Sep 18, 2016 | News
The ICJ held a workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment in Kyauk Phyu on 17-18 September 2016. Thirteen women and 30 men attended from Kyauk Phyu town, its surrounding villages and the regional capital Sittwe.
Kyauk Phyu is the proposed site for a megaproject to include a Special Economic Zone and deep seaport in Myanmar’s westernmost Rakhine State.
A Chinese company plans to develop the projects and the newly elected Myanmar Government is considering its future.
The EIA workshop included lawyers and civil society representatives as well as village administrators from each of the nine village administrative tracts in the proposed SEZ area.
An EIA is designed to avoid, minimize, eliminate and reduce harmful impacts of development projects.
It can require revising plans, making alternative arrangements and even cancelling project components.
Myanmar law now requires EIAs, including in SEZs, under the 2014 SEZ Law and 2015 EIA Procedure. Health, livelihood and social impact assessments are critical to this process.
Projects may only commence after the Environment Ministry approves an EIA.
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Consultant for Myanmar, shared updates from research on SEZ legal frameworks and project plans.
The ICJ’s Legal Researcher, U Hayman Oo, facilitated discussions and linked these laws with local developments.
Participants were encouraged to document their land and livelihoods so they may have an evidence base to refer to in future.
Matthew Baird, an environmental lawyer supporting both the Environment Ministry and civil society groups, outlined each step involved in an EIA.
He emphasized the importance of public participation throughout the process – particularly in the early screening and scoping stages.
Early community engagement is critical to influence the focus and scope of the investigation, which would inform the draft EIA Report developed by an EIA consultancy firm.
Daw Khin Su Su Naing, from Coffey, explained the role of the consultancy firms hired by companies to conduct EIAs.
She described how social impacts are assessed, providing examples from elsewhere in Myanmar. Public participation was again emphasised as crucial.
U Mya Hlaing, from the Thilawa Social Development Group, shared community experiences from the development of Myanmar’s only active SEZ – located in Thilawa, across the river from Yangon. Villagers resettled by the project remain concerned about the standard of relocation sites and loss of livelihood opportunities.
Community organizing in Thilawa has been an important factor in improving public participation in EIA and resettlement processes.
Dr Daniel Aguirre, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser, discussed international business and human rights frameworks, and the monitoring role of civil society.
From Earth Rights International, U Zaw Zaw explained how an Operational Grievance Mechanism can be a useful tool for creating a communication channel between affected people and companies.
An OGM cannot solve all problems, but can help to discuss issues and remedies as they arise.
Many participants have experienced impacts from irresponsible and at times illegal business activities.
Kyauk Phyu hosts oil and gas facilities that serve a pipeline, finished in 2013, linking the Bay of Bengal with western China. No public EIA was conducted, and locals say the pipeline project led to land loss, deteriorating livelihoods and environmental pollution.
Many are still owed compensation and some were imprisoned for protesting to demand remedies.
Workshop participants expressed concerns that these problems will be repeated.
U Mya Hlaing encouraged locals in Kyauk Phyu to review the legal procedures and understand government obligations: “I am just a poorly educated farmer, but I have carefully read the laws and it has helped our community to demand our rights.”
He encouraged participants to raise concerns with Myanmar’s new governance bodies for SEZ management.
This was the ICJ’s third event in Kyauk Phyu over two years, with further initiatives planned.
Sep 16, 2016 | News
Indian authorities have detained a Kashmiri human rights activist after stopping him from traveling to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
Khurram Parvez was arrested in his home on 15 September 2016, a day after being prevented from leaving the country with a group of rights activists who were traveling to Geneva to raise concerns about the security force crackdown in Jammu and Kashmir.
Human Rights Watch and the ICJ call on authorities to immediately release Parvez and allow him to attend the Human Rights Council session.
“Indian authorities seem to have missed the irony of blocking a rights activist on his way to the UN Human Rights Council,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at the International Commission of Jurists.
“Monitoring and engage
ment by civil society is necessary to prevent human rights violations and ensure accountability. The Government should immediately release Khurram Parvez and begin working with him and other activists to address the difficult issues facing Jammu and Kashmir,” he added.
Parvez, 39 years of age, is chair of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and program coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS).
He has documented cases of enforced disappearances and investigated unmarked graves in Kashmir.
According to his lawyer, Parvez has been detained by Kashmir police under “preventive detention” provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including section 151 (arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offense).
The Government’s actions against Parvez violate his right to freedom of movement.
