Nov 26, 2018 | News
The ICJ convened a Forum of international legal experts and Myanmar civil society actors in Yangon from the 24 to 25 November 2018 on Myanmar’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Representing each of Myanmar’s 14 States and Regions, more than 130 civil society members attended the event, which was co-hosted with the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with Dan Church Aid, Norwegian Church Aid, Equality Myanmar and the Local Resource Center.
The ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, Frederick Rawski, introduced the Forum objectives which were to raise awareness of the rights, obligations and reporting processes associated with Myanmar’s ratification of the ICESCR on 6 October 2017.
As a State Party to the ICESCR, Myanmar is obliged to respect, protect and fulfill a variety of human rights including the rights to: decent work, an adequate standard of living, adequate housing, food, water and sanitation, social security, health, and education.
The Chairperson of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Virginia Brás Gomes, discussed the vital role civil society plays in documenting and providing information about human rights challenges, and advocating for law to be enforced and interpreted in compliance with the State’s international law obligations.
Virginia B. Dandan of the Philippines, a former Chairperson of the Committee, described the rights protected under ICESCR and highlighted the universality of human rights and the indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights from other human rights including protection from discrimination.
Visiting Myanmar from the ICJ’s Southern Africa Office, legal adviser Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser in the ICJ Africa Programme, discussed from a comparative perspective the justiciability of ESC rights in South Africa, and the roles lawyers and other civil society actors have played in progressing rights protections.
Legal advisers from the ICJ’s Myanmar Team moderated a series of panel discussions where civil society representatives discussed challenges and opportunities related to the realization of ESC rights in Myanmar.
Separate to this initiative, the visiting international experts also travelled to Nay Pyi Taw to engage with government. Myanmar’s first State report to the ESCR Committee is due in late 2019, also opening opportunities for civil society engagement.
This event was part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors to discuss the promotion and protection of human rights through legal mechanisms.
Nov 15, 2018 | News
The ICJ and the Alternative Law Groups (ALG) today called on the Government of the Philippines to take immediate and effective action to addressing the apparently unlawful killing of Benjamin ‘Ben’ Ramos, a prominent lawyer and a founder of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL).
Benjamin Ramos was shot by two unidentified men in the public plaza of Barangay 5, Kabankalan City on 6 November 2018.
The ICJ and ALG call on the Government of the Philippines to conduct a thorough, prompt, impartial, and independent investigation into the killing of Benjamin Ramos.
Benjamin Ramos, in his work with the NUPL, had previously provided legal assistance to the families of the victims of the ‘Sagay 9 massacre’, which involved the killing of nine sugarcane farmers from the National Federation of Sugar Workers by unidentified armed men on 20 October 2018 in Negros Occidental, a province in the central part of the Philippines.
Given the sensitive nature of the work of Benjamin Ramos, which involved confronting powerful interests, it is important that any investigation consider the suspected links between that work and his killing.
“It is essential for the proper and effective functioning of the administration of justice that lawyers are kept safe as they fulfill their duties to protect the rights of their clients and promote the cause of justice,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
As affirmed by the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all their professional functions without “intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.” In addition,“[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities”.
The organizations note that there have been at least thirty-four (34) lawyers killed since 2016, under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte.
“The rising number of killings of lawyers is very concerning and alarming; it is an attack not only on individual lawyers but on the justice system as whole. The Philippine government must take immediate and proactive measures to ensure the safety of lawyers as they conduct their professional duties,” said Maria Generosa Mislang, National Coordinator of ALG.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 5, 2018 | News
The ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 3rd to 4th November 2018 in Yangon, to enhance understanding of legal protections of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief in Myanmar.
Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, often referred to as the right to freedom of religion of belief (FoRB) is considered by many to be one of the foundations of a democratic society.
The workshop was aimed at discussing State regulation of religion or belief in Myanmar and included some 40 human rights defenders, lawyers and members of religious groups, from across the country.
ICJ legal adviser Sean Bain introduced the right to FoRB under international law and standards – particularly Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr Bain also discussed the complementarity of these articles with other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, and highlighted the limitation clauses in the international treaties which provide a framework for resolving some of the tensions that can arise in specific cases.
Michelle Yesudas, a Malaysian human rights lawyer, shared good practices and lesson learned from application of strategic litigation in FoRB related cases in Malaysian context and spoke about potential approaches and strategies that could be adapted in Myanmar context to push the legislative reform and enforcement of the law.
The ICJ’s legal researcher Dr. Ja Seng Ing and national legal Adviser Advocate Daw Hnin Win Aung jointly facilitated two panel discussions on challenges in free practice of religion or belief specifically focusing on the worship places and Freedom of Expression.
Based on their own independent research, senior legal scholars and human rights defenders from Myanmar also provided their perspectives on national challenges, particularly the absence of the State fulfilling its responsibilities to protect FoRB in Myanmar. Advocate Daw Zar Li Aye discussed available legal remedies and encouraged legal advocacy strategies to ensure protections under the law in Myanmar.
The participants raised a number of notable issues on addressing identified obstacles to the free practice of religion or belief included the need for annulling discriminatory notifications restricting the rights to practice religion freely, the need for safe space to continue the dialogue between FoRB activists, other human rights defenders and lawyers on strategic litigation.
Participants at the conference also recognized the opportunity presented before them in advancing freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar and committed to working collectively to enhance this right.
