May 30, 2017 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Sean Bain, ICJ legal consultant in Myanmar, and Vicky Bowman, Director of the Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business.
A strategic environmental assessment is needed to enable sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights for the people of Kyaukphyu, the site of a planned SEZ and deep-sea port.
In its interim report released in March, the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State chaired by former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, called for a comprehensive assessment of the special economic zone in Kyaukphyu Township.
The aim would be to “explore how the SEZ may affect local communities and map how other economic sectors in the state may benefit (or possibly suffer) from the SEZ”.
The State Counsellor’s Office endorsed the commission’s interim recommendations, including for this assessment.
The call for a comprehensive assessment in Kyaukphyu echoes a proposal from our organisations, the Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business and the International Commission of Jurists, for the government to undertake a strategic environmental assessment.
Its purpose would be to address concerns about human rights and to consider the cumulative environmental and social impacts of planned developments. Oxfam has put forward a similar recommendation to the government.
Our recommendation comes as media reports this month suggest that the government is giving renewed attention to the future of the SEZ and related projects in Kyaukphyu.
The SEZ, which has been planned to include industrial parks along with deep-sea ports and transport links to China, would transform the demographic and economic character of Rakhine State’s central coast and hinterlands.
It would have significant impacts for local communities and the state economy, both during and beyond the envisaged 20-year construction period.
Kyaukphyu – already the starting point for oil and gas pipelines to China – would host the largest development project ever undertaken in Rakhine State.
Financed mostly by Chinese investors, with shipping facilities linking Myanmar to international routes through the Bay of Bengal, the project also has national and regional economic significance.
However, to date there has been insufficient consideration of the impacts, either positive or negative, on the livelihoods and human rights of residents and the economy of Rakhine State.
Plans for the SEZ are ambitious yet detailed information is scarce and so far there has been no genuine public participation in planning processes.
While contracts and payments regarding investments are decided in Myanmar’s economic and political capitals, it is at the local level that negative impacts can be felt the most.
It is also at the local level where economic benefits may be enhanced.
To address negative impacts and enable benefits, a joined-up approach that brings together national and local government and local and foreign companies with the people of the area is needed.
At present, a lack of coordination across ministries, and between national and regional governments is limiting the scope to harness opportunities and manage impacts of investments.
Despite their significance, neither the SEZ and deep-sea ports nor the offshore gas projects serviced from Kyaukphyu are included in Rakhine State’s socioeconomic development plan.
We believe a strategic environmental assessment is needed to enable sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights in the Kyaukphyu area.
Strategic environmental assessments, which are part of Myanmar law, are defined in the 2015 Environmental Impact Procedure as “a range of analytical and participatory approaches that aim to integrate environment into policies, plans and programs and evaluate the inter-linkages with economic and social considerations.
The principle is to integrate environment, alongside economic and social concerns, into a holistic sustainability assessment.”
Unlike an environmental impact assessment, which is a permitting requirement for individual projects, a strategic environmental assessment takes a holistic approach by integrating environmental and social concerns and human rights protection, to produce a big picture view of the impacts of interrelated projects.
At Kyaukphyu, the national and state governments – drawing on financial and technical assistance from development and human rights partners – could commission expert independent consultants to undertake the necessary studies and analysis to produce such an assessment.
The assessment would consider the cumulative human rights and environmental impacts of the SEZ, seaports, pipelines, offshore gas developments and transport and energy infrastructure, including impacts on traditional fishing and farming livelihoods in Kyaukphyu.
It could address how best to avoid or minimise the physical and economic displacement of residents, and how to reduce the potential for local tensions and conflict associated with expected socioeconomic transformations.
A legal framework – based on international law and standards – for protecting human rights during economic displacement and resettlement needs to be put in place. That’s not just for the SEZs, but for all projects.
While insufficient to address the lack of legal accountability in the SEZ Law and the limited access to justice in Myanmar, a strategic environmental assessment could improve transparency and give voice to the views of local communities, businesses, civil society organisations and other stakeholders.
This would help fill major gaps in planning and decision-making processes thus far.
Consultation is critical to the value and legitimacy of any assessment but too often it is tokenistic or minimised to cut costs and time.
Development partners should ensure that they are funding genuine and extensive public participation.
A lesson from Myanmar’s only other assessment of this kind, currently underway with support from the International Finance Corporation focused on the hydropower sector, has been the need to communicate and engage constantly about the purpose and process of the assessment.
Many civil society groups chose not to participate in consultations for the IFC-backed assessment due to scepticism and lack of confidence in the process.
To learn from this experience, international and local NGOs in Kyaukphyu could share information and support communities to make informed decisions about their engagement with a strategic environmental assessment.
Until there is a concrete and transparent plan to manage impacts from development projects in Kyaukphyu, particularly those with negative impacts on human rights, current preparations for the SEZ should be put on hold.
