Malaysia: ICJ continues to monitor Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘Sodomy II’ trial

Malaysia: ICJ continues to monitor Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘Sodomy II’ trial

The ICJ continued its observation of the trial of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges under the colonial-era Section 377B of the Penal Code, which criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.

ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, the first woman judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, observed a hearing on the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya yesterday.

“The ICJ will continue to monitor this case and evaluate the fairness of the proceedings in light of relevant international standards,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ international legal advisor for Southeast Asia. “The ICJ will also assess whether the prosecution under Section 377 is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.”

The hearing is an appeal against the High Court’s decision on 9 January 2012, which acquitted Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy.

“The ICJ has previously condemned Malaysia’s continuing use of colonial-era criminal charges of ‘sodomy’ to cover even consensual sexual relations between adults,” Gil said. “The ICJ believes that Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is inconsistent with respect for the right to privacy under international standards.”

The Court of Appeal heard and eventually dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the lawyers of Anwar Ibrahim seeking to recall for testimony Jude Blacious s/o Pereira, the investigating officer and key witness in the sodomy case.

Pereira was recently found unfit to be a practicing lawyer in another case in a High Court decision of 10 January 2014.

In that decision, the High Court relied on a 2009 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) report, which determined Pereira to be an unreliable witness in a public inquiry established to investigate the arrest and detention of 5 legal aid lawyers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the grounds that Anwar Ibrahim had failed to satisfy the court that additional evidence in the appellate stage was necessary in dispensing justice and that it fell in the category of “most exceptional” cases, particularly as the SUHAKAM report had already been available since 2009.

The Court of Appeal postponed the hearing on the appeal itself to allow Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers to file a notice of appeal with the Federal Court on the dismissal of the interlocutory order.

Anwar Ibrahim’s counsel immediately filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Court on the dismissed interlocutory application.

The case management for the sodomy appeal has been fixed on 28 February 2014.

The appeal proper was initially scheduled on 17 and 18 September 2013 but has faced continuous delays due to a series of interlocutory matters.

 

Myanmar’s court officials discuss judicial independence and integrity with international experts

Myanmar’s court officials discuss judicial independence and integrity with international experts

The seminar was on “The Role of Judicial Independence and Integrity in Improving the Effectiveness of the Rule of Law”, with the participation of the ICJ.

The event, hosted by the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union (OSCU) in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the ICJ, took place in Nay Pyi Taw on February 10th and 11th 2014.

It was attended by more than 40 judges and senior court administrators from all states and regions in Myanmar.

Discussions at the seminar focused on the ways in which Myanmar’s judicial system can continue to develop its functional independence and deliver justice for all.

In opening the seminar, the Honourable Chief Justice of the Union, U Htun Htun Oo, remarked that judicial independence and integrity are essential to building a reliable judicial system in which the people of Myanmar can trust, and which can uphold the rule of law.

During the seminar, Justice Kalyan Shrestha of Nepal, and ICJ Vice President Justice Michèle Rivet of Canada shared their experiences of the challenges of preserving judicial independence as a key pillar of a democratic society.

In her opening remarks, Ms. Renata Lok-Dessallien, UN Resident Coordinator, also noted that in addition to the importance of a fair legal framework, a trained judiciary and well-functioning court system, “the other half of the equation is from the bottom up: it is people’s perceptions of the professionalism, integrity and fairness of the system.”

Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s regional director for Asia and the Pacific added that “access to an independent and impartial tribunal is a human right”.

Both UNDP and ICJ expressed their willingness to continue working with Myanmar’s judiciary on the issues of judicial independence, and justice for all for the long-term.

Photo: ICJ Vice President Justice Michèle Rivet, Justice Kalyan Shrestha and Chief Justice U Htun Htun Oo

 

Cambodia: the ICJ condemns decision to deny bail to garment workers and activists

Cambodia: the ICJ condemns decision to deny bail to garment workers and activists

The ICJ condemned the Cambodian Court of Appeal’s decision to deny bail to 21 workers and activists who were arrested in connection with protests by garment factory workers. 

They have been held in detention since their arrests on 2 and 3 January 2014.

The court upheld an earlier decision of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court.

Garment factory workers were protesting to seek a higher minimum wage.

“International law is clear that pre-trial detention may only be ordered in exceptional circumstances and avoided if suitable alternatives are possible,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.  “The ongoing detention of these protesters, and the failure of the government to provide accountability for the death of five unarmed protesters on 3 January, demonstrates the government’s efforts to stop protesters exercising their rights to assemble freely and express their opinions.”

“Not only is this a very disappointing outcome for the 21 detainees and their families, but it also sets a worrying precedent in what is still a developing area of the law in Cambodia,” he added.

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a party, guarantees the right to liberty.

It states, “It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial.”  Such guarantees include bail.

Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR guarantee the rights to freedom of opinion and assembly.

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

 

Malaysia must stop execution of death row prisoner Chandran

Malaysia must stop execution of death row prisoner Chandran

The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to stop the execution of death row prisoner Chandran, apparently scheduled to take place on Friday 7 February.

Chandran was convicted for murder and sentenced to death on 16 April 2008.

While the Government of Malaysia has not publicly released the date, according to the Malaysian Bar Council, his execution is planned to take place on 7 February 2014.

Despite the prohibition of mandatory death sentences under international human rights law, the laws in Malaysia maintain the mandatory death sentence for offences such as murder, treason and drug trafficking.

