Apr 3, 2018 | News
The secret military trials of civilians charged with terrorism-related offences are a continuing breach of Pakistan’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences on 7 January 2015 by the 21st amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
One year ago, on 31 March 2017, President Mamnoon Hussain signed into law the 23rd amendment to the Constitution to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians until 6 January 2019.
“The renewal of military trials for civilians accused of terrorism last year has only weakened the rule of law, and undermined the right to fair trial and equality before the law in Pakistan,” said Matt Pollard, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser.
“Pakistan should end the role of military courts in such cases, and instead strengthen the ability of ordinary courts and law enforcement to ensure investigations and trials that are both fair and effective, in line with its domestic law and international human rights obligations,” he added.
According to the military’s media office and information collected by the ICJ, military courts have convicted 346 people since January 2015, out of which 196 people have been sentenced to death and 150 people have been given prison sentences.
At least 56 people have been hanged. Only one person has been acquitted.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Such use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international fair trial standards, and the imposition of the death penalty after such trials violates the right to life.
Families of more than a hundred people convicted by military courts have alleged the convicts were denied a right to a fair trial in petitions to the Supreme Court and various high courts in the country.
Despite acknowledging possible denial of fair trial, the ordinary courts have thus far refused to provide relief to the petitioners due to their lack of jurisdiction over military courts.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals through the amendments to the Constitution and the Pakistan Army Act were a part of the Pakistani government’s 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014.
The NAP contemplated military courts only as a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, on the basis that they would be operational only for a short period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
However, with less than a year left before the extension under the 23rd Constitutional Amendment is set to expire, no such reforms have taken place.
Contact
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative (Geneva); e: matt.pollard@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Background
The 23rd constitutional amendment allows military tribunals to try civilians who allegedly belong to “a terrorist group or organization misusing the name of religion or a sect” and are suspected of committing a number of offences, including: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury or death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
In July 2017, in its Concluding Observations after Pakistan’s first periodic review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it was concerned by the extension of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and allegations of fair trial violations in military courts’ proceedings.
The Human Rights Committee recommended that Pakistan “review the legislation relating to the military courts with a view to abrogating their jurisdiction over civilians and their authority to impose the death penalty” and “reform the military courts to bring their proceedings into full conformity with articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant in order to ensure a fair trial.”
Mar 27, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
On 27 March 2018, the ICJ, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) made a joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Thailand’s implementation of the Committee’s prioritized recommendations.
On 23 March 2017, during its 119th Session, the Human Rights Committee adopted its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand under article 40 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pursuant to its rules of procedure, the Committee requested Thailand to provide a follow up report on its implementation of the Committee’s recommendations made in paragraphs 8 (constitution and legal framework) 22 (extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture) and 34 (conditions of detention) of its concluding observations by 23 March 2018. To date, the Thai authorities are yet to file their follow-up report with the Committee.
In their joint submission to the Human Rights Committee, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF detailed their concerns in relation to Thailand’s failure to implement the Committee’s recommendations in paragraphs 8 and 22 of its concluding observations. The three organizations’ submission focuses on their concerns arising from the following:
Constitution and legal framework
- Orders by the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (‘HNCPO’); and
- Escalation in use of HNCPO Order No. 3/2558 to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture
- Allegations of widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment;
- Incommunicado detention;
- Southern Border Provinces; and
- Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, ill–treatment and enforced disappearance.
Read also
ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand_Joint-Follow-up-Human-Rights-Committee-Submission-march-2018 (Full submission in ENG, PDF)
Thailand-Follow up HRC-Advocacy-Non legal submission-2018-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Mar 27, 2018 | News
The ICJ and Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) today urged Malaysia’s Parliament not to pass the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018.
The two organizations are concerned that the bill will unduly limit freedom of opinion or expression in Malaysia, and could be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government.
“The bill is flawed in its design and will be open to abuse by the Malaysian government which maintains a poor track record in upholding freedom of expression,” said Sevan Doraisamy, SUARAM’s Executive Director.
“The term ‘fake news’ is in itself problematic. It is defined in an overbroad manner in the draft law, and therefore vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“Given past experience in Malaysia, it is highly likely to be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government on matters of opinion or where the facts are contested,” she added.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The bill makes no provision for exceptions or defences such as honest mistake, parody, artistic merit, or public interest. The bill would allow up to ten years imprisonment.
“The penalties are wildly disproportionate,” said Gil. “Indeed, under international standards, imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for such offences.”
On 3 March 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, together with his counterparts from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), issued a joint declaration on ‘fake news’, disinformation, and propaganda.
The joint declaration emphasized that “the human right to impart information and ideas is not limited to ‘correct’ statements, that the right to also protects information and ideas that may shock, offend and disturb.”
It also said that “general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including ‘false news’ or ‘non-objective information’ are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression.”
