Jan 21, 2014 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned by reports that the President of Nauru has prevented the island nation’s Chief Justice from returning to the country and expelled the sole Resident Magistrate in violation of international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
According to media reports, Nauru President Baron Waqa on January 19 removed Resident Magistrate Peter Law in violation of an injunction issued by Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames. Subsequently, Chief Justice Eames, who was in Australia at the time, had his visa cancelled. Both judicial officials are Australian citizens.
Australia administered Nauru as a dependent territory until 1968 and the two countries retain strong bilateral relations. Australian judges and magistrates often serve on Nauru Courts.
“Removing judges from office, without any process whatsoever, breaches clear international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It also jeopardizes the right of people in Nauru, especially those currently engaged in legal proceedings, to have a fair trial.”
Nauru is an island state in Micronesia in the South Pacific.
The ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) is monitoring developments.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Jan 10, 2014 | News
The ICJ calls on the Bangladeshi authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop ‘cybercrime’ charges against Nasiruddin Elan and Adilur Rahman Khan, President and Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar.
“These charges are a flagrant attempt to silence critical voices, and the Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against the two human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
On 8 January 2014, a cyber crimes tribunal in Dhaka indicted Nasiruddin Elan (picture, on centre) and Adilur Rahman Khan under section 57 (1) and (2) of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing “fake, distorted and defamatory” information. Khan and Elan plead innocent to the charges.
The charges relate to a report by Odhikar that alleged that security forces had killed 61 people during a rally by the Islamist group Hefazat-e Islam in May 2013. The Government disputes the casualty numbers.
The trial is set to begin on 22 January 2014. Under the terms of the newly amended ACT the two human rights defenders face a minimum of seven and maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
“The ICJ has warned that the ICT Act can be used to attack freedom of expression in Bangladesh,” said Sam Zarifi. “As predicted, the Government is now using the newly amended law to silence political and public discourse through the threat of punitive sentences and deliberately vague and overbroad offences in clear violation of international law.”
In a briefing paper released on 20 November 2013, ICJ highlighted that provisions of the 2006 ICT Act (amended 2013), particularly section 57, violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified on 6 September 2000: the offences prescribed are poorly defined and overbroad; the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR; and the restrictions are not necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that States must take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders “against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of his or her rights.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, t: +61 422 561834; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Additional information
Adilur Rahman Khan was arrested his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.On August 11, a Magistrate’s Court refused his bail application and remanded him for five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order and directed that Adilur Rahman be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the jail.’
On 4 September 2013, the Detective Branch of Police filed a charge sheet against Adilur Rahman Khan and Odhikar’s Director, Nasiruddin Elan, under Section 57 of the International Communication and Technology Act 2006. On 30 October Adilur Rahman Khan was released on bail. On 6 November 2013, a Dhaka cyber crimes tribunal rejected Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application and ordered his detention in Dhaka Central Jail. Bail was granted on 24 November by the High Court. But the bail order was finally enforced after the appellate division’s order on 3 December 2013.
Dec 19, 2013 | News
The ICJ is delighted to announce that two new Commissioners were elected in December 2013: Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza (UK) and Professor César Landa (Peru).
Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza is a former President of the European Court of Human Rights. His term on the court ended on 31 October 2012, and he resigned as a Justice of the High Court on 1 November 2012.
Professor César Landa is the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Prior to this, Processor Landa was the President of the Constitutional Court of Peru. He also served as a Judge on the Constitutional Court.
In a year of significant change within the ICJ Commission, Justice Bratza and Professor Landa are the 14th and 15th new members to join the Commission in 2013.
Biographies for all our Commissioners can be found here.
Dec 19, 2013 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the judgment of 11 December 2013 of the Supreme Court of India, which effectively recriminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private.
The decision by India’s highest court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others overturned the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court.
That earlier judgment had held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination, life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Section 377 criminalized certain consensual sexual acts in private between adults that are particularly associated with same-sex conduct.
The 2009 High Court’s ruling had the effect of decriminalizing such conduct between adults in private in India.
Its decision was based on an in-depth analysis of India’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, as well as international comparative law.
The High Court had examined the scope of the rights to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution and determined Section 377 to be unconstitutional.
Section 377, which was enacted in 1860, is a historical relic from colonial times bequeathed to India under the British empire; it made it an offence to voluntarily have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with any man, woman or animal.
Those convicted are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or for life and a fine.
The Supreme Court decision of 11 December reversed the High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision.
Purporting to uphold the separation of powers, the judgment of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court by ruling that it acted in excess of its judicial review jurisdiction by failing to exercise restraint and to accord the necessary deference to the Indian legislature in its review of the constitutionality of section 377.
The Court effectively holds that the provision is not inconsistent with human rights and India’s obligations under international human right law, and that it is up to the Indian Parliament to amend or repealed it.
The ICJ is deeply troubled by the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment.
It would appear to constitute an abdication of the essential role of the judiciary in safeguarding human rights.
In this case, the Court failed to uphold and protect the rights to equality and non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; dignity; privacy; freedom of expression and association; family life; and the highest attainable standard of health.
