Myanmar: newly appointed Attorney General should commit to reform, rule of law and human rights

Myanmar: newly appointed Attorney General should commit to reform, rule of law and human rights

Newly appointed Myanmar Attorney General U Tun Tun Oo must commit to strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country, said the ICJ today.

U Tun Tun Oo (photo) has been one of the Deputy Attorney-Generals in the Union Attorney General’s Office since 2006.

“U Tun Tun Oo is taking over a post that is Myanmar’s most powerful legal officer. He plays a complex role, at once a member of the Executive, adviser to the President and the Hluttaw, the authority drafting and amending laws,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “As an immediate matter, he should review all political cases and stop the harassment of human rights defenders.”

The Attorney General represents the government in judicial proceedings and advises the cabinet on the legality of its actions.

He also leads Prosecutors in the country, and thus has the authority to select, initiate and undertake investigations into criminal and politically sensitive cases.

The Attorney General is also the president of the country’s only officially recognized Bar Association.

The Attorney General is, in effect, the minister of justice, and as such has controlled much of the work of the judiciary, too.

The Union Attorney General’s Office has historically followed the interests of the military and impeded an independent judiciary, the ICJ notes.

It has been criticized for failing to tackle major problems such as corruption and human rights abuses while continuing to prosecute human rights defenders and political opponents.

“Within the Union Attorney General’s Office, prosecutors must act with integrity in an independent, impartial and objective manner and in the protection of the public interest”, said Zarifi.

“Prosecutors must exercise sound discretion in the performance of their functions. They must seek justice, without fear of favour, not merely convict.”

“The Attorney-General’s Office must not shy away from prosecutions that will combat impunity,” he added.

The Union Attorney General’s Office launched its Strategic Plan for 2015-2019, establishing important benchmarks for measuring the institution’s development.

The Strategic Plan acknowledges the public’s low confidence in the office and commits the office to the rule of law, human rights, fair trials, prosecutorial ethics and accountability, in accordance with international standards.

“The Union Attorney General’s Office must investigate and prosecute criminal offences, including gross human rights violations and abuses, with impartiality. The Union Attorney General’s Office must be free from unwarranted interference from the legislative and the executive branches of government. Likewise, it must not interfere with judges or lawyers in an independent judiciary,” Zarifi said.

Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org

Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, t: +95(0)9250800301; e: vani.sathisan@icj.org

Additional information:

Under international standards, prosecutors are required to “respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights” and “give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law.” These principles are set out in the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors.

An exposition and analysis of international law and standards are available in English and Myanmar language in the ICJ’s authoritative Practitioners’ Guide on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.

 

Thailand: Human rights groups condemn NCPO Order 13/2016 and urge for it to be revoked immediately

Thailand: Human rights groups condemn NCPO Order 13/2016 and urge for it to be revoked immediately

Thailand must immediately revoke National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 13/2016 which confers sweeping powers on the Royal Thai Armed Forces in contravention of human rights and the rule of law, said today the ICJ and other human rights groups.

On 29 March 2016, pursuant to Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Head of the NCPO, issued Order 13/2016 which provides appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons.

“The implementation of Order 13/2016 will almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and the rule of law and must be revoked immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General.

“We have observed a steady erosion of human rights protections in Thailand since the military coup of 22 May 2014 and this Order signifies another, jarring, movement in the same direction,” he added.

The Order raises numerous human rights concerns say the ICJ, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), and Fortify Rights (FR). These concerns include:

1. Grants a form of immunity from prosecution to those acting under the Order, leading to impunity contrary to the principle of accountability required by the rule of law.

“Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic rule, the Thai junta has broadened its powers to do almost anything it wants, including committing abuses with total impunity,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Repression becomes a daily reality as Thailand descends further into military dictatorship.”

2. Actions taken under the Order are not subject to judicial review, contrary to the rights to effective remedy, to judicial control of deprivation of liberty, and to a fair trial, as for instance recognized under Articles 2, 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 “The Order is yet another example of the pernicious removal of powers from the judicial system to review the military’s actions, to the detriment of rights protection and the rule of law,” said Champa Patel, Interim Director, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Amnesty International.

3. Provides untrained military officials with broadly and ambiguously worded powers of law enforcement likely to lead to abuse, inconsistent with human rights standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

“The Order provides law enforcement powers to military officials who do not have law enforcement experience or protocols to summon, search, and arrest persons,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

“This makes the absence of judicial oversight all the more concerning. The fact that this may lead to an abuse of power and the disproportionate use of force by military officials in violation of international laws and standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is very worrying. There is a real risk the Order may be used to restrict the legitimate rights of people such as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” she added.

4. Authorizes the deprivation of liberty of persons for up to seven days in unrecognized places of detention, without judicial oversight, which increases the risk of further human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearance.

“Despite its pretense to suppress criminal activities, this Order is likely to result in the commission of very serious crimes that are prohibited under human rights instruments that Thailand has either signed or ratified,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.

5. In practice, the Order is open to abuse to repress and silence those perceived as dissenters, including human rights defenders, in violation of international human rights law and standards.

