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
Sep 5, 2013 | News
The ICJ collaborated on this judicial colloquium with the UN Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women and the Thailand Office of the Judiciary.
The Judicial Colloquium on Gender Equality Jurisprudence and the Role of the Judiciary in Promoting Women’s Access to Justice was held from 4 to 5 September 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand.
Judges from eight Southeast Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Thailand) came to the colloquium to discuss the role of judges in the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
Representatives from the eight countries’ judicial training institutions and civil society organizations joined them in this colloquium. All eight participating countries are parties to the CEDAW.
The judicial colloquium is part of the work of the ICJ in engaging various actors, including judges, lawyers, and human rights defenders, to explore ways to address the range of obstacles that persistently reduce women’s access to justice and legal protection.
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, also noted the importance of this colloquium in the context of the development of a regional human rights mechanism in the ASEAN. He observed during his opening speech that the ASEAN is in the midst of setting standards and emphasized “it is important for judges to be aware of international standards of this issue so that they can substantially contribute to the discourse in setting up a regional mechanism.”
At the end of the colloquium, the participating judges, representatives from judicial training institutes and civil society organizations adopted a statement which noted, among other things, the uneven progress in the implementation of CEDAW in domestic laws and that judges should strive to interpret domestic law in consonance with the CEDAW.
They also agreed on recommendations, one of which is to encourage the formation of a regional network of judges to promote continuing dialogue, knowledge and information sharing regarding the application of CEDAW and other international human rights treaties in judicial systems.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66 6198477 ext. 206 or emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Jul 9, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called for the immediate release of Le Quoc Quan, after the People’s Court of Hanoi announced on 8 July 2013 the postponement of his trial, without setting any new dates for the case. The reason given for the hastily informed adjournment was that the judge had suddenly taken ill.
The ICJ considers that Le Quoc Quan’s continued detention is in violation of Vietnam’s penal law and the State’s international legal obligations.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender, was arrested on 27 December 2012 and charged for tax evasion under article 161 of Vietnam’s 1999 Penal Code.
The postponement of the trial appears to signal that Le Quoc Quan will continue to remain in jail. Since his arrest last year, he has already been detained for more than six months.
“The continued detention of Le Quoc Quan is akin to him being punished even before the trial has commenced. This is a clear violation of his right to being presumed innocent,” said Andrew Khoo from the Malaysian Bar Council, an expert appointed by the ICJ, who had traveled to Hanoi to observe Le Quoc Quan’s trial.
On 29 December, two days after Le Quoc Quan’s arrest, his wife filed an application for bail to the police and procurator. She had also applied for release on his own recognizance. There are no specific detailed procedures spelled out in law governing bail procedures. Under article 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only family members are permitted to act as guarantors. To date, neither the police nor the procurator have replied to her applications.
Under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a party, it should not be the general rule that persons are detained while awaiting trial, and release pending trial may only be subject to conditions to ensure appearance at the trial.
“There is no reason to believe that if released Le Quoc Quan would not appear for trial, and in any event his family has made representations to act as guarantors”, said Emerlynne Gil, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia, who was also in Hanoi to observe the trial. “The People’s Court of Hanoi must order Le Quoc Quan’s release either on bail or his own recognizance.”
The ICJ notes that the postponement also violates Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial. Under international law, including ICCPR article 14, an accused has the right to be tried without undue delay and within a reasonable period of time. This prevents any unnecessary continuing deprivation of liberty and ensures that the interest of justice is properly served.
“We would expect that the People’s Court of Hanoi will notify promptly the public of the next date of Le Quac Quan’s trial and ensure that his right to a fair and public trial is upheld,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ looks forward to returning to Vietnam to continue monitoring this case and ensuring that the rights of Le Quoc Quan, including his right to liberty and to a fair trial, are fully respected and protected.
CONTACT:
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 6198477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
May 5, 2013 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Benjamin Zawacki, Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia at the International Commission of Jurists.
Thailand’s government recently passed up an opportunity for a new approach to the deep South, by declining to replace the Emergency Decree, which violates international standards on human rights, with the somewhat less heavy-handed Internal Security Act (ISA).
Equally concerning is why the government has not looked beyond the South in reconsidering the use of its other extraordinary security legislation: no fewer than 31 of Thailand’s 77 provinces are at least partially under Martial Law.
International law is clear that the extraordinary powers under security laws like the Emergency Decree and Martial Law may only be invoked under a strict set of circumstances, none of which is even arguably applicable in Thailand outside of the southern insurgency (four of the 31 provinces).
Martial Law may be invoked in Thailand “when a situation arises that makes it necessary to maintain law and order and to defend against the danger of attack”, or “when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”. All of Thailand’s provinces that are situated on one of the country’s four international borders are under Martial Law in whole or in part (including the 27 not in the deep South). Among them is Phitsanulok, whose shared border with Laos is roughly only 50km.
This province featured in Thailand’s last war, a three-month affair with Laos that ended in 1988.
Otherwise, Thailand’s border challenges are well-known: trafficking in persons, drugs, and weapons; landmines; refugees and migrants; smuggling of logs, oil, and other contraband; demarcation disputes. While doubtless all of these call for robust law enforcement, only the dispute with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple even arguably involves defending against the danger of armed attack.
