Nov 26, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Malaysian Government to immediately drop the criminal charge against human rights defender Lena Hendry for screening the film ‘No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka.’
The case has been fixed for case management and the defence lawyers filed an application to set aside, permanently stay or quash the charges against Lena Hendry.
“Subjecting Lena Hendry to criminal prosecution simply for screening a documentary violates her rights and contravenes Malaysia’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director.
On 3 July 2013, Pusat Komas, a Malaysian human rights advocacy organization where Lena Hendry works, and Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Civil Right Committee (KLSCAH CRC) screened the film “No Fire Zone”, a documentary on the war crimes and human rights abuses allegedly committed at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009.
Immediately following the screening, 30 officers from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs and the police entered the hall and recorded the identity of all persons who attended the event.
The authorities then arrested Lena Hendry and two colleagues, Anna Har and Arul Prakash, and interrogated them for three hours at Dang Wangi police station.
On 19 September 2013, Lena Hendry was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for showing a film that had not been approved by the Board of Censors.
If found guilty, she could be fined up to RM30,000 (approximately USD 9,322) and sentenced to up to three years imprisonment.
“The Malaysian government told the UN Human Rights Council during its universal periodic review that it maintains a ‘strong commitment to the rule of law, to upholding respect for human rights, and…widening the democratic space”, said Sam Zarifi. “That commitment is inconsistent with prosecuting human rights defenders for disseminating documentary human rights information.”
Under international law and standards, Malaysia must respect the right to freedom of expression of all persons, including the right to seek and impart information of all kinds.
In the case of human rights defenders, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders imposes a special duty on States not only to respect this right, but also to protect those who exercise this right through their exposure of human rights violations.
The ICJ calls on the Malaysian Government to safeguard freedom of expression and uphold the right of individuals to expose and disseminate information on human rights questions, including the documentation of human rights abuses.
Nov 15, 2013 | News
The ICJ and Amnesty International urge the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to increase efforts to protect the rights of women and children.
ASEAN must act in light of the newly adopted Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and Elimination of Violence against Children, which was recently adopted at the 23rd ASEAN Summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, the rights groups said.
The Declaration states the commitment of all 10 ASEAN member states to further “prevent and protect [women and children] from and respond to all forms of violence, abuse and exploitation of women and children particularly for those who are in vulnerable situations”.
AI and ICJ welcome this commitment, which allows for no exceptions or discrimination, while expressing concern that no explicit mention was made of lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex women and children in the non-exhaustive list of those requiring particular protection from discrimination and violence that follows this general statement.
The Declaration details a wide array of measures that Member States should take, within “a holistic, multi-disciplinary approach”, in order to eliminate violence against women and children.
These include changes to legislation, policies and practices; training and education; investigation, prosecution, punishment and where appropriate rehabilitation of perpetrators; creating an enabling environment for the participation of women and children; and the development of strategies for the elimination of harmful practices.
AI and ICJ pointed out that the Declaration suffers from some serious deficiencies in substance, as well as in the process of its adoption.
In terms of process, most ASEAN Member states failed to meaningfully consult with national civil society in the elaboration of the Declaration.
Only Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam held consultations, which in some of these states were limited.
This problem was compounded once the ACWC had finalised its draft, as the discussions and approval processes thereafter were completely shrouded in secrecy.
This final draft was never circulated to women’s and children’s groups in the region, despite written requests from several civil society groups calling for its release.
This unacceptable lack of transparency violates international guidelines on consultation with civil society, the ICJ and AI stressed.
AI and ICJ also deplore the fact that the Declaration reaffirms the General Principles of the discredited ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), some of which are wholly incompatible with international law and allow for impermissible restrictions on human rights.
The two organizations reiterate their call to revise the AHRD, particularly by repealing or substantially amending General Principles 6-8, so as to bring it into line with international human rights law and standards.
AI and the ICJ further underline that international law allows no justification for violence against women and children and requires States to comply with their obligations to prohibit, prevent, investigate, punish and ensure reparations for victims of such violence in all circumstances.
Nothing in the Declaration may be construed to circumvent ASEAN Member States’ obligation to eliminate “prejudices and customary and all other practices” as well as “harmful and discriminatory traditional practices” that amount to, result in or perpetuate violence against women and children.
In addition, a significant omission of the Declaration is the lack of a reference to economic barriers to protection, assistance and justice faced by women and children in situations of violence.
ASEAN Member States should ensure that financial means do not impede access to justice, particularly of those living in poverty.
The rights groups also highlighted that ACWC rejected the proposal from women and children groups to have two separate declarations.
Although both women and children share similar vulnerabilities necessitating for additional protection, there remains certain rights, approaches and differing needs that are specific to each groups that could only be adequately addressed by having two separate declarations.
