Sep 4, 2019 | News
The announcement that the remains of Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, a Karen rights activist, have been located, brings a sad end to years of uncertainty for his family, said the ICJ and Amnesty International today.
This development should lead to a renewed focus on identifying the perpetrator(s) of his apparent enforced disappearance and bringing them to justice.
On 3 September 2019, the Thai Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) announced it had located bone fragments, which they had identified as likely belonging to Billy inside an oil tank submerged in water near a suspension bridge inside Kaeng Krachan National Park in Phetchaburi province.
“The DSI should redouble its efforts to identify the perpetrator(s) of Billy’s killing and bring them to justice,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Regional Director of the ICJ. “If, based on an assessment of the evidence, it is found that Billy was the victim of enforced disappearance, then the perpetrators, including those with command responsibility, should be charged with the appropriate, serious offences in accordance with Thailand’s obligations under international law – not only with lesser crimes that do not reflect the gravity of the offense.”
Billy was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials.
“This case highlights the serious risks activists and human rights defenders face in Thailand, including assaults, enforced disappearance and killings,” said Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International’s interim Regional Director of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “It underscores the long-overdue need for the Thai government to make enforced disappearance a crime under national law. A failure to do so results in the lack of an independent, impartial and effective mechanism to investigate the cases, exacerbating the current climate of impunity.”
The DSI stated that the recovered bones contain DNA inherited from Billy’s mother, which suggests they belong to a person who was related to her. However, the DSI declined to disclose the name of any suspect(s) and requested more time to investigate the case and examine the remains.
Background
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Freedom from enforced disappearance is protected under both these treaties, as enforced disappearance will always constitute violations of some or more of the following rights: the right to life; freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to liberty; and the right to recognition as a person under the law. These are in addition to violations of the rights of members of the disappeared person’s family through suffering deliberately inflicted on them through the imposition on them of uncertainty about their love one’s fate and whereabouts.
Thailand has also signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). The ICPPED affirms the absolute right not to be subject to enforced disappearance and places an obligation on states to investigate acts of enforced disappearance, to make it a criminal offence punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its “extreme seriousness” and to take necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice.
The Government has stated it will not ratify the Convention until its provisions are incorporated in domestic law. However, efforts to pass the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (draft Act) stalled after it was dropped by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) prior to the 2019 national election. The draft Act is currently pending the consideration of the President of the National Assembly. Under international law of treaties, as signatory to the ICPPED, still is bound to desist from any acts which would defeat its object and purpose.
Thailand has a binding obligation under international law to conduct prompt, effective and thorough, independent and impartial, and transparent investigations into all suspected cases of unlawful death and enforced disappearance.
According to the ICPPED and the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016), which contains the international standards on the conduct of investigations into unlawful death and enforced disappearance – and which Thailand launched in May 2017 – records that investigations “must seek to identify not only direct perpetrators but also all others who were responsible for the death, including, for example, officials in the chain of command who were complicit in the death.” (para 26)
Download
Thailand-Discovery of Billy remains-news-webstory-2019-THA (full story in PDF)
Further reading
Thailand: special investigation into apparent enforced disappearance of “Billy” welcome, but much more is needed
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Justice for Billy: Time for Thailand to Account for Activist’s Disappearance
Contact
For ICJ: Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Sep 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News
From 1 and 2 September 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, Clément Nyaletsossi VOULE, and lawyers and trade union representatives met and discussed challenges faced in Southeast Asia on exercising the right to freedom of association of workers.
The event was organized by the ICJ together with Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), and supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
At the meeting’s conclusion, the participants reached a consensus to work for the development regional guidelines on freedom of association of workers in the ASEAN and agreed to form a Working Group that would be tasked to develop these guidelines. The Working Group nominated by the participants is composed of trade union representatives at the national level, lawyers, among other experts.
In his keynote speech, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that freedom of association is a fundamental right for all workers without which they lack the power to fight discrimination and injustice in the workplace. He also explained the link between the rights to freedom of association and expression, “Freedom of association is closely related to freedom of expression as they both represent opening up of space for dialogue and an enabling environment where unions can participate freely.”
