Mar 15, 2016 | News
Today’s acquittal of the only person facing charges for the killing of lands rights activist Chai Bunthonglek, highlights the urgent need for the Thai Government to protect human rights defenders in the country, said the ICJ today.
In addition to Chai Bunthonglek, a member of the Southern Peasant Federation of Thailand (SPFT), three other SPFT activists have been killed since 2010: Montha Chukaew and Pranee Boonrat in 2012 and Somporn Pattanaphum in 2010.
No one has been prosecuted for these three killings, reportedly due to insufficient evidence obtained by the police.
“The result in this case underscores the pressing need for the Department of Special Investigations to investigate the pattern of killings of land rights activists in southern Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
Chai Bunthonglek was killed on 11 February 2015. All four SPFT activists killed since 2010 had been advocating for the land rights of poor farmers who are in a dispute with the Government and a palm oil company operated by Jiew Kang Jue Pattana Co. Ltd.
“Today’s acquittal means that no-one has been held accountable for the killing of Chai Bunthonglek, representing another failure to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against human rights defenders and, in particular, those trying to uphold social and economic rights in Thailand,” said Abbott.
“The ICJ calls on the Thai Government to ensure justice and effective remedies for human rights defenders.”
On 15 March, the Viangsra Provincial Court acquitted Santi Wanthong, who was accused of driving the motorcycle from which Chai Bunthonglek, 61-years-old, was shot six times and killed in front of his family in Klong Sai Pattana in Surat Thani Province.
Two other suspects initially arrested for the crime were not indicted.
The DSI has the power to assume jurisdiction over “special” criminal cases including complex cases that require special inquiry, crimes committed by organized criminal groups, and cases where the principal suspect is “an influential person.”
The trial court held today that prosecution witnesses could not properly identify the defendant, and that a cap and gun collected from his house could not be positively identified as belonging to the man who had been involved in attacking Chai Bunthonglek.
Chai Bunthonglek’s family intends to appeal the verdict, the ICJ has been told. They have 30 days to file an appeal.
Witnesses in the case, as well as members of SPFT, have expressed their fear of further attacks. Suraphon Songru, member of the Steering Group of the SPFT, told the ICJ: “the perpetrators – which the community believe may be linked to the local authorities in the area – are still out there, which means another killing could take place.”
The ICJ called on Thai authorities to ensure the safety of all witnesses and ensure the safety of all human rights defenders, including members of SPFT, in Surat Thani.
Background
Santi Wanthong was formally indicted on the following charges: murder of another person (section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code); jointly premeditated murder (section 289 of the Thai Criminal Code); possession of a firearm without a permit (section 371 of the Thai Criminal Code); and possession of ammunition for a firearm without a permit (sections 7, 8 and 72 of the Gun, Ammunition, Explosive Substance, Firework and Artificial Gun Weapon Act).
SPFT was formed in 2008 and campaigns for the right to agricultural land in the Khlong Sai Pattana and Permsub area, in Surat Thani Province and other areas in the region.
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and had its review before the Committee of the ICESCR in June 2015, where the killings of land rights defenders was particularly noted. The Committee urged Thailand to “adopt all measures necessary to protect human rights activists, including those working to defend economic, social and cultural rights, from any and all acts of intimidation, harassment and killings and to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.” The obligation to protect the right to life and other rights of human rights defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights, and to take effective criminal proceedings in response to such crimes, is also an obligation of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is recognized in numerous UN standards on protection of human rights defenders.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Chai case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the Magistrate Court to dismiss the charges against Lena Hendry for her involvement in 2013 screening of No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka, an award-winning human rights documentary on the civil war in Sri Lanka.
Magistrate Mohamad Rehab Mohd Aris determined that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against Lena Hendry (photo).
As a consequence, she did not have to enter her defense.
“We welcome the decision of the Magistrate’s Court to clear Lena Hendry from all charges,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“We must emphasize though that subjecting Lena Hendry in the first place to criminal prosecution simply for screening this documentary violated her human rights and contravenes Malaysia’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression,” she added.
“We should remember that the provision in the Film Censorship Act 2002 used against Lena Hendry remains on the books and still operative. It can still be used to stifle the voices of other human rights defenders in Malaysia,” Gil further said.
Lena Hendry was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for allegedly showing the film without prior authorization by the Board of Censors.
The said provision prohibits any person to circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell, or hire any film or film publicity material that has not been approved by the Board of Censors.