The judgment is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law.
The judgment also disconcertingly dismisses without apparent reason the wealth of evidence before the court documenting how the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct leads directly to human rights violations.
Dec 19, 2013 | News
The ICJ deplores the death sentences handed down by the People’s Court of Hanoi on December 17 to two former shipping executives and urges the government of Viet Nam to desist from carrying out the planned executions.
Viet Nam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines) former chairman Duong Chi Dung and former general director Mai Van Phuc were found guilty of embezzling nearly USD $1 million from the state-owned company and sentenced to death.
“The announced death sentences fly in the face of encouraging human rights developments in Viet Nam, such as the State’s signing the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in November,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s regional director for Asia and the Pacific. “This is a major setback at a time when it appeared Viet Nam was making progress towards ending capital punishment.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Following the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in 2009, Viet Nam agreed to revise its legislation on the death penalty in line with the country’s international obligations.
Since then it has reduced the number of crimes punishable by death, and changed its method of administering the sentence from firing squad to injection by lethal substance.
It is estimated that more than 600 people remain on death row in the country. Most were convicted on drug-related offences.
“At present, approximately two thirds of the world’s countries have already either abolished capital punishment or have moratoriums on executions,” said Zarifi. “It is regrettable that Viet Nam has chosen to exclude itself from this global trend.”
The ICJ calls on the Government of Viet Nam to immediately put in place a moratorium on its practice, with a view to abolishing the death penalty, as demanded by the United Nations General Assembly in repeated resolutions on the question.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Dec 14, 2013 | News
The ICJ today urged the Lao PDR government to reverse its inaction in determining the fate of community activist Sombath Somphone, who was allegedly subjected to enforced disappearance a year ago.
In a legal memorandum on the one-year anniversary of Sombath’s enforced disappearance, the ICJ called on the Lao authorities to fulfill their country’s obligations under international law and carry out a thorough and impartial investigation into his whereabouts.
It also said the government must cooperate with regional and international human rights mechanisms, particularly the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.
“It is deplorable that one year after Sombath Somphone was abducted after being stopped by traffic police, the public prosecutor has yet to institute formal
or criminal proceedings into his disappearance’’, said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific regional director.
“The government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic must immediately take effective measure to ensure animpartial and thorough investigation and bring justice to those responsible for crimes against Sombath Somphone,” he added.
Sixty-two-year old Sombath Somphone, Lao PDR’s most prominent community development advocate and a Ramon Magsaysay Award winner, was last seen on December 15, 2013, on a road in the capital Vientiane.
Closed circuit Television (CCTV) footage showed him being stopped at a police checkpoint, exiting his vehicle, getting into another vehicle with unidentified men and being driven away. He has not been seen since.
The Lao PDR government has denied any involvement in Sombath Somphone’s abduction. But reports released by police reveal a wholly inadequate investigation that lacks any credible explanation as to his fate or whereabouts.
In January this year, the ICJ called on the AICHR to play a proactive role in the case and to use the opportunity to address issues of enforced and involuntary disappearances in the region. To date, the AICHR has yet to take any meaningful action.
If the AICHR is to have any meaning, it must fulfill its mandate under Article 4, paragraph 1.11 of its Terms of Reference and develop a common position and strategy for tackling the widespread impunity of all acts of enforced disappearances in ASEAN, the legal memorandum said.
“An effective investigation, conducted in accordance with international standards, is essential in order that family members of Sombath Somphone and the public as a whole may discover the truth about his fate and whereabouts, and bring justice and reparation,’’ said Zarifi.
Background
Sombath Somphone is the founder and former director of the Participatory Development Training Center (PADETC), a non-governmental organization that supports holistic education and youth development as well as promoting eco-friendly technologies and micro-enterprises.
In October 2012, Sombath assisted the Lao government and non-governmental organizations convene an Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF). The event was widely attended, drawing 948 participants from Lao PDR as well as other Asian countries.
It was the first time groups publicly criticized human rights abuses in Lao PDR, a Communist-run Southeast Asian country bordering Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar and China.
The legal memorandum also covers the right of a family member to the right to information in such cases of enforced disappearances pursuant to both international standards as well as domestic laws in Lao PDR.
Recommendations
The key recommendations in the legal memorandum include:
(a) The public prosecutor, to launch a credible, prompt, thorough, impartial and effective investigation into the fate and whereabouts of Sombath Somphone. In the event that the public prosecutor fails to do so, an independent and credible authority should be established to undertake prompt, thorough and impartial investigation, consistent with international standards, into the alleged enforced disappearance as well as allegations of arbitrary detention, torture or ill-treatment;
(b) In furtherance of this investigation, the investigating authority should immediately seek and accept assistance from foreign experts on analysis of forensic evidence; and
(c) The investigating authority should provide relevant material and conclusions from any investigation to Sombath Somphone’s wife, to the extent compatible with the prosecution of the case.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Lao-Legal Memorandum-annex on the case of Sombath Somphone-advocay-2013 (download in pdf)