The participants at the meeting were practicing lawyers from Southeast Asia focusing on labor and employment and trade unions leaders and representatives. Other participants included representatives from human rights organizations addressing business and human rights and the right to freedom of association; the ASEAN Secretariat; the International Labor Organization (ILO), the ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
“Shrinking political and civic space combined with inequality and social marginalization are key challenges at the heart of business-related human rights violations in Southeast Asia,” said Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Regional Representative for UN Human Rights. “Governments must implement their obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights in relation to business activities. It is equally critical to ensure that businesses meet their responsibilities to respect human rights.”
During the meeting, the participants also discussed the role of women in labour organizing and the additional challenges women face when they exercise the right to freedom of association in the workplace. Betty Yolanda, Asia Regional Manager of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC) said: “Women workers face multiple forms of discrimination and challenges. They are fighting for their rights as workers in the company and at the same time they are also fighting the patriarchy.”
The participants identified common challenges confronted in the region where workers’ rights to freedom of association face legal and physical limitations. Migrant workers, women workers and workers in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were identified as being particularly at risk in exercising their rights.
“It is crucial that we discuss these challenges openly and with all stakeholders, particularly issues that affect those who work in the informal sector, and other vulnerable communities such as migrant workers. Special investment frameworks, special economic zones and other government-led initiatives meant to attract foreign investment potentially create new opportunities to increase transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, they are more often used to justify lowering human rights standards, or impose new restrictions that act to limit workers and communities abilities to express their grievances or exercise their rights to association,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Contact:
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Sep 2, 2019 | News
On 30 August 2019, on the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared, the ICJ co-hosted an art exhibition, a closed-door round table discussion and a public forum titled “Enforced Disappearance and the Absence of a Law” to commemorate individuals who were subject to apparent enforced disappearance and whose fates remains unknown.
The closed-door round table discussion provided an opportunity for victims’ voices to be heard on challenges faced in gaining access to justice and redress. Relatives spoke about the challenges they face, mostly about the poor progress of investigations into the allegations of enforced disappearance against their relatives.
Sanhawan Srisod, the ICJ’s Legal Adviser, during the closed-door round table discussion, gave a briefing about the latest developments on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act. The legislation had been dropped by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) prior to the 2019 national elections, but is currently before the President of the National Assembly, pending his consideration to bring it before the House of Representative.
The public forum focused on the development and progress of the investigations into enforced disappearances and evaluated the progress in developing legislation in Thailand to address this critical issue.
During the public forum, Sanhawan Srisod highlighted that the Draft Act would, if adopted, fail to bring the law into full compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations. The key concerns include:
- Incomplete definitions of the crimes of enforced disappearance;
- The continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance that was not recognized in the Draft Act;
- Inadequacy of provisions on the command responsibility;
- Possibility that the military court may have power to try and adjudicate enforced disappearance cases; and
- Insufficient safeguards against enforced disappearances.
Background
Thailand has signed but has yet to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
According to their 2018 annual report, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded 86 outstanding cases of alleged enforced disappearance in Thailand.
The Thai government, through the recently set up Committee Managing Complaints for Torture and Enforced Disappearance Cases, says it is currently conducting investigations in connection with this list.
Closed-door round table discussion session included the following speakers: Ms. Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, wife of Mr. Porlajee Billy Rakchongcharoen; Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Mr. Somchai Neelapaijit; Ms. Pranee Danwattananusorn, wife of Mr. Surachai Danwattananusorn; Mr. Adisorn Pho-Arn, son of Mr. Thanong Pho-Arn; Ms. Kanya Theerawut, mother of Mr. Siam Theerawut; Ms. Suphab Kamlae, wife of Mr. Den Kamlae; Mr. Prasert Laosophapan, brother of Mr. Kamon Laosophapan; Ms. Shui-Meng Ng, wife of Mr. Sombath Somphone from Lao PDR; Mr. Truong Son Nguyen, Regional Campaigner, Amnesty International Vietnam; Representatives, indigenous Lahu Community, Chiang Mai province; and Ms. Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists
Public forum session included the following speakers: Ms. Shui-Meng Ng, representative of Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances; Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Mr. Somchai Neelapaijit; Ms. Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, wife of Mr. Porlajee Billy Rakchongcharoen; Mr. Angsukate Wisutwattanasak, Director of Security Cases Department 1, Department of Special Investigation (DSI); Ms. Nongporn Roongpetchwong, Human Rights Expert, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice; and Ms. Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists. The opening session included remarks from Mr. Giuseppe Busini, Deputy Head of Mission of the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, and Mr. Surapong Kongchantuk, President of the Cross-Cultural Foundation. The closing session included remarks from Mr. Badar Farrukh, Human Rights Officer, OHCHR Regional Representative for South East Asia.