Under international human rights law, any restrictions on freedom of movement for security reasons must have a clear legal basis, be limited to what is necessary and be proportionate to the threat.
This is further supported by article 5 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which states that “[f]or the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, at the national and international levels… to communicate with nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations.”
“Instead of trying to silence human rights activists, India should be addressing the serious human rights problems in Jammu and Kashmir and holding perpetrators of abuses to account,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
“Preventing open discussion of these issues, whether in India or in Geneva, sends a message to Kashmiris that the government has no interest in addressing their concerns,” she added.
Background
Violent protests broke out in Jammu and Kashmir state after the killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahedin militant Burhan Wani in an armed encounter on 8 July.
Since then, the authorities have placed large parts of the state under curfew restrictions to try to stop protesters who hurl stones at security forces and attack police posts.
Security forces have used unnecessary lethal force to contain the violence, which has resulted in the death of 80 protesters and 2 police officers, and thousands injured.
Some protesters, including children, lost their vision from pellets fired from riot-control guns.
While police have a duty to protect lives and property, under the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, they should use non-violent means as far as possible, only use force when unavoidable and in a proportionate manner, and use lethal force only when absolutely necessary to save lives, Human Rights Watch and International Commission of Jurists said.
The authorities have also attempted to censor news and restrict access to information.
The Government shut down local newspapers for three days, blocked mobile internet services temporarily, and ordered local cable operators to block the transmission of five news channels on television.
India has failed to address longstanding grievances in Jammu and Kashmir.
Numerous expert committees in India have recommended steps to address past human rights violations, including a repeal of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, but the Indian Government has ignored these recommendations.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66(0) 807819002; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Sep 12, 2016 | News
The Thai junta’s Order today phasing out the prosecution of civilians in military courts is a welcome step but the military government must do much more to comply with its international human rights obligations, said the ICJ today.
Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 55/2016, dated 12 September 2016 and issued under Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, phases out the heavily criticized practice of prosecuting civilians before military courts for four categories of offences, including offences against internal security; violation of NCPO orders; possession and use of war weapons; and the highly punitive offence of lese majeste.
The Order only applies to offences committed from the date the Order comes into force – today – and not to past or pending cases.
Since the May 2014 coup, at least 1,811 civilians have been tried in Military Courts, based on information the Judge Advocate General’s Department (JAG) provided to Thai Lawyers For Human Rights (TLHR) in July 2016 and covering the period 22 May 2014 to 31 May 2016.
“Almost 2,000 civilians have faced an unjust process and unfair trials before military tribunals, many of whom were prosecuted simply for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at the ICJ. “All pending cases should be transferred to civilian courts and the convictions of all civilians prosecuted in military courts since the 2014 coup should be set aside.”
Head of the NCPO Order 55/2016 also explicitly affirms that the deeply problematic Head of the NCPO Orders 3/2015 (which replaced nationwide Martial Law on 1 April 2015) and 13/2016 shall remain in force.
These Orders prohibit the gathering of more than five people for political purposes; allow for the detention of civilians in military facilities for up to seven days without charge; and provide appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons. The ICJ considers that these orders are not in accordance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations
“Its now crucial for the military to return responsibility for law enforcement to civilian authorities, and ensure they are properly trained and competent,” Zarifi said. “We hope today’s Order is a step toward returning Thailand to the rule of law and respect for human rights.”
Background
Clause 3 of Head of the NCPO Order 55/2016 notes “As appropriate, the Prime Minister may propose to the National Council for Peace and Order to amend this Order.”
Previously, NCPO Announcements 37/2014, 38/2014 and 50/2014 extended the jurisdiction of Thailand’s military courts to four categories of offences, including offences against internal security, violation of NCPO orders, possession and use of war weapons, and lese majeste.
The prosecution of civilians in military courts is inconsistent with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – to which Thailand is a State Party – which affirms that everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals sets out principles that apply to state use of military tribunals. Principle 5 states “Military courts should, in principle, have no jurisdiction to try civilians. In all circumstances, the State shall ensure that civilians accused of a criminal offence of any nature are tried by civilian courts.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 9 4470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Download:
thailand-unofficial-translation-head-of-ncpo-order-55_2559-advocacy-2016-eng (full text of Order in English, PDF)
thailand-ncpo-order-55_2559-news-2016-tha (full text of news in Thai, PDF)
Read also:
Thailand: transfer all civilians to civilian courts
Thailand: end prosecution of civilians in military tribunals
Aug 31, 2016 | News
ASEAN meeting should highlight disappeared Lao leader Sombath Somphone, denial of liberties, said human rights and advocacy groups at a press conference held today in Bangkok.