The Malaysian Bar Council, a partner organization of the ICJ, has noted that there have been several instances in the past when the Government of Malaysia indicated that it would review the mandatory death penalty, with a view to its possible abolition or the possible reintroduction of a discretionary death penalty. It has also indicated its intention of reviewing the penalty of death for drug-related offenses.

“Considering prohibition of the mandatory death penalty in international human rights law and the past indications made by the Government of Malaysia that it intends to review the imposition of mandatory death penalty, it is deeply concerning that it still aims to proceed with the execution of Chandran on Friday,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

In October 2013, Malaysia underwent their second Universal Periodic Review where it was urged by several countries to review the mandatory nature of death penalty, maintain a moratorium, and ultimately move to abolish the death penalty.

Malaysia is set to respond to these recommendations in March 2014.

The Malaysian Bar Council estimates that there are approximately 900 prisoners in death row in Malaysia awaiting execution.

The ICJ considers that the use of the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

In addition to calling a halt to the execution of Chandran, the ICJ urges the Government of Malaysia to amend its laws and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in the country, including the implementation of a moratorium.

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

 

 

 

Cambodia: detention of labour activists unjustified

Cambodia: detention of labour activists unjustified

The ICJ criticized the Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s decision to deny bail to 23 people who were arrested and detained earlier this month following protests by garment factory workers seeking a higher minimum wage.

The detainees’ lawyers told the ICJ that the court denied bail for the first nine detainees, arrested on 2 January 2014, in order to “guarantee their presence for further legal proceedings”, “to preserve public order” and “to prevent instability that results from the commission of crimes”.

The remaining 13 detainees, arrested on 3 January 2014, were denied bail in order to “end crime”, “prevent new crime” and “ensure detainees are available for trial”.

The decision to deny bail to the 22 detainees followed the Court’s decision on 13 January 2014 to deny bail to Vorn Pao, President of the Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA).

Considering his application separately from the others, the court, similarly, provided the same reasons as in the case of the first nine detainees.

“International law is clear that pre-trial detention could only be exercised in exceptional situations, and avoided if suitable alternatives are possible,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The reasons presented by the Court don’t justify holding these activists in prison right now.”

All 23 of those whose bail applications have been denied have been charged with causing intentional violence and damage to property. Three face additional charges for violent resistance against a public official, as well as a traffic offence.

They were arrested as part of the government’s response to striking garment workers and demonstrators protesting the 28-year-rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen (photo).

Security forces shot and killed at least four protesters on 3 January. The government has banned further protests.

Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a party, guarantees the right to liberty. It states, “It shall not be the  general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial”. Such guarantees include bail.

“There are alternatives to the detention, such as bail or other conditions the court could impose on these 23 detained activists if the Court is concerned, on the basis of substantiated and objective grounds that there is a risk that each of them will abscond before the trial or interfere with the investigation,” said Zarifi. “In the absence of such proof and the serious consideration of alternatives the continued pre-trial detention of each of the 23 individuals would amount to arbitrary detention under international human rights standards.”

Vorn Pao’s lawyers filed an appeal on 14 January 2014 and the Court is expected to issue a decision on his appeal by 3 February 2014.

According to the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, Vorn Pao appears weak and continues to suffer pain from the head injuries he sustained.

Lawyers for the other 22 detainees have also expressed their intention to appeal the Court’s decision to deny them bail.

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

Viet Nam – 30 sentenced to death as country defies calls to amend laws

Viet Nam – 30 sentenced to death as country defies calls to amend laws

The ICJ today condemned the imposition of the death penalty on 30 people found guilty of drug trafficking in Viet Nam and urged its government to amend laws and take steps towards abolishing the death penalty.

On 20 January, 21 men and nine women were convicted of drug trafficking following a 17-day trial held within the compound of a detention center rather than in a court.

“Viet Nam has the highest number of executions in the ASEAN,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “This is really of serious concern, especially since its courts have been widely criticized as lacking independence, and judicial proceedings have frequently violated international fair trial standards.”

The ICJ repeatedly has criticized Viet Nam’s violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.

Under international law, the death penalty may only be lawfully pronounced as a sentence for the most serious crimes, after a full and fair trial. The imposition of the death penalty in this case — a prosecution for drug trafficking — is inconsistent with international law and standards that define the most serious crimes as those involving the intention to kill and resulting in the loss of life.

“Viet Nam’s failure to abolish the death penalty goes against the global trend,” said Zarifi. “The country has chosen to act contrary to repeated calls in several resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the issue.”

According to a report by the Secretary General to the General Assembly in 2012, 150 of the 193 UN member states either have abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium on it.

Among member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Philippines has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OP2), abolishing the death penalty. Cambodia also has abolished the death penalty. Lao PDR, Myanmar and Brunei have not carried out the death penalty in several years. Aside from Viet Nam, four other ASEAN Member States still retain the death penalty: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia.

In November 2013, Viet Nam was elected as a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Sam Zarifi noted, “The recent death sentences handed down in Viet Nam, in violation of international law, suggest a lack of respect for international law at odds with the spirit of a country newly taking its seat at the UN Human Rights Council.”

It is estimated that more than 600 prisoners are now awaiting execution in Viet Nam. It last imposed the death penalty on 19 December 2013 on two former shipping executives found guilty of embezzlement.

The ICJ considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The ICJ calls on the Government of Viet Nam to immediately establish a moratorium on executions and take steps towards the complete abolition of the death penalty.

CONTACT:

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia, tel. no. (Bangkok) +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), tel.no. +66819077653, email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org

 

 

Translate »