Several minor but deadly skirmishes with Cambodian forces, as well as considerable mutual saber-rattling, have occurred in several districts of Si Sa Ket province since 2009. It is not credible to claim that Thailand needs to impose Martial Law because of external threats.
A more likely explanation is that Martial Law’s expansive application in Thailand is due to what is common to most security legislation around the region, namely vague language that lends itself to broad interpretation and granting wide powers to the military.
The Martial Law term “law and order”, in addition to more typically applying to civilian law enforcement agencies than to the military, could apply to any situation in which a law is implicated – which is nearly all situations. “Order” and “unrest” are particularly ill-defined.
Moreover, “maintain” suggests law and order need only be threatened to invoke Martial Law, rather than be lost and in need of being restored.
What constitutes an “attack” and the likelihood of such required for Thailand to be in “danger” are also essentially judgment calls. And when is an attack (or a series of attacks) tantamount to an “outbreak of war”?
A second and related reason that Martial Law is so pervasive in Thailand is the large number of military personnel empowered to invoke the law, coupled with, inversely, the difficulty in revoking it later.
While order by royal decree is required for invoking Martial Law on the first set of grounds, even local military commanders can invoke Martial Law in the area under their control on the second set (“when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”), affording them enormous discretion and authority.
In contrast, any and all revocations of the law require order by royal decree, a level of involvement as centralized and bureaucratic as a district military commander’s invocation is local and simple.
Martial Law’s use in Thailand historically supports the analysis that imprecise grounds combined with bureaucratic inertia account for the wide geographical application of the law.
Twice in the past 22 years, orders by royal decree referencing “law and order” have imposed Martial Law on the whole of Thailand, both times via coups d’état in 1991 and 2006.
On only three occasions after the 1991 coup (twice later the same year and once in 1998) was Martial Law lifted in some but not all of Thailand’s provinces. On the eve of the 2006 coup, it was still in effect in all or part of 18 provinces.
Similarly, following the blanket invocation of Martial Law on the whole country in 2006, on only two occasions since (in January 2007 and 2008, respectively) has an order by royal decree revoked the law in 46 of Thailand’s 77 provinces. Why not everywhere?
International law requires that extraordinary security legislation be invoked only in response to an exceptional situation.
Powers granted to security forces and any derogation from human rights must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the situation, and must have a time limitation attached to them.
None of these elements is met in the case of Thailand’s application of Martial Law to its international borders.
Indeed, Martial Law in Thailand allows security forces to arrest people without a warrant, and to detain them for seven days prior to charging them.
Critically, it does not require that detainees be promptly brought before a judge, in flagrant violation of Thailand’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This leaves detainees particularly vulnerable to torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces, which Thailand has also agreed to prevent and punish as a party to the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture.
In cases under Martial Law of alleged misconduct by security forces, victims are unable to institute a criminal prosecution (though they may initiate a civil action) or to choose their own lawyer; only a military prosecutor is entitled to institute a criminal charge. No appeal can be lodged against judgments or orders of military courts during this period.
The Thai government should reconsider its decision to keep the Emergency Decree in place throughout most of the deep South.
At the same time, it should take the long overdue step of lifting an equally heavy-handed Martial Law everywhere else.
Apr 8, 2013 | News
On 5 April, Vietnam’s Hai Phong court sentenced Doan Van Vuon and three of his male relatives to imprisonment sentences ranging from two to five years, for attempted murder. The ICJ condemns this decision.
Mr. Doan’s wife and sister-in-law received suspended sentences in the form of 18 and 15 months respectively for resisting persons in the performance of their official duties.
Vuon, along with his brothers Doan Van Quy and Doan Van Sinh, as well as Sinh’s son Doan Van Ve, were initially arrested on 5 January 2012 for injuring four policemen and two soldiers with homemade weapons when more than 100 security forces tried to forcibly evict them from their fish farm in a district approximately 90 kilometres from Hanoi.
The four men had remained in detention for more than a year waiting for the commencement of last week’s trial.
Under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam is a signatory to, states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge…and be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.
“Pre-trial detention should only be used in criminal proceedings as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time period, when required to meet the needs of justice,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “The prolonged period of detention in this case is detrimental as it could possibly have violated the defendants’ presumption of innocence and due process.”
During the trial, it was concerning to note that all the judges involved in the case were members of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party and were carrying out their judicial duties under the central government’s directions.
Article 14 of the ICCPR further guarantees that a person is “entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
“Vietnam’s blatant disregard of the right to fair trial violates not only their international law obligations, but also the proper administration of justice in a criminal proceeding,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ also observed that the court’s judgment failed to incorporate the fact that the defendants had acted in such a manner only as an attempt to defend and protect their land, which was legitimately given to them by the Vietnamese government in 1993.
The right to receive a reasoned judgment is an inherent principle in safeguarding fair trial rights and it is the general rule that court rulings must include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning.
“The failure to adhere to the minimum international fair trial standards reveals Vietnam’s serious lack of commitment towards upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in the country; a violation most certainly not in line with the profile of a country wishing to obtain a seat at the UN Human Rights Council 2014-2016 tenure,” Gil added.
In the event of an appeal, the ICJ calls that the Vietnamese Court of Appeal be consistent with the international basic judicial guarantees and the principles of independence, impartiality and competency.
