Jul 6, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in highlighting key outcomes of the 38th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) at the end of the session, read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud due to the limited time available):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolutions on civil society space, peaceful protest, on violence against women and girls and on discrimination against women and girls and the Council’s rejection of attempts to impede progress on protecting civic space, peaceful protest and the rights to sexual and reproductive health.
On civil society space, the resolution recognizes the essential contribution that civil society makes to international and regional organisations and provides guidance to States and organisations on improving their engagement with civil society. On peaceful protest, it sets out in greater detail how international law and standards protect rights related to protests.
On violence against women and on discrimination against women, we consider that ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights are vital in efforts to combat violence and discrimination against women, online and offline, as well as to ensure targeted and specific remedies to victims. We appreciate that the work of women human rights defenders towards this is recognised.
We consider the adoption of the resolution on the contribution of the Council to the prevention of human rights violations as an important opportunity to advance substantive consideration on strengthening the Council’s ability to deliver on its prevention mandate.
Following challenging negotiations, we welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on human rights and the Internet, reaffirming that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, and calling on States to tackle digital divides between and within countries, emphasising the importance of tools for anonymity and encryption for the enjoyment of human rights online, in particular for journalists, and condemning once more all measures that prevent or disrupt access to information online.
We welcome continued Council attention to Eritrea‘s abysmal human rights record. This year’s resolution, while streamlined, extends expert monitoring of, and reporting on, the country and outlines a way forward for both engagement and human rights reform. We urge Eritrea to engage in long-overdue meaningful cooperation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus under item 4 with an increased vote – as it is still the only independent international mechanism to effectively monitor human rights violations in Belarus – while remaining concerned over a narrative to shift the mandate to item 10 in the absence of any systemic change in Belarus.
We welcome the consensus resolution on the DRC, putting in place continued monitoring and follow up on the expert’s recommendations on the Kasais. However, given violations and abuses throughout several regions in the country, occurring against the backdrop of an ongoing political crisis, delayed elections, and the brutal quashing of dissent, we urge the Council to promptly move towards putting in place a country-wide mechanism that can respond to events on the ground as they emerge.
We welcome the strong resolution on Syria, which condemns violations and abuses by all parties, and appropriately addresses concerns raised by the COI about the use of chemical weapons, sexual and gender-based violence, and the need to address situations of detainees and disappearances. The Council cannot stay silent in the face of continued atrocities as the conflict continues unabated into its seventh year.
We welcome the joint statements delivered this session on Cambodia, the Philippines, and Venezuela. We urge Council members and observers to work towards increased collective action to urgently address the dire human rights situations in these countries.
On the Philippines, we emphasise that the Council should establish an independent international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ and mandate the OHCHR to report on the human rights situation and on moves toward authoritarianism.
The joint statement on Cambodia represents a glimmer of hope after the Council’s failure to take meaningful action against clear sabotage of democratic space ahead of elections. Close scrutiny of the human rights situation before, during and after the elections is paramount and the Council must take immediate action on current and future human rights violations in this regard.
We welcome the joint statement delivered by Luxembourg calling on the HRC President to provide oral updates on cases of alleged intimidation or reprisal, including actions taken, at the start of the Item 5 general debate of each Council session and also provide States concerned with the opportunity to respond.
Finally, the new Council member to replace the United States of America should demonstrate a principled commitment to human rights, to multilateralism and to addressing country situations of concern by applying objective criteria.
Signatories:
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- The Association for Progressive Communications
- The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jul 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ held a workshop in Mawlamyine on 3 July attended by religious leaders and youth activists from southern Mon State in Myanmar’s southeast.
The workshop aimed to facilitate discussion on strategic litigation options for communities adversely affected by existing and proposed investment projects.
The ICJ and civil society organizations have extensively documented how human rights abuses continue to occur in the context of business activities in Myanmar.
Communities generally have limited understanding of their rights, while government actors and businesses regularly flout their legal obligations.
The ICJ’s international legal adviser Sean Bain first set out applicable international standards, with a focus on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
He identified Myanmar’s nascent legal framework for environmental protection as a key area of law with potential to deter rights abuses. He noted that while in December 2015 the Government of Myanmar issued the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, its provisions are rarely followed or enforced in practice.