If Lena Hendry had been found guilty, she could have faced a fine of up to RM30,000 (approximately US$6,900) and/or a sentence of up to three years imprisonment.
The ICJ reiterates its call to the Government of Malaysia to safeguard freedom of expression and uphold the right of individuals to elaborate and disseminate information, including on questions of public import and the documentation of human rights abuses.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Mar 9, 2016 | News
The recent decision of the Thai Supreme Court in the case of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit demonstrates Thailand must urgently ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and enact domestic laws consistent with the Treaty, said the ICJ today.
On 29 December 2015, the Supreme Court of Thailand upheld the acquittals of five police officers charged with gang-robbery and coercion. These charges related to Somchai’s abduction and the taking of his property.
The authorities have blamed the failure to charge anyone to date with Somchai’s actual enforced disappearance or presumed death, in part, on the absence of physical remains.
The Supreme Court further held that Somchai Neelapaijit’s wife, Angkhana Neelapaijit, and his children could not participate in the proceedings as plaintiffs as, under Thai law, it had to be shown that Somchai Neelapaijit was either injured or killed such that he could not represent himself.
The Court reasoned that this was not the case as “it is not currently known whether or not Mr. Somchai is alive” and the accused had only been charged with gang-robbery and coercion.
“The Supreme Court decision does not in any way end Somchai’s case,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The Thai government is obliged to seek and provide truth and justice for Somchai and his family,” he added.
The Department of Special Investigations (DSI), often described as the FBI of Thailand, has been conducting an ongoing investigation into Somchai Neelapaijit’s fate or whereabouts since 2005.
“The glacial pace of the DSI’s investigation and unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court after all these years is heart-breaking,” said Zarifi.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
“But to do its ‘utmost’ to resolve this case, Thailand must take urgent and concrete steps to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and pass domestic laws that retrospectively recognize enforced disappearance as a distinct offence and the full rights of victims, including family members,” Zarifi added.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill, which, in a draft seen by the ICJ, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, t: +66807819002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Additional information
Angkhana Neelapaijit, now Commissioner of the Thai Human Rights Commission, told the ICJ: “The decision of the Supreme Court acquitting the five accused and denying my children and me the right to participate in the proceedings shows that victims of enforced disappearance have nowhere to turn to obtain justice in Thailand. It is clear that nothing will change until Thailand urgently ratifies the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and amends its laws to ensure the rights of victims are upheld.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012. Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention, which among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Forthcoming event
On 11 March 2016, the ICJ, together with Amnesty International (Thailand), Human Rights Watch, and the Justice for Peace Foundation will hold “a discussion on enforced disappearance in Thailand focusing on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Somchai Neelapaijit’s case and the draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill” to mark the 12-year anniversary since Somchai Neelapaijit “disappeared” on 12 March 2004.
Date: 11 March 2016
Time: 10.00am -12.00pm
Location: The Sukosol Hotel, room Kamolthip 3, Sriayutthaya Road, Bangkok
The speakers will be:
- Angkhana Neelapaijit
- Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Advisor, the International Commission of Jurists
- Sunai Phasuk, Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch
- Laurent Meillan, Acting Representative, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office for South-East Asia
- A representative from the Department of Rights and Liberty Protection, Ministry of Justice
Related readings
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
On 11 December 2015, the ICJ published an English version of its Practitioners Guide “Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction”, originally published in Spanish in March 2015.
Thailand-Somchai disap anniversary 2016-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Feb 19, 2016 | News
The ongoing incommunicado detention of human rights defenders Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà must end, said today seven human rights groups, including the ICJ. It violates their right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All charges against Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà, should be withdrawn and they should be immediately and unconditionally released, the organizations added.
An incommunicado detention is one in which a detainee is held without access to the outside world, particularly to family, lawyers, courts and independent doctors. The practice of incommunicado detention violates key rights of persons deprived of liberty and facilitates torture and other ill-treatment. Prolonged periods of incommunicado detention can themselves constitute a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment.
Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà were arrested on 16 December 2015 and charged under Article 88 of the Penal Code, ‘Conducting propaganda against the state’. All efforts by family and legal counsel to visit the pair since their arrests have been denied.
Vietnam-Release prisoners-News-webstory-2016-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Feb 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan and called it a further attack on the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary.
“President Abdulla Yameen’s Government has dealt another blow to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan is another step down in the country’s downward spiral away from democracy and stability, and is squarely at odds with the Maldives’ international obligations,” he added.
