Oct 10, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns the direct attacks against civilians in Israel, including deliberate killings of hundreds of civilians, the taking of hostages and the launching of indiscriminate rockets against civilians and civilian objects, perpetrated by Palestinian armed groups since 7 October 2023.
“I abhor the deliberate targeting of civilians and hostage-taking, and condemn the horrific escalation of violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” said Santiago Canton, ICJ Secretary General. “These atrocities are crimes under international law and must stop immediately. Civilians held hostages should be released.”
The ICJ also condemns Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes against buildings in densely populated areas in Gaza, which have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and the measures of collective punishment taken against civilians in Gaza, including a total siege on food, water, electricity and fuel.
“I urge the Israeli authorities to refrain from engaging in indiscriminate retaliations or any form of collective punishment against civilians and from using starvation as a method of warfare,” said Canton.
The ICJ calls on all parties to the conflict to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians caught up in the hostilities and for accountability for the crimes under international law that have been perpetrated.
The attack led by Palestinian armed groups began on 7 October 2023, with thousands of indiscriminate rockets fired on Israel as well as incursions in Israel of armed combatants shooting civilians en masse and taking hostages to Gaza.
Israel retaliated with attacks against the Gaza strip through waves of airstrikes targeting several residential buildings and a mosque.
The death toll reported as of this morning, 10 October, was of at least 900 Israelis and at least 700 Palestinians, with more than 2,600 Israelis and 3,700 Palestinians injured.
While Israel has already cut off electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza, on 9 October the Israeli Defence Minister announced a complete siege of Gaza, including food and water, adding “we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” On the same day, Hamas threatened to execute an Israeli captive for every Israeli bombing of a civilian building without warning.
Background
Israel has imposed an air, land and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip since 2007.
The ICJ has documented Israel’s systematic human rights violations against the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian territory, such as forced evictions and displacement, restrictions on freedom of movement and arbitrary deprivations of life and liberty.
The ICJ has further documented attacks by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza strip in violation of the prohibition against deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians, including as a result of the launch by Palestinian armed groups of thousands of indiscriminate rockets into Israel.
In February 2023, the ICJ called on the Israeli authorities to stop all actions amounting to the war crime of collective punishment of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including house and property demolitions, arbitrary revocation of residency and citizenship rights and forcible deportation of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The ICJ recalls that willful killing, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation and taking of hostages committed against civilians and members of armed forces placed hors de combat, as well as extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, are grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute and customary international law. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects and intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions, as well as measures of collective punishment against protected persons, also amount to war crimes.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia(at)icj(dot)org
Oct 10, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in partnership with the Economic, Social and Cultural National Network/Justice & Rights Institute Nepal (JuRI-Nepal), the Public Interest Litigation LawyersGroup (Nepalgunj), and the Privatisation in Education and Human Rights Consortium (PEHRC), has launched a mentorship program geared towards training young lawyers on international law and standards applicable to private actor involvement in education.
The 22 lawyers who will benefit from the programme are from Bagmati and Lumbini Province. To kick off the program, workshops were held on 23 September in Kathmandu and 28 September in Nepalgunj.
“We are delighted to initiate this mentorship program and are hopeful that it will be helpful to prepare a new set of human rights lawyers capable of and dedicated to advancing the realization of the right to education in Nepal in the context of burgeoning privatization,” said Karuna Parajuli, ICJ National Legal Adviser.
“The State has the primary role in guaranteeing access to education for all persons without discrimination of any kind. We hope that knowledge of their specific duties around will assist Nepali lawyers to identify issues and support their clients in enjoying their rights to education and ensuring effective and adequate regulation of private actors in education, added Parajuli.
Opening the workshop in Nepalgunj Judge Harka Bahadur Gurung emphasized the importance of these issues in the Nepali context:
“The current educational system in Nepal has segregated children as those going to high-fee private schools and others going to public schools with no basic infrastructure. Your litigation initiative should focus to remove this division and enable each student equal access to free and quality education”.