See Also:
Summary of the ICJ analysis of the Draft Act (PDF)
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Jul 21, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ hosted a discussion on Thailand’s legal frameworks on corporate accountability for outbound investments in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The forum was co-organized with Earth Rights International.
Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand attended the discussion.
Participants discussed:
- corporate civil, criminal and administrative liability and in particular, the applicable laws governing the prosecution and adjudication of human rights abuses committed by Thai corporations and gaps in Thailand’s legal frameworks. The meeting also looked into recommendations to strengthen Thailand’s domestic laws to increase access to justice for victims of human rights abuses committed by Thai corporations in the context of their business activities abroad, particularly on issues such as: limited liability of shareholders and the “corporate veil” in relation to the responsibilities of Thai corporations, the complexity of laws governing joint ventures, and challenges in bringing state-owned enterprises to justice;
- jurisdiction of Thai courts in civil, criminal and administrative cases where de facto and de jure foreign subsidiaries of a Thai corporation were involved in wrongful acts or omissions abroad, and problems posed by statutes of limitation;
- tools for preventing human rights abuses by corporations such as Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD), Transboundary environmental impact assessments (EIA), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) measures, and the Duty of Care principle under tort law; and
- the role of other related actors to prevent and mitigate human rights risks, including the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), National Contact Points (NCPs), financial institutions and securities institutions, and provided recommendations to strengthen mandates of such organizations which would allow them to provide better protection for individuals and communities who may be affected by outbound investments.
This discussion will provide the foundation for further work and analysis by the ICJ regarding Thailand’s legal frameworks on corporate accountability for outbound investments. It will also provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level.
Jul 15, 2019 | News
On 13 July 2019, the ICJ hosted a discussion on the human rights consequences of Special Investment Zones in Thailand particularly focusing on the legislative frameworks of Thailand’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC).
Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from across Thailand attended the discussion.
The participants explored existing adverse impacts and potential future impacts on human rights arising from the implementation of the current EEC and SEZ legal frameworks.
The discussion focused on: (i) governing authorities of the SEZs and EEC; (ii) designation of target areas and land acquisition; (iii) environment, health and well-being of the local communities; (iv) other rights of affected individuals and communities; (v) issues pertaining to workers and labour rights and (vi) roles of other stakeholders, including financial institutions, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, and the corporate sector.
The participants considered concerns with respect to Thailand’s duty to protect human rights under international human rights standards and identified key issues of concern relating to the legal frameworks of the EEC and SEZs.
During their discussion, the participants highlighted the lack of meaningful participation of affected individuals or communities at the policy and law-making levels and the absence of a formalized way for such individuals and communities to voice their concerns regarding their inability to exercise their rights connected to economic, cultural and social development and international human rights law.
The participants highlighted that the processes of land acquisition and classification of State-owned lands in the areas of SEZs and the EEC were allegedly not carried out in a human rights-compliant manner, and were not in line with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement.
Key concerns were raised regarding people and communities who has been living on lands upon which they depend for their livelihoods but to which they do not hold land title deeds.
Some participants also stressed the importance of strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental & Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) procedures.
Proposed improvements included the hiring of independent consultants to carry out EIA and EHIA assessments, effective review by an independent body to ensure the credibility of assessment reports, and other mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and follow-up on assessments.
Participants also called for the following rights to be respected in the implementation of development-based policy:(i) the right to genuinely and meaningfully take part in public affairs; (ii) the right to take part in cultural life; (iii) the right to secure one’s livelihood; (iv) the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; (v) the right to water and sanitation; and (vi) the right of access to justice, which encompasses the right to effective remedy and guarantees of the due process of law.
They also urged financial institutions which fund the development of the EEC and SEZs to take a more active role to prevent and mitigate human rights risks.
This discussion will provide the foundation for further work and analysis by the ICJ in detailing the human rights consequences of special investment zones frameworks in Thailand, focusing on the implementation of SEZs and EEC policies. It will also provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level.
Background
The Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are flagship economic schemes of the Thai government to boost Thailand’s economy after the military coup in 2014 through large-scale investments into special investment zones covering areas in 13 provinces of Thailand.
