Mar 9, 2020 | News
The ICJ today expressed regret at the death of Judge Khanakorn Pianchana, who committed suicide on 7 March 2020. Judge Khanakorn was widely known after an attempted suicide in October 2019 following the delivery of a verdict which he claimed was interfered by a senior judge.
Judge Khanakorn previously served as Vice Presiding Judge of the Yala Provincial Court in Thailand’s restive southern region. He passed away on 7 March 2020 at his home in Chiang Mai province.
Background
Before the suicide, Judge Khanakorn posted a two-page letter on his Facebook page, in which he claimed that he had been subject to disciplinary proceeding and had criminal charge brought against him after he had publicized his concerns about interference by a superior judge into certain rulings. These involved five individuals detained and interrogated under special security laws in southern Thailand.
In October 2019, Judge Khanakorn claimed in a public letter that he had been ordered by a senior judge to rewrite a ruling in which he exonerated the five individuals charged with murder, for lack of evidence. Following his delivery of the verdict, he shot himself in the chest in a courtroom at Yala Provincial Court.
After his first suicide attempt, according to the Office of the Judiciary’s Press Release dated 18 November 2019, the Judicial Commission initiated an investigation against him for violations of provisions on discipline of judicial officials. He was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeal Region 5 in Chiang Mai, at which time he was further investigated for committing criminal offences under the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation Firearms Act.
On 7 March 2020, according to the interview gave by Secretary-General of Office of the Judiciary, an initial investigation of the Judicial Commission found that there had been no improper interference, and the disciplinary actions and the criminal charges that are brought against Judge Khanakorn were based on his actions for carrying a gun into court and using the gun to attempt suicide.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Download
To download the statement in Thai, click here.
Mar 4, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ called on the Malaysian authorities to cease investigations of human rights defenders engaging in peaceful protest.
The ICJ further said that the investigations pose a threat to the exercise of the right to expression and peaceful assembly, which is protected under international law and the Malaysian Federal Constitution.
“These investigations have the effect of harassing and intimidating human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists and look worryingly like a new crackdown on dissent,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
Malaysian law enforcement authorities have opened investigations against Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, an ICJ Commissioner, and nineteen (19) other individuals including human rights defenders Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Dobby Chew, Amir Abd. Hadi and Nalini Elumalai. They are being investigated for violations of the deeply problematic Sedition Act 1948 and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, in connection with wholly peaceful gatherings held over the past few days that were called attention to the recent, sudden political changes in Malaysia.
The ICJ raised concerns that the laws pursuant to which the investigations are being conducted are inconsistent with international and constitutional human rights law and standards. The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 imposes onerous requirements to organize a peaceful assembly. Meanwhile, the Sedition Act 1948 contains wide, overbroad definitions of what amounts to a ‘seditious tendency’, placing critical voices at risk.
“International law protects the right to hold peaceful assemblies, with limited exceptions not applicable here,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser. “The ICJ has repeatedly called on Malaysia to abolish these laws, which impose unjustifiably burdensome restrictions and disproportionate penalties on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and other international legal authorities has also said that while some regulation can be appropriate concerning places of protest, “no authorization should be required to assemble peacefully.”
Previous governments have promised to abolish the Sedition Act, including the Pakatan Harapan coalition which pledged to scrap both the Sedition Act and reform the Peaceful Assembly Act as part of their election manifesto in 2018. To date, no such reforms has been undertaken.
The ICJ reiterated its call on the government to abolish the Sedition Act and abolish or reform the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. The ICJ also called on the Malaysian government to end the use of these laws to harass and investigate persons solely for participation in peaceful protest.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists, t: +66 2 619 8477 local 203; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Malaysian human rights defenders and civil society groups have been organizing peaceful assemblies to express concern over the current political developments. On 2 March 2020, Malaysian police opened investigations into several individuals for alleged violation of the Sedition Act.
Section 4(1) of the Act reads “[a]ny person who… does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have seditious tendency… shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgits or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.”
The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 sets down onerous requirements that must be met in order to carry out a peaceful assembly, including: restrictions on the right to organize or participate in an assembly (Section 4) which includes non-citizens; requirements for a ten day notice of an assembly to the Officer in Charge of the Police District, failure to do so will be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit (Section 9(5)); and broad restrictions and conditions that may be imposed by the Officer in Charge of the Police District at their discretion (Section 15).
