Feb 18, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ condemned the decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi to uphold the conviction and sentencing of lawyer and human rights defender Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment.
The ICJ called on Viet Nam authorities to release him immediately.
“The decision of the Court of Appeal is regrettable but not unexpected,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The ICJ has repeatedly criticized the lack of independence of the courts in Viet Nam. This is a political case and the government of Viet Nam has again used the courts to punish a significant critical voice.”
Today’s appellate hearing lasted for four hours. Thirty minutes after the hearing ended, the court released its decision upholding Le Quoc Quan’s conviction.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer who was illegitimately barred from practice for challenging government human rights violations, was convicted on 2 October 2013 of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code. The ICJ had criticized Le Quoc Quan’s conviction, pointing out that he did not receive a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal upheld Le Quoc Quon’s sentence with time served since his arrest on 27 December 2012 to be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the earlier order made by the People’s Court of Hanoi for Le Quoc Quan’s company to pay 645 million VND (approximately USD30,000) and a fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD60,000), for alleged unpaid taxes.
Le Quoc Quan has been on a hunger strike protesting his conviction since 1 February 2014. He was so weak that it was difficult for him to stand up during the hearing.
“Le Quoc Quan’s faulty trial violated right to an independent, impartial tribunal, and the appeal process also fell short of international fair trial standards, including under the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, to which Vietnam is a party,” Zarifi said.
The public was barred from entering the courtroom during today’s hearing and only Le Quoc Quan’s wife, mother, and lawyers were allowed inside.
Le Quoc Quan was also not allowed to meet with his lawyers in the last few days leading up to the appeal hearing.
His lawyers tried to visit him in prison at least twice last week, but they were barred from seeing him.
Le Quoc Quan’s lawyers also confirmed to ICJ that Le Quoc Quan was not allowed to meet and communicate with his lawyers immediately after his conviction by the People’s Court of Hanoi and had to file an appeal on his own.
In drafting his appeal, all legal documents and files pertaining to his case were withheld from him.
The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that all convicted persons like Le Quoc Quan must be given copies of a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court, as well as other documents such as transcripts, so that they may be able to effectively enjoy their right to appeal.
Under Viet Nam’s laws, lawyers of convicted persons cannot file an appeal on behalf of their clients.
It is only after the appeal has been filed and accepted by the appellate court that the convicted person may identify the lawyer of his choice.
The chosen lawyers are recognized and allowed to participate in the case only after the court approves their application for a “defence counsel’s certificate” or “advocacy certificate”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that no court shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it on behalf of his client, unless the lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with domestic law.
“Viet Nam’s courts operate in violation of international standards that clarify that lawyers must be allowed to assist their clients in filing an appeal,” Zarifi said.
Le Quoc Quan cannot appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal under the article 248(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam, which states that decisions of the Court of Appeal are final and legally binding from the date of their pronouncement.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan, however, are said to be considering filing a petition on procedural issues on this case.
On 14 February, the ICJ submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council (see below) under the title “Violations of the right to counsel of Viet Nam human rights defender Le Quoc Quan”.
In the statement, the ICJ called on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independance of Judges and Lawyers to reiterate her request to the Government of Viet Nam to extend an invitation to her mandate to undertake a mission to the country.
The ICJ also called on Viet Nam to amend its laws expressly to ensure that anyone deprived of liberty, including human rights defenders, are given access to counsel from the moment of deprivation of liberty or at latest within 24 hours of detention.
Viet Nam should also consider including in its laws penalties for law enforcement authorities who do not honour such provisions.
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
Viet Nam-Human Rights Council-ICJWrittenStatement-advocacy-2014 (full text in pdf)
Feb 13, 2014 | News
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.
Feb 11, 2014 | News
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
Feb 11, 2014 | News
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
Feb 6, 2014 | News
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
Jan 23, 2014 | News
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