This includes land acquisition that is underway and risks violating the rights of local residents.
The government should also delay entering into investment agreements with the winning consortium of developers, which is led by China’s CITIC Group, until there has been broader multi-stakeholder debate about the SEZ, and how it may develop and interact with other investments in the area.
A strategic environmental assessment in Kyaukphyu could contribute towards correcting a development process that has so far not contributed meaningfully to the realisation of human rights or addressed the economic needs of the population in Kyaukphyu or Rakhine State.
We hope that the Myanmar government at national and state level as well as development partners will take this forward, building on the advisory commission’s recommendation and its endorsement by the state counsellor.
May 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ has launched the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) in Thailand, together with the Thai Ministry of Justice, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the German Embassy in Bangkok.
The launch on Thursday coincided with a parallel launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
The Minnesota Protocol is a companion document to the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), and sets a common standard of performance in investigating potentially unlawful death and a shared set of principles and guidelines for States, as well as for institutions and individuals who play a role in death investigations.
The launch was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Thai Police, the Office of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Defence, and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia and member of the Forensics and Legal Working Groups which assisted with the revision the Minnesota Protocol, opened the event for the ICJ by commending Thailand for hosting the first national launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol.
“Investigations play a key role in accountability by upholding the right to life which is guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand is a State Party,” said Abbott. “All over the world we witness impunity in cases of unlawful death because either investigations do not take place or are inadequate and non-compliant with international law and standards.”
“The Minnesota Protocol makes it clear that investigations must be prompt, effective and thorough, as well as independent, impartial and transparent, and we expect that the revised Minnesota Protocol will help Thailand and other States to meet that obligation,” added Abbott. “The ICJ wishes to take this opportunity to reaffirm our long-standing commitment to the Thai authorities to assist them in efforts to implement Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”
The other speakers at the launch were:
- Ms Pitikarn Sitthidech, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Ms Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Head, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Regional Office for Southeast Asia
- Prof. Stuart Casey-Maslen, Project Manager of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol, University of Pretoria
- Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, Adviser, Central Institute for Forensic Science (CIFC) and member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol
- Ms Angkhana Neelapaijit, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and Victim Representative
- Mr Kittinan Thatpramuk, Deputy Director General, Department of Investigation, Office of the Attorney General
- Pol.Lt.Col. Payao Thongsen, Commander, the Special Criminal Cases Office 1, Department of Special Investigation (DSI)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-ENG (PDF, English)
Universal-Minnesota-Protocol-Advocacy-2017-THA (PDF, Thai)
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-BUR (PDF, Burmese)
May 25, 2017 | News
The Philippine government must ensure that human rights are protected and respected in Mindanao, in light of the yesterday’s declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ reminds the Philippine government that it remains responsible for upholding its international human rights legal obligations, notwithstanding the imposition of martial law.
The ICJ also calls upon the Congress and, if engaged, the Supreme Court, to exercise their oversight authority to ensure that the declaration is necessary and lawful, and that the activities conducted under martial law respect human rights.
“The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which is vital for protecting the right to liberty and preventing torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance, must be lifted immediately,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Rawski added, “The provision of the Philippine Constitution providing for the possibility of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is in contravention of international law, and denying the right to challenge the lawfulness of a detention is incompatible with recognized principles of the rule of law.”
President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law on the evening of 23 May 2017, covering the island of Mindanao, after Maute, an armed group that had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), reportedly laid siege on Marawi City. The next day, 24 May 2017, President Duterte suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
The ICJ recalls that the right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention through habeas corpus or similar procedures must always be available, even under states of exception like martial law.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to establish a clear timetable for an end to martial law, and to ensure in the interim that human rights are fully protected.
Background
Under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the President may declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion or rebellion and only “when the public safety requires it.” However, Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution limits a declaration of martial law to 60 days, and imposes other important limitations – including that the President of the Philippines must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours, which may then revoke the suspension or declaration.
Any citizen may petition the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law, or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Finally, this provision of the Constitution also provides that in the case of a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, any arrested or detained person must be judicially charged within three days, or be released.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org tel: +66 840923575.
May 25, 2017 | News, Op-eds
An opinion editorial by Daniel Aguirre, ICJ Legal Adviser in Myanmar.
Burma’s 2016 Investment Law and the implementing Investment Rules issued in April 2017 create space for the government and civil society to facilitate responsible investment and exclude investors that have track records of environmental destruction and human rights abuses.
This means that affected individuals and communities must now test Burma’s commitment to the rule of law.
There are new opportunities for civil society to use law to hold them accountable. In this regard, both international law and Burma’s constitution guarantee access to justice for rights abuses.
