Sep 4, 2019 | News
The announcement that the remains of Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, a Karen rights activist, have been located, brings a sad end to years of uncertainty for his family, said the ICJ and Amnesty International today.
This development should lead to a renewed focus on identifying the perpetrator(s) of his apparent enforced disappearance and bringing them to justice.
On 3 September 2019, the Thai Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) announced it had located bone fragments, which they had identified as likely belonging to Billy inside an oil tank submerged in water near a suspension bridge inside Kaeng Krachan National Park in Phetchaburi province.
“The DSI should redouble its efforts to identify the perpetrator(s) of Billy’s killing and bring them to justice,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Regional Director of the ICJ. “If, based on an assessment of the evidence, it is found that Billy was the victim of enforced disappearance, then the perpetrators, including those with command responsibility, should be charged with the appropriate, serious offences in accordance with Thailand’s obligations under international law – not only with lesser crimes that do not reflect the gravity of the offense.”
Billy was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials.
“This case highlights the serious risks activists and human rights defenders face in Thailand, including assaults, enforced disappearance and killings,” said Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International’s interim Regional Director of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “It underscores the long-overdue need for the Thai government to make enforced disappearance a crime under national law. A failure to do so results in the lack of an independent, impartial and effective mechanism to investigate the cases, exacerbating the current climate of impunity.”
The DSI stated that the recovered bones contain DNA inherited from Billy’s mother, which suggests they belong to a person who was related to her. However, the DSI declined to disclose the name of any suspect(s) and requested more time to investigate the case and examine the remains.
Background
Thailand 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). Freedom from enforced disappearance is protected under both these treaties, as enforced disappearance will always constitute violations of some or more of the following rights: the right to life; freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to liberty; and the right to recognition as a person under the law. These are in addition to violations of the rights of members of the disappeared person’s family through suffering deliberately inflicted on them through the imposition on them of uncertainty about their love one’s fate and whereabouts.
Thailand has also signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). The ICPPED affirms the absolute right not to be subject to enforced disappearance and places an obligation on states to investigate acts of enforced disappearance, to make it a criminal offence punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its “extreme seriousness” and to take necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice.
The Government has stated it will not ratify the Convention until its provisions are incorporated in domestic law. However, efforts to pass the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (draft Act) stalled after it was dropped by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) prior to the 2019 national election. The draft Act is currently pending the consideration of the President of the National Assembly. Under international law of treaties, as signatory to the ICPPED, still is bound to desist from any acts which would defeat its object and purpose.
Thailand has a binding obligation under international law to conduct prompt, effective and thorough, independent and impartial, and transparent investigations into all suspected cases of unlawful death and enforced disappearance.
According to the ICPPED and the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016), which contains the international standards on the conduct of investigations into unlawful death and enforced disappearance – and which Thailand launched in May 2017 – records that investigations “must seek to identify not only direct perpetrators but also all others who were responsible for the death, including, for example, officials in the chain of command who were complicit in the death.” (para 26)
Download
Thailand-Discovery of Billy remains-news-webstory-2019-THA (full story in PDF)
Further reading
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
For ICJ: Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Sep 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News
From 1 and 2 September 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, Clément Nyaletsossi VOULE, and lawyers and trade union representatives met and discussed challenges faced in Southeast Asia on exercising the right to freedom of association of workers.
The event was organized by the ICJ together with Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), and supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
At the meeting’s conclusion, the participants reached a consensus to work for the development regional guidelines on freedom of association of workers in the ASEAN and agreed to form a Working Group that would be tasked to develop these guidelines. The Working Group nominated by the participants is composed of trade union representatives at the national level, lawyers, among other experts.
In his keynote speech, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that freedom of association is a fundamental right for all workers without which they lack the power to fight discrimination and injustice in the workplace. He also explained the link between the rights to freedom of association and expression, “Freedom of association is closely related to freedom of expression as they both represent opening up of space for dialogue and an enabling environment where unions can participate freely.”
The participants at the meeting were practicing lawyers from Southeast Asia focusing on labor and employment and trade unions leaders and representatives. Other participants included representatives from human rights organizations addressing business and human rights and the right to freedom of association; the ASEAN Secretariat; the International Labor Organization (ILO), the ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
“Shrinking political and civic space combined with inequality and social marginalization are key challenges at the heart of business-related human rights violations in Southeast Asia,” said Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Regional Representative for UN Human Rights. “Governments must implement their obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights in relation to business activities. It is equally critical to ensure that businesses meet their responsibilities to respect human rights.”
