Feb 3, 2016 | News
Yesterday’s decision of the Indian Supreme Court to refer to a larger bench of the same Court the petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offers the opportunity to undo the appalling 2013 judgment of a two-judge bench of the SC in the Suresh Koushal case, says the ICJ.
“This order of the Supreme Court is a crucial opportunity to undo the injustice of the Suresh Koushal decision,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “It is an important test of the Supreme Court’s commitment to equality and ending discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
After the December 2013 Suresh Koushal decision – when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 377 and reversed the Delhi High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision – the petitioners filed a review petition, which was dismissed.
The petitioners then filed “curative petitions” in 2014, stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment of December 2013 violated principles of natural justice for several reasons. A “curative petition” allows the Supreme Court to re-assess its previous decisions on limited grounds, even after appeals and reviews have concluded.
Yesterday the Supreme Court referred the curative petition, and the major constitutional questions it raised, to a five-judge bench of the same Court, thus acknowledging doubts about the correctness of its 2013 ruling. A five-judge bench will now be set up to hear this challenge.
“The referral highlights the Supreme Court’s recognition of the need for a judicial response to the ongoing discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Zarifi said.
“After 16 years within the court process, this issue clearly could not be resolved with the highly problematic Suresh Koushal decision, which ignored the reality of consensual same sex behavior in India and the fact that Section 377 criminalizes people for who they are and leads directly to serious human rights violations.”
By criminalizing consensual same-sex adult sexual conduct, Section 377 is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law, including in respect of the rights to sexual autonomy, equality, non-discrimination, privacy, dignity, free expression, and life.
Many of these rights are guaranteed in India’s Constitution.
India is also a party to several international instruments, which require that these rights be respected, protected and fulfilled.
The Yogyakarta Principles – which apply international human rights law to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity – clarify that the rights to equality, non-discrimination and privacy require states to “repeal all laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity among persons of the same sex who are over the age of consent.”
The Supreme Court referred to these principles in the 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (NALSA) case where it also acknowledged that Section 377 was “used as an instrument of harassment and physical abuse against Hijras and transgender persons”.
“Yesterday’s decision offers hope that the Supreme Court intends to reaffirm the principle that people in India cannot be subjected to discrimination, harassment and violence, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Zarifi said.
Background
Section 377 makes it an offence to “voluntarily ha[ve] carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and has been used to persecute people for their real or purported engagement in consensual same-sex sexual conduct. The penalty can extend to life imprisonment.
Several reports document how Section 377 has been a tool for discrimination, blackmail, extortion, and violence by state and non-state actors against the LGBTI community.
It has adversely affected HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, and has also reinforced harmful social stereotypes and taboos against sexual minorities.
The petitioners in the original challenge against section 377 have waged this legal battle for over a decade. The constitutional challenge against Section 377 was filed in 2001.
In 2009, in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, the Delhi High Court held that Section 377 denied “a person’s dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality”.
It went on to find that this criminalization of identity denied “a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit” in the notion of life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and also violated the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination. The High Court held that Section 377 was unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct.
However, its judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, in 2013 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court, holding the section to be constitutional.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that legislature would “be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General”.
Jan 29, 2016 | News
The Myanmar authorities must immediately release and drop all charges or quash convictions against all people detained for allegedly having the “deliberate and malicious intention to insult religion,” said the ICJ today.
While President Thein Sein had declared an amnesty on 22 January for 102 prisoners, including 52 political prisoners, it is unclear exactly how many prisoners continue to be detained in prison under section 295A of the Penal Code and awaiting trials for blasphemy.
“Charging and imprisoning people on charges under Myanmar’s blasphemy laws is inconsistent with human rights including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the right to liberty, and the right to equality before the law without discrimination,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The problem is compounded in Myanmar when courts have been convicting individuals in unfair trials and in the absence of evidence of any deliberate and malicious intent to insult religion,” he added.
