May 9, 2016 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid must stay the execution of opposition political leader Motiur Rahman Nizami, said the ICJ today.
On 5 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh dismissed a petition by Motiur Rahman Nizami to review its previous decision confirming his death sentence.
He is now at imminent risk of execution.
“Bangladesh must stay this execution, and end its continued and unlawful use of the death penalty,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment.”
Motiur Rahman Nizami, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was found guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh, including genocide, torture, and the murder of intellectuals, and sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in October 2014.
The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and sentence on appeal earlier this year, following which Motiur Rahman Nizami filed his review petition.
Thus far, four individuals have been executed based on convictions by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid were executed in November 2015; Muhammad Kamaruzzaman was executed in April 2015; and Abdul Qader Mollah was executed in 2013. Several others have been sentenced to death.
“The perpetrators of the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence must be brought to justice and held to account for their crimes,” said Zarifi.
“However, another execution on the basis of a flawed trial that is inconsistent with international human rights standards undermines justice, and must be stopped,” he added.
Bangladesh is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges it to respect the right to a fair trial.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT are not in compliance with Bangladesh’s international legal obligations, and international standards for fair trials.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedural flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
Background information
In a statement on 8 April 2016, the UN Office of the High Commission of Human Rights reaffirmed that trials before the ICT in Bangladesh did not met international standards of fair trial and due process, and that the imposition of a death sentence in such circumstances constitutes a violation of the right to life.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that 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.
May 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned at the recent legal harassment of several Cambodian human rights defenders and perceived political opponents, which raises serious questions as to the impartiality of the investigators, prosecutors and judges involved.
The ICJ calls on the Government to immediately conduct an independent review of the decision to pursue these cases, to end the prosecution of those who have been charged if the allegations are found to be groundless or the proceedings to have been unlawful or abusive, to cease the use of judicial and prosecutorial processes to harass and intimidate human rights defenders and perceived political opponents, and to respect its international obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
“The decision to proceed with these cases should be subject to a careful and independent review and any charges that have resulted must be dropped if the allegations are found to be without merit or have been carried through unlawful or abusive procedures,” said Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia with the ICJ.
“The strong appearance of bias present in these cases flies in the face of the absolute right of all accused to have their case considered by independent and impartial prosecutors and judges at every stage of the process,” he added.
The different proceedings all stem from allegations centered on an alleged affair between Khom Chandaraty (also known as Srey Mom) and Kem Sokha, acting leader of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP).
After a voice recording appeared on social media, allegedly of a conversation between them, the Cambodian Counter-Terrorism Directorate of the Government’s Central Directorate for Security “invited” Srey Mom for questioning, which prompted her to seek human rights assistance from a leading Cambodian NGO, the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC).
On 11 March 2016, the Counter-Terrorism Directorate questioned Srey Mom. She denied the suggestions she had a relationship with Kem Sokha and that she was the female voice on the recording.
On 19 April 2016, after having met with ADHOC on a number of further occasions, Srey Mom was asked in a closed session with a prosecutor at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to answer allegations of having provided false testimony and of having engaged in prostitution.
On this occasion, Srey Mom admitted to a relationship with Kem Sokha.
On 22 April 2016, Srey Mom alleged in an open letter that ADHOC staff had attempted to persuade her to lie to the authorities.
On 2 May 2016, an Investigating Judge in Phnom Penh charged four staff members of ADHOC, Nay Vanda, Ny Sokha, Yi Soksan, and Lem Mony, with “bribery of a witness”.
A former staff member of ADHOC, Ny Chakrya, and a staff member of the Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Sally Soen, were also charged with being accomplices, notwithstanding Sally Soen’s immunity from prosecution under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
The allegation of bribery appears to relate to the fact that ADHOC reportedly provided Srey Mom with a small sum of money to cover food and transport costs, including to attend questioning by judicial authorities.
“While Cambodia has a positive legal duty under international law to protect human rights defenders from attacks arising out of their work, these proceedings appear to be aimed at intimidating and silencing Cambodian civil society and are the latest in a series of laws and actions directed against them,” said Abbott.
Last year, the Government passed the Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO), which Abbott stated would “severely restrict the ability of members of civil society to exercise their rights to freedom of association and expression which Cambodia has a duty to protect under its international obligations.” Abbott further stated that the Governments intention was to “…weaken the impact of NGOs, including human rights defenders.”
Under Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, States have an obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, including against any threats, pressure, retaliation or arbitrary action as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of their rights under the Declaration.
In other proceedings, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court summoned Kem Sokha to answer allegations of criminal defamation and two other members of the CNRP, Pin Ratana and Tok Vanchan, have been questioned about allegations of prostitution.
Political commentator, Ou Virak, has been summoned to appear in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court on 12 May 2016 to answer allegations of criminal defamation for expressing the view that the ruling Cambodian Peoples Party (CPP) was exploiting the alleged affair between Kem Sokha and Srey Mom.
On 24 April 2016, a CNRP commune chief, Seang Chet, was arrested and detained on charges of bribery after Srey Mom alleged Seang Chet had attempted to pay her mother US $500 to encourage her to deny the affair.
Read also:
Cambodia: the ICJ condemns Senate’s approval of draft Law on Associations and NGOs
Cambodia: approved NGO law poised to hobble the work of civil society
Cambodia: withdraw draft law on associations and non-governmental organizations – joint letter
Cambodia: ICJ and other rights groups urge end to NGO law
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Apr 18, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights provided a joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee for its consideration during the adoption of a list of issues for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
During its 117th Session, from 30 June to 25 July 2016, the Committee will prepare and adopt a List of Issues on Thailand.
These issues will be put to the Government of Thailand for formal response ahead of the Committee’s full examination of Thailand’s Second Periodic Report during the Committee’s 119th Session, the exact dates of which have yet to be confirmed but which is expected to take place in March 2017.
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ joint submission raises matters and suggests concrete questions to be put to the Government of Thailand concerning the following issues:
– Thailand’s derogation under Article 4 of the Covenant;
– Torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and custodial deaths in disputed circumstances; and
– Thailand’s new institutional and legal framework since the coup d’état, which severely restricts the exercise of Covenant rights within the country and in particular the recent introduction of the National Council for Peace and Order’s (NCPO) Head Order 13/2016, which grants members of the military wide-ranging law enforcement powers to ‘prevent and suppress’ 27 ‘crimes’, together with blanket immunity from prosecution.
THAILAND-JOINT ICJ TLHR HRC LOI SUBMISSION-Advocacy-non legal submission-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Apr 15, 2016 | News
The Nepal government should immediately stop all intimidation and harassment of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and its staff and respect its independence in line with international standards, the ICJ and other rights groups said today.
The attempts to intimidate the NHRC are a direct contradiction of the United Nation’s Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (the Paris Principles) as well as Nepal’s constitution, the ICJ Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said.
According to the commissioners and confirmed by independent media accounts, on April 3, 2016, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli summoned the National Human Rights Commission chair, Anup Raj Sharma, and other commissioners to question them about the NHRC’s statement delivered by Commissioner Mohna Ansari during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the human rights situation in Nepal before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March.
In its statement, the commission highlighted various ongoing human rights concerns, including discriminatory citizenship provisions in the new constitution, the continued failure to properly investigate alleged unlawful killings and excessive use of force during protests in the