“This Order stands to fuel the fire of retaliation against human rights defenders in Thailand,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Thailand has an obligation to protect human rights defenders, but this Order could easily be used to target and obstruct their legitimate work.”

Contact

Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +41 (0) 229793800 ; e: wilder.tayler(a)icj.org

Thailand-NCPO Order-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text, in PDF, Thai version)

Thailand-NCPO Order unof trsl-Advocacy-2016-ENG (unofficial translation of the Order, PDF)

 

Singapore: Court of Appeal decision upholding Kho Jabing’s death sentence a serious blow to human rights

Singapore: Court of Appeal decision upholding Kho Jabing’s death sentence a serious blow to human rights

The Court of Appeal’s decision to lift the stay of execution of Kho Jabing is a serious blow to human rights in Singapore, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.

The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to grant Kho Jabing clemency and immediately impose a moratorium on executions, with a view towards abolishing the death penalty in the near future.

“The death penalty is never justifiable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “If Singapore goes through with the execution of Kho Jabing, it will go against the growing international consensus to abolish the death penalty.”

Currently, 117 member states of the United Nations support the General Assembly resolution passed in December 2014 calling for an international moratorium on the use of death penalty, the ICJ reminds.

The Geneva-based organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and considers the imposition of the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

The ICJ has received information that there are nine other individuals currently on death row in Singapore.

Authorities have not yet released the date of Kho Jabing’s execution.

The lawyers of Kho Jabing will be filing a petition for clemency in the next few days.

The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to halt the imminent execution of Kho Jabing, grant the petition for clemency and commute his death sentence.

Background

Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Singapore in 2010. After amendments were made in 2012 on the laws on the death penalty in Singapore, Kho Jabing was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The prosecution, however, appealed the re-sentencing and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected his application for clemency in October 2015. On 23 November 2015, he was granted a temporary reprieve pending the outcome of a petition filed by his lawyers, which raised questions of fact and law.

The decision of the Court of Appeal this morning lifted the temporary reprieve and upheld its decision to impose the death penalty on Kho Jabing.

Contact

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

 

 

Malaysia: sedition investigation against Malaysian Bar members constitutes inappropriate interference

Malaysia: sedition investigation against Malaysian Bar members constitutes inappropriate interference

The Malaysian government must immediately halt the politically motivated sedition investigation launched by the police against members of the Malaysian Bar who had called for the Attorney General’s resignation, the ICJ said today.

“The Malaysian authorities are using the archaic, colonial Sedition Act to harass and silence lawyers who are demanding that the country’s legal authorities observe international standards of propriety and independence,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.

“This latest misuse of the Sedition Act constitutes a brazen political attack on the independence of the country’s lawyers,” she added.

On 29 March 2016, lawyers Charles Hector, Francis Pereira, and Shanmugam Ramasamy, received letters from police authorities summoning them to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters on 31 March 2016 for the purpose of taking down their statements regarding a complaint filed against them under the Sedition Act (1948).

The three had proposed a motion during the Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Assembly, calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali. The motion was passed by a majority vote.

Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, was also notified that her statement would likewise be taken but she was not summoned to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters.

The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.

The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.

Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.

“In 2012, Prime Minister Razak had promised to repeal the Sedition Act, but since then his government has increasingly relied on the law’s impermissibly vague and broad language as a useful tool of repression,” Gil said.

International standards highlight that protecting the independence of lawyers and their professional associations is essential for upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, the ICJ says.

“This police investigation is clearly designed to challenge that independence,” Gil said.

“The Malaysian Bar has been one of the few institutions consistently defending the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia, and it is crucial to maintain the ability of its members to engage critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” she added.

The ICJ urges the Malaysian government to repeal the archaic Sedition Act 1948 and fulfill the commitment it made in 2012 to abolish it.

Unless repealed or considerably revised so that it will be consistent with international law, the Sedition Act 1948 will continue to unduly limit and repress the freedom of expression, not only of lawyers and human rights defenders, but of all Malaysians exercising their fundamental rights, the ICJ says.

Contact

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org

Background

Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).

Like other citizens, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. Lawyers have the right to take part in the public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights (Principle 23).

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity (Principle 24).

Governments should ensure that these professional associations are able to function without improper interference (Principle 25).

In its 2016 resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously affirmed that “the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the integrity of the judicial system and an independent legal profession are essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice, and should therefore be respected in all circumstances” (Resolution 30/7, 1 October 2015).

Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.

The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.

The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.

Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.

ICJ and TLHR call for Thai bar association elections to proceed, without military government interference, and in a fair and impartial manner

ICJ and TLHR call for Thai bar association elections to proceed, without military government interference, and in a fair and impartial manner

Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) must end its interference in the elections of the president and committee members of the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT), the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), said today.

The LCT in turn must ensure the elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

“International standards explicitly prohibit external interference in the elections of the executive body of a lawyers’ professional association by its members, and the association’s leadership must ensure that such elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner” said Matt Pollard, the Head of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. “Ensuring the independence and democratic representation of the legal profession is essential to safeguarding human rights and the rule of law, especially in the current circumstances of military rule in Thailand.”