Last week, President Thein Sein pardoned Philip Blackwood, a New Zealand citizen sentenced to two and a half years with hard labour for posting on Facebook a psychedelic image of the Buddha wearing headphones to promote a bar.
His colleagues Tun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, Myanmar citizens, do not seem to have been released (although it is possible that they may have been granted amnesty as well).
Another detainee, Htin Linn Oo, a writer and National League for Democracy information officer who was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour, has not been released.
U Nyar Na (aka) Moe Pyar Sayar Taw, a monk arrested in Kachin state in 2010 and charged under various provisions of the Penal Code, including section 295A, was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years. His reported release during the amnesty last week remains unconfirmed.
These charges and convictions are in violation of international law, including a range of human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by international treaties, the ICJ says.
“The laws must be repealed or fundamentally changed, ongoing prosecutions ended, and those imprisoned for their beliefs or protected speech and other expression immediately and unconditionally released,” Zarifi said.
“These prosecutions seem to be a result of intense political pressure from extremist Buddhist political groups. As the Myanmar judiciary and legal system try to emerge from decades of political interference on with independence, it’s crucial that they act in the interests of justice and human rights,” he added.
The ICJ urges the Myanmar authorities to drop all charges against the accused persons who have not yet been tried; take immediate measures to secure the quashing of convictions under the law; and take effective measures to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees held pursuant Section 295A.
The ICJ also calls on the government to act to repeal or amend section 295A to bring it in line with international law and standards.
Contact:
In Bangkok: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, t: +66807819002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Myanmar: Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser, t: +95 9250800301 ; e: vani.sathisan(a)icj.org
Additional information:
Myanmar’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, conscience, and to freely profess and practice religion.
The UN Human Rights Committee established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasizes that “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant”. The only limited exception under the Covenant would be for proportionate and non-discriminatory measures to prohibit “advocacy of…religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Section 295A falls far short of this threshold.
Jan 20, 2016 | News
The Indonesian government’s efforts to counter and punish attacks such as the deadly assault in central Jakarta last week can only succeed if they strengthen respect for rights and rule of law, said the ICJ today.
Indonesia’s National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) and the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) claimed that they lacked sufficient authority under the country’s existing Anti-Terrorism Law to stop the attacks.
Eight people were killed in an attack by armed men in central Jakarta on 14 January.
“Plans discussed by Indonesian authorities to amend the 2003 Anti-Terrorism Law to make it ‘more effective’ in addressing terrorist threats mostly focus on weakening hard-won protections for suspects and the rule of law,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“In order to help the Indonesian government meet its obligation to protect its people from acts of terrorism, experience from around the world and Indonesia’s Suharto era shows that security can only be achieved through justice,” she added.
The head of the National Police, Gen. Badrodin Haiti, said that the Anti-Terrorism Law prevents police from prosecuting Indonesians returning home after allegedly serving as combatants in Syria.
One of the proposals is to give intelligence officers the authority to make arrests under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
“Giving intelligence officers the authority to make arrests will likely lead to an increase in violations of human rights,” said Gil.
“The roles of intelligence and of law enforcement are fundamentally different and need to remain separate,” she added.
The ICJ pointed out that there were not enough safeguards under Indonesia’s laws, specifically the State Intelligence Law, to ensure the accountability of the intelligence agency or its officers.
Another proposal is that authorities be given the power to arrest anyone they see as having a “strong indication” to be planning acts of terrorism.
The ICJ, however, observes that this proposal appears to allow Indonesian authorities to avoid judicial oversight so that it would be easier for them to arrest any person, irrespective of whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity or an intent to prosecute.
This proposal also appears to allow authorities to detain and interrogate persons suspected of involvement in terrorist acts with a view to gaining intelligence information without necessarily contemplating the filing of criminal charges.