The Investment Rules instruct the Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) to consider whether investors have demonstrated a commitment to responsible investment. In considering the good character and reputation of the investor, the MIC may study whether the investor or any associate with an interest in the investment broke the law in Burma or any other jurisdiction.
The rules explicitly mention environmental, labor, tax, anti-bribery and corruption or human rights law.
What this means is that if an investor is determined to have committed a crime, has violated environmental protection standards or was involved with human rights abuses, the MIC should not grant it a permit.
If such a company applies for an investment permit, civil society should bring its record to the attention of the MIC and advocate for the rejection of a permit.
Successive governments in Burma have focused on increased investment to develop the country and improve its people’s standard of living.
At the same time, human rights and environment proponents from civil society have opposed many investment projects, citing the impact on the environment and human rights of local communities.
They complain that land rights are not adequately protected, that environmental impact assessments are not implemented and that they lack access to justice for corporate human rights abuses.
There are challenges to using the law to protect human rights in Burma.
Disputes related to business activity are often considered sensitive political matters in which the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene.
They are reluctant to review crucial decisions of administrative bodies or to hold rights abusers accountable.
But community activists, human rights defenders and lawyers have increased opportunities to pressure the courts to apply the law and should do so.
Lawyers have an important role in protecting human rights by representing local communities.
Courts must become a venue to challenge administrative decisions that allow for irresponsible investment that does not comply with national law, and where appropriate, obtain remedies and reparations for victims of human rights violations.
The Investment Law and its rules, which govern both local and foreign investment except within special economic zones, provide legal guarantees for investors to access information and protections against expropriation including compensation and access to due process if changes in regulation affect their business.
Investors can also access long-term rights to use land.
Civil society should help to ensure that only responsible investors benefit from these protections.
According to the law, the MIC is the gatekeeper that issues permits and endorsements for many would-be national and international investments likely to cause a large impact on the environment and local community.
In order to ensure that the protective aspects of the law are effective, courts must have some power of review, at least to ensure that administrative bodies, such as the MIC, are acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, while respecting and protecting human rights.
If the MIC grants permits for companies that do not meet the requirements outlined in the Investment Rules, their decisions must be subject to review by the judiciary.
Burma’s courts have the authority to review administrative decisions, particularly through the application of constitutional writs.
Lawyers can use the writs of mandamus and certiorari to secure the performance of public duties and quash an illegal order already passed by public bodies such as the MIC.
This would help ensure the MIC uses its mandate to prevent irresponsible investment.
Likewise, investors that fail to respect human rights or unlawfully cause damage to the environment must be held accountable; but there are few options to do so in Burma.
Criminal prosecutions against companies, actions imposing administrative sanctions, and civil suits face a variety of procedural hurdles, particularly if involving joint ventures with state run enterprises.
For example, a negligence civil suit brought by villagers against the Heinda tin mine in Dawei District was unsuccessful because the 1909 Limitations Act demands complaints to be brought within one year of damage.
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code requires prior notice and the names of plaintiffs to be given to the government two months before filing a suit against the government and allows small procedural defects to preclude a claim.
Lawyers are sometimes unfamiliar with these procedures and communities are reluctant to put their names to such cases fearing reprisals.
Clearly there are significant challenges to ensuring that investment in Burma does not adversely affect human rights.
To overcome these, civil society and lawyers must engage the administration—the MIC—to ensure only responsible investments is permitted and start to use the judiciary to review its actions.
Likewise, cases must continue to be taken against investors that abuse human rights and harm the environment.
Powerful investors must be constrained by the confines of the law, including human rights law.
Unless civil society and lawyers can use the legal framework to address these concerns, Burma’s judicial system is unlikely to develop; lawyers will not gain valuable experience and the public will remain distrustful.
The process is long and arduous but necessary to protect human rights and the environment from irresponsible investment.
May 4, 2017 | News
Thailand should immediately end the practice of arbitrarily detaining persons in unofficial places of detention said the ICJ today.
The statement came after it was revealed that human rights lawyer, Prawet Prapanukul, who had been arbitrarily detained for five days at a detention facility inside a military base in Bangkok, finally appeared and was charged at the Bangkok Criminal Court on 3 May 2017.
During the morning of 29 April 2017, military officers invoked Head of National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 3/2015 to arrest Prawet Prapanukul and search his residence in Bangkok, seizing a number of items located at the property including computers, phones and hard-drives.
The whereabouts of Prawet Prapanukul were unknown until the afternoon of 3 May 2017, when Prawet Prapanukul contacted several lawyers including Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and said he had been held at the Nakhon Chaisri temporary remand facility inside the 11th Army Circle military base in Bangkok.
“Prawet Prapanukul’s five-day incommunicado detention without being brought before the courts or access to legal counsel amounts to an arbitrary detention in violation of his rights under international law and consequently he should be provided with appropriate reparation,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“To ensure the protection of all persons while in detention, Thailand has a duty to detain people in officially recognized places of detention, to have their names and places of detention made available to interested persons and to bring them before a court without delay within 48-hours,” he added.