During the meeting, the participants also discussed the role of women in labour organizing and the additional challenges women face when they exercise the right to freedom of association in the workplace. Betty Yolanda, Asia Regional Manager of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC) said: “Women workers face multiple forms of discrimination and challenges. They are fighting for their rights as workers in the company and at the same time they are also fighting the patriarchy.”
The participants identified common challenges confronted in the region where workers’ rights to freedom of association face legal and physical limitations. Migrant workers, women workers and workers in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were identified as being particularly at risk in exercising their rights.
“It is crucial that we discuss these challenges openly and with all stakeholders, particularly issues that affect those who work in the informal sector, and other vulnerable communities such as migrant workers. Special investment frameworks, special economic zones and other government-led initiatives meant to attract foreign investment potentially create new opportunities to increase transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, they are more often used to justify lowering human rights standards, or impose new restrictions that act to limit workers and communities abilities to express their grievances or exercise their rights to association,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Contact:
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Sep 2, 2019 | News
On 30 August 2019, on the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared, the ICJ co-hosted an art exhibition, a closed-door round table discussion and a public forum titled “Enforced Disappearance and the Absence of a Law” to commemorate individuals who were subject to apparent enforced disappearance and whose fates remains unknown.
The closed-door round table discussion provided an opportunity for victims’ voices to be heard on challenges faced in gaining access to justice and redress. Relatives spoke about the challenges they face, mostly about the poor progress of investigations into the allegations of enforced disappearance against their relatives.
Sanhawan Srisod, the ICJ’s Legal Adviser, during the closed-door round table discussion, gave a briefing about the latest developments on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act. The legislation had been dropped by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) prior to the 2019 national elections, but is currently before the President of the National Assembly, pending his consideration to bring it before the House of Representative.
The public forum focused on the development and progress of the investigations into enforced disappearances and evaluated the progress in developing legislation in Thailand to address this critical issue.
During the public forum, Sanhawan Srisod highlighted that the Draft Act would, if adopted, fail to bring the law into full compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations. The key concerns include:
- Incomplete definitions of the crimes of enforced disappearance;
- The continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance that was not recognized in the Draft Act;
- Inadequacy of provisions on the command responsibility;
- Possibility that the military court may have power to try and adjudicate enforced disappearance cases; and
- Insufficient safeguards against enforced disappearances.
Background
Thailand has signed but has yet to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
According to their 2018 annual report, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded 86 outstanding cases of alleged enforced disappearance in Thailand.
The Thai government, through the recently set up Committee Managing Complaints for Torture and Enforced Disappearance Cases, says it is currently conducting investigations in connection with this list.
Closed-door round table discussion session included the following speakers: Ms. Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, wife of Mr. Porlajee Billy Rakchongcharoen; Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Mr. Somchai Neelapaijit; Ms. Pranee Danwattananusorn, wife of Mr. Surachai Danwattananusorn; Mr. Adisorn Pho-Arn, son of Mr. Thanong Pho-Arn; Ms. Kanya Theerawut, mother of Mr. Siam Theerawut; Ms. Suphab Kamlae, wife of Mr. Den Kamlae; Mr. Prasert Laosophapan, brother of Mr. Kamon Laosophapan; Ms. Shui-Meng Ng, wife of Mr. Sombath Somphone from Lao PDR; Mr. Truong Son Nguyen, Regional Campaigner, Amnesty International Vietnam; Representatives, indigenous Lahu Community, Chiang Mai province; and Ms. Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists
Public forum session included the following speakers: Ms. Shui-Meng Ng, representative of Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances; Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Mr. Somchai Neelapaijit; Ms. Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, wife of Mr. Porlajee Billy Rakchongcharoen; Mr. Angsukate Wisutwattanasak, Director of Security Cases Department 1, Department of Special Investigation (DSI); Ms. Nongporn Roongpetchwong, Human Rights Expert, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice; and Ms. Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists. The opening session included remarks from Mr. Giuseppe Busini, Deputy Head of Mission of the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, and Mr. Surapong Kongchantuk, President of the Cross-Cultural Foundation. The closing session included remarks from Mr. Badar Farrukh, Human Rights Officer, OHCHR Regional Representative for South East Asia.
