervisión General de Tribunales).
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica expresó: “La situación es grave y urgimos a la Corte Suprema de Justicia a suspender cualquier medida que afecte la independencia de jueces y juezas y a implementar las reformas que se necesitan para promover y proteger la independencia del poder judicial como garantía para la ciudadanía y el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho.”
Mar 5, 2015 | News
The ICJ calls for the prompt and thorough investigation into the killing of Gilles Cistac, a prominent academic and human rights defender.
Gilles Cistac served as a Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane in Mozambique.
His death, at the hands as of yet un-indentified gunmen in Maputo, Mozambique, on Tuesday 3 March 2015, follows his involvement in the debates on the sensitive issues of decentralization of power and establishment of autonomous provinces in Mozambique.
It is also reported that he was the subject of recent attacks on social media by a person who used a pseudonym and called Gilles Cistac a spy and a traitor, and accused him, along with others, of subverting the country.
“Demonstrating its commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights, which were central to Gilles Cistac’s work, the government must fulfill its obligation to investigate the killing of Professor Cistac, promptly and effectively, and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice in fair proceedings,” said Arnold Tsunga the Africa Director of the ICJ.
These obligations arise as part of the government’s duty to protect the right to life including under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international human rights treaties to which Mozambique is a party.
The government must also take steps to ensure protection of those, including human rights defenders, who exercise their right to freedom of expression.
Arnold Tsunga also called on the authorities in Mozambique to heed the message of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Human rights defenders are not violent seditionists, criminals, nor bloody revolutionaries, as so many governments like to portray them. They are the best of us, all of us. And they have a message. (…) Understand the message, talk to them about it, be persuaded or persuade, without violence, instead of silencing them, punishing them, their families, and their communities.”
The ICJ will continue to monitor is the investigation of this deadly attack as part work to promote enhanced respect for human rights and in defence of human rights defenders.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, t +27 716 405 926 ; e arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Mar 4, 2015 | News
The ICJ today calls for the immediate suspension of the execution of 10 individuals in Indonesia who have been convicted of drug-related offences and are scheduled to be executed by firing squad this month.
“We call on President Jokowi Widodo to reconsider his decision to deny the petitions for clemency submitted to him by these individuals,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “This recent rash of executions of drug offenders violates international law and, based on experience around the globe, will not even address the real problems of drug-related crime in Indonesia.”
“The execution of these individuals would violate Indonesia’s obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and goes against the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” Zarifi added.
According to a report by the UN Secretary General to the General Assembly in 2012, 150 of the 193 UN Member States have either abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium on it.
More recently, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an international moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
The resolution, which was passed last December 2014, was supported by 117 member states.
This is a notable increase since the resolution was first adopted in 2007, when only 104 member states voted “yes”.
Earlier this year, six persons convicted of drug trafficking offences were executed by firing squad.
These executions, like those planned for the 10 later this month fly directly in the face of the findings and recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Following its review of Indonesia’s implementation of its obligations under the ICCPR in 2013, the Human Rights Committee recommended that the Government of Indonesia commute all death sentences imposed on persons convicted of drug offences, amend its laws to ensure that drug offences are not punishable by the death penalty, and to reinstate the moratorium on executions.
The ICJ also notes that the current spate of planned executions in Indonesia is inconsistent with the actions of the Government of preventing the executions of its nationals convicted of committing crimes abroad.
For example, in April last year, the Government of Indonesia paid US$2.1 million as so called ‘blood money’ to stop the execution of an Indonesian woman who had been working as a domestic helper in Saudi Arabia and was convicted of killing her elderly employer.
In addition to calling for the suspension of the planned executions, the ICJ calls on the Government of Indonesia to immediately re-establish a moratorium on the death penalty implemented from 2008 until 2013, when it resumed executions, and to take the steps necessary to abolish the death penalty.
The ICJ opposes death penalty for all crimes and considers its imposition a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment.
The 10 individuals scheduled to be executed are: Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso (Philippines); Myuran Sukumaran, aka Mark, (Australia); Serge Areski Atlaoui (France); Martin Anderson, aka Belo, (Ghana); Zainal Abidin (Indonesia); Raheem Agbaje Salami (Spain); Rodrigo Gularte (Brazil); Andrew Chan (Australia); Silvester Obiekwe Nwolise and Okwudili Oyatanze (both from Nigeria).
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, e sam.zarifi(a)icj.org or m +668 07819002
(Photo: Indonesian police at execution site).