AI and the ICJ stated that ASEAN’s determination to end violence against women and children will ultimately be measured only by effective implementation of the Declaration in a manner which complies with their international obligations.
The Declaration tasks the ACWC to promote the implementation of the Declaration and review its progress.
AI and the ICJ call on the ACWC to actively implement this mandate, and for ASEAN Member States to cooperate with the ACWC in fulfilling this role.
Oct 4, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Indonesian authorities to ensure that the proceedings against Justice Akil Mochtar fully comply with international law and standards on fair trial and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Justice Mochtar, Chief Justice of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (photo), is accused of taking a bribe to issue a favourable verdict in an election dispute.
Justice Mochtar was arrested on 2 October 2013 and remains in custody. According to a spokesperson for the Corruption Eradication Commission, he is alleged to have received a bribe, through several intermediaries, from Hambit Binti, a district chief whose re-election was contested.
The Constitutional Court has sole jurisdiction over disputes contesting the conduct or results of elections.
The ICJ calls for a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation of these serious allegations.
The impartiality of the judiciary is an essential condition for respect for the rule of law, and is undermined when judicial decisions are made on the basis of financial inducements rather than solely according to evidence and the law.
Integrity is vital to the proper discharge of judicial office, and any judge must ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach, maintaining and enhancing the confidence of the public in the impartiality of both the individual judge and the judiciary as a whole.
According to the Beijing Statement of Principles on Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, signed by 32 judicial heads of Asia Pacific States, including the Chief Justice of Indonesia, “Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.”
At the same time, the ICJ stresses that any eventual criminal or disciplinary proceedings, should those be warranted, must respect the independence of the judiciary and Justice Mochtar’s right to a fair trial.
Judges charged with a criminal offence, like all other persons, have the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The right to a fair trial in criminal cases as recognized in Indonesia and under international law and standards, including Article 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, comprises a series of procedural and substantive safeguards that must be respected during the pre-trial and trial phases.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, tel. no. +66 8078 19002 or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Laurens Hueting, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser (International Law and Protection Programme), Geneva, tel. no. +41 22 979 3848 or laurens.hueting(a)icj.org
Oct 2, 2013 | News
The ICJ said the conviction today of Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender in Vietnam, violated international standards governing the right to a fair trial.
Judge Le Thi Hop of the People’s Court of Hanoi convicted and sentenced Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment with time served since late December 2012 to be taken into account.
His company was ordered to pay the unpaid tax amount of 645 million VND (approximately USD 30,000) and fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD 60,000) for the offence of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code.
One of Le Quoc Quan’s accountants, Phuong, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment.
Edmund Bon, a prominent Malaysian attorney and the ICJ’s appointed trial observer, was denied entry into court.
Police barricaded the courthouse to keep out hundreds of demonstrators protesting the perceived harassment of Le Quoc Quan.
“The court did not dispel the widespread belief that this case is political in nature and intended to silence a government critic,” Edmund Bon said. “The verdict was delivered after a 30-minute deliberation and the judge took about an hour to read the written grounds of judgment.”
The hearing was originally scheduled for 9 July 2013, but was postponed at the very last minute due to the judge’s illness.
On 17 September 2013, the court issued a notification informing that the trial had been rescheduled to 2 October 2013 and that the trial would be a public one.
Nevertheless, on the day of trial, only a handful of foreign diplomats who had obtained an invitation and pass from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were allowed to enter a room to observe the proceedings through a television screen.
Le Quoc Quan’s wife was the only family member who was permitted to observe the trial.
No independent journalists were allowed to enter the courtroom except for a reporter with the police and government media personnel.
The trial before a judge and two jurors started at 8.00am and ended at 2.30pm with a 15-minute recess in between. Six witnesses gave evidence. Counsel for the prosecution and defence took approximately one hour to make legal submissions.
“Le Quoc Quan’s trial and verdict raise serious questions regarding Vietnam’s commitment to ensure fair criminal trials that are to be open to public scrutiny, as it required to do as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Edmund Bon.
The ICJ also notes that the court had breached Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial.
Section 194 of the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that, upon a postponement, courts that hear first-instance trials have to set a new hearing date within 30 days.
Here, the court took almost two months to do so.
“The court’s failure to reschedule the case within a timely manner is a clear violation of Le Quoc Quan’s rights to be tried within a reasonable time and without undue delay, as stipulated under articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR respectively,” Bon added.
Since his arrest on 27 December last year, Le Quoc Quan has already spent a total of more than nine months in prison, awaiting trial.