See Also:
Summary of the ICJ analysis of the Draft Act (PDF)
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Aug 30, 2019 | News
On the occasion of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, Advocacy Forum-Nepal, the Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD), and the ICJ voiced their concern about the Government’s failure to provide justice for the victims of the country’s decade-long armed conflict, including victims of enforced disappearance.
The organizations also remembered the victims of enforced disappearances in Nepal and recognized the unceasing efforts of victims and their families and others advocating and campaigning for truth and justice for serious human rights violations in Nepal for over a decade.
Nepal faced a protracted internal armed conflict from 1996 to 2006. In the decade-long conflict, serious human rights violations and abuses were committed by both sides: the Government, including the Royal Nepal Army; and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Approximately 1,300 people were “disappeared” during the conflict. The fate of many of “disappeared” is yet to be known.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) put an end to the conflict on 21 November 2006, with both sides agreeing to hold perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses accountable and provide access to effective remedies and reparation to victims, including a commitment to publicize the fate or whereabouts of “disappeared”. However, nearly 13 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006, these promises remain unfulfilled.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, both established in February 2015, have failed to resolve the many thousands of complaints brought to them by victims and their families, and have yet to publicize their findings. Furthermore, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled the 2014 Act creating the legal framework for the Commissions to be unconstitutional, due in part to the inclusion of provisions that could be used to grant amnesty to perpetrators. In February 2019, the tenure of the commissions was extended to 2020, but the terms of the commissioners expired on 13 April 2019. As of August 2019, no formal replacements had been announced, though a committee to recommend appointments has been established. The ICJ and other organizations have called for a suspension of the current appointment process until amendments to the legal framework are made, and a more consultative and transparent process is initiated.
Nepal has also enacted a new Penal Code, with effect from August 2018. For the first time, the Penal Code recognized enforced disappearance as a distinct crime. While the intent behind this measure is commendable, the law does not meet Nepal’s obligations concerning crimes under international law. In particular, the definition of enforced disappearance falls short of international standards; the crime of enforced disappearance is not absolutely prohibited; provisions related to superior and command responsibility are inadequate; and the penalties for enforced disappearance are inconsistent with international standards. The provisions will apply retroactively to the more than 1,300 conflict era cases.
The organizations urged the Government of Nepal to:
- Amend the 2014 Transitional Justice Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights standards and Supreme Court rulings, including removing amnesty for perpetrators;
- Revise the criminal code to bring it in line with international standards. At the minimum, this should include:
- amending the definition of enforced disappearances to bring it in line with Nepal’s international obligations and the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED)
- revising the penalty provisions in the Criminal Code Bill to comply with relevant provisions of the CED and other international law and standards
- removing the statute of limitations for enforced disappearance cases
- Ratify International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances;
- Publicize the findings of the CIEDP; and
- Ensure that in Nepal’s legal system, the victims of enforced disappearance, including family members of “disappeared” persons, have the right to obtain reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation; and they can effectively exercise that right in practice.
Contact:
For the ICJ: Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background:
The International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances falls on 30 August every year. Nepal is bound by international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both of which it has acceded to – to investigate, prosecute, punish and provide remedies and reparation for the crimes of torture, other acts of ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance.
Nepal-International Day Enforced Disappearances-Press releases-2019-NEP (Story in Nepali)
Aug 6, 2019 | News
The Indian Government’s revocation of the autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir violates the rights of representation and participation guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution and in international law and is a blow to the rule of law and human rights in the state and in India, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said.
The Indian Government today pushed through a legislative package effectively eliminating the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir and limited the Indian Government’s legislative powers in the state. The move was preceded by a communication blackout, arbitrary detention of political leaders, banned movement and meetings of people, and increased military presence, purportedly to quell protests.
“The Indian Government has pushed through these changes in contravention of domestic and international standards with respect to the rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir to participate and be adequately represented, accompanied by draconian new restrictions on freedoms of expression, assembly, and travel, and with an influx of thousands of unaccountable security personnel,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The legality of the Indian Government’s measures to eviscerate Article 370 will certainly be tested before the Indian judiciary, which should look closely at the serious violations of proper legislative and Constitutional processes,” Zarifi said. “All eyes are now on the Indian Supreme Court to fulfill its functions in defense of the rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Constitution,” Zarifi said.