Mar 4, 2015 | Events
A panel discussion on Guantánamo and accountability for torture, featuring UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez and other experts, will take place in Geneva on 9 March 2015 in connection with the UN Human Rights Council session.The panel features:
- Juan E. Méndez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
- Jamil Dakwar, Director, Human Rights Program, American Civil Liberties Union
- Peter Jan Honigsbert, U of San Francisco Law School, Founder & Director of Witness to Guantánamo
- Julia Hall, Expert on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, Amnesty International
moderator: Connie de la Vega, University of San Francisco Law School & Human Rights Advocates.
The ICJ joins the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Advocates, Conectas, Human Rights Watch, CELS, and OMCT in supporting this event.
The event takes place 9 march 2015, at 15:00-17:00, Room XXIII, Palais des Nations, in Geneva.
The event flyer may be downloaded in PDF format here: SideEventTorture
Mar 3, 2015 | News
Myanmar’s parliament must reject or extensively revise a series of proposed laws that would entrench already widespread discrimination and risk fuelling further violence against religious minorities, Amnesty International and the ICJ said today.
A package of four laws described as aimed to “protect race and religion” – currently being debated in parliament – include provisions that are deeply discriminatory on religious and gender grounds.
They would force people to seek government approval to convert to a different religion or adopt a new religion and impose a series of discriminatory obligations on non-Buddhist men who marry Buddhist women.
“Myanmar’s parliament must reject these grossly discriminatory laws which should never have been tabled in the first place. They play into harmful stereotypes about women and minorities, in particular Muslims, which are often propagated by extremist nationalist groups,” said Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.
“If these drafts become law, they would not only give the state free rein to further discriminate against women and minorities, but could also ignite further ethnic violence,” he added.
The draft laws have been tabled at a time of a disturbing rise in ethnic and religious tensions, as well as ongoing systematic discrimination against women, in Myanmar.
In this context, where minority groups – and in particular the Rohingya (photo) – face severe discrimination in law, policy and practice, the draft laws could be interpreted to target women and specific communities identified on a discriminatory basis.
“The passage of these laws would not only jeopardize the ability of ethnic and religious minorities in Myanmar to exercise their rights, it could be interpreted as signalling government acquiescence, or even assent, to discriminatory actions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The introduction of these discriminatory bills is distracting from the many serious political and economic issues facing Myanmar today.”
Of the four draft laws, two – the Religious Conversion Bill and the Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Bill – are inherently flawed and should be rejected completely.
The remaining two – the Monogamy Bill and the Population Control Healthcare Bill – need serious revision and the inclusion of adequate safeguards against all forms of discrimination before being considered, let alone adopted.
These bills do not accord with international human rights law and standards, including Myanmar’s legal obligations as a state party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Amnesty International and the ICJ have conducted a legal analysis of the four laws and have found that:
- The Religious Conversion Bill stipulates that anyone who wants to convert to a different faith will have to apply through a state-governed body, in clear violation of the right to choose one’s own religion. It would establish local “Registration Boards”, made up of government officials and community members who would “approve” applications for conversion. It is unclear whether and how the bill applies to non-citizens, in particular the Rohingya minority, who are denied citizenship in Myanmar. Given the alarming rise of religious tensions in Myanmar, authorities could abuse this law and further harass minorities
- The Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Bill explicitly and exclusively targets and regulates the marriage of Buddhist women with men from another religion. It blatantly discriminates on both religious and gender grounds, and feeds into widespread stereotypes that Buddhist women are “vulnerable” and that their non-Buddhist husbands will seek to forcibly convert them. The bill discriminates against Buddhist women as well as against non-Buddhist men who face significantly more burdens than Buddhist men should they marry a Buddhist woman.
- The Population Control Healthcare Bill – ostensibly aimed at improving living standards among poor communities – lacks human rights safeguards. The bill establishes a 36-month “birth spacing” interval for women between child births, though it is unclear whether or how women who violate the law would be punished. The lack of essential safeguards to protect women who have children more frequently potentially creates an environment that could lead to forced reproductive control methods, such as coerced contraception, forced sterilization or abortion.
- The Monogamy Bill introduces new provisions that could constitute arbitrary interference with one’s privacy and family – including by criminalizing extra-marital relations – instead of clarifying or consolidating existing marriage and family laws.
Contact
In Bangkok – Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org; m +66807819002
In London – Olof Blomqvist, Amnesty International Asia-Pacific Press Officer, olof.blomqvist(a)amnesty.org; t: +44 20 7413 5871, m +44 790 4397 956
An extensive legal analysis of the laws by Amnesty International and the ICJ can be found here:
Myanmar-Reject discriminatory race and religion draft laws-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