On 29 February 2016, Mr Wichien Choobtaisong, a representative of the electoral group of the current LCT President, Mr. Dej-udom Krairit, wrote to the NCPO “seeking permissionto hold meetings and campaigns for the LCT’s regularly-scheduled elections, referring to the NCPO’s ban on political gatherings of more than five persons.

On 16 March 2016, the NCPO replied, stating that the elections “contradict” the ban on political gatherings, which “must apply equally to all groups and sectors in the interest of maintaining national security during the transition period,” and taking the position that that the elections must accordingly be postponed with the current committee continuing its term until elections are held. The NCPO’s reply also notes it received a letter from the LCT on 14 December 2015, which the ICJ and TLHR have not seen.

In its letter, the NCPO referred to NCPO Announcement 7/2014, which bans the political gathering of more than five persons (Announcement 7/2014 was later replaced by Order 3/2015). The ICJ reiterates that these arbitrary and unjustified orders and announcements should be repealed, and calls on the NCPO, in any event, to immediately withdraw its letter of 16 March, replacing it with written confirmation that the LCT elections will be able to proceed as scheduled, without external interference.

The LCT must then put in place procedures to ensure the elections proceed as scheduled and in a fair and impartial manner.

“Since the military took power, we have seen a marked increase in the number of individuals requiring legal aid for sensitive and political cases,” said Yaowalak Anuphan, the Head of TLHR and member of the LCT. “In this environment, it is even more essential that the Lawyers Council of Thailand is able to exercise its functions without external interference and that everyone has effective and equal access to the legal services of lawyers.”

Contacts

In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org

Background

The Lawyers Council of Thailand was established in 1957. Its mandate and responsibilities are set out in the Lawyers Council Act 1985.

The objectives of the Council include maintaining the ethics of lawyers, promoting legal education and providing legal assistance.

It also registers lawyers and issues them with licenses to practice law in Thailand. Members of the Council elect the president and committee members every three years.

Article 24 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the UN in 1990, sets out that: “Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity.

The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”

Among other things, the UN Basic Principles also affirm that ensuring all persons have effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession is essential for adequate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

They note the vital role of professional associations of lawyers including in protecting their members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements. The Basic Principles specify that governments should respect and reflect the provisions of the Basic Principles in their national legislation and practice.

The UN Human Rights Committee has applied the Basic Principles as a necessary component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party.

The UN Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR at an upcoming meeting.

Thailand-ICJ and TLHR statment on LCT-News-press releasess-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)

Indonesia: anti terrorism law amendments are an attack on human rights

Indonesia: anti terrorism law amendments are an attack on human rights

The Indonesian House of Representatives should reject proposed amendments to the country’s Anti Terrorism Law that would actually contravene international law, said the ICJ and other human rights groups today.

“The horrific recent attacks in Jakarta highlight the Indonesian government’s obligation to protect people from acts of terrorism, but experience from around the world has shown that countering terrorism must occur along with protection of human rights, not in violation of Indonesia’s legal obligations,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

The ICJ, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), and the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (IMPARSIAL) noted that the proposed amendments would authorize unnecessarily prolonged detention of suspects, putting them at risk of torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention.

The amendments also include a provision on administrative detention.

“This is generally forbidden in international law, save in the most exceptional circumstances far narrower than as contemplated under the amendments,” Zarifi added.

A letter sent by the organizations to the House of Representatives lays out recommendations on how this provision may be revised so that it would not violate the rights of detainees.

“There is no reference anywhere in the amendments how detainees may challenge the lawfulness of their detention. It has to be clear in the law that these remedies are available to them,” said Haris Azhar, National Executive Coordinator of KontraS.

The three organizations also underline the amendment proposing stripping Indonesian combatants abroad of their nationality would be contrary to international law, if this would render them stateless.

“Nationality is what legally binds an individual to a particular State. It is an essential prerequisite to the enjoyment and protection of the full range of human rights,” said Poengky Indarti, board member of IMPARSIAL.

They also said that the proposed provision on incitement to terrorism would unduly limit political speech, especially those that are contrary to the views of persons wielding power and authority, such as opinions on self-determination or changes to the legal and constitutional structures.

The proposed amendments impose the death penalty on particular offences.

The ICJ, IMPARSIAL, and KontraS oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

In the letter, they remind the government of Indonesia to immediately impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to moving towards its total abolition.

The ICJ, IMPARSIAL, and KontraS urged the members of Indonesia’s House of Representatives to keep in mind that whatever measures Indonesia uses to counter terrorism must comply with international law and protect human rights.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Fatia Maulidiyanti, S.IP, International Desk of KontraS (Jakarta), t: +62 21 391 9097/98 ; e: fatia(a)kontras.org

Poengky Indarti, Member of the Board of IMPARSIAL (Jakarta), t: +62 812 8362 8659 ; e: poengky1970(a)gmail.com

Indonesia-Letter to Gvt-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text of letter, in PDF)

Translate »