Feb 24, 2014 | Events, Training modules
In partnership with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the ICJ conducted two-day workshops on NGO engagement with the United Nations, held in Pakistan on 18-19 and 21-22 February 2014.
The workshops, held in Lahore and Islamabad, focused on enhancing the meaningful participation of national NGOs with the UN human rights system. Participants included representatives from civil society working on a wide range of human rights issues, including enforced disappearances, education, violence against women and child rights.
Drawing from experiences of ICJ staff and participants, the workshops considered how international advocacy and engagement with the UN can benefit NGOs and addressed:
- The nature of international human rights law;
- State obligations under international human rights law;
- The UN human rights system;
- The Universal Periodic Review mechanism;
- The UN Special Procedures and the making of individual complaints to them;
- The UN Treaty Bodies, individual complaints and periodic reporting; and
- Documenting human rights violations.
Background materials on the Universal Periodic Review: (ENG) and (URDU)
Background materials on the UN Special Procedures: (ENG) and (URDU)
Background materials on the core functions of the UN Treaty Bodies: (ENG) and (URDU)
BAckground materials on periodic reporting to the UN Treaty Bodies: (ENG) and (URDU)
Feb 21, 2014 | News
The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision today to convict prominent Malaysian lawyer Karpal Singh on charges of sedition is inconsistent with international law and standards regarding free expression of opinion by lawyers, the ICJ said.
“This conviction sends a message that lawyers in Malaysia are not free to express their opinions about legal issues,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia.
Karpal Singh’s conviction was based on the fact that during a press conference held at his law firm in early 2009 he had spoken allegedly “seditious words” when questioned about whether Sultan Azlan Shah had the legal authority to remove the province’s Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, from office.
“This case is another sign of the lack of respect of the Malaysian government for the principle of free expression,” said Gil. “Karpal Singh was expressing an opinion in his capacity as a lawyer over a matter of law. He has every right to do that, as a lawyer, and of course as someone exercising his right to free expression of his views. He also has acted in fulfilment of a core function of the legal profession, which is to contribute to the public discourse on matters of law.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specifically provide that lawyers, like ordinary citizens, are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression. They 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” without fear of suffering professional restrictions or repercussions due to their lawful action.
The High Court has fixed 7 March 2014 to hear Karpal’s mitigating circumstances, and for sentencing.
Under section 4(1) of the 1948 Sedition Act, Karpal Singh now faces a fine of up to RM 5,000 (approximately US$1,5010) and/or imprisonment of up to three years.
The conviction may force Karpal Singh to give up his seat as a member of the Malaysian parliament. Under the Federal Constitution, an elected representative is disqualified from office if fined more than RM 2,000 or jailed for a term exceeding one year.
Karpal Singh has provided legal defense in several high profile cases, including that of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial on charges of ‘sodomy’ has drawn heavy criticism in Malaysia and internationally.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 21, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organizations issued a public statement calling on Spanish lawmakers not to pass draft legislation that, if approved, would seriously limit Spanish courts’ ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes under international law.
The draft legislation, tabled in Parliament by the Popular Party (PP), provides that, for cases involving allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes not occurring on Spanish territory to be investigated and prosecuted in Spain, the suspect must either be a Spanish national or a foreigner habitually resident in Spain or a foreigner who is in Spain, whose extradition has been denied by Spanish authorities.
For case of torture and enforced disappearance, the proposed legislation requires that the suspect be a Spanish national or, alternatively, that the victim be a Spanish national at the time when the crime was committed and that the suspect be present in Spain when jurisdiction is assumed.
Where these conditions are not met, the proposal would allow Spanish courts to hear cases for those crimes for which prosecution is required by international treaties where the suspect is a foreigner on Spanish soil, so long as Spain has received and denied an extradition request.
The ICJ and other organizations stressed in their statement that if enacted, this legislation would close the doors of Spanish courts to certain victims of gross human rights violations who are unlikely otherwise to be able to obtain justice, particularly within their own jurisdictions.
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-eng (download the joint statement in English)
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-SPA (download the joint statement in Spanish)
Feb 19, 2014 | News
The Philippines Supreme Court’s decision to uphold provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act that penalize online libel may stifle freedom of expression, the ICJ warned today.
Yesterday, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act penalizing and increasing the penalty for libel committed online.
“By enacting this law, the Philippines government will inhibit people who try to express themselves through the Internet and electronic media,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia. “The Supreme Court decision unfortunately means that the Philippines has now joined those countries in the ASEAN region that are vainly trying to turn back the tide of greater and freer expression online.”
The Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) was adopted in September 2012, but its application was suspended in October 2012 by a temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court.