Workshop participants, from two different areas of Mon State, shared experiences of community mobilization and ideas on how to use law to protect human rights.
Presentation on Corporate Social Responsibility
Prior to this workshop, also in Mawlamyine, on 29 June the ICJ’s legal adviser presented on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at invitation of the national assembly of MATA, the Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability.
Introduced to Myanmar only in recent years, CSR activities are increasingly invoked by foreign and local companies as evidence of responsible investment.
But in reality, many companies doing CSR have been and continue to be involved in unlawful business activities, sometimes constituting human rights abuses.
Participants from different areas of Myanmar shared stories of businesses using CSR activities in a non-transparent way without accountability.
Cases were described where CSR has allegedly been associated with corruption, undermining trust and cohesion in communities affected by large investment projects.
The presentation from ICJ pointed out that while CSR activities are voluntary and without a specific legal framework, all businesses are subject to national law and should respect human rights in accordance with international law and standards, including the UN Guiding Principles.
Lawful conduct that respects human rights lies at the core of any responsible business, and CSR activities do not change these obligations.
These activities in Mon State are part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to civil society actors in Myanmar, from community-level up to national level actors.
Jul 4, 2018 | News
Today the ICJ called on Thai prosecutorial authorities to immediately end the prosecution of five persons associated with academic activities in Chiang Mai. The five have been made subject to prosecution solely for exercising their rights to free expression and assembly.
Those subject to prosecution include Pakawadee Veerapatpong, an independent writer and translator; Chaipong Samnieng, a PhD candidate at Chiang Mai University; Nontawat Machai, an undergraduate student at Chiang Mai University; Teeramon Bua-ngam, a Masters student at Chiang Mai University and news editor; and Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, a Professor at Chiang Mai University.
The ICJ also called for the revocation or amendment of all laws, orders and announcements inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Today, the Region V Public Prosecutor in Chiang Mai province formally notified the five individuals that they would be prosecuted for violating HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 (2015) (‘HNCPO Order 3’) for merely expressing their opinions at an academic forum at Chiang Mai University in July 2017.
HNCPO Order 3 prohibits the gathering of five or more persons for political purposes, carrying a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding 10,000 Baht.
“The ongoing and abusive use of HNCPO Order 3 to stifle free expression in Thailand remains indefensible and an obstacle to the full restoration of the rule of law in Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The decision to indict these five individuals is clearly in breach of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and should be reversed immediately together with the termination of the proceedings and the revocation of HNCPO Order 3,” he added.
The Public Prosecutor’s decision to indict the five was made against a backdrop of recently increasing repression of fundamental freedoms in the country.
This year alone, at least 132 persons were reportedly charged under HNCPO Order 3 in 10 cases and six incidents in connection with a movement calling for elections to be held this year.
Twenty-seven of these individuals were also charged with a sedition-like offence, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Since the military coup of 22 May 2014, at least 378 persons have been reportedly charged in relation to 50 cases of violating the ban on political gatherings of five or more persons according to a report launched on 22 June 2018 by leading Thai NGO, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).
In March and June 2018, at the Human Rights Council, the ICJ called on Thailand to revoke or amend all laws, orders and announcements that are contrary to the rule of law and human rights protections.
“Four years have passed since the military coup resulting in numerous unjustifiable restrictions on fundamental freedoms – it is long past time for Thailand to undertake reform necessary to prevent the legal system from being misused to harass individuals who merely exercise their human rights,” said Abbott.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Background
The Region V Public Prosecutor’s decision in Chiang Mai province follows charges filed against the individuals by a military officer in 2017.
Pakawadee Veerapatpong, Chaipong Samnieng and Nontawat Machai had allegedly held up three A4-sized messages which read “an academic forum is not a military barracks” at the academic conference.
Teeramon Bua-ngam had reportedly taken a picture of himself standing next to the messages and posted the same on social media.
Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti had reportedly watched the display of the messages without asking for them to be removed, despite being an organizer of the conference.
Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the ICCPR guarantee the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Since the military coup, the ICJ has expressed its concern about the use of a new legal framework and pre-existing laws to clamp down on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, including criminal defamation (Articles 326-328 of the Thai Criminal Code), the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007), a sedition-like offence (Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code), and HNCPO Order 3.
Read also
ICJ and TLHR Joint Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
ICJ and TLHR Joint Follow-up Submission to the Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
Thailand-Academics indicted-News-Web Story-2018-THA (story in Thai, PDF)
Jul 2, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ, along with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, made a join statement about the special investigation of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen.
The investigation of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, should genuinely seek to establish Billy’s fate and whereabouts, continually and fully inform his family on developments.
The investigation should also bring persons identified as responsible, irrespective of rank or status, to justice in a fair trial, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
The organizations also called on authorities to expedite long overdue legal and administrative measures to provide better protection against enforced disappearance, in compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
On 28 June 2018, following a meeting of the Special Case Committee No. 1/2018, the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigations (“DSI”) made the welcome announcement that it had decided to recognize the apparent enforced disappearance of Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen an ethnic Karen activist, as a “Special Case” that must be “investigated in accordance with the Special Case Investigation Act, B.E. 2547 (2004)”, that is, by the DSI itself.
Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials in Thailand’s Phetchaburi province.
At the time of his apparent enforced disappearance, Billy had been working with ethnic Karen villagers and activists on legal complaints against the National Park officials for purportedly burning and destroying their houses, farms, and other properties.
The DSI’s announcement followed a long-standing request by Billy’s wife, Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, and years of advocacy by the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch calling on the DSI to assume jurisdiction over the case.
They are also calling the DSI to conduct a prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigation into his fate or whereabouts consistent with international law and standards, including the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in collaboration with the Thai Ministry of Justice on 25 May 2017.
The revised Minnesota Protocol states that if investigators are unable to locate a body or remains, they should continue to gather other direct and circumstantial evidence which may suffice for identifying the perpetrator(s).
Despite the existence of a wealth of information relevant to the circumstances surrounding Billy’s apparent enforced disappearance, the four-year-old police investigation has been marked by a significant lack of progress.
At the same time, Thailand has yet to honor its repeated commitments to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), which it signed on 9 January 2012.
Thai authorities have failed to implement Thailand’s international legal obligations to provide justice for the victims of enforced disappearance and their families. Perpetrators are able to evade penalties, at least in part because Thai laws still do not make enforced disappearance a specific criminal offence.
The Convention affirms that “no one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance” and places an obligation on states to investigate acts of enforced disappearance, to bring those responsible to justice, and make it a criminal offence punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its “extreme seriousness”.
On 10 March 2017, Thailand’s legislative body, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), voted in favor of ratifying the ICPPED. However, on 6 September 2017, the ICJ was informed by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a decision had been taken to delay the ratification of the ICPPED until legislation had been enacted to give domestic effect to the treaty.
Irrespective of ICPPED ratification, Thailand is also obliged to effectively investigate and prosecute the crime of enforced disappearance under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention against Torture (CAT).
Efforts to pass a law making torture, other acts of ill-treatment and enforced disappearance specific offences in Thai law have also stalled.
Thailand’s Ministry of Justice notes that a second round of public consultations on a Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (‘Draft Act’) has been concluded and that it is now in the process of evaluating the consultations.
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urge that this process be hastened.
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reviewed several versions of the Draft Act and are seriously concerned that adoption of the Draft Act as it currently stands will fail to bring the law into compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
On 30 August 2017, 23 November 2017, and 12 March 2018, civil society organizations, including the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, sent open letters to the Government, including to Thailand’s Minister of Justice, outlining amendments that would be necessary to bring the Draft Act in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott(a)icj.org
Full statement in English (PDF): Thailand-Special-investigation-Billy-News-Press-releases-June-2018-ENG
Full statement in Thai (PDF): Thailand-Special-investigation-Billy-News-Press-releases-June-2018-THA
Jun 28, 2018 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned with the allegations that the former Chief Justice and other officials infringed the freedom of expression and freedom of association of individual judges in South Korea.