As ICJ’s Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, and Human Rights has underscored, the practice of arrest and detention for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering may mean the arrest and detention of those “who are not necessarily criminal suspects, but who are also believed to have information that will ‘substantially’ assist the collection of intelligence relating to terrorism.” Detaining people for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering in the absence of evidence of criminal activities is a form of arbitrary detention.
Such a practice can also lead to secret or unacknowledged detention, which under international law constitutes enforced disappearance and is absolutely prohibited, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“The obligation to protect human rights and keep people safe from acts of terrorism are not at opposing poles,” said Gil. “They are complimentary and mutually reinforcing duties of protection incumbent on the State.”
“In fact, protecting human rights can be an effective shield in defending societies from acts of terrorism,” she added.
All measures to counter terrorism must strictly comply with obligations Indonesia has under international law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
Indonesia’s Anti-Terrorism Law requires judicial approval to arrest a suspect in a terrorism case. Under the law, authorities may arrest any person “strongly suspected of committing a crime of terrorism on the basis of sufficient initial evidence.”
The Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a District Court determines whether sufficient initial evidence exists or has been obtained by authorities.
Under article 42 of Indonesia’s State Intelligence Law, the accountability of intelligence operations of the State Intelligence Agency is in principle ensured through a written report on these operations submitted to the President of Indonesia.
This provision has been criticized for failing to provide sufficient accountability, as the presidency is firmly within the Executive branch and lacks capacity to investigate and prosecute in the ordinary criminal justice system.
Furthermore, article 24 of the State Intelligence Law provides that the State has the obligation to give “protection” to all intelligence personnel when carrying out their intelligence duties and functions. Such protection is extended to their family members.
The law does not define “protection” and hence may be construed as the State being obliged to grant immunity to intelligence personnel and their family members from criminal prosecution or civil liability.
Dec 22, 2015 | News
The upcoming Supreme Court verdict in the case of Somchai Neelapaijit is an important test of Thailand’s treatment of cases of enforced disappearance, the ICJ said today.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Court of Appeal was correct in overturning the conviction of one police officer for coercion and upholding the acquittals of four other police officers, and whether Somchai Neelapaijit’s family should be permitted to participate in the proceedings as plaintiffs.
The case concerns the 2005 trial of five police officers for coercion and gang-robbery after Somchai Neelapaijit, a leading Thai lawyer and human rights defender, was last seen on 12 March 2004 being pushed into a car by several men in Bangkok.
In March 2014, the ICJ published a report in Thai and English, which summarises the history of the case and provides a background to the upcoming decision, which will be delivered in Bangkok on 29 December 2015.
“This decision is an important milestone in the long and torturous history of this case,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“But whatever the result, Thailand must not waver from its repeated commitments to promptly and effectively investigate this enforced disappearance, to seek to identify those responsible and bring them to justice, and to provide the family with full remedies and reparation,” he added.
The police never charged the five police officers with more serious crimes – despite the statements of numerous officials, including past Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, expressing certainty about his death – as Somchai Neelapaijit’s body or remains were never found.
The Department of Special Investigations (DSI), often described as the FBI of Thailand, is still conducting an investigation into his fate or whereabouts.
Angkhana Neelapaijit, Somchai Neelapaijit’s wife and now Commissioner of the Thai Human Rights Commission, told the ICJ: “Ensuring that all victims of enforced disappearance have their rights fully recognised by the Thai courts is equally important to me as seeking justice in my own case. My long battle through Thailand’s justice system has shown me Thailand’s laws are currently inadequate to deal with cases of enforced disappearance and that significant reforms are needed before the rights of victims are fully recognized.”
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, Regional Director, Asia-Paicific Programme, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org, +66 (0) 80 781 900
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Programme, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org, +66 (0) 94 470 1345
Additional information:
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 Verdict-News-Press releases-2015-ENG (full text, in PDF)
Dec 17, 2015 | News
The decision of the High Court of Singapore ordering blogger Roy Ngerng to pay damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong following a civil defamation suit brought in 2014 constitutes a major blow for freedom of expression in the country, said the ICJ today.