This event is part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors including lawyers to discuss critical human rights issues in Myanmar with a view to advancing the protection of human rights in the country.
Oct 21, 2018 | News
On 21 October, the ICJ, together with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), organized a lawyers’ meeting in Bangkok on the admissibility of evidence in the context of application of special security laws in Thailand.
Attendees included 30 human rights lawyers, paralegal officers, documentation officers, human rights defenders and journalists from Bangkok and other regions in Thailand.
The objectives of the meeting were:
- To discuss about the challenges that lawyers currently face regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, both in law and in practice, in the context of existing special security laws. These laws include the Martial Law, Emergency Decree, and the Internal Security Act that are applied in the southern border provinces, and certain repressive National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Orders that are applied nationwide;
- To discuss how to address the adverse effects on human rights and the administration of justice as a consequence of the implementation of these laws and how lawyers, members of civil society, and other stakeholders, at national and international levels, may work together to address such challenges; and
- To gather recommendations from participants and discuss future advocacy strategies to tackle identified challenges.
The ICJ’s Legal Memorandum on Hearsay Evidence and International Fair Trial Standards was used as one of the main reference materials during the meeting.
A main recommendation of the Workshop, echoed the ICJ’s assessment in the Legal Memorandum, namely that Thailand should review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards to ensure safeguards required to protect individuals from unfair trials.
Read also
Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards
Oct 14, 2018 | News
From 12 to 13 October 2018, the ICJ and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) held its second national workshop on eliminating gender discriminatory attitudes and behaviours towards women.
Participants at the workshop were members of IBP’s Board of Governors and Committee on Bar Discipline. The workshop was held in Cebu City, Philippines.
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser opened the workshop by emphasizing that it is crucial for lawyers of all areas of expertise to engage in dialogues such as this in order to further enhance women’s access to justice.
Gil pointed out that gender stereotypes incorporated in laws and perpetuated in the administration of justice impair the capacity of women to exercise their right to access to justice.
She emphasized that lawyers, as frontline formal justice actors, play a key role in eliminating these stereotypes.
Marienne Ibadlit, IBP’s Governor for Western Visayas, spoke about the establishment of the Gender and Development (GAD) Committee as a standing committee of the IBP.
The establishment of the GAD Committee is expected to advance gender and women’s human rights within the IBP.
It is also expected to institutionalize within the IBP efforts to build the capacity of lawyers in the Philippines to assist women in accessing justice.
The participants recognized during the opening session that recourse to gender stereotypes in the practice of law and administration of justice is widespread in the Philippines and that gender stereotypes directly impact women’s access to justice.
A range of stereotypes were identified, including the idea of women being the ‘weaker sex’ and the perception that female lawyers are not suited for litigation of controversial political or criminal cases.
During the workshop, participants discussed how they could maximize their role as lawyers in facilitating women’s access to justice, specifically in the areas of domestic violence, sexual violence, family law, and employment law.
Some of the participants noted that they themselves had been influenced by gender stereotypes and committed to be more consciously gender sensitive in their work and personal life.
While acknowledging that much more must be done to bring about systematic change, it was agreed that incremental measures could be impactful.
Abdiel Dan Fajardo, National President of the IBP, expressed support for more action by lawyers in the Philippines on women’s human rights.
Both the ICJ and IBP reinforced their commitment to joint collaboration in furthering the advancements in women’s access to justice in the country.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Oct 5, 2018 | News
The proposal to implement caning on those found guilty of corruption would directly violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law, said the ICJ today.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) called on the Government of Malaysia last week to consider caning as a punishment for those convicted of corruption to underline the efforts of eliminating corruption in the country.
Malaysia currently implements caning in a wide range of offences, including the Immigration Act 1959/63, the Penal Code (rape, criminal breach of trust), and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
At present, under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, the punishment for those found guilty of bribery is payment of a fine and imprisonment for up to twenty (20) years.
“Malaysia must immediately and completely abolish caning as a form of punishment. The proposals to implement caning for those found guilty of corruption, bribery, or any other offence is a significant setback for the country.
If this proposal is implemented, it will violate Malaysia’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and prosecute all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as.” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
After Malaysia’s historic election results on 9 May 2018 and the corruption charges levied against its former Prime Minister, Najib Razak, it would be superficial for Malaysia to view the implementation of severe punishments for the crime of corruption as the panacea to the deeply-rooted culture of corruption among those that have held public office and state authorities.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law, as well as international treaties binding on Malaysia, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that “any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It cannot be considered a “lawful sanction” under international law.
The ICJ urges the Government of Malaysia to abandon any proposal to implement caning as a form of punishment for any crime. The ICJ also calls on the Government of Malaysia to immediately abolish the practice of caning as it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment prohibited under international human rights law and standards.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists,
mobile: +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
At a press conference on 1 October 2018, Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission’s Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Mohamad Shukri Abdul had proposed that the Malaysian government consider implementing caning for bribery offenders.
Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code states the mode of executing the sentence of ‘whipping’, in Section 288(3) it defines the ‘Rattan used for whipping shall not be more than half of an inch in diameter’ (the word caning is not mentioned), while Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the sentence of whipping is forbidden in the case of ‘females’, males sentenced to death and males whom the Court considers to be more than fifty years of age, except males sentenced to whipping under Section 376, 377, 377CA or 377E of the Penal Code.