“The Constitution of Nepal guarantees education as a human right which is fully enforceable before Nepali Courts. This provides a strong avenue to initiate strategic litigation, which remains underutilized”, said ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser Mandira Sharma. “We encourage the mentees in this programme and Nepali lawyers more broadly to work towards crafting innovative advocacy strategies directed at fully realizing right to education in Nepal”, she concluded.
Contact
Dr Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +9779851048475, e: mandira.sharma@icj.org
Karuna Parajuli, ICJ Legal Adviser, Nepal, t: +9779808431222, e: karuna.parajuli@icj.org
Further information
International law and standards on the right to education are spelled out in various treaties binding on Nepal such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further detail on States’ obligations to restrict, regulate and monitor private actor involvement in education are further details in a range of standards including the general comments of UN Treaty Body Mechanisms and the Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education.
Following the workshops, participants worked in groups to formulate an action plan for their mentorship period. They have been paired up with mentors (that include a senior advocate, senior litigating lawyers, and an ESCR expert). The mentorship program will run from October 2023 to March 2024.
The mentorship program is organized with the support of the Privatization in Education and Human Rights Consortium (PEHRC), an informal network of national, regional, and global organizations and individuals collaborating to analyse and respond to the challenges posed by the rapid growth of private actors in education from a human rights perspective and propose alternatives.
The main objectives of the mentorship program are to train young lawyers on how to utilize strategic litigation for claiming the right to education; expand their knowledge of international law (including Abidjan Principles) and share good practices on the right to education in other parts of the world.
Resources
https://www.icj.org/nepal-strategic-litigation-is-an-important-tool-to-ensure-compliance-with-international-human-rights-standards/
https://www.icj.org/late-as-usual-delayed-delivery-of-textbooks-infringes-the-right-to-education-of-nepali-students/
https://www.icj.org/nepal-icj-lawyers-workshop-discusses-strategic-litigation-to-enforce-the-right-to-education/
Oct 9, 2023 | Access to justice, Advocacy, Cases, News
Today, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), the Dutch Council for Refugees (DCR), and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), submitted a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case S.M.H. v Lithuania, concerning the deprivation of liberty of an asylum seeker.
S.M.H., an Iraqi citizen, who entered Lithuania irregularly and sought asylum, was subsequently arrested and detained in various centres. The applicant claimed that his detention was not justified, lacking both individualised assessment and effective legal assistance.
In its intervention, the ICJ and its partners focus on Article 5.1 and Article 5.4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, the interveners analyse the requirements for lawful deprivation of liberty, the right to have the lawfulness of detention promptly examined by a Court, and the right to have effective legal assistance. The intervention considers both the EU and international law and standards related to deprivation of liberty and the right to an effective remedy against unlawful detention and material conditions of detention.
The key points of the intervention are as follows:
- The interveners submit that under Article 5.1 detention must not be arbitrary, and be prescribed by law both substantively and procedurally. The intervention highlights that detention must be a measure of last resort, it should follow an individualised and exhaustive examination, and it may be imposed only when less strict measures cannot be effectively applied.
- Regarding Article 5.4, the interveners clarify that an effective judicial review of detention prescribed by law and accessible in practice constitutes a safeguard against arbitrary detention. Legal aid and competent legal representation are essential elements in ensuring the accessibility and effectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.
- Finally, the interveners stress that lack of access to clear information, lack of access to a lawyer, and lack of access to an effective remedy contravene the guarantees under Articles 3 and 13 ECHR, rendering them ineffective, theoretical, and illusory.
Read the full intervention here.
Oct 5, 2023 | News
The ICJ condemns the recent prosecution of two lawyers, Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza, who act as defence counsel in a high-profile case involving political opposition figures. On 29 September 2023, the Public Prosecutor of the Tunis Court of First Instance initiated criminal proceedings against Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza, who are members of the legal team defending a number of political opponents of the regime of Tunisia’s President, Kais Saied, some of whom have been detained since February 2023 for their alleged involvement in the so-called conspiracy case based on charges related to “terrorism” and “State security”.