Maldivian officials confirmed in a statement that Ahmed Nihan, a magistrate’s court judge, and Muhthaz Muhsin, former Prosecutor General, were arrested on Sunday night on charges of forging a warrant for the arrest of President Abdulla Yameen.
Muhthaz Muhsin was released soon after, but Judge Ahmed Nihan was placed in judicial custody for one week.
“Judge Ahmed Nihan’s arbitrary and seemingly politically motivated arrest is yet another example of executive highhandedness and the corrosion of separation of powers in the Maldives,” said Zarifi.
“Undue interference with the Human Rights Commission, the arbitrary dismissal of the Auditor General, and the unlawful removal of two Supreme Court justices are just a few examples,” he added.
According to the Maldivian media, the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by Judge Ahmed Nihan, related to an on-going investigation against President Abdulla Yameen for embezzlement of state funds.
President Yameen’s spokesperson said in an interview the warrant was “fraudulent” because it “did not originate from any official authority.”
The Maldivian police (photo) claim the arrest warrant was issued using “falsified information”.
The ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately release Judge Ahmed Nihan and allow him to continue his judicial duties.
The ICJ also reiterates its previous calls on the Maldivian Government to implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
In a fact-finding report released in August last year, the ICJ noted with concern the serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Maldives acceded to in 2006, safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
International standards on judicial independence, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, provide that judges shall be free from any “inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process”.
The fact that executive or legislative actors may disagree with a judge’s decision or interpretation of the law cannot be a valid ground for removal or punishment of the judge.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary further stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only through proceedings that guarantee the right to a fair hearing (Principle 17); and then only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18); that all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct (Principle 19), and decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review (Principle 20). The Basic Principles elaborate on legal obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant and Civil Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003 contain similar provisions.
Article 154 of the Maldivian Constitution states that a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the person is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct.
Feb 5, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Royal Thai Government to immediately drop criminal proceedings against human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri.
On 2 February 2016, Sirikan Charoensiri received two summons to appear at the Chanasongkram Police Station on 9 February 2016 to be charged with two offences under the Criminal Code of Thailand: “giving false information regarding a criminal offence” and “refusing to comply with the order of an official”.
Such charges could result in punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment.
“The charges against Sirikan Charoensiri apparently relate to her efforts to protect the legal and human rights of her clients, students who never should have faced arrest or criminal proceedings for peacefully exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in the first place,” said Matt Pollard of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
“Prosecuting Sirikan Charoensiri for her efforts to defend human rights is totally unacceptable and will only put Thailand further in violation of its international obligations,” he added.
The charges appear to relate to the circumstances surrounding Sirikan Charoensiri’s provision of legal aid to 14 students who were arrested on 26 June 2015 after carrying out peaceful protests calling for democracy and an end to military rule.
Although the precise basis for the changes is not set out in the summonses, the complainant is named as Pol. Col. Suriya Chamnongchok, a police officer involved in the investigation of the 14 students.
Sirikan Charoensiri, a lawyer with Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), has provided legal aid to many individuals, including activists and human rights defenders, since military rule was imposed in May 2014.
The ICJ first expressed concern about the Government’s targeting of Sirikan Charoensiri on 2 July 2015, after the Royal Thai Police threatened Sirikan Charoensiri with legal action, publically announced they were considering charging her with a crime, and visited her home and questioned her family.
These threats and harassment, like the currently pending charges, appeared to be in retaliation for her having refused consent for police to search her car after the students’ court hearing, and for having filed a complaint with the police when they proceeded to impound it.
The ICJ has brought the case to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders.
The situation of human rights in Thailand will be examined by the UN Human Rights Council in May 2016, as part of the Council’s Universal Periodic Review of all States.
“Ahead of Thailand’s human rights review by the United Nations in May, and against the background of the tabled ‘roadmap’ towards democratic rule, the need for the Royal Thai Government to restore respect for human rights only grows more urgent by the day,” said Pollard.
Contact
In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a Party, guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; the right to freedom of expression; the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention; the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (including the right of prompt access to a lawyer and precluding jurisdiction of military courts over civilians in circumstances such as these); and the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence (which includes arbitrary searches or seizures).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms the right of everyone peacefully to oppose human rights violations. It prohibits retaliation, threats and other harassment against anyone who takes peaceful action against human rights violations, both within and beyond the exercise of their professional duties. It protects the right of persons to file formal complaints about alleged violations of rights. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments are to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Thailand-Sirikan Charoensiri-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in PDF, Thai)
