Mar 20, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the execution today of four men who were convicted of raping and murdering a 23-year-old student in December 2012.
The ICJ denounced the executions, and urged the Indian Government to abolish the death penalty. It called on the Government to introduce systemic changes to the legal system that would deter violence and improve access to justice for women.
“State-sanctioned executions are little more than public theatre that risk celebrating and perpetuating violence at the expense of the rule of law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “As heinous as these crimes were, the imposition of the death penalty – the deterrent effect of which has been widely debunked – does nothing to improve the lives of women.”
According to senior lawyer Vrinda Grover, a renowned Indian human rights defender, “In 2013, the criminal laws were amended; however seven years later the graph of rapes has not diminished.”
Instead of compelling the state to invest in plugging the gaps in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual crimes and formulating victim oriented processes, the clamour for execution of the convicts has hijacked the discourse. Seven years later, the power of the state to extinguish life stands entrenched, while women and girls in India continue to struggle to live a life of freedom, safety and dignity, as equal persons, ” said Vrinda Grover.
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “[t]he death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception as a violation of right to life and to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ called upon the Indian Government to join the large majority of States and take immediate steps to end the practice of capital punishment, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
To download the full statement with background information, click here.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Read Also
ICJ, Press Release, September 2013 – India: Executing perpetrators of Delhi Gang Rape Case ‘counterproductive to preventing sexual violence’
Mar 20, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations on strengthening Thailand’s Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law to the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice is tasked to conduct a “study on the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP,” in accordance with Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022) (NAP).
Articles 161/1 and 165/2, which are intended to implement the NAP, entered into force on 20 February 2019 and 21 March 2019. They were introduced to end SLAPP lawsuits or similar forms of harassment through the legal process against any individuals, including human rights defenders. NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.
The use of SLAPPs and similar procedures frequently undermine human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly and the right to political participation. These are protected under Thailand’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
In the letter, the ICJ expressed its concern that these laws were inadequate to prevent harassment through the legal process and SLAPP. The ICJ therefore called for the adoption of a comprehensive stand-alone law, or the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to protect human rights defenders and others from harassment through the legal process.
Background
In an effort to give effect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), on 29 October 2019, Thailand’s Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP sets out plans to be followed by public and private stakeholders to ensure that businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations – respect human rights, and that the government fulfils its duty to ensure remedy and reparation in cases of business-related human rights violations.
The Thai government has identified in the NAP its four key priority issues: (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting human rights defenders, including:
- to study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP;
- to push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of human rights defenders, for example with respect to witness protection laws;
- to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, and ensure their safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures;
- to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights, and preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders;
- to provide trainings and enhance capacity of lawyers;
- to urge businesses to ensure that human rights defenders will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected;
- to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system; and
- to increase access to justice of human rights defenders.
However, NAP’s effectiveness is yet to be assessed because it does not have the status of a law, and is merely a resolution by the executive branch of the Thai government. The NAP was adopted in the form of a Cabinet Resolution, which is considered a “by-law” in accordance with section 3 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).
Download the letter to the Ministry of Justice in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ and HRLA express concern about inadequate protections for human rights defenders in draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022)
Mar 12, 2020 | News
On 11 March 2020, the ICJ co-hosted a panel discussion and an exhibition entitled “Committed to Memory: The Disappeared and Those They Left Behind.”
The event was held to mark the 16th anniversary of the enforced disappearance of a prominent lawyer and human rights defender Somchai Neelapaijit and other individuals who were subject to apparent enforced disappearance and whose fates remain unknown.
The event was held at Bangkok Art and Cultural Centre (BACC). More than 100 participants attended the event.
Opening remarks were delivered by Jenni Lundmark, Programme Officer, Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, and Associate Professor Dr. Gothom Arya, Adviser of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University.
Jenni Lundmark highlighted the European Union’s commitment to address torture and enforced disappearance and urged the Thai Parliament to pass pending anti-torture and enforced disappearance legislation without undue delay. Associate Professor Dr. Gothom called on the public to preserve the memory of the Thai persons who were victims enforced disappeared as well as many others whose disappearance were not recorded. He also encouraged the establishment of a network of victims of enforced disappearances to strengthen their advocates’ ability.
The event also featured photos and personal belongings of victims or potential victims of enforced disappearance, including: Somchai Neelapaijit, Thanong Po-Arn, Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, Kamol Laosophaphan, Jahwa Jalo, Surachai Danwattananusorn, Siam Theerawut and Den Khamlae. For some of these cases, there has been a failure of authorities to conduct a prompt, effective, impartial and independent investigation into their cases. During the event, family members of the victims described stories from photos and personal belongings of the “disappeared” that were exhibited.