البيان باللغة العربية على هذا الرابط
The ICJ further condemns the prosecution of Ayachi Hammami, also acting as defence counsel in the “conspiracy case”, who is scheduled to appear before the investigating judge of the “counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit on 10 October 2023. Ayachi Hammami was informed that he was being prosecuted in the “conspiracy case” on 3 May 2023.
The prosecutions of Dalila Msadek, Islem Hamza and Ayachi Hammami are emblematic illustrations of a pattern of judicial harassment of lawyers representing individuals involved in political cases in Tunisia where the lawyers themselves are targeted solely because of their legitimate professional activities, ultimately underming their ability to defend their clients’ human rights, free from intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
“This growing pattern of judicial harassment of lawyers solely for their legitimate discharge of their professional duties violates their human rights, including to liberty and security of person, fair trial, work and freedom of expression, as well as their clients’ right to a fair trial, including the right to defend themselves and to legal representation and assistance,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza face charges of “spreading fake news with the aim of threatening public security through audio-visual media”, pursuant to article 24 of Decree-law 2022-54 of 13 September 2022, and of “processing of personal data relating to criminal offences, their investigation, criminal proceedings, penalties, preventive measures or criminal records”, pursuant to articles 13 and 87 of Organic Law No. 2004-63 on the protection of personal data. Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza are being prosecuted in connection with statements they made on the radio on 28 and 29 September 2023 in which they mentioned having requested that the investigating judge of the ”counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit should hear the diplomats whom their clients allegedly met as part of the “conspiracy” of which the prosecution accuses them.
Since June 2023, Islem Hamza has also been prosecuted in a separate case, under article 24 of Decree-Law 54, following a statement she made on the radio, in her capacity as a defence lawyer of arrested political opponents, denouncing the conditions of transfer of detainees as inhumane. Similarly, Ayachi Hammami has been prosecuted since January 2023 in a distinct case pursuant to Decree-Law 54 based on a statement he made in his capacity as a defence lawyer of the dismissed judges.
The ICJ considers that, to prosecute Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami, the prosecution authorities have latched onto statements that Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami made in the legitimate discharge of their professional duties as lawyers towards their clients. In addition, their statements constitute the protected exercise of their right to freedom of expression and, as such, cannot be subject to criminal prosecution under general principles of criminal law and international human rights law and standards.
Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami are not isolated cases: Abdelaaziz Essid is also being prosecuted based on a statement he made as a defence lawyer in the “conspiracy case”. Moreover, Ghazi Chaouachi and Rhida Belhaj, who were representing other defendants in the “conspiracy case”, are being prosecuted in that very same case before the “counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit.
“After arbitrarily detaining peaceful political opposition members, the authorities are increasingly using the criminal law to harass and intimidate defence lawyers and disrupt the legitimate discharge of their professional duties,” said Said Benarbia. “In so doing, they are sending the chilling message that any lawyers who represent defendants in political cases expose themselves to the risk of being prosecuted on spurious criminal charges.”
The ICJ calls on the Tunisian authorities to drop all criminal charges against all lawyers currently prosecuted solely for the legitimate discharge of their professional duties and the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and to immediately end all practices that hinder the work of lawyers.
Background
Since 2022, State authorities have increasingly targeted Tunisian lawyers for their legitimate defence work and for exercising their human rights. On 26 May 2023, several mandate holders of the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures expressed concern over some of these cases.
According to information available to the ICJ, at least 27 lawyers are facing or have faced criminal prosecutions since 2022 based on charges related to, among others, “terrorism” and “State security”, or based on public statements critical of the executive. Among these, three – Noureddine Bhiri, Ghazi Chaouachi and Rhida Belhaj, who began a hunger strike on 2 October 2023 along with other detainees in the “conspiracy case” – are currently in detention; three other defence lawyers – Abdelrazak Kilani, Mehdi Zagrouba and Seifeddine Makhlouf – have been tried and imprisoned by military courts; and 15 others have been banned from traveling, including Lazhar Akermi following his release from pre-trial detention.