The ICJ urges the Republic of Korea to ensure the individual independence of judges in the country.
The ICJ received information that in 2015, the National Court Administration (NCA), under the term of former Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae, submitted proposals to the government of South Korea to create a ‘second Supreme Court,’ arguing that it would assist in relieving the existing Supreme Court with its caseload.
This proposal was met with numerous criticisms from the general public and several individual judges.
Allegedly, judges who criticized this proposal were placed by the NCA under surveillance, both in their professional and personal dealings.
Moreover, they were prevented from joining international conferences and national professional organizations. Some were also either sidelined for promotions or were not given preference for educational opportunities abroad.
On March 2017, during the term of former Chief Justice Yang, the Supreme Court, through the NCA, created an internal committee to conduct an investigation to look into these allegations.
Two other subsequent separate committees were formed to investigate.
Finally, on Mary 2018, under the term of the current Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo, the latest committee, without releasing a full report, said that it did not find basis to file criminal charges against the NCA and former Chief Justice Yang.
On 18 June 2018, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office initiated its own investigation into the allegations, including the possibility of filing criminal charges against former Chief Justice Yang and some NCA judges.
The rights of freedom of expression and association of judges is recognized in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and other relevant standards, which also provide for appropriate and fair procedures for holding judges to account for misconduct.
In principle, in matters touching on alleged misconduct by a judge related to the discharge of his or her duties, the ICJ considers that international standards and best practices concerning judicial independence and accountability would require at the minimum that a prosecutor seek permission of a judicial council or current Chief Justice, or other similar superior judicial authority, before commencing a formal criminal investigation or proceedings against a sitting judge.
The ICJ calls on the prosecutors’ office to seek such permission and to take steps to demonstrate that it will remain impartial and independent in the conduct of its own investigation.
The ICJ also calls on the Supreme Court to initiate a new investigation of its own, including to consider the issues from a judicial professional conduct perspective.
Finally, the ICJ urges the Supreme Court to ensure that interferences into the individual independence of judges in South Korea would never happen again.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
South Korea-Independence of Judges-News-Web Story-2018-ENG (full story in PDF)
Jun 24, 2018 | News
The proposed amendments to the Philippines’ Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) would, if adopted, give government authorities a license to commit human rights violations, said the ICJ in its submission today to the House of Representatives.
The ICJ strongly urged the House of Representatives to reconsider these proposed amendments and in the interim to allow more time for full consultation and debate on revisions of the law.
In its submission to the House of Representatives’ joint Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Committees of Public Order and Safety and National Defense and Security, the ICJ stressed that certain proposed amendments to the HSA are clearly incompatible with international human rights.
It is also incompatible with laws and standards that prohibit unfettered surveillance power and arbitrary deprivation of the right to liberty and protect the rights to privacy, information, redress, and freedom of opinion and expression.
The ICJ also expressed deep concern that the law also gives military personnel responsibility in countering terrorism, specifically to conduct surveillance on, arrest, and detain persons who are suspected of acts of terrorism.
“The proposed amendments do not address the existing flaws of the HSA. For instance, the definition of acts of terrorism under the HSA is vague and ambiguous and the proposed changes do not in any way remedy that,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser with the ICJ.
The ICJ also pointed out that the proposed amendments are likely to lead to violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The proposed amendments would also impermissibly lengthen to thirty (30) days the period within which an individual may be detained without judicial warrant.
“This is clearly incompatible with the Philippines international legal obligations and constitutes arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” said Gil.
The ICJ proposes to reduce the detention period to forty-eight (48) hours or less, in compliance with international human rights laws and standards.
“The Philippine government has the undeniable duty to protect people from acts of terrorism committed by non-State actors, but it cannot use as a pretext the serious nature of terrorist acts to avoid its obligations under international human rights law,” Gil added.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Cover Letter ENG (PDF): Philippines-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-Cover Letter-June-2018-ENG
Full Submission ENG (PDF): Philippines-Proposed-Amendments-to-HSA-Advocacy-non-legal-Submission-June-2018-ENG
