Jul 27, 2016 | News
Thailand’s government should immediately stop allowing criminal defamation laws to be used to harass victims and human rights defenders who seek justice for alleged incidents of torture, the ICJ said today.
Yesterday, the government charged three human rights defenders (Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Somchai Homloar and Anchana Heemina, photo) under the criminal defamation provisions of the Penal Code and the Computer Crime Act, for publication of a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and other ill-treatment by the Thai authorities in the country’s restive deep South since 2004.
“Thailand must repeal or revise its vague and broad criminal defamation laws to prevent them from being used to silence human rights defenders and journalists working on important public interest issues,” said Wilder Tayler, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines under these laws has a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression – a right which is enshrined in treaties to which Thailand is a party and bound to uphold,” he added.
Also yesterday, the government used the same provisions to charge Naritsarawan Kaewnopparat, the niece of an army conscript who was killed after being severely punished by soldiers on a military base.
Although the Thai government has formally acknowledged that the death was caused by torture and compensated the family, none of the perpetrators have been held accountable for the death of Private Wichian Puaksom and have only faced military disciplinary sanctions of 30 days of detention or less, the ICJ reminds.
The case against Ms Kaewnopparat was brought by a military officer who alleges she accused him of being involved in her uncle’s death in the context of the family’s efforts to seek justice.
Last month, Thailand informed the Human Rights Council during its Universal Periodic Review that the Cabinet was considering a draft Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance.
It was reported that the Cabinet approved the draft law on 24 May 2016 and would forward it for approval to the National Legislative Assembly.
At the conclusion of the review, Thailand also adopted several recommendations to protect human rights defenders and investigate reported cases of intimidation, harassment and attacks against them.
“Prosecuting people who seek justice for alleged torture goes against the spirit of the proposed legislation,” Tayler said.
“Thai authorities have an obligation to investigate and ensure justice for incidents of torture, but instead they are harassing and intimidating those responsible for exposing these horrendous acts.”
On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 127 other states at the UN General Assembly in adopting a UN Resolution on human rights defenders.
The Resolution calls upon states to refrain from intimidation or reprisals against human rights defenders.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Thailand-HRDs defamation charges-News-Press releases-2016-ENG (full text of press release in English, PDF)
Thailand-HRDs defamation charges-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text of press release in Thai, PDF)
Jul 18, 2016 | News
Indian authorities must immediately, independently and thoroughly investigate all incidents of excessive, particularly lethal, use of force in Kashmir over the past week, the ICJ said today.
Indian security forces have an obligation to comply with Government commitments to avoid using excessive force to quell protests, and must be held to account for any violations.
Violent clashes between protesters and security forces broke out in Kashmir after a popular Kashmiri militant leader, Burhan Wani, was killed, along with his two associates, by security forces on 8 July.
More than 35 people have been killed, including one security officer, and over 2000 injured. In some areas, protestors threw stones and attacked police stations. Security forces used tear gas, pellet guns and firearms.
“Security forces must respect the right to life at all times, and only use force when strictly necessary and in a manner proportionate to the legitimate performance of their duties,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Director.
“The number of persons injured over the past week, as well as the nature of their injuries, indicates the urgent need for investigations. If security forces use any kind of weapon, they are governed by international standards that require force to be used as a last resort in self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and in a manner to minimize injuries,” he added.
Indian security forces began using pellet guns routinely after 2010 following heavy criticism of their misuse of firearms against protesters.
But during the recent protests, the use of pellet guns, considered non-lethal weapons by security forces, has resulted in serious and potentially permanent health consequences for persons affected, including eye injuries and organ damage, which have required urgent treatment.
A recent report has suggested that at least a 100 people have sustained eye injuries. Pellet guns have also injured non-protestors, including children.
“Indian authorities should stop the use of pellet guns until they can assess whether these weapons can be used in a manner that is consistent with human rights standards on the use of force, including whether they are inherently inaccurate, indiscriminate and arbitrary; and ensure that the use of all non-lethal weapons is strictly regulated, because they have the capacity to cause serious and permanent injury,” Zarifi said.
Hospitals in Kashmir are struggling to cope with the high number of patients. There have also been reports that security forces have stopped ambulances carrying injured people, and disrupted the functioning of hospitals.
“All allegations of excessive use of force and other unlawful behaviour by the security forces must be investigated immediately. At the same time, protesters who resort to violence or injure other people must also be properly investigated and brought to justice by proper trials,” he added.
“Security forces absolutely must not interfere with access to health care. In addition to prompt, independent and effective investigations on this, the Government must proactively ensure that all injured persons are able to safely access necessary and quality health care,” he added.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called on security forces in Kashmir to exercise “absolute restraint”.
The Chief Minister, Mehbooba Mufti, has committed to ensuring accountability in all cases where excessive force was used by security forces.
It is crucial that the Government follows through on this promise, and conducts thorough, independent and prompt investigations.
In the past, violations by security forces have largely enjoyed impunity in Kashmir for several reasons, including laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act that shield security forces from legal accountability for human rights violations.