“Le Quoc Quan should have instead been granted bail when his wife had filed an application for his release as there was no reason to believe that he would have had absconded the country,” said Edmund Bon.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan are expected to appeal the court’s decision within 15 days.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, tel. no. +66 8078 19002 or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sep 19, 2013 | News
The ongoing involvement of the lead prosecutor in the hearing on the appeal against the acquittal of opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, raises concerns about prosecutorial impartiality, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the failure of the lead prosecutor, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who was said to have some prior knowledge of the facts of the case, to remove himself from involvement in the proceedings and so maintain an appearance of prosecutorial integrity and impartiality.
“This case is a significant test of the integrity of the judicial system in Malaysia, which for so long has been the subject of concern to human rights proponents, bodies and organizations,” said Justice Elizabeth Evatt, a Commissioner of the ICJ who was observing the proceedings.
The hearing on the appeal was postponed to allow the preliminary objection raised on the first day, 17 September, by the lawyers of Anwar Ibrahim against Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s selection as a member of the three-person panel to hear the appeal.
The defense lawyers argued that there was a perception of bias due to Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s former ruling in a libel suit involving Anwar Ibrahim and the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2007.
Judge Tengku Maimum Tuan Mat thereafter recused herself from the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal therefore reconvened on the second day, 18 September, with a new judge, Dato’ Rohana Binti Yusuf, to hear the motion objecting to the appointment of Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as lead prosecutor in the case.
The motion was based partly on the fact that that Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was present at Deputy Prime Minister Najib’s home at the same time as the complainant two days before the incidents leading to the filing of charges against Anwar Ibrahim.
At the very beginning of the case, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah filed an affidavit concerning this fact, although he was not called as a witness in the proceedings.
The Court later denied the motion objecting to his appointment as lead prosecutor in this appeal, saying that there was no conflict of interest or apparent unfairness.
Justice Evatt, however, expressed concern that Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had taken on the role of lead prosecutor in the appeal.
“We expect higher standards of prosecutorial conduct,” she said. “Considering the political overtones in this case, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah should be especially sensitive to any appearance that might lead to a perception of bias and partiality that might arise from his earlier knowledge of facts of the case.”
The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors provide that in the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their duties with impartiality.
The ICJ also acknowledged Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s recusal as a sign that the Court of Appeal recognized the need to appear impartial. Under the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “judges shall always conduct themselves in a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, state that to ensure such impartiality “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.”
The Court did not indicate new dates on when the hearing on the appeal would take place. The ICJ will continue to monitor this case.
The ICJ has previously condemned Malaysia’s continuing use of colonial-era criminal charges of ‘sodomy’ to cover even consensual sexual relations between adults.
The ICJ believes that Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is inconsistent with respect for the right to privacy under international standards.
Justice Evatt, the first female judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court, a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and a commissioner of the ICJ, traveled to Malaysia to observe the appeal hearing from 17 to 18 September 2013, at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser, t +662 6198477 ext. 206 ; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Sep 12, 2013 | News, Uncategorized
Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC (photo), will be observing the hearing of the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim’s case from 17 to 18 September 2013 at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
Justice Evatt is the first female judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court, a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and a commissioner of the ICJ.
Anwar Ibrahim is a Malaysian politician and is currently the leader of the opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, and the opposition alliance known as Pakatan Rakyat.
The appeal hearing that Justice Elizabeth Evatt will be observing emerged from the 2008 charges filed against Anwar Ibrahim immediately after the general elections held that year.
He was charged for allegedly committing sodomy, which is a crime under Section 377B of the Penal Code and carries the penalty of up to 20 years of imprisonment and whipping.
The High Court acquitted Anwar Ibrahim on 9 January 2012.
This is the second time that Anwar Ibrahim is facing sodomy charges after his dismissal from the Malaysian Cabinet in 1998.
In 2004, The ICJ also sent a representative to observe the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim, where the Federal Court overturned the High Court decision to convict him.
The ICJ called the Federal Court’s ruling “a step in the right direction in upholding the rule of law”.
Justice Evatt’s mandate as ICJ’s high-level observer to the appeal hearing includes monitoring the fairness of the proceedings against Anwar Ibrahim in the light of relevant international standards.
These standards include, among others the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, which set out standards on the independence and impartiality of judges, and the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, which set out standards on the independence of prosecutors.
Justice Evatt will also be evaluating whether the prosecution under Section 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.
“The right to observe trials stems from the general right to promote and secure the protection and realization of human rights. Trial observation is a key tool in monitoring the respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is an effective method to examine the level of independence and impartiality of a country’s criminal justice system,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia. “Trial monitoring also serves to promote better compliance with both domestic law and international standards that aim to ensure protection of human rights, including the rights to fair trial and due process.”
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for the ICJ Asia & Pacific Programme, t +662 6198477 ext. 206; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
