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
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 | Events, News
On 2 March, the ICJ and other NGOs will present discussion of the situation for human rights in India at a side event to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The event takes place Monday 2 March 2020, 14:00 – 15:00, in Room VII, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
In India, human rights defenders and civil society activists are facing escalating levels of harassment and restrictions. The systematic use of restrictive laws against critics and an ongoing clampdown on public gatherings and internet freedom now go beyond Jammu and Kashmir. A divisive and discriminatory citizenship law has sparked widespread protests across India. Protests against the law have been met with arbitrary arrests, excessive force and violence by the authorities, with at least 27 people killed and hundreds injured with impunity.
As the situation continues to deteriorate, this event will look at what action is needed by states, civil society and the United Nations to ensure an end to these human rights violations in the world’s largest democracy.
A flyer for the event can be downloaded here in PDF format: UN-Event-India-2019
Feb 27, 2020 | Events, News
An event at the UN Human Rights Council on 28 February will highlight the continuing failure of Sri Lanka to secure justice for crimes under international law, and discuss ways forward for international efforts to fill the gap.
The event will take place 28 February 2020, 13:00 – 14:00, in Room XXIII of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
It will be moderated by Human Rights Watch, with a short video will be followed by an interactive discussion with panelists from Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists.
A flyer for the event can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC43 – Sri Lanka
Feb 27, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan Government’s announced “withdrawal” of support for the process under UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardane, formally announced the decision on 26 February at a High-Level Segment of the 43rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva.
“The Government of Sri Lanka’s refusal to implement effective measures for truth, justice, accountability and reconciliation, including as set out in the resolutions of the Human Rights Council, places it in violation of its obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable at the international level now appears to be the only real option – including referral to the International Criminal Court, the creation of an ad hoc international mechanism, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction.”
Gunawardane stated that the Government of Sri Lanka would instead “achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework.”
“It is the Sri Lankan Government’s failure to initiate a credible and comprehensive approach to transitional justice in the aftermath of the war that led to the intervention of the international community in the first place,” said Rawski. “Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unable to address systemic and entrenched impunity for crimes under international law perpetrated by the military and security forces,” he added.
Pronouncements by the President, on protecting military personnel from any accountability measures coupled with appointments to senior command positions individuals credibly accused of serious human rights violations indicate that the long history of impunity of security forces in Sri Lanka is set to continue.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the Government’s official refusal to implement the UN resolutions comes at a time when the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is rapidly deteriorating. It threatens to undermine even the meagre progress made over the past few years, which albeit slow and wholly insufficient, has been primarily due to the continued engagement of the Council, OHCHR and international community. The UNHRC process is also the only forum at the global level where Sri Lankan civil society and victim groups have had the opportunity to engage openly in dialogue with the Government and other States on human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.
The validity of adopted resolutions of the Council does not depend on their acceptance by the government concerned. Reporting and discussion of Sri Lanka’s implementation or failure to implement them will take place this year and in 2021 at the Council regardless of the Government’s position.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
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