According to TLHR, on 3 May 2017, Prawet Prapanukul was charged with ten counts of the highly restrictive crime of lese majeste (article 112 of the Criminal Code), three counts of a sedition-like offence (article 116 of the Criminal Code), and violation of article 14(3) of the Computer Crime Act.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns about abusive recourse to these laws.
Pursuant to article 91(3) of the Thai Criminal Code, it is possible that, if convicted of these charges, Prawet Prapanukul could receive a maximum sentence of 50-years imprisonment.
“Freedom of expression, as protected under international law, must never be criminalized. In any event, imprisonment is never a proportionate penalty for the exercise of free expression, let alone the unthinkable possibility of 50-years, which would set a new recorded record for a sentence for lese majeste,” Abbott said.
On 25 April 2017, after reviewing Thailand’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, the Human Rights Committee, the international expert body charged with supervising the implementation of the ICCPR, issued its Concluding Observations in which it noted that in Thailand “individuals were reportedly often detained without charge and held incommunicado at undisclosed places of detention for periods of up to seven days, with no judicial oversight or safeguards against ill-treatment and without access to a lawyer.” The Human Rights Committee observed that Thailand should immediately release all victims of arbitrary detention and provide them with full reparation.
“The fact that Thailand arbitrarily detained Prawet Prapanukul at a military facility just five days after the Human Rights Committee issued its Concluding Observations criticizing Thailand’s practice of detaining people incommunicado in undisclosed placed of detention demonstrates a worrying contempt for its international human rights obligations as pointed out by the Committee,” Abbott added.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Prapanukul-detention-News-2017-ENG (full text with background, in PDF)
Thailand-Prapanukul-detention-News-2017-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Apr 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the conviction and sentencing of Siti Noor Aishah Atam for possessing twelve books allegedly associated with terrorist groups, an act which is criminal under Malaysia’s Penal Code.
The ICJ calls for her immediate release from detention and for the authorities to take steps to quash or reverse her conviction.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court found Siti Noor Aishah Atam guilty under Section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code which prohibits any “possession, custody or control of any item associated with any terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act” and sentenced her to five years of imprisonment.
Siti Noor Aishah Atam contended that she was using the supposedly proscribed books for her thesis as a graduate student at Universiti Malaya, where she majored in Islamic Studies.
The High Court indicated, however, that they were applying the standard of strict liability to this case, meaning that the particular reason a person may have of possessing the books should not be taken into account.
If a person is found to have these books in their possession, for whatever reason, he or she will be penalized under the provision.
“The prosecution and conviction of Siti Noor Aishah Atam by Malaysian authorities is a violation of her right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
The ICJ notes that while the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, any restriction must be provided by law and be strictly necessary for a limited number of purposes, such as national security.
Any restriction must also be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly.
“The law under which Siti Noor Aishah Atam had been convicted is overly vague, since nobody would know what books or other material would be impermissible. The law is also certainly overbroad – having the effect of preventing potentially important academic research,” said Gil.
The twelve books found in the possession of Siti Noor Aishah Atam have not been specifically banned by the Malaysian government.
Indeed, these books may easily be bought at any number of bookstores in the country.
This unjust verdict illustrates the need for urgent legal reform, including the repeal or modification of Section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code.
The ICJ also noted with profound concern that Siti Noor Aishah Atam has been subjected to prolonged detention under multiple laws, namely the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) and Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA).
“The Malaysian authorities appear to be abusing SOSMA and POCA by invoking them alternately to keep Siti Noor Aishah Atam in detention. This constitutes a denial of her right to be free from arbitrary detention,” Gil said.
The ICJ had previously called for the abolition of SOSMA, POCA, and similarly abusive laws.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Siti Noor Aishah Atam is a former graduate student at Universiti Malaya, majoring in Usuluddin (Akidah) or Islamic Studies.
On 22 March 2016, the police raided the residence of Siti Noor Aishah Atam and arrested her.
She was taken into custody and detained for 28 days under SOSMA at an undisclosed detention facility while her trial was ongoing.
On 25 July 2016, she pleaded not guilty and stated that the books were used for her thesis on terrorism.
On 29 September 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Siti Noor Aishah Atam.
The High Court had pointed to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ failure to ban the twelve books as one of the key reasons behind the acquittal.
On the day of her acquittal, she was again arrested and detained under POCA for 60 days and was subsequently ordered to be put under house arrest for two years.
In March 2017, the prosecution appealed the High Court’s decision. This allowed authorities to subject Siti Noor Aishah Atam to continued remand under SOSMA.
She was then detained in Kajang Prison until her conviction and sentencing today.