Lawyers, like any other person, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, as protected under human rights treaties to which Tunisia is party. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the African Commission on Human Peoples’ rights’ Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa reaffirm this principle and state that governments shall ensure that lawyers are able “to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”, and “to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has urged public prosecutors “ to closely monitor situations and cases in which lawyers might be criminalized for performing their duties. When such circumstances arise, appropriate orders should be issued to prevent public prosecutors from maliciously prosecuting members of the legal profession who criticize State officials and institutions in the exercise of their independence and freedom of expression.”
Sep 29, 2023 | News
The ICJ is concerned that the newly proposed Online Safety legislation, if adopted in its present form, would serve to crush free expression and further contract an already shrinking civic space in Sri Lanka.
On 18 September 2023, the Ministry of Public Security gazetted a bill titled “Online Safety” intended to dramatically regulate the content of online communication, including by the general public.
The ICJ considers that several provisions of the bill would serve to undermine the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, including freedom of information and expression. Of particular concern are provisions related to the setting up, appointment and functions of an Online Safety Commission and other experts, the vague and overbroad wording of conduct designated as punishable offences and unnecessary and disproportionate punitive sanctions.
“While the spread of online hate-speech and disinformation need to be tackled, this bill is deeply flawed in its design and would be open to abuse by the Sri Lankan government, which has persistenty failed to uphold freedom of expression,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director. “It risks being used to suppress important public debate regarding the conduct of the government and matters of public policy,” he added.
The Bill would establish an “Online Safety Commission” that would act to: “prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact; prevent the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes; make provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements,” as well as other unspecified matters.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has called for the immediate withdrawal of the bill and for the adoption of a process of meaningful consultations with all relevant stakeholders prior to gazetting bills which ‘have a serious impact on the community at large.’
“The current draft fails to adhere to the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality required for any State activity that restrict rights. It must be withdrawn or amended to be brought in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations guaranteeing freedom of expression, opinion, and information.” Seiderman added.
The ICJ considers that the Bill should not be evaluated in a vacuum, but instead must be read in conjunction with existing and proposed legislation that threaten human rights. Such laws include the extremely misused ICCPR Act of 2005, the Prevention of Terorrism Act (PTA), the Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, and the proposed Anti-Terrorism law which seeks to replace the PTA. This body of legislation, taken together, fosters a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms restricting civil society while unduly expanding the reach of the security state.
Article 14 (1) (a) of the Sri Lankan Constitution gurantees the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 of the International Covernant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a party, affirms the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
In July 2018, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a resolution affirming that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Contact: Ian Seiderman, Legal & Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
See annexed below a summary analysis of some problematic aspects of the Online Safety Bill.
Sri Lanka: Selected flaws in the Online Safety Bill
- Wide ranging and overly broad powers of the Online Safety Commission and appointed Experts
The bill provides for the establishment of a five-member ‘Online Safety Commission’ that is to be appointed on the sole discretion of the President (clause 5). This is in contrast to other notionally independent commissions in Sri Lanka, the appointments to which require the consent of the Constitutional Council by way of nomination or ratification. This bill would give the president unfettered discretion where both appointment and removal is concerned.
The Commission would also be vested with a wide range of powers, some of which encroach into the functions of the judiciary. It essentially acts as sole arbiter of matter of fact and is entitled to issue notices or directives against any person, internet service provider (ISP) or internet intermediaries who/which is alleged to have communicated a prohibited or false statement. The bill does not specify the process through which the Commission would arrive at this decision.
Moreover, the Commission is granted authority to block websites and instruct ISPs to restrict access to specific online locations. This may result in undue government overreach and censorship and impermissible limitations on the exercise of the right to information protected by Article 14A of the Constitution and international law.