For example, in 2010, clashes between protestors and security forces in Kashmir resulted in over 100 deaths. Very few, if any, of these have been credibly investigated to date.
Current events also cast doubt over whether the reforms introduced since have improved policing practices and made security forces more accountable.
The ICJ is therefore calling on Indian authorities to:
- Order that security forces desist from using excessive and unlawful force, comply with international human rights law, and only use force when strictly necessary and in a manner proportionate to the legitimate performance of their duty;
- Promptly, independently and effectively investigate all allegations of excessive and lethal uses of force by security forces, make the results of these investigations public, initiate prosecutions where appropriate, and ensure that all victims are provided with effective redress;
- Provide necessary and quality health care to injured persons, ensure they are able to access it, that hospitals are stocked and equipped to deal with the increased patient load, and that all allegations of security forces attacking ambulances and hospitals are immediately investigated.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
India-Kashmir statement-News-Press release-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Jul 18, 2016 | News
The Maldives must immediately commute the death sentence imposed on Hussain Humam Ahmed and reinstate the 60-year old moratorium on capital punishment with a view towards abolishing it in law, the ICJ said today.
The Maldives Supreme Court on 24 June 2016 upheld the death sentence of 22-year old Hussain Humam Ahmed, convicted in 2012 for the murder Afrasheem Ali, a Member of Parliament (MP).
The execution, which the Government has expressed its intention to carry out within thirty days of the ruling, would be the first in the country since 1953.
“The reintroduction of the death penalty after 60 years, even as an increasing majority of nations are moving towards its abolition, is a tremendous blow to the already weak human rights situation in the Maldives,” said Nikhil Narayan, the ICJ’s South Asia senior legal adviser.
“Maldivian authorities must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent executions and reinstate the moratorium as a first step towards getting rid of it outright,” he added.
On 7 July 2016, just two weeks after upholding Humam’s death sentence, the Supreme Court upheld a second death sentence, this one against Ahmed Murrath, a 32-year old convicted for the 2012 murder of Ahmed Najeeb, a prominent lawyer.
Hussain Humam was first arrested in October 2012 for the stabbing death of Afrasheem Ali, an MP for the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).
The trial, conviction and Supreme Court decision come even as the prosecutor’s office has admitted that the investigation into the murder is still ongoing.
The Supreme Court ruling also ignored a last-minute request by the victim’s family to delay enforcement of the death sentence until the conclusion of the investigation.
Human rights groups and independent observers have highlighted a number of fair trial and due process irregularities in Humam’s investigation and trial.
Humam’s conviction was based solely on his “confession” at a May 2013 hearing, after initially pleading not guilty.
Humam later retracted the confession and claimed that the police had obtained it through coercion.
“Proceeding with Humam’s execution on the basis of a deeply flawed trial, particularly in a context in which the Maldivian Supreme Court and criminal justice system are already under considerable criticism for their lack of independence, impartiality and failure to adhere to international fair trial and due process standards, would amount to a further violation of his rights to life and human dignity,” said Narayan.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life.
“The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment, which cannot be reversed once carried out, and neither serves the interests of justice for victims nor as a deterrent against future crimes,” Narayan added.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, on 30 June, the Maldivian Government amended regulations to enforce the death sentence by lethal injection.
The new regulations require the president to order Humam’s execution within three days of endorsement of the death sentence by a committee comprising of the chief prosecutor, the commissioner of prisons, and the chief justice.
The execution must then be carried out within seven days of the president’s order. The president may then only halt the execution on a direct plea from the victim’s family.
President Yameen’s administration has maintained its resolve to implement the death sentence within thirty days of the 24 June Supreme Court ruling.
The Maldives must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent execution, reinstitute the moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards its eventual abolition in law and practice, the ICJ says.
Background:
The ICJ has previously detailed the human rights crisis in the Maldives, and the deep politicization of the Maldivian judiciary and criminal justice system, in its August 2015 fact-finding report.
The Maldives is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges the Maldives to respect the rights to life, human dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to a fair trial.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-3187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org.
Jul 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ deplores the killing of Kem Ley, an outspoken human rights defender, political analyst and organizer of grassroots community activists, and calls on the Government to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation to identify and bring to justice those responsible.
Shortly after the killing, Cambodian police arrested a suspect approximately two kilometers from the crime scene who “confessed” on a leaked video to killing Kem Ley for failing to repay a personal loan.
“Kem Ley, a prominent political commentator and human rights defender, was killed against a backdrop of escalating attacks on civil society and the political opposition,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser.
“In the context of Cambodia’s long history of impunity in cases of allegedly politically motivated killings, and even though a suspect is already in custody, the authorities must continue the investigation in a transparent and methodical manner until all potential lines of inquiry have been exhausted,” he added.
There are already concerns about certain events that took place immediately after the killing which may have harmed the investigation.
