Maldives: arrest of judges and suspension of human rights a full attack on the rule of law, says the ICJ

Maldives: arrest of judges and suspension of human rights a full attack on the rule of law, says the ICJ

The ICJ today condemned the Maldivian Government’s assault on the Supreme Court and its judges and the suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency.

“President Yameen and his Government have dealt a grave blow to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in the Maldives,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.

“The actions by the government are a wildly unjustifiable and disproportionate response to the decision of the Supreme Court”, he added.

On 5 February, the Maldivian Government declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections.

The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.

The Government, however, refused to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment, which resulted in the outbreak of protests in the country.

The national defense forces also reportedly entered the premises of the Supreme Court and arrested at least two senior judges, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.

“Summarily suspending basic rights protections and arresting judges whose decisions the President disagrees with is itself a display of sweeping lawlessness in the country,” Seiderman said.

According to the President’s office, the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court order resulted in “disruption of the functions of the executive power, disruption of the functions of the state institutions…and infringement of national security and public interest.”

According to an unofficial translation of the emergency decree received by the ICJ, the constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; the right to privacy; and the right to obtain remedy from the courts.

Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures have also been suspended.

In addition, laws providing certain immunities to judges and the right of judges to be informed if any action is taken against them have also been suspended.

“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” Seiderman added.

The ICJ notes that international law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.

Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.

“Maldivian authorities have not even come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Seiderman said.

The ICJ urges the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court, implement the ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.

Contact

Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, T: +41 22 979 38 37 ; e: ian.seiderman@icj.org

Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org

Additional information

Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.

This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.

In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.

Cambodia: end efforts to introduce lèse-majesté law

Cambodia: end efforts to introduce lèse-majesté law

Cambodia should halt efforts to radically limit the right to freedom of expression through adoption of lèse-majesté legislation which would criminalize the exercise of some expression, said the ICJ today.

The Spokesperson for the Cambodian Council of Ministers, Phay Siphan, reportedly announced on Facebook today that the Council of Ministers had approved an amendment to the Cambodian Criminal Code which would make it a crime to insult the Cambodian King, carrying a penalty of one to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of two million Riel (USD 500) to ten million Riel (USD 2,500).

“The Cabinet’s approval of a lèse-majesté law appears to be a further attempt by the Government to ‘weaponize’ the country’s legislation against its perceived opponents,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.

“The Government’s ongoing misuse of the law is particularly concerning given the lack of independent and impartial judges to provide appropriate checks and balances on its power,” he added.

The ICJ has previously raised concerns about abuses arising from the lèse-majesté law in neighboring Thailand to curb freedom of expression.

Exercises of expression which are critical to a democratic society under the rule of law, including commenting on public policy and political questions, are sometimes stifled and punished under these laws.

The right to freedom of expression is protected under international law and should never be subject to criminal penalties, let alone imprisonment, which is a manifestly disproportionate penalty for the exercise of the fundamental right to free expression, the ICJ said.

Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org

Background

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State party, protects the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the “freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”

In its General Comment No. 34 on article 19, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), the body that monitors compliance of State parties with the ICCPR, expressed concern about the use of lèse-majesté laws and asserted that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” for defamation.

The HRC further clarified that “all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition” and that “laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned”.

In February 2017, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, urged Thailand to refrain from using the lèse-majesté law as a “political tool to stifle critical speech” and asserted that “(l)esè-majesté provisions have no place in a democratic country”.

The legislative amendments ratified by the Council of Ministers will now be sent to the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament of Cambodia, for approval.

Upon approval by Parliament, the amendments would come into force when signed by the King.

At the same time as approving a lèse-majesté law, the Council of Ministers reportedly approved other constitutional amendments which appear to impose impermissible restrictions on the rights to free association and freedom of assembly, also protected under the ICCPR.

These legislative amendments reportedly include provisions that (i) the right to vote or the right to stand as an election candidate can be restricted by domestic legislation, (ii) the right to form a political party would require “placing the nation’s interests first”, (iii) prohibit individuals from “undermining the interests of the nation” and (iv) allow Secretaries of the State to be appointed by Royal Decree rather than by Parliamentary vote.

Read also

ICJ’s October 2017 Report: Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia

UN Committee against Torture: ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission on Thailand

UN Committee against Torture: ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission on Thailand

Today, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).

The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

During its 63rd session, from 23 April to 18 May 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Thailand.

Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Thailand’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Second Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.

Thailand ratified the CAT in 2007. Following its review of Thailand’s initial report under CAT, the Committee adopted its Concluding Observations at its 52nd Session in May 2014.

The ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.

In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Thailand, including on the following pressing issues:

  • The fact that, since the coup d’ état of 22 May 2014, the constitutional and legal framework in force in Thailand has increased opportunities for legally-sanctioned impunity;
  • The failure to criminalize through the adoption of bespoke domestic legislation the crimes of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and enforced disappearance, consistent with the CAT and other relevant international law;
  • The failure to conduct investigations of credible allegations of enforced disappearances, as well as into credible reports of the widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in a prompt, effective, independent and impartial manner in numerous cases; and
  • Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.

Contact

Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org

Thailand-CAT Submission-Advocacy-non-legal submission-2017-ENG (Full submission in PDF)

THAILAND-CAT additional info-Advocacy-2018-ENG (additional information, updated in April 2018)

Translate »