The ICJ and SUARAM also note that the timing and the lack of transparent consultation on how it was developed raise concerns about the government’s motivation behind the introduction of this bill.
The bill has been introduced during the final days of Parliament sitting and is expected to be voted on within this week, leaving little time for deliberation or consultation.
“Allowing this bill to be passed would only serve as an affront to democratic values. It will be another strike on Malaysia’s already shoddy human rights record,” Doraisamy said.
“Adopting a law that would unduly limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression is not the optimal way to counter disinformation and propaganda,” said Gil.
“The best way is to disseminate accurate information and to make such information accessible to everyone,” she added.
The ICJ and SUARAM strongly urge the Malaysian parliament not to pass the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 and uphold the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the country.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of ICJ, t: + 662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 has been tabled for first reading at the Malaysian Parliament on 26 March 2018 and may be voted on this week or early next week.
The bill defines ‘fake news’, without any defences or exceptions, as including “any news, information, data and reports” which are “wholly or partly false”.
Furthermore, the bill states that ‘fake news’ may be “in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.”
If passed, any person may be subject to a penalty of up to ten (10) years imprisonment and/or a fine amounting to MYR 500,000 (approximately USD 127,681) if convicted of knowingly creating, offering, publishing, printing, distributing, circulating, or disseminating any ‘fake news’ or publication of ‘fake news’.
The bill also seeks to penalize both Malaysians and foreigners alike, even if they are outside of Malaysia, as long as the fake news concerns Malaysia or a Malaysian citizen.
Mar 27, 2018 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ testified before the Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights on the human rights and rule of law crisis in Cambodia.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, addressed the Subcommittee on two key issues:
- The misuse of the law in Cambodia under the pretext of the “Rule of Law”; and
- The lack of an independent and impartial judiciary.
Other witnesses were former members of the Cambodian Parliament for the main opposition party, the CNRP, before its dissolution in November 2017, Mu Sochua and Kong Sophea.
Kingsley Abbott also requested that the ICJ’s October 2017 Baseline Study on the state of the rule of law and human rights in Cambodia be added to the record.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-SDIR-Statement-ABBOTT-Advocacy-2018-ENG (Full opening statement ENG, PDF)
Mar 23, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, reflecting on the 37th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement was delivered by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of:
- The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (DefendDefenders)
- The Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
- CIVICUS
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights Leagues
- Conectas Direitos Humanos
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Amnesty International
- International Lesbian and Gay Association
- Human Rights Watch
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).
The statement read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud for lack of time):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in reaffirming that all approaches to development must comply with the State’s international human rights obligations.
We agree that “cooperation and dialogue” are important for the promotion and protection of human rights, and that States should fully cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms, and ensure that all stakeholders are able to cooperate and engage with them without fear of reprisals.
However, we must now be vigilant to ensure that the resolution on Mutually Beneficial Cooperation, lacking in balance, does not undermine other important parts of the Council’s mandate: to address human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies in specific countries.
The Council has failed to take meaningful action to address the alarming situation on the ground in Cambodia. We welcome and echo the joint statement on Cambodia by over 40 states calling for further action if the situation does not improve in the lead up to the elections and for a briefing by the High Commissioner before the next Council session. We are concerned by Cambodia’s attempt to shut down criticism under item 10 debate on the worsening human rights situation in the country, as they are doing domestically.
We are disappointed by the weak outcome on Libya. Given the gravity of the human rights situation on the ground and the lack of accountability for crimes under international law, the Council cannot justify the lack of a dedicated monitoring and reporting mechanism.
We welcome the co-sponsorship of the Myanmar resolution by groups of States from all regions, making a joint commitment to address the continuing human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the country and support for the Special Rapporteur and Fact-Finding Mission to fulfil its mandate to establish truth and ensure accountability for perpetrators.
We also welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan allowing it to continue its vital investigations and identification of perpetrators. These developments acknowledge the importance of accountability for serious human rights violations and crimes under international law, which cannot be understated.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on drugs and human rights as the OHCHR report will provide human rights indicators related to the drug issue that would help in future policies.
We welcome the resolution on Eastern Ghouta adopted after an urgent debate, demonstrating how this Council can respond in an agile manner to crises.
Having long supported the resolution on “protection of human rights while countering terrorism”, we appreciate the efforts that led to the end of the separate and deeply flawed initiative on “effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights“. Future versions of the resolution must address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.
We welcome the Dutch-led joint statement on strengthening the Council, emphasising the importance of substantive civil society participation in any initiative or process and that the Council must be accessible, effective and protective for human rights defenders and rights holders on the ground.
Finally, we call on the Bureau co-facilitators on improving the efficiency and strengthening the Council to closely engage with all Members and Observers of the Council, human rights defenders and civil society organisations not based in Geneva.”