Mar 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ hosted a two-day workshop on 29 February and 1 March 2020 in Yangon, Myanmar entitled “Workshop on the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death.”
Some 25 lawyers attended the event, including criminal lawyers handling murder cases and human rights lawyers. The workshop was opened with remarks by Frederick Rawski, Director of the ICJ’s Asia & Pacific Programme. He emphasized the importance of conducting investigations consistent with international standards in holding perpetrators accountable for unlawful killings.
The Minnesota Protocol provides guidance on the State’s implementation of its duty under international law to investigate potentially unlawful killings, including when State actors may have been involved. It applies to deaths under custody, suspicious deaths and enforced disappearances. Myanmar has experienced widespread incidents of such deaths, including in recent years those constituting serious crimes under international law.
An overview of the international human rights law framework was provided by ICJ Associate Legal Adviser Jenny Domino, highlighting how the conduct of prompt, effective and impartial investigations into unlawful killings is a core component of the State’s obligation to uphold the right to life. Drawing from her previous work in the Philippines, she also discussed the applicability of Minnesota Protocol standards to the human rights investigations of the killings arising from the Philippine ‘war on drugs’. ICJ Legal Adviser Hnin Win Aung then introduced the Minnesota Protocol and its 2016 revision before discussing the role of lawyers in ensuring that the State conducts investigations in accordance with international standards.
Glenn Williams, an experienced international criminal investigator and Detective Inspector (Retired) of the New Zealand Police Force, discussed how to properly secure a crime scene and chain of custody in order to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Participants applied these skills in a group exercise based on a real-life case scenario. He also presented on the proper conduct of witness interviews and the investigative challenges of dealing with telecommunications evidence.
Dr Porntip Rojanasunan, a forensic pathologist in Thailand and Member of the Expert Advisory Panel during the Minnesota Protocol revision process, shared her forensic expertise through illustrative cases that she had worked on in Southeast Asia in the past two decades. Dr Porntip stressed the importance of forensic pathology in determining the true cause of death and of conducting an autopsy in potential cases of human rights violations.
The workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing promotion of international human rights law and standards globally. In Asia, this has included engagement with Myanmar authorities as well as authorities in neighboring countries on the Minnesota Protocol.
See also
Myanmar: ICJ co-hosts Minnesota Protocol workshop with government authorities
Myanmar: ICJ discusses the Minnesota Protocol with prosecutors
Statement: Five years without justice for journalist Ko Par Gyi
Related material
Minnesota Protocol (English)
Minnesota Protocol (unofficial Burmese translation)
Feb 27, 2020 | Advocacy, News
In January and February 2020, the ICJ supported community dialogue events on international and national law and standards relating to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
The events were organized by the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) for around 50 youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region in Myanmar.
The program sought to improve the capacity of local youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region to understand how freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is protected by the international and national legal frameworks and apply this understanding to their activities.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, introduced the concept of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) u, and applicable international standards on FoRB for Myanmar including how FoRB interacts with other human rights such as freedom of expression. She presented an overview of the domestic legal framework on FoRB and highlighted the State’s obligation to implement such laws and policies to respect and protect the equality, non-discrimination and other rights of individuals and to particularly address violations of their rights to FoRB.
The participants raised the need to improve the quality of public discussion on FoRB and related human rights, and shared this experiences in advocating for the protection of FoRB – including the limitation and challenges that they have faced.
The activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors and lawyers in Myanmar with a view to advancing FoRB in the country, and builds on the ICJ’s previous work on this theme.
Contact
Ja Seng Ing, ICJ Legal Researcher, e: jaseng.ing(a)icj.org
Related material
Primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, January 2019
New report examines right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, March 2019
Feb 10, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ conducted a workshop for journalists on fair trial rights and due process on 9 February 2020 in Yangon to help them respond to situations of arrest and prosecution
Some 25 journalists across Myanmar participated in the event, including media representatives from ethnic communities in Shan and Kachin states. Members of nationwide journalism networks, the Myanmar Media Lawyers Network, and the Myanmar Press Council also participated.
The workshop apprised journalists of the guarantees and rights of persons arrested and prosecuted under international human rights law, and the limited protections available under Myanmar law in comparison. It provided a space for participants to collectively identify gaps in journalistic protection. It also intended to foster greater collaboration between journalists and lawyers in safeguarding a free press in Myanmar.
