Nepal: search for truth and justice continues – new ICJ report

Nepal: search for truth and justice continues – new ICJ report

The arrest of absconding murder convict Bal Krishna Dhungel, a senior Maoist leader, highlights the weaknesses, as well as the promises, for victims seeking accountability through Nepal’s judicial system, said the ICJ as it released a report on accountability mechanisms in the country.

The ICJ’s report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Nepal concludes that impunity for gross human rights violations is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in Nepal.

It found that a lack of commitment by Nepal’s political leadership to address past and ongoing human rights violations continues to allow perpetrators to escape justice and undermines victims’ right to effective remedies and reparation.

“In the past, the promise to shield perpetrators for human rights violations has been used as a bargaining chip to garner political support and build political alliances,” said Frederick Rawski, Director of the ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Programme.

“It is imperative that accountability for human rights violations remains a priority for Nepal’s political leadership after Parliamentary elections, and that alliances between political parties are not once again used as an excuse to undermine Nepal’s human rights obligations,” added Rawski.

Attempts to thwart justice have also included the cynical manipulation of justice sector actors, from the police to the Attorney General’s office, in a way that threatens the independence and credibility of the institutions responsible for safeguarding human rights and the rule of law in Nepal, the report highlights.

This pattern of impunity persists despite demands for accountability by civil society and victims’ organizations, as well as the National Human Rights Commission and Nepal’s Supreme Court.

“In many ways, the Supreme Court of Nepal has emerged as a beacon of hope for victims of human rights violations,” said Rawski.

“The Court has given domestic effect to Nepal’s obligations under international law and has set high standards for accountability, remedy and reparations,” he added.

However, the Government’s disregard of key judgments has limited the impact of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the report says.

Attacks on the independence of the judiciary, as demonstrated by the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, also indicate a worrying trend.

The ICJ’s report found that the mandate and operation of transitional justice mechanisms fall short of international standards despite the repeated reinforcement of such standards by the Supreme Court.

Though ostensibly formed to provide a measure of public accountability, the practice of forming ad hoc commissions of inquiry to investigate rights violations has promoted impunity by diverting investigations from the criminal justice process – where they belong – into parallel mechanisms that are established by means that make them vulnerable to political interference and manipulation.

The ICJ’s report also concludes that gross human rights violations in Nepal are not a thing of the past, but are ongoing.

Notably in the Terai region, the State has responded to the Madhesh movement with excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings, and torture and other ill-treatment.

Political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability and the Government continues to use State machinery to shield perpetrators rather than serve the interests of justice.

“In a seemingly perpetual cycle, the weak rule of law in the country contributes to impunity for human rights violations, and this culture of impunity further erodes the rule of law,” said Rawski.

“The search for truth and justice in Nepal will not be realized unless this cycle is ended,” he added.

Additional information

Dhungel had been absconding since the Supreme Court upheld his conviction for murder in 2010. The arrest comes after a contempt of court petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the Inspector General of Police for failing to implement multiple Supreme Court orders directing Dhungel’s arrest.

Contact

Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org

Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41.79.957.2733; e: alex.conte@icj.org

Download

Nepal-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG  (full report in PDF)

Read also

ICJ Discussion Paper Nepal’s Transitional Justice Process: Challenges and Future Strategy (August 2017)

ICJ Report Authority without Accountability: The struggle for justice in Nepal (October 2013)

 

Thailand: ICJ welcomes decision to end proceedings against human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture

Thailand: ICJ welcomes decision to end proceedings against human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture

The ICJ welcomes the Pattani Provincial Prosecutor’s decision to end the criminal prosecution of three prominent human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture in Thailand’s restive deep South:  Ms Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Mr Somchai Homlaor, and Ms Anchana Heemmina.

On 24 October 2017, the Region 9 Senior Expert Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Pattani Provincial Prosecutor, informed the Superintendent of the Muang District Pattani Police Station of the decision to end the prosecution of the three defenders for criminal defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act.

The ICJ has previously expressed concern that the prosecutions were unwarranted and abusive and were aimed at chilling the exercise of critical human rights work in Thailand.

“While we welcome the decision to end these prosecutions, they have already caused a tremendous amount of damage to complainants of serious human rights violations like torture and ill-treatment, civil society, and the local community in the deep South that must now be repaired,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.

“An important first step would be to pass legislation which criminalizes torture and ill-treatment and provides meaningful protections for those who wish to come forward with allegations of violations,” he added.

On 28 February 2017, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that it had been informed that the Thai National Legislative Assembly (NLA) would not enact legislation then under consideration criminalizing torture and enforced disappearance, the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Draft Act).

The following day, an NLA official speaking to BBC Thai confirmed that the Draft Act would be “returned [to the Thai Cabinet] for more consultations… with Interior officials, police authorities, the national security sector, military authorities and prosecutors.”

