Jan 31, 2014 | News
The Parliament of Nepal should reject the Ordinance on Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearances tabled this week and enact a new transitional justice mechanism that complies with international human rights law, the ICJ and HRW said today.
The Ordinance on Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, signed by the President on 14 March, 2013, was declared unconstitutional and in violation of international human rights law by the Nepali Supreme Court on 2 January, 2014.
In a directive, the Supreme Court ordered the Ordinance be repealed or amended significantly to bring it in line with Nepal’s obligations under national and international law.
However, on 27 January, the Government reintroduced the Ordinance with no amendments in the meeting of the Legislative-Parliament – in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s orders.
“Tabling a rejected version of the Ordinance after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on transitional justice is contemptuous, and raises serious concerns over the government’s respect for the rule of law in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director.
The Interim Constitution says clearly that the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding on the Government of Nepal. Article 116 of the Interim Constitution states that any order issued by the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing of a case shall be binding on the Government of Nepal and all its offices and courts.
The Supreme Court has previously held that any mechanism for transitional justice must conform with international standards, lead to accountability for serious human rights violations, and ensure victims their right to remedy and reparations, which includes the right to truth, justice, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
In its 2013 briefing paper, “Authority without Accountability,” the ICJ expressed concern over multiple provisions in the Ordinance, including amnesty provisions, which would entrench impunity for gross human rights violations in Nepal.
Any amnesty for gross human rights violations would add another layer to the complex web of immunities, documented in the report, that continue to shield those responsible for human rights abuse from accountability in Nepal.
“The Parliament of Nepal should strongly reject the tabled Ordinance and the government must expeditiously implement the Supreme Court’s directive,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “The ordinance in its current form violates undertakings made as part of the peace agreement, and essentially strips victims of serious rights abuses of a proper chance at justice.”
The rights groups called on the government to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling, creating a new transitional justice law that, at a minimum:
- Establishes two separate transitional justice commissions: a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” and a “Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappeared Persons;”
- Criminalizes the act of enforced disappearance in accordance with the definition set out in the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and ensures that it is punishable with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime;
- Criminalizes other serious crimes, including crimes against humanity, and other crimes under international law, in a manner that is consistent with international law;
- Prohibits amnesties for gross human rights violations or crimes under international law;
- Does not contain a limitation period on the reporting of violations and ensures there are no time limits on the prosecutions of of serious crimes including enforced disappearance, other crimes under international law including, war crimes, and crimes against humanity;
- Ensures that the composition and structure of the Commissions complies with international standards. In particular, there should be a fair vetting system which aims to ensure the impartiality of the commission members and to ensure that no individuals against whom there are credible allegations they have committed human rights abuses are selected as Commissioners;
- Requires the necessary legal and institutional measures to be taken to enable and ensure the establishment, adequate resourcing and maintenance of effective victim and witness protection mechanisms; and
- Establishes and requires other necessary legal, administrative, institutional, or other arrangements for an effective reparation program.
Contact:
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi: +66-857200723; or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Kathmandu, Ben Schonveld +977-9804596661; : ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Read also: ICJ releases new report on the struggle for justice in Nepal
The report Authority without accountability: the struggle for justice in Nepal can also be downloaded below:
Nepal-SUMMARY-Authority without Accountability-Publication-report summary-2012 (full text in pdf)
Nepal-FULL-Authority without accountability-publications-report-2012 (full text in pdf)
Jan 23, 2014 | News
The ICJ criticized the Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s decision to deny bail to 23 people who were arrested and detained earlier this month following protests by garment factory workers seeking a higher minimum wage.
The detainees’ lawyers told the ICJ that the court denied bail for the first nine detainees, arrested on 2 January 2014, in order to “guarantee their presence for further legal proceedings”, “to preserve public order” and “to prevent instability that results from the commission of crimes”.
The remaining 13 detainees, arrested on 3 January 2014, were denied bail in order to “end crime”, “prevent new crime” and “ensure detainees are available for trial”.
The decision to deny bail to the 22 detainees followed the Court’s decision on 13 January 2014 to deny bail to Vorn Pao, President of the Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA).
Considering his application separately from the others, the court, similarly, provided the same reasons as in the case of the first nine detainees.
“International law is clear that pre-trial detention could only be exercised in exceptional situations, and avoided if suitable alternatives are possible,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The reasons presented by the Court don’t justify holding these activists in prison right now.”
All 23 of those whose bail applications have been denied have been charged with causing intentional violence and damage to property. Three face additional charges for violent resistance against a public official, as well as a traffic offence.
They were arrested as part of the government’s response to striking garment workers and demonstrators protesting the 28-year-rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen (photo).
Security forces shot and killed at least four protesters on 3 January. The government has banned further protests.
Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a party, guarantees the right to liberty. It states, “It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial”. Such guarantees include bail.
“There are alternatives to the detention, such as bail or other conditions the court could impose on these 23 detained activists if the Court is concerned, on the basis of substantiated and objective grounds that there is a risk that each of them will abscond before the trial or interfere with the investigation,” said Zarifi. “In the absence of such proof and the serious consideration of alternatives the continued pre-trial detention of each of the 23 individuals would amount to arbitrary detention under international human rights standards.”
Vorn Pao’s lawyers filed an appeal on 14 January 2014 and the Court is expected to issue a decision on his appeal by 3 February 2014.
According to the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, Vorn Pao appears weak and continues to suffer pain from the head injuries he sustained.
Lawyers for the other 22 detainees have also expressed their intention to appeal the Court’s decision to deny them bail.
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 21, 2014 | News
The ICJ today condemned the imposition of the death penalty on 30 people found guilty of drug trafficking in Viet Nam and urged its government to amend laws and take steps towards abolishing the death penalty.
On 20 January, 21 men and nine women were convicted of drug trafficking following a 17-day trial held within the compound of a detention center rather than in a court.
“Viet Nam has the highest number of executions in the ASEAN,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “This is really of serious concern, especially since its courts have been widely criticized as lacking independence, and judicial proceedings have frequently violated international fair trial standards.”
The ICJ repeatedly has criticized Viet Nam’s violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.
Under international law, the death penalty may only be lawfully pronounced as a sentence for the most serious crimes, after a full and fair trial. The imposition of the death penalty in this case — a prosecution for drug trafficking — is inconsistent with international law and standards that define the most serious crimes as those involving the intention to kill and resulting in the loss of life.
“Viet Nam’s failure to abolish the death penalty goes against the global trend,” said Zarifi. “The country has chosen to act contrary to repeated calls in several resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the issue.”
According to a report by the Secretary General to the General Assembly in 2012, 150 of the 193 UN member states either have abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium on it.
Among member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Philippines has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OP2), abolishing the death penalty. Cambodia also has abolished the death penalty. Lao PDR, Myanmar and Brunei have not carried out the death penalty in several years. Aside from Viet Nam, four other ASEAN Member States still retain the death penalty: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia.
In November 2013, Viet Nam was elected as a member of the UN Human Rights Council.
Sam Zarifi noted, “The recent death sentences handed down in Viet Nam, in violation of international law, suggest a lack of respect for international law at odds with the spirit of a country newly taking its seat at the UN Human Rights Council.”
It is estimated that more than 600 prisoners are now awaiting execution in Viet Nam. It last imposed the death penalty on 19 December 2013 on two former shipping executives found guilty of embezzlement.
The ICJ considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Viet Nam to immediately establish a moratorium on executions and take steps towards the complete abolition of the death penalty.
CONTACT:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia, tel. no. (Bangkok) +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), tel.no. +66819077653, email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
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.