On the eve of the annual ASEAN leaders summit in Vientiane, the groups (Human Right Watch, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, Civil Rights Defenders, Focus on the Global South, Mekong Watch and the ICJ) called upon the Lao PDR Government to commit to address its widespread violations of human rights, including instances of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention.
Visiting world leaders have a unique opportunity to publicly raise human rights concerns during the ASEAN summit in Vientiane from September 6-8. They should press the Lao government to cease the abuses that have consistently placed Laos at the bottom of rights and development indexes measuring rights, press freedom, democracy, religious freedom, and economic transparency, the groups added.
At the event organized by The Sombath Initiative at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand in Bangkok, the groups also released a set of briefing papers on forcibly disappeared civil society leader Sombath Somphone (photo), Laos’ restrictions on democracy and human rights, lack freedom of expression, failure to meet human rights obligations, and impacts of foreign aid and investment.
“More than three and half years after he disappeared, the Lao government still has provided no clear answers to what happened to my husband, Sombath Somphone, who was taken away in truck at a police checkpoint in Vientiane,” said Shui Meng Ng, wife of Sombath and board member of The Sombath Initiative.
“President Obama, the United Nations, and ASEAN and its dialogue partners should urge the Lao Government to urgently resolve the case of Sombath’s enforced disappearance and return him safely to me and my family. They should also demand the Lao Government end enforced disappearances, so that the ordinary people of the country can respect their government rather than fear it.”
“The fact that the Lao PDR government’s last detailed report on the progress of the investigation was released over three years ago suggests the Lao authorities are not carrying out an effective investigation into this case as they are required to do under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, a Senior International Legal Adviser with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).
“It is not enough for the Lao government to simply keep asserting on the international stage that it is investigating this case. International law obliges Lao PDR authorities to conduct an investigation that is credible and effective, and provide regular updates on its progress including to Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng,” he added.
Basic civil and political rights are systematically denied in Laos, and government authorities move quickly to arbitrarily arrest those expressing critical views of the government, either in day to day life or more recently on-line.
In March 2016, police arrested three Lao migrant workers who had posted critical comments about the Lao government while they were working in Thailand, and continues to detain them arbitrarily. A Lao court also sentenced activist Bounthanh Khammavong in September 2015 to 4 years and 9 months in prison for posting critical comments on Facebook.
Laos also imposes onerous restrictions on the right to freedom of association that are incompatible with its human rights obligations.
The government strictly controls the registrations of organizations such as non-profit associations (NPAs), and closely monitors the work plans and budgets of NPAs that it does approve to operate.
Any person who dares to organize and operate an unsanctioned organization faces arrest and prosecution.
Workers are compelled to belong to the Lao Federation of Trade Unions and organizing unions outside that framework is illegal. At the village level, mass organizations controlled by the ruling Lao People’s Revolutionary Party are often the only organizations operating.
Public protests or assemblies are strictly forbidden without government permission, and any efforts organize such events face immediate suppression by the police and security forces.
“Civil society in Laos remains under a hostile spotlight from the government, and UN rights officials have noted that there are few places in the world where they have encountered greater fear and intimidation among community organizations and NGOs,” said Walden Bello, former member of the Philippines Congress and Vice Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
“Laos has now become one of the most rights repressing countries in ASEAN: leaders in the region and from around the world must stop looking the other way, and demand Vientiane end its asphyxiation of independent civil society,” he added.
Read the full text and quotes here: Laos-End to Human Rights Abuses-News-Press Releases-2016-ENG (in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 9 4470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Pakistan’s Supreme Court’s rejection of petitions by families of 16 people sentenced to death who complained of unfair trials in the country’s military courts seriously set back respect for human rights and the rule of law, the ICJ said today.
“The Supreme Court failed to use an important opportunity to show that human rights protect all people, including those who are accused of terrorist acts or other heinous crimes,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Pakistan’s very serious problem with terrorism can only be addressed with more respect for human rights and the rule of law, not less, and certainly not through deeply flawed military tribunals that provide neither justice nor truth.”
Families of sixteen civilians sentenced to death by military courts in secret proceedings challenged their convictions and sentences in the Supreme Court on fair trial grounds. In its 182-page judgment, a five-member bench Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali held the petitioners had failed to prove the military violated their constitutional right to a fair trial. At convicts are now at imminent risk of execution.