The Draft Act remains with the Thai Cabinet.

“It is long past time for Thailand to make good on its repeated commitments on the international stage to pass this essential piece of legislation in accordance with its international human rights obligations,” added Abbott.

Contact

Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Background

On 10 February 2016, three Thai organizations, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Duay Jai Group (Hearty Support Group), and the Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP), issued a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Thai security forces in the deep South since 2004.

In response, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 (Forward Command) – created to resolve the situation in the deep South – made complaints of criminal defamation against the three co-editors, Pornpen Khongkachonkiet (Director of the CrCF),  Somchai Homlaor (Senior legal advisor to CrCF and Hearty Support Group), and  Anchana Heemmina (founder and Director of the Hearty Support Group).

On 26 July 2016, the Thai police charged the three defenders with criminal defamation by means of publication under Article 326 and 328 of the Penal Code, and importing false information to a computer system under Article 14 (1) of the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007).

On 7 March 2017, the ISOC 4 Forward Command announced its intention to drop the complaints at a press conference in Bangkok.

Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and has signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).

Further reading on these criminal proceedings

Thailand: ICJ welcomes dropping of complaints against human rights defenders but calls for investigation into torture

Thailand: stop use of defamation charges against human rights defenders seeking accountability for torture

Thailand: immediately withdraw criminal complaints against human rights defenders

Further reading on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act

Thailand: ICJ commemorates international day in support of victims of enforced disappearances

Thailand: pass legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture without further delay

 

Thailand-News-Pressreleases-humanrightsdefenders-2017-THAI (full press release in Thai, pdf)

 

Cambodia: ongoing misuse of law to silence opponents further deepens impunity and undermines the rule of law

Cambodia: ongoing misuse of law to silence opponents further deepens impunity and undermines the rule of law

Cambodia is “weaponizing” the law and relying on judges and prosecutors who lack independence to silence dissent and dismantle democracy, says the ICJ in a report released today.

The release of the report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia follows Monday’s unanimous decision of the National Assembly, attended only by law-makers from the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), to amend four election laws which would redistribute parliamentary seats held by the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) to several minor parties in the event of the CNRP’s dissolution.

A Senior Cambodian CPP law-maker, Cheam Yeap, was reported as saying that the amendments were made “especially for the treasonous acts of the president of the CNRP, Kem Sokha, who committed treason in a red-handed crime.”

“These amendments are the latest in a long line of instances where the Government has shamelessly passed or amended laws with the specific purpose of legally harassing perceived opponents or weakening representative democracy within the country,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser at the ICJ’s regional office in Bangkok.

Also of concern is that the Government is increasingly defending its actions by claiming it is merely applying the rule of law.

In a statement released by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations in Geneva on Monday, the Government claimed that “Prosecuting and punishing offenders by legitimate authorities, for the interest of justice, should not be read as a menace to democracy and human rights, but rather as an enforcement of the rules of law…upholding the rules of law means holding perpetrators accountable for their conducts”.

“The ‘rule of law’ is not only about passing and implementing laws, but rather ensuring they are drafted and applied in accordance with international human rights law and without discrimination, including discrimination based on political or other opinion,” added Abbott.

The ICJ’s report, which is being released against the backdrop of a rapidly deteriorating human rights situation, records that the “single largest problem facing the Cambodian justice system is the lack of independent and impartial judges and prosecutors,” which includes “an endemic system of political interference in high-profile cases and an equally entrenched system of corruption in all others”.

Contact

Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org

Background

On 3 September 2017, the leader of the CNRP, Kem Sokha, was arrested in a raid at his home and taken away by more than 100 policemen.

On 5 September 2017, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court formally charged Kem Sokha under Article 443 of the Cambodian Penal Code for alleged ‘collusion’ with foreign actors to “cause chaos” in Cambodia, otherwise known as treason.

On 6 October 2017, the Ministry of Interior filed a request to the Supreme Court to seek the dissolution of the CNRP pursuant to the Law on Political Parties, which was amended twice in 2017, and allows for the Supreme Court to dissolve political parties in certain circumstances including if one of the leadership is convicted of a crime.

The amendments to the four election laws would also mean that at the district and commune levels, in places where the CPP received the next highest number of votes, vacant seats would be redistributed to the CPP.

Download

Cambodia-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)

Live Media Event

Watch the media event on the Human rights and democracy crisis in Cambodia live from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand in Bangkok on FORUM-ASIA’s Facebook page

It starts at 10.00 Bangkok time (05:00 CET and 03:00 GMT).