Several groups, such as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Internet and Society Program of the UP College of Law, and the National Press Club, filed petitions before the Supreme Court alleging that the law on its face violates the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution.
The ICJ considers the Cybercrime Prevention Act as incompatible not only with the Philippine Constitution, but also with Philippines’ international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the rights to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information.
“The criminalization of libel or defamation is an affront to freedom of expression,” Gil said. “It’s now up to the Philippine Congress to amend the Cybercrime Prevention Act and decriminalize libel and defamation so as to ensure respect for freedom of expression consistent with its international obligations.”
The Court upheld both Sections 4(4) and 6 of the law, which respectively provide that libel committed through a computer system or similar means is illegal and that responsible persons will incur the penalty one degree higher than what is provided under the Revised Penal Code.
Hence, a person found guilty of committing online libel may be subject to imprisonment from six to nine years.
The ICJ has previously expressed opposition to the law, pointing out that its provisions on online libel compound the existing problematic provisions on defamation in the Philippine’s Revised Penal Code and provide for even greater penalties for libel.
The decision of the Supreme Court made a distinction on who may be punished of committing online libel.
It specified that only the original author of the allegedly libelous statement and not the recipient or those who disseminated, such as an internet service provider, may be held criminally responsible for online libel under the law.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the international monitoring body of the ICCPR, has said that States should decriminalize libel or defamation.
It underlined that in order to comply with their obligations under ICCPR, States may only penalize the most serious defamation cases and even in these cases, “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” The Philippines has been a party to the ICCPR since 1986.
The ICJ welcomed the Court’s striking down as unconstitutional section 19 of the Act, which gives the Department of Justice power to restrict or block access, without prior judicial determination, to computer data found to be in violation of the law.
This is in line with the international standard that no law shall confer unfettered discretion to those charged with its execution the restriction of freedom of expression.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org (For English, Filipino, and Cebuano)
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 18, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ condemned the decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi to uphold the conviction and sentencing of lawyer and human rights defender Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment.
The ICJ called on Viet Nam authorities to release him immediately.
“The decision of the Court of Appeal is regrettable but not unexpected,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The ICJ has repeatedly criticized the lack of independence of the courts in Viet Nam. This is a political case and the government of Viet Nam has again used the courts to punish a significant critical voice.”
Today’s appellate hearing lasted for four hours. Thirty minutes after the hearing ended, the court released its decision upholding Le Quoc Quan’s conviction.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer who was illegitimately barred from practice for challenging government human rights violations, was convicted on 2 October 2013 of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code. The ICJ had criticized Le Quoc Quan’s conviction, pointing out that he did not receive a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal upheld Le Quoc Quon’s sentence with time served since his arrest on 27 December 2012 to be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the earlier order made by the People’s Court of Hanoi for Le Quoc Quan’s company to pay 645 million VND (approximately USD30,000) and a fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD60,000), for alleged unpaid taxes.
Le Quoc Quan has been on a hunger strike protesting his conviction since 1 February 2014. He was so weak that it was difficult for him to stand up during the hearing.
“Le Quoc Quan’s faulty trial violated right to an independent, impartial tribunal, and the appeal process also fell short of international fair trial standards, including under the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, to which Vietnam is a party,” Zarifi said.
The public was barred from entering the courtroom during today’s hearing and only Le Quoc Quan’s wife, mother, and lawyers were allowed inside.
Le Quoc Quan was also not allowed to meet with his lawyers in the last few days leading up to the appeal hearing.
His lawyers tried to visit him in prison at least twice last week, but they were barred from seeing him.
Le Quoc Quan’s lawyers also confirmed to ICJ that Le Quoc Quan was not allowed to meet and communicate with his lawyers immediately after his conviction by the People’s Court of Hanoi and had to file an appeal on his own.
In drafting his appeal, all legal documents and files pertaining to his case were withheld from him.
The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that all convicted persons like Le Quoc Quan must be given copies of a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court, as well as other documents such as transcripts, so that they may be able to effectively enjoy their right to appeal.
Under Viet Nam’s laws, lawyers of convicted persons cannot file an appeal on behalf of their clients.
It is only after the appeal has been filed and accepted by the appellate court that the convicted person may identify the lawyer of his choice.
The chosen lawyers are recognized and allowed to participate in the case only after the court approves their application for a “defence counsel’s certificate” or “advocacy certificate”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that no court shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it on behalf of his client, unless the lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with domestic law.
“Viet Nam’s courts operate in violation of international standards that clarify that lawyers must be allowed to assist their clients in filing an appeal,” Zarifi said.
Le Quoc Quan cannot appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal under the article 248(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam, which states that decisions of the Court of Appeal are final and legally binding from the date of their pronouncement.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan, however, are said to be considering filing a petition on procedural issues on this case.
