The ICJ expressed concern at today’s decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court to dismiss the challenge by Lena Hendry, programme coordinator of the human rights advocacy organization Pusat Komas, to the constitutionality of elements of the Film Censorship Act 2002.
The ICJ mourns the loss of Irene Fernandez, a Malaysian human rights defender who was at the frontline of promoting and protecting human rights, especially the rights of women and migrant workers.
Thailand’s caretaker government must remove emergency measures throughout the country following the lifting of the Emergency Decree in the capital Bangkok and its surrounding provinces this week, the ICJ said today.
On 18 March, the caretaker government voted to lift the Emergency Decree (effective 19 March) that had been in place in Bangkok and surrounding provinces since 21 January 2014 in response to protests led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).
At least 20 people have died in protest-related violence and hundreds have been injured.
The Emergency Decree was replaced by the Internal Security Act (ISA), which also does not fully comply with international standards, but provides better remedies for victims of human rights violations than the Decree.
“The imposition of the Emergency Decree creates an environment conducive to abuse of power and human rights violations such as arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and enforced disappearance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Lifting the Emergency Decree in Bangkok is a positive step, but it is crucial that the authorities remove the Emergency Decree and other measures of emergency rule, including martial law, that are in force in all or parts of at least 30 of Thailand’s 77 provinces.”
These measures should be replaced by law and action that are consistent with international human rights standards, Zarifi said, adding that martial law should not be used as a political tool.
The caretaker government must respond to demonstrations, unrest and emergencies in a manner which complies with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other international standards, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in 1990.
These standards set out the circumstances in which resort to necessary and proportional force may be lawfully exercised. Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms states that “exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”
In order to safeguard the rule of law and enhance the protection of human rights in Thailand, the ICJ calls on the caretaker government to repeal the Emergency Decree and other emergency measures including martial law, and to ensure accountability for violent acts through the thorough and effective investigation of criminal acts and prosecution of those reasonably suspected of committing them, in the course of fair, human rights-compliant criminal proceedings.
CONTACT: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
For further reading on ICJ’s work on emergency laws in Thailand see: Thailand’s Internal Security Act, Risking the Rule of Law? (2010) https://www.icj.org/thailands-internal-security-act-risking-the-rule-of-law/ Implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree (2007) https://www.icj.org/thailand-implementation-of-thailand%C2%B4s-emergency-decree/ More Power, Less Accountability: Thailand’s New Emergency Decree (2005) https://www.icj.org/more-power-less-accountability/
The ICJ condemned the High Court decision sentencing prominent Malaysian lawyer and chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party Karpal Singh with a criminal sanction. He was found guilty of sedition on 21 February 2014.
The sanction amounts to RM 4,000 fine (approximately US$1,220).
The High Court’s decision was based on a statement made by Karpal Singh at a press conference on 6 February 2009 that Sultan Azlan Shah’s decision to remove the Perak’s state Chief Minister from office in 2009 could be challenged in a court of law.
“The Malaysian government is brazenly utilizing a draconian and outdated sedition law to restrict freedom of expression in the country by lawyers and public figures,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia.
The Malaysian government on 21 July 2012 announced that it planned to repeal the colonial-era 1948 Sedition Act, but has been slow to act on its announcement.
“Public discussion, including debates on the interpretation of laws, are an integral part of the nature of the legal process and a crucial step in the strengthening of a country’s democracy and rule of law,” said Gil. “A lawyer’s right to freely and independently engage and express their views on the law fulfills an important aspect of their professional role.”
In June 2010, the High Court initially ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case and acquitted Karpal Singh. The prosecution, however, later appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and ordered a retrial.
Pursuant to article 48(e) of the Federal Constitution, Karpal Singh now risks losing his Parliamentary seat unless the High Court’s decision is overturned during appeal.
Karpal Singh was the lead counsel for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim during his Sodomy II appeal from 6 – 7 March 2014, which saw the Court of Appeal overturn his acquittal and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Karpal Singh is expected to appeal both the conviction and the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org
This side event to the 25th Human Rights Council session will take place on Wednesday, 12 March 2014, 16.00 – 18.00 pm, in Geneva, Palais des Nations, Room XXII.
The members of this panel are in a unique position to highlight on-going challenges to the rule of law in Myanmar and their impact on the enjoyment of human rights.
They will provide personal insight into the important international presence for human rights monitoring, practical challenges facing lawyers concerning the rule of law, and link these issues to sustainable economic development on the ground in Myanmar today.
This panel argues that it is crucial to maintain a robust engagement with the UN human rights mechanisms in order to support and facilitate the reform process in Myanmar and improve the country’s human rights situation.
Speakers:
Tomás Ojea Quintana, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Kyaw Min San, Myanmar lawyer, Pyoe Pin and Justice For All
Daniel Aguirre, International Commission of Jurists, Myanmar
Chair/moderator:
Carlos Lopez, International Commission of Jurists
The presentations by panellists will be followed by an open interaction with the audience. Copies of the recent ICJ report Right to Counsel: The Independence of Lawyers in Myanmar will be available.
Myanmar – HRC25 Side event – March 2014
The ICJ today condemned as a miscarriage of justice, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction on sodomy charges.
The ICJ said the overturning of his 2012 High Court acquittal — following an appeal by the Malaysian government — by a Court of Appeal panel contravenes international human rights standards and the rule law.
“The ICJ condemns the use of the colonial-era Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code, which prohibits consensual same-sex sexual conduct, in conflict with international standards regarding respect for the right to privacy,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“This article is seldom used in Malaysia, but this is the second time it has been used to convict Anwar, and both times its use seemed clearly motivated to hobble his ability to challenge the government as a politician.”
The sodomy charges against Anwar, which date back to 2008, were dismissed by the High Court on 9 January 2012, but the Court of Appeal today overturned that acquittal and instead sentenced Anwar to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal ruling took less than two hours.
The ICJ has been observing the proceedings in what has been called Anwar’s ‘Sodomy 2’ trial. ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, from the Australian High Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was at the Court of Appeal today on behalf of the ICJ.
“This decision certainly casts doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Malaysian judiciary and tarnishes the reputation of the country’s legal system,” said Zarifi.
The judgement means Anwar will not be able to run for election in a local state seat later this month.
After sentencing, Anwar’s lawyers were successful in arguing for a stay in execution and bail, pending appeal.
CONTACT
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Tanzania: African CSOs Call for the Non-Recognition of the Illegitimate Government and for Transitional Justice and Fresh Elections
Türkiye: Justice Reforms Central to Fair, Durable Peace Parliamentary Commission Should Make Bold Recommendations for Change
Greece: ICJ and ECRE call the European Committee of Social Rights to ensure Greece’s compliance with migrant and refugee children’s rights
ICJ submission highlights discrimination as key obstacle to women and girls with disabilities in enforcing their human rights