Further clause 37 allows for the Minister to appoint ‘Experts’ to assist police officers in investigations. The experts are private individuals who can accompany police officers during search procedures, but are also given the power upon authority granted by a police officer above the rank of a sub-inspector to require a person to hand over any documents or device, provide traffic data or be orally examined (clause 37 (6)). Such excessive powers in the hands of unaccountable private individuals provide avenues for abuse.
The bill does not provide provide for judicial review of the Commission’s decisions or procedures. Instead clause 49 seeks to protect the Commission, its staff, or any expert appointed under clause 37 from being brought to court for any act or omission done in good faith.
- Vague and overbroad offences
A particularly problematic aspect of the bill are provisions of vague and overbroad definitions of offences.
Article 19(3) of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression and opinion may be subject to certain restrictions, but that these restrictions must be provided by law and necessary for one of a limited numbers of legitimate purposes, namely to protect the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order or public health or morals. The measure of limitation must be proportionate, using the least restrictive means possible to achieve the purpose. The requirement that any restrictive measure be provided by law means that they must comply with the principle of legality, by which the law must be stated with precision as to allow persons to be able to conform their conduct in compliance.
Similarly, Article 15 (2) of the Sri Lankan Constitution provides for possibility of restriction of the right “as may be prescribed by law in the interests of racial and religious harmony or in relation to parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The prohibitions listed in this draft legislation go beyond the restrictions allowed for under the ICCPR and the Sri Lankan Constitution, as clause 12 states that “any person who poses a threat to national security, public health or public order or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, by communicating a false statement, commits an offence.”
In addition, several acts that would constitute offence are only vaguely defined, if at all. This includes communicating a false statement “with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any other person” (clause 16) or “outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class” (clause 17). These clauses are overbroad in that they would encompass expression that is protected under human rights law. Clause 14 makes it an offence to ‘wantonly giving provocation by false statement to cause riot’. This language is open to abuse by the authorities, as evidenced by practices arising from other legislation, including the ICCPR Act and the PTA.
Repeated mention of ‘religion’ in these provisions is a cause for concern as they come in a context where there is ongoing strife relating to contested religious sites between majority and minority religious communities, thus creating risk of selected application to silence expression by persons from minority religious communities.
- Disproportionate Punishment
The draft bill prescribes unjustifiably hefty punishments of fines and a period of imprisonment ranging from one, two, three or five years for overbroad and ill-defined offences. It also states that “in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, such term of imprisonment or fine or both such imprisonment and fine may be doubled.”
Clause 25 of the bill, which refers to ‘failure to comply with the directives of the Commission’ would make it an offence to fails to comply with such directive within a period of 24 hours and makes the person liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding one million rupees.
Sep 28, 2023 | News
The ICJ is concerned at Thailand’s continued failure to bring justice to the loved ones of Karen activist Pholachi ‘Billy’ Rakchongcharoen, who was the victim of an apparent enforced disappearance in 2014, and apparent subsequent killing.
The ICJ calls on the responsible authorities to ensure that there is continuous effective investigation to determine definitively the fate of Billy and deliver justice to his family.
Today, Thailand’s Criminal Courts for Corruption and Misconduct Cases acquitted four Kaeng Krachan National Park officials, the last individuals seen with Billy, of murder-related charges, including premeditated murder and concealing the victim’s body. Only one of the accused, Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn, former chief of Kaeng Krachan National Park, was convicted of charges and sentenced to three years in prison related to “malfeasance in office” for failing to hand Billy over to the responsible authorities after his arrest.
The Court, constituted of a panel of two judges, indicated that it did not believe that Billy had been released as claimed by the accused. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the park officials orchestrated the killing.
“More than nine years of delays, including by inaction by the government until recently, and still no justice, is a blow to the victims. This constitutes yet another marker of Thailand’s consistent failure to hold accountable perpetrators of serious human rights crimes, potentially committed by State authorities,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Legal Adviser.
Billy was the victim of an apparent enforced disappearance, as he was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials. The officials claimed they detained Billy for illegal possession of honey, but that they released him later the same day.