The ICJ is calling on the government of Pakistan to desist from executing these or other convicts, and to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty it held from 2008 to 2014.
“Trial of civilian suspects in military courts is anathema to human rights and international standards are clear that military courts should only have jurisdiction over military officers for military offences,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan’s military tribunals in particular offer nothing like a fair trial and should be immediately dismantled.”
As highlighted by the ICJ in a briefing paper released in June, proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall well short of national and international standards requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts: judges 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. In addition, the procedures of military courts, the selection of cases to be referred to them, the location and timing of trial, and details about the alleged offences are kept secret.
“The ICJ supports the pursuit of justice for all victims of terrorism in Pakistan,” added Zarifi. “However, justice will not be done by subverting the foundational pillar of justice: the right to a fair trial for all suspects –regardless of how serious the offence.”
Since January 2015, when Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, 11 military courts have been constituted to hear cases related to terrorism.
These 11 military courts have thus far concluded the trials of 128 people, finding the defendants guilty in 104 cases. A hundred people have been sentenced to death and four have been given life sentences. At least 12 people have been hanged after trials that are grossly unfair.
The ICJ has called on the Pakistan government to roll back the system of “military injustice”, and ensure that all terrorism suspects are guaranteed basic fair trial protections.
The ICJ has also urged that Pakistan reinstate a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in law and practice, reflecting the call of an overwhelming majority of States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions. The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a from of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In January 2015, Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences as part of its 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted by the Government following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar.
The expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians was accomplished through the 21st Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution and amendments to the Army Act, 1952. These amendments allow military courts to try offences related to “terrorism” committed by those who claim to, or are known to, belong to a terrorist organization “using the name of religion or a sect”.
Both amendments are set to expire on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a “sunset clause”, after which they will cease to be in effect, although there is a risk that they could be renewed.
In August 2015, the Pakistani Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 21st amendment and the trial of civilians by military courts for terrorism-related offences.
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Tens of thousands of enforced disappearances in South Asia can only be addressed if all the region’s governments immediately criminalize this serious human rights violation, said today lawyers and activists from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The call came at a Conference on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, organized by the ICJ and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) on the eve of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.
South Asia has among the highest number of alleged victims of enforced disappearances in the world: tens of thousands of cases have been documented in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and India, and since 2009, there has also been a surge in enforced disappearances in Bangladesh.
“Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance and its pledge to criminalize the practice is a welcome step,” said I. A. Rehman, Secretary General for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
“Other States in the region should now follow suit and show that they are serious about their commitment to human rights by making enforced disappearance a specific crime in their domestic law,” he added.
Under international law, an enforced disappearance is the arrest, abduction or detention by State agents, or by people acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or by concealing the fate or whereabouts of the “disappeared” person which places the person outside the protection of the law.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity”.
At present, enforced disappearance is not a distinct crime in any South Asian country, which is one of the major hurdles to bringing perpetrators to justice.
In the absence of a legal framework on enforced disappearance, unacknowledged detentions by law enforcement agencies are considered “missing persons” cases.
On the rare occasions where criminal complaints are registered against alleged perpetrators, complainants are forced to categorize the crime as “abduction” or “kidnapping”.
These categories do not recognize the complexity and the particularly serious nature of enforced disappearance, and often do not provide for penalties commensurate to the gravity of the crime.
They also fail to recognize as victims relatives of the “disappeared” person and others suffering harm as a result of the enforced disappearance, as required under international law.
“Despite thousands of cases of enforced disappearance across South Asia, the governments have failed to follow their legal obligation to treat these crimes as the serious human rights violation they are,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“South Asian governments have done very little to support the victims and survivors of enforced disappearance, or to ensure the rights of their family members to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.
Other barriers to bringing perpetrators to account are also similar in South Asian countries: military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention; members of law enforcement and security forces enjoy broad legal immunities, shielding them from prosecution; and military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military, even where these crimes are human rights violations.
Victims’ groups, lawyers, and activists who work on enforced disappearance also face security risks including attacks, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.
A comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to end the entrenched impunity for enforced disappearances in the region – criminalizing the practice would be a significant first step, said ICJ and the HRCP.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Read also
ICJ Practitioners’ Guides No. 9 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction and No. 10 Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: the Right of Family Members, which provide legal practitioners, activists and policy-makers with detailed and practical references on international standards on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
South Asia-International disappearances day statement-News-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