The panel discussion focused on progress of the investigations into enforced disappearances and evaluated the progress in developing legislation in Thailand to address this critical issue. The speakers included Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Somchai Neelapaijit; Thipwimon Sirinupong, lawyer who is representing Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen’s family; and Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s legal adviser.
During the discussion, speakers expressed concern at the recurrent delays in the amendment and enactment of the law against torture and enforced disappearance which will be critical for ensuring accountability and justice for victims of enforced disappearance. They also regretted that the latest Draft Act, after several rounds of revisions and public hearings, still had not addressed many of the principal shortcomings which the ICJ and other stakeholders and experts have indicated need necessarily be amended in order to bring the law into line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
The key concerns include the incomplete definitions of the crimes of enforced disappearance, the absence of provisions concerning the continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance and statute of limitations for torture and enforced disappearance crimes, and the inadequacy of provisions concerning safeguards against enforced disappearances.
Background
Somchai was stopped at a Bangkok roadside on 12 March 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since.
At the time, Somchai was defending clients from Thailand’s restive southern provinces who were accused of attacking a military base as part of the ongoing insurgency in the region. Somchai had alleged police tortured the Muslim suspects.
Since 19 July 2005, DSI has spent more than 14 years and eight months investigating the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit. However, there is little information in the public domain regarding its progress.
From 1980 to May 2019, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded and transmitted 90 cases of alleged enforced disappearance to Thailand. Currently, 79 cases remain outstanding.
Further reading
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Thailand: continuing delay in the enactment of the draft law on torture and enforced disappearance undermines access to justice and accountability
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 4, 2020 | News
Following the arrest on 28 February of at least three persons, the ICJ has called on the Hong Kong authorities to drop criminal charges of taking part in an “unauthorized assembly” against them and to reform the Public Order Ordinance in compliance with international human rights obligations.
On 28 February, Hong Kong police arrested publisher Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, which publishes the Apple Daily newspaper, and two pro-democracy activists, Lee Cheuk-yan, the vice-chairman of the Labour Party, and Yeung Sum, a former chairman of the Democracy Party, for taking part in a march banned by police on 31 August 2019. The Police prohibited the march on the stated grounds that the Civil Human Rights Front could not guarantee the march would be peaceful and orderly, shifting responsibility of maintaining order to the organizer.
“We are extremely concerned about the way in which the unauthorized assembly provisions of the Public Order Ordinance has been used to silence lawful expressions of political opinion since the Umbrella Movement of 2014,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director. “These most recent arrests, made for allegedly participating in a largely peaceful protest more than six months ago, are part of a troubling pattern of bringing legal action to harass activists involved in peaceful acts of protest.”
The arrests were made pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) Section 17A(3)(a). Under the ‘unauthorized assembly’ provisions of the law, every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly is guilty of an offence and can be sentenced up to five years imprisonment.
The authorities have wide discretion to prohibit public meetings, and prosecute those who are alleged take part in them. These overbroad provisions have been used to restrict the proper exercise of free assembly and association rights – including onerous requirements to obtain a “notice of no objection” from the government for even small gathering under a threat of a maximum five years imprisonment for violations.
“The ICJ calls upon the Hong Kong SAR government to take measures to protect the right to peaceful assembly and create an environment in which people can safely express diverse ideas and dissenting voices – consistent with international legal obligations,” said Rawski. “This includes ensuring that the law is not used to harass pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders.”
The ICJ underscores that any restrictions to the right of peaceful assembly must be narrowly drawn to be permissible under international law. Restrictions are not permissible unless they have been provided by law, and are necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose enumerated in article 21 of the ICCPR, such as public order. However, imposing criminal charge on people exercising their right of peaceful assembly who fail to comply with a procedural requirement, such as notification, unduly restricts freedom of peaceful assembly by adding unnecessary barriers to public gatherings. Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines of the Ordinance, which include the possibility of a peaceful participant of a public assembly being sentenced to five years in prison if the organizers fail to comply with the notification requirement, are extreme, disproportionate and open to abuse.
Hong Kong SAR, though not the rest of the PRC, is legally bound by the ICCPR. Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 27 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong both recognize and protect the right of peaceful assembly. The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body responsible for the ICCPR and other UN independent authorities, have repeatedly urged the authorities to ensure that the Public Order Ordinance is implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
To download the full statement with additional information, click here.
See also: Hong Kong: ensure police do not use excessive force against protesters
https://www.icj.org/hong-kong-ensure-police-do-not-use-excessive-force-against-protesters/
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