On 12 September 2019, the DSI located bone fragments, along with an oil tank submerged in water, which they identified as likely belonging to Billy. The subsequent DNA test indicated a maternal relation between the fragment and Billy’s mother, suggesting a blood relationship through the maternal line. However, the Court ruled today that there was insufficient evidence to establish that they belong to Billy, as opposed to other relatives who may have passed away during the same period.
This decision was made despite testimony from State forensic experts affirming the validity of the DNA test used in this case, which needed to be considered alongside other supporting facts. This includes testimonies given by the relatives and cultural expert about the absence of known blood relatives who had passed away without knowledge, and the Karen practice of not scattering the remains of the deceased in the river. Such testimony also aligns with the opinions of international forensic experts, specifically the Independent Forensic Expert Group established by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, who were consulted by the prosecutors’ lawyers.
Enforced disappearance was recently made a specific crime under Thai law, following the adoption of the long-delayed Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance, which came into effect in February this year. Under the Act, and international law, enforced disappearance is a continuous crime, which is not completed until the fate or whereabouts of the victim becomes known. Therefore, to the extent that there is any doubt that the discovered remains belonged to Billy, the crime must be considered to be ongoing and the law is applicable to Billy, even if it was not in force when he first “disappeared.”
Nevertheless, the Prosecution did not attempt to charge the accused with enforced disappearance, and the Court consistently rejected any reference to the crime made by the prosecution during the proceedings. This includes the rejection of expert witnesses proposed by the prosecutor’s lawyers who intended to testify about international law and standards governing enforced disappearance, following the rejections made by the accused.
“It is also unfortunate that the Thai court did not take into consideration the specific nature of the crime of enforced disappearance, often accompanied by very limited circumstantial evidence, which may be the only available means of establishing the crime. Such a crime also normally includes the powerlessness of the victim in the hands of the authorities, the use of state power to destroy direct evidence in an attempt at total impunity or to create the illusion of a perfect crime, all factors that have been taken into consideration in many cases in various jurisdictions worldwide when assessing the possible involvement of the suspects in crimes of this nature,” added Srisod.
During the trial, pursuant to the Act on Establishment of the Criminal Court for Corruption Cases B.E. 2559 (2016), the Court also used the so-called inquisitorial system, which is new to both lawyers and public prosecutors accustomed to the accusatorial style of the usual Thai court system. In this regard, lawyers voiced complaints that the judge on several occasions cut short the follow-up questions that the lawyers had planned to ask, citing that these issues had already been covered during their own examinations and other written submissions.
Background
Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn was convicted under section 157 of the Criminal Code and section 123 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption B.E. 2542 (1999).
Thailand has signed but not yet ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) and 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). The latter two treaties prohibit conduct making up enforced disappearance, and the crime is recognized as violation of both treaties.
The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and local Thai Civil Society Organizations continue to receive complaints of alleged human rights violations at the hands of security forces constituting serious criminal conduct, including extraterritorial killings, torture and other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
Between 1980 and August 2023, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances also recorded and transmitted 93 cases of alleged enforced disappearance to Thailand. Currently, 77 of these cases remain unresolved.
Unfortunately, the number of cases in which these allegations have been investigated, let alone perpetrators prosecuted, remains low, as are instances where there has been access to effective remedies and provision of reparations for victims. In several instances, alleged victims of torture and other ill-treatment or the families of those who died as a result of these abuses have received some monetary payments falling short of full reparation, but the perpetrators have not yet been brought to justice.
This case also follows the acquittal of five police officers charged with the robbery and coercion of the “disappeared” human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit in December 2015 due to a lack of evidence.
Further reading
Thailand: Indictment of park officials for killing of “Billy” is a significant step towards justice
Thailand: discovery of “Billy’s” remains should reinvigorate efforts to identify perpetrator(s)
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
Sanhawan Srisod, Associate International Legal Adviser, ICJ, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