Read also

Cambodia and the Rule of Law: UN Statement

Cambodia: UN Human Rights Council urged to address unfolding human rights crisis

 

 

 

 

2017 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders goes to Egyptian activist Mohamed Zaree

2017 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders goes to Egyptian activist Mohamed Zaree

Selected by a jury of 10 global human rights organizations, including the ICJ, Mohamed Zaree is a devoted human rights activist and legal scholar whose work focuses on human rights advocacy around freedom of expression and association.

Mohamed Zaree is also known for his role as the Egypt Country Director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), which works throughout the Arabic speaking world.

He assumed this role after government pressure on CIHRS prompted them to relocate their headquarters to Tunis in 2014.

The Egyptian government has been escalating its pressure on the human rights movement.

Human rights NGOs and defenders are confronted with a growing wave of threats, harassment, and intimidation, legal and otherwise.

Despite this, Mohamed Zaree is leading CIHRS’ research, human rights education, and national advocacy initiatives in Egypt and is shaping the media debate on human rights issues.

During this critical period for civil society, he is also leading the Forum of Independent Egyptian Human Rights NGOs, a network aiming to unify human rights groups in advocacy.

Zaree’s initiatives have helped NGOs to develop common approaches to human rights issues in Egypt.

Within the context of the renewed crackdown on Egyptian human rights organizations, he has become a leading figure in Egypt’s human rights movement.

He is currently facing investigation under the “Foreign Funding Case” and is at high risk of prosecution and life imprisonment. The “Foreign Funding Case” highly restricts NGO activities.

Despite this, Mohammed Zaree continues to engage the authorities in dialogue wherever possible, arguing that respect for human rights will increase stability in Egypt.

He has been under a travel ban since May 2016 but remains present and active in Egypt and represents CIHRS inside the country.

“Mohamed Zaree is a leading voice for justice in Egypt. Honoring him with the Martin Ennals Award is a recognition of the courageous and tireless work done by Egyptian human rights defenders, individuals and NGOs, in their fight against all forms of intimidation, harassment and repression waged by the Egyptian military and government against them,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.

FreeThe5KH (Cambodia) and Karla Avelar, the two other finalists, received Martin Ennals Prizes.

FreeThe5KH are five Human Rights Defenders who were recently released after 427 days of pre-trial detention.

They are awaiting trial and are banned from travel.

There were widespread international calls for their unconditional release, and a stop to judicial harassment of human rights defenders in Cambodia.

This comes in the context of an increasingly severe crackdown on civil society and the political opposition in Cambodia.

Karla Avelar, a transgender woman in El Salvador, founded the country’s first organization of transgender women – COMCAVIS TRANS.

She grew up on the streets, suffering discrimination, violence, sexual exploitation, rape, and attempted murder.

She works to change national legislation and the authorities’ practices, by publicizing violations suffered by LGBTI people.

Her advocacy helped prompt the authorities to segregate LGBTI prisoners for their own safety, and provide HIV treatment.

Background

The “Nobel Prize of Human Rights”, the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide.

Strongly supported by the City of Geneva, the award is given to Human Rights Defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk.

Its aim is to provide protection through international recognition.

The Jury is composed of the following NGOs: ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Int’l Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights, and HURIDOCS.

Contact:

Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208, e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org

Olivier van Bogaert, Director, ICJ Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08, e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org

The Award will be presented by the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights at 18.15 on 10 October at the University of Geneva. The ceremony can be watched live on Martin Ennals Award Facebook page

Watch the movie on Mohammed Zaree

 

 

Event: “Cambodia – A Human Rights Crisis”

Event: “Cambodia – A Human Rights Crisis”

On 19 September, the ICJ and other leading international NGOs are convening a panel to discuss the crisis for human rights and rule of law in Cambodia, at a side event to the UN Human Rights Council session taking place in Geneva.

The side event comes as States consider a new draft resolution on Cambodia for adoption by the Human Rights Council. Before the session, the ICJ joined other organizations in calling for strengthening of the resolution and its measures for monitoring, reporting on and discussing the situation for human rights in the country.

Moderator:

  • Laila Matar, Senior UN Advocate, Human Rights Watch

Speakers:

  • Rosanna Ocampo, Forum Asia
  • Kingsley Abbott, International Commission of Jurists
  • John Sifton, Human Rights Watch

The event takes place Tuesday, 19 September 2017, 11:00 – 12:00, in the Palais des Nations, Room XV.

ICJ is organizing the event together with Human Rights Watch, Forum-Asia, Civicus, Article 19, FIDH, OMCT, and ISHR.

For more information, contact un(a)icj.org

India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case):  Essential Facts

India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case): Essential Facts

As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.

The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.

India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.

Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.

India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”

India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.

India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.

In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.

India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.

Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.

The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.

Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.

While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.

The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.

Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.

The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.

The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.

Contact:

Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org

Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org

Download the Q&A:

India-ICJ Q&A Jadhav case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)

Translate »