The workshop opened with remarks from Linda van der Horst, head of the political section of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Myanmar, and Ross Clarke, Team Leader at the ICJ. Both stressed the role of the media in ensuring a robust democracy that adheres to the rule of law, especially in light of the upcoming 2020 national elections. Linda Van der Horst noted that the workshop could also help journalists more deeply understand legal concepts useful for their reporting.
ICJ Associate Legal Adviser Jenny Domino addressed the rights of arrested persons and fair trial guarantees in criminal proceedings under international law. She highlighted the unlawfulness of arresting a journalist as punishment for his work in ensuring that individuals receive information in a free and democratic society. In a comparative context, she discussed the various writs available under Philippine law to protect journalists from unlawful arrests, extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
ICJ Legal Adviser Hnin Win Aung then discussed Myanmar criminal procedure and the pre-trial rights of criminal defendants. She introduced the writ of habeas corpus remedy under the 2014 Law on the Application for Writs for contesting arbitrary detention. She explained the limitations of this remedy and the practical challenges of litigating in the Myanmar courts.
The presentations were followed by a panel discussion on fair trial rights challenges in Myanmar. The panel was composed of U Myint Kyaw of the Myanmar Press Council, U Brang Mai of Myitkyina Journal, U Myo Aung of Dawei Watch and U Than Zaw Aung of Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network. The speakers agreed that there is no equality before the law and pushed for greater advocacy on judicial independence and impartiality.
To conclude the workshop, the participants shared their thoughts on how lawyers and the ICJ could help local media moving forward. The participants suggested a human rights analysis of how fair trial rights are undermined in practice by various actors in Myanmar’s criminal justice system. They also expressed their interest to work more closely with lawyers towards better reporting of current events.
The workshop marks the ICJ’s effort to support journalists and empower persons from minority groups towards greater participation in Myanmar’s democratic transition.
Contact
Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org
Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org
Related material
Strategic Litigation Handbook for Myanmar
Briefing Paper, Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar
Event, ICJ hosts workshop with civil society on freedom of religion or belief
Jan 23, 2020 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s Order of the International Court of Justice (Court) in the case of The Gambia v Myanmar indicating provisional measures to protect the rights of the persecuted Rohingya minority under the Genocide Convention and calls on Myanmar to implement the Order without delay.
“The Order is a significant step towards justice for the Rohingya as it imposes specific, legally-binding, obligations on Myanmar to take critical steps to protect their rights under the Genocide Convention,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists, currently in Yangon, Myanmar. “It is now incumbent on the whole international community, including States, civil society and UN agencies, to urge and assist Myanmar to fulfil its obligations under the Order.”
In its Order, delivered orally, the Court found it had prima facie jurisdiction over the case and indicated a series of provisional measures, including that Myanmar must:
- take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of the definition of genocide set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention;
- ensure that its military as well as any irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, and any organizations or persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence do not commit acts of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide;
- take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of any evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention; and
- submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to the Order within four months as from the date of the Order and thereafter every six months until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court. Every report will be communicated to the Gambia which will then have the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.
Provisional measures are orders the Court has the power to make aimed at preserving the rights of the Parties to a case pending the final decision of the Court in order to avoid irreparable damage to the rights which are the subject of the dispute, in this case the rights of the Rohingya.
A hearing on the merits of the case will be heard at a later date.
The role of the Court is to settle disputes submitted to it by States in accordance with international law – its role does not extend to determining the criminal responsibility of individuals for perpetrating serious human rights violations.
“As Myanmar is unwilling and unable to conduct investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions of serious human rights violations domestically which meet international law and standards, the various processes underway around the world directed towards criminal accountability- including the investigation of the International Criminal Court – remain necessary and urgent,” added Zarifi.
In 2018, the International Commission of Jurists issued a baseline study of the obstacles to accountability for serious human rights violations in Myanmar identifying “systematic impunity” within the country as a result of the “lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations; lack of access to effective remedies and reparation for victims; and ongoing challenges with the independence and accountability of justice actors.”
International processes underway around the world directed at criminal accountability for serious human rights violations in the Myanmar situation include:
To download the full statement with background information, click here.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t: +41 79 726 4415; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