The procedure adopted to revoke the special status and autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir appears to be incompatible with judgments and observations of high courts and the Indian Supreme Court, who have clarified that the President of India would need the agreement of the government of Jammu and Kashmir to change its status. The amendments effectively render Article 370 inoperative in its entirety, without meeting the Constitutional requirements in spirit.
The revocation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir without agreement from the state government is contrary to the spirit of Article 370, which envisioned that the will of the people would be taken into account in decisions relating to state’s special status and autonomy.
“The Indian Government rushed through the amendments at a time when Jammu and Kashmir was under the direct rule of the Central Government, and the state legislature was dissolved. As the government of Jammu and Kashmir is not empowered to discharge its functions, it has not been consulted, let alone agreed to the revocation,” Zarifi said.
“The lack of consultation with the people of Kashmir is all the more troubling because the changes pushed by the Indian Government will materially affect Kashmir’s status as India’s only Muslim-majority state, including special rights for citizens of the state to own and hold land and seek education and employment,” Zarifi said.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in successive reports in 2018 and 2019 has noted that the region of Jammu and Kashmir, under dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, has been the theatre of grave human rights violations, including unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture, committed with impunity by Indian security forces.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in both reports recommended to the Indian Government to “fully respect the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir as protected under international law”.
The ICJ condemns the legislative steps taken with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, and calls on the Indian Government to implement in full the UN High Commissioner’s recommendations, including respecting the right to self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General,e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org, t: 41 (0)22 979 38 00
India-Jammu Kashmir and Autonomy-News-press release-2019-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Jul 29, 2019 | News
The Government of Nepal has failed to fulfill its commitment to provide justice for the victims of the country’s decade-long armed conflict, the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and TRIAL International said today.
The organizations echoed statements by victims and human rights groups about the Nepal government’s inaction on addressing conflict-era human rights violations, and a lack of transparency in the appointment of commissioners to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearances.
“The lack of progress in holding perpetrators accountable for the suffering inflicted upon victims, their families and Nepali society as a whole, is appalling,” said ICJ Asia-Pacific Director Frederick Rawski.
“Nearly 13 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, political leaders inside and outside of government are still playing games by politicizing the process. It is about time that they showed some courage, and took action to ensure access to justice, instead of continually looking after their own short-term self-interests,” he added.
“We have seen no evidence so far that the authorities of Nepal are serious about fulfilling their obligation to investigate conflict-era violations and bring all those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts,” said Raju Chapagai, South Asia researcher at Amnesty International. “If the commitment to human rights obligations was as unflinching as claimed by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the government would have acted diligently to deliver on its transitional justice responsibilities.”
After being elected in 2018, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli renewed promises that the legal framework governing the transitional justice process would be brought into conformity with Nepal’s international human rights law obligations, as the Supreme Court had repeatedly directed. However, the government never amended the law, and instead pushed forward – without adequate consultation – with the establishment of a committee to recommend appointments to the transitional justice bodies.
“The failure of the government to deliver on its commitment to ensure truth, justice and reparations for the victims of conflict-era abuses shows a dismaying disregard for the protection of human rights,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
The organizations called on the government to: 1) suspend the current process, and initiate a consultative and transparent process for the nomination and appointment of commissioners; 2) follow through on commitments to amend the 2014 transitional justice law to ensure that the legal framework is consistent with international human rights standards and Supreme Court rulings; and 3) adopt and publicize a plan for taking the transitional justice process forward.
“The legitimacy of Nepal’s transitional justice process lies both on a transparent and consultative appointment process for commissioners, and a strong legal foundation to allow the commissions to fulfil their mandate,” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Head of TRIAL International’s Nepal program. “Societal consensus is crucial for both factors.”
Amnesty International, ICJ and TRIAL International had previously submitted their analysis of the draft transitional justice legislation circulated in 2018 and had made recommendations on ensuring compliance with international human rights law. Human Rights Watch had also alerted for reform of the transitional justice law before appointing the commissioners. In April 2019, United Nations experts also wrote a joint letter to the foreign minister reminding the government of its commitment to amend the law and calling for a transparent process for appointing new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners expired.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 644781121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org,
Nepal-trans just-News-Press releases-2019-NEP (story in Nepali, PDF)