For example, shortly after news spread of Kem Ley’s death, the authorities observed a large crowd gather in and around the courtyard of the petrol station in which he was killed, potentially compromising important sources of evidence from this wider area and the vehicles within it.
The large gathering effectively served to block medical vehicles from removing Kem Ley’s body from the scene, which may have prevented a forensic autopsy from taking place.
Later the same afternoon a large procession accompanied his body from the crime scene through the streets of Phnom Penh to Wat Chas pagoda, where his body remains lying in wake.
“Where it lacks capacity, Cambodia should seek technical assistance from States and international organizations particularly in the specialized areas of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and telecommunication data analysis which may assist in establishing the identification and movements of the perpetrator and whether he or she acted alone or with others,” Abbott said.
The ICJ calls on the Cambodian authorities to:
1. Ensure that the investigating judge and investigators are – and are seen to be – impartial and independent of undue influence, and are free to perform their professional functions objectively without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
2. Ensure that the investigation process and its outcome are transparent and open to scrutiny by the victims and the general public.
3. Protect the rights of the victims including by ensuring Kem Ley’s family:
- receive regular information about the progress of the investigation and their rights;
- receive all necessary support and assistance; and
- are protected from any ill-treatment, intimidation, or sanction as a result of their participation in the investigation.
4. Protect anyone who provides information to the authorities from ill-treatment, intimidation or sanction.
5. Actively seek out and accept offers of assistance from States and international organizations including in the areas of:
- the analysis of any CCTV and telecommunication data; and
- the forensic examination of Kem Ley’s body, crime scenes and vehicles.
Background
At approximately 0830 on 10 July 2016, Kem Ley was shot and killed at a petrol station cafe on Phnom Penh’s Monivong Boulevard. Shortly afterwards, the authorities apprehended a man nearby in connection with the killing who identified himself as “Chuob Samlab”.
On a leaked video, the man reportedly “confessed” to the killing claiming he shot Kem Ley over a debt the political commentator allegedly owed him, a fact reportedly disputed by Kem Ley’s widow and the suspect’s wife.
Under Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders against any violence, threats, and retaliation.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 12, 2016 | News
The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision reiterating the importance of accountability for human rights violations by police and security forces, in particular where unnecessary or excessive force is alleged to have been used, is a welcome step and must be immediately implemented.
In the case of EEVFAM v Union of India, petitioners alleged that 1,528 killings by the police and security forces in the Indian state of Manipur had amounted to unlawful extrajudicial executions. Manipur is the site of a long-running armed insurgency.
In 2013, a court-appointed commission – the Santosh Hegde Commission – conducted an inquiry into six of the cases mentioned in the petition, and found all the six killings to be unlawful.
“This judgment is a strong signal from the Court that human rights violations by security forces will not be tolerated in the name of national security or anti-terror policies,” said Sam Zarifi, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Asia Director.
“It’s crucial for the government now to follow through on this ruling to bring the families of the victims of these and other extra judicial executions mentioned in this petition closer to truth, justice and accountability”.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use force, to cause death.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court, thus effectively shielding armed forces from accountability for human rights violations.
“These, and other allegations, of human rights violations under the AFSPA only reiterate the urgent need to repeal this draconian and undemocratic law,” Zarifi said. “The allegations in this case are evidence of the culture of impunity that the AFSPA has perpetuated”.
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court made some welcome observations:
- It emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, reiterating the principles laid down in previous landmark cases. It said “every death caused by the armed forces, including in the disturbed area of Manipur should be thoroughly enquired into if there is a complaint or allegation of abuse or misuse of power”.
- It dismissed the government’s argument that legal safeguards would not fully apply to anyone considered an “enemy” under Indian law. The Court held that at least all Indian citizens were equally entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, stating “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger”.
- It noted that it did not have sufficient information about each of the 1,528 cases mentioned in the petition. It has directed parties to present detailed information about the status of each case.
“This judgment references India’s obligations under international human rights law, which requires the government to respect and protect the right to life and ensure access to effective remedies,” Zarifi said. “Accountability for all human rights violations is a key aspect of these rights”.
The ICJ called for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all the cases mentioned in the petition, in line with international standards.
It said that persons responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials in civilian courts, and the family of victims should be accorded an effective remedy and reparation for any violations.
The ICJ will continue to follow the case, which will continue in four weeks. Several key issues remain to be addressed, which the court will look at in subsequent hearings.
First, how should the specific cases be investigated? The petitioners have asked for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to investigate the allegations, to ensure that the enquiry is fair, independent and thorough.
Second, in what forum should trials take place? The Indian Army Act allows for army personnel on active duty to be tried by a court martial (military court) instead of a civilian court for all offences, including gross human rights violations.
International standards call for military personnel accused of gross human rights violations to be put on trial before a civilian court. The Court has left this question open for the allegations in the present petition, stating: “The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court”.
Third, the Court will also consider the efficacy of the National Human Rights Commission; in particular whether its guidelines are binding or only advisory. Under Indian law, the NHRC has limited jurisdiction where human rights violations by the armed forces are concerned.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e:sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