On 14 February, the ICJ submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council (see below) under the title “Violations of the right to counsel of Viet Nam human rights defender Le Quoc Quan”.
In the statement, the ICJ called on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independance of Judges and Lawyers to reiterate her request to the Government of Viet Nam to extend an invitation to her mandate to undertake a mission to the country.
The ICJ also called on Viet Nam to amend its laws expressly to ensure that anyone deprived of liberty, including human rights defenders, are given access to counsel from the moment of deprivation of liberty or at latest within 24 hours of detention.
Viet Nam should also consider including in its laws penalties for law enforcement authorities who do not honour such provisions.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Viet Nam-Human Rights Council-ICJWrittenStatement-advocacy-2014 (full text in pdf)
Feb 17, 2014 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at a ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court which denies full accountability of Italian officials in the case of the 2003 unlawful rendition, enforced disappearance and torture of Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar.
In a ruling making no mention of the international human rights law obligations of Italy, the Court agreed with the contention of the Italian Government that it may protect from disclosure and use in court what it considers to be “secrets of state” even if to do so would prevent the revelation of the truth about serious crimes and human rights violations and the holding of those responsible to account.
The Court ruled that, under the Italian Constitution and the law on secrets of state, it is the sole prerogative of the President of the Council of Ministers, exercising “a wide discretionary power”, to establish the width of application of the secret of state doctrine.
The Court affirmed that such decisions cannot be questioned by ordinary courts.
A number of Italian and United States intelligence agents, including the former Director of the Italian Military Secret Service, Nicolò Pollari, had been found guilty of criminal offences in connection with the rendition.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling is likely to effectively annul the convictions of the top Italian secret agents involved in the rendition.
“This ruling constitutes a serious blow to the fight against impunity for some of the most serious crimes under international law”, said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser for the Europe Programme. “It disregards fundamental pillars of international human rights law, including the right to truth and the duty to investigate, prosecute and ensure accountability for gross violations of human rights”.
“The doctrine of “secret of state” must never be used as a means to cover up responsibility for crimes under international law or gross violations of human rights,” Frigo added. “The United States, which is primarily responsible, deplorably has abdicated its responsibility to meaningfully investigate and hold officials to account for gross human rights violations in its rendition and secret detention programme. Italy, by contrast, had been the only country in which the courts had imposed convictions for the US-led renditions. After this judgment, there is a real risk that the Italian complicity in this crime will never be fully ascertained and accounted for.”
The ICJ is concerned at reports that time limits for the conclusion of criminal proceedings in this case could expire in two months, despite the fact that, under international standards, limitation periods should not be imposed in respect of serious of crimes such as torture and enforced disappearance.
The expiry may foreclose any further investigation or criminal trial on Italian involvement in this rendition, which should occur irrespective the obstacles caused by the secret of state doctrine.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that successive Italian governments since 2007 have either proposed or refused to withdraw government applications before the Constitutional Court affirming that the executive prerogative on secret of state takes precedence over the fight against impunity.
The ICJ considers that the law and practice regarding the “secret of state” must be reformed to be into compliance with Italy’s duty to investigate crimes under international law and gross human rights violations.
While States may protected a limited amount of information when strictly necessary for legitimate national security purposes, they may not do so with respect to information concerning gross violations of human rights.
Background
Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was been kidnapped in 2003 in the streets of Milan by CIA operatives and subject to rendition to Egypt where he had been subject to enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.
The case of Abu Omar was one of at least 136 known cases in the rendition and secret detention carried out since 2001 by the United States, with the participation of some 54 other States, which typically involved multiple human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention.
The Constitutional Court judgment effectively reversed the ruling of the Court of Cassation that ordered the reopening of the trial against the former Director of the Italian Military Secret Service, Nicolò Pollari, his deputy, Marci Mancini, and other Italian military secret services operatives for their alleged complicity in the operation.
The Court of Cassation had held that the doctrine of “secret of state”, which barred their conviction, would not apply to them, because the Italian secret services have no authority to conduct such illegal operations and they had therefore effectively acted in private capacity.
Following that judgment, the Court of Appeal convicted, among others, for complicity in the kidnapping Nicolò Pollari to ten years of imprisonment and Marco Mancini to nine years.
The Court of Cassation upheld in absentia the convictions and sentences of 23 US agents involved for the offence of kidnapping.
On 5 April 2013, the President of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, granted a pardon for US Colonel Joseph L. Romano III, who had been convicted by Italian courts of the offence of complicity with the US in kidnapping for his role in the rendition of the Milan cleric Abu Omar in 2003.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