In 2015, 10 SEZs were established in 10 different provinces of Thailand as a means to create economically-productive areas in border cities linked to other countries in Southeast Asia.
The SEZs were established towards enhancing growth in 13 target industries. Each SEZ will have different targets depending on each location development and province strategy.
Launched in 2016, the EEC builds upon the former Eastern Seaboard project and is being developed in the eastern coastal provinces of Rayong, Chonburi, and Chachoengsao purportedly to encourage investment into 10 next-generation industries that use innovation and high technology.
The EEC is also designated to be a pilot model in developing other SEZ areas in the future.
The EEC is currently already in operation in part. Most of the SEZs are currently in the process of land acquisition or classification.
Criticisms raised during the discussion noted that (i) the SEZs and EEC had been established without carrying out assessments with the full participation of affected persons, groups and communities; (ii) local residents had been forced off their land without fair or adequate compensation; and (iii) allowing fast-track environmental impact assessments (EIA) could result in undermining the overall objective and effectiveness of EIA.
Jun 25, 2019 | News
Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which has fueled widespread discrimination against various ethnic minority groups, is irreconcilable with core rule of law principles and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ said today in a briefing paper.
The briefing paper Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible (available in English and Burmese) analyses the legal framework for citizenship in Myanmar, and assesses certain provisions of the 2008 Constitution relevant to citizenship as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law.
This law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
The resulting system enables and legitimizes discrimination against various groups, particularly against persons of South Asian or Chinese descent, members of whole ethnic groups, such as the Rohingya, and also the children of single mothers.
“Enacted by unelected military governments, Myanmar’s citizenship laws fuel widespread discrimination throughout the country,” said Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“The government must act immediately to dismantle this discriminatory system and to protect in law the human rights of all persons,” he added.
The intentionally discriminatory character of this law, and its equally discriminatory implementation, largely explain why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The ICJ recommends three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law and the Child Rights Bill now being considered by the parliament; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) to institute interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
A review of the 1982 Law was recommended in 2017 by the Government’s advisory commission chaired by the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, but the Government has not yet demonstrated any tangible progress on this.
“The government has the means at hand to get rid of this discriminatory system, which has undermined the rule of law and blocked the development of a pluralistic democracy. The government can and must implement the recommendations of its own advisory commission. The pervasiveness of discrimination cannot continue to go unaddressed, and there are no reasonable legal grounds for further delay in initiating pathways to reform,” Bain said.
UN Member States, as well as International Finance Institutions and UN agencies, must also ensure that assistance to the Government of Myanmar enables necessary reforms, and does not, in any way, entrench the existing discriminatory system.
Coinciding with the launch of this report, yesterday the ICJ hosted an event in Yangon where a panel of Myanmar legal scholars and researchers discussed the impact of current legal arrangements for citizenship on human rights, and why law reform is both urgent and possible. Representatives including from diplomatic missions, UN agencies, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, a multilateral donor and Non-Government Organizations attended the event.
Background
“Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts.
In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who had immigrated to Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded in legislation the concept of “national races,” and introduced a hierarchy of citizenship categories that effectively institutes first-class and second-class citizens. Under this system, many life-long residents of Myanmar have effectively been rendered stateless, including members of entire ethnic groups, and children of mixed ancestry.
This discriminatory system has fostered an environment where crimes against humanity have taken place with absolute impunity.
Although section 347 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution guarantees “any person to enjoy equal rights” and protections before the law, other constitutional provisions restrict “fundamental rights” to citizens, including the rights to health and to education. Even for citizens, political rights are limited if a parent, child or spouse is not a citizen of Myanmar – the most infamous example of this is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is constitutionally barred from the Presidency because her sons are foreign citizens.
The formation in February of this year of a Constitutional Amendment Committee also presents opportunities to expand the narrow definition of “fundamental rights,” to ensure their compliance with the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection before the law for “any person” (section 347), and with the State’s international human rights law obligations.
The Child Rights Bill, currently under consideration by the parliament, also offers opportunities to ensure that Myanmar’s laws comply with its treaty obligations, for example, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including with respect to the right of a child to acquire a nationality (citizenship), and the State’s related obligation to prevent statelessness.
See also
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
ICJ materials on human rights law in Myanmar
Download
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-News-web story-2019-BUR (full story in Burmese)
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, sean.bain(a)icj.org