In a judgment released on 17 December 2015, the High Court ordered Roy Ngerng to pay SG$100,000 in general damages (approximately US$70,667) and SG$50,000 (approximately US$35,330) in aggravated damages.
This decision comes approximately six months after a three-day hearing on assessment of damages took place.
“Under international standards, individuals must not be the target of defamation actions over comments made about public figures, particularly where the subject matter is of public interest,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“This decision sends a clear message that the people of Singapore are not in fact free to express their opinions about matters of public interest,” he added.
This suit against Roy Ngerng was brought by Prime Minister Lee who argued that Roy Ngerng, in his blog, suggested that the Prime Minister bore responsibility for criminal misappropriation of the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the social security savings plan of the citizens of Singapore.
In a summary judgment delivered in November 2014, the High Court found Roy Ngerng liable for defaming the Prime Minister. Roy Ngerng was later ordered by the court to pay Prime Minister Lee SG$29,000 (approximately US$22,300) for the legal fees and related expenses incurred pertaining the application for the summary judgment. Roy Ngerng did not appeal the High Court’s decision.
“The government’s ongoing use of defamation proceedings to silence critics is a deplorable practice that undermines the rule of law. It is very concerning to see measures imposed in the region that cast a chilling effect on freedom of expression of activists and human rights defenders,” said Zarifi.
The findings in this decision are inconsistent with international standards on freedom of opinion and expression that establish that pecuniary awards should be conferred only when non-pecuniary remedies, including apology, rectification and clarification are insufficient.
Background:
Roy Ngerng maintains a blog called The Heart Truths to discuss social issues. Many of the posts on his blog advocate for more transparency in the management of the Central Provident Fund.
On 15 May 2014, Ngerng published the allegedly defamatory post on his blog. A few days later, he was asked by the Prime Minister’s lawyers to take down the post, apologize and make a written offer of damages and costs, which Ngerng did within the following five days.
Despite these actions, the Prime Minister proceeded to sue the blogger for defamation. Prime Minister Lee later applied to the High Court to enter interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed. The court ruled in his favor.
The hearing on the assessment of damages took place from 1-3 July 2015. At the end of the hearing, the High Court directed the parties to file written submissions to address issues that were raised during the three-day hearing.
In June 2015, the ICJ submitted a legal opinion to the High Court in support of certain aspects of the defendant’s position.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +668 4092 3575 ;
e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Dec 10, 2015 | News
The Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Thailand and the ICJ held an event at the German Residence in Bangkok to mark Human Rights Day.
In his welcome speech, the Ambassador, Peter Prügel, stressed the importance of the protection of universal human rights which are essential for peace, long-term stability and sustainable development worldwide and referred to Germany’s long-standing support of the ICJ and its partners in Thailand.
Angkhana Neelapaijit, newly appointed Commissioner of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission, respected human rights defender and victim of enforced disappearance then spoke about her new role and the human rights challenges currently facing Thailand.
A panel discussion on the prevailing human rights situation in Thailand then followed, which touched on a range of topics including the situation in deep South, community rights, migrants and refugees, the current legal framework, freedom of expression and assembly, the requirement to protect human rights defenders under international law and the upcoming Universal Periodic Review of Thailand by the Human Rights Council in 2016.
The panelists were:
- ICJ Commissioner, Professor Emeritus Vitit Muntarbhorn, Law Faculty, Chulalongkorn University;
- Sitthipong Chantarawirod, Chairperson of Muslim Attorney Centre Foundation;
- Pranom Somwong, Representative of Protection International Thailand;
- Somchai Homlaor, Chairperson of Cross Cultural Foundation; and
- Yaowalak Anuphan, Head of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.
Approximately 100 members of Thailand’s civil society, the diplomatic community, the National Human Rights Commission, affected communities, academia, the United Nations, and Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs attended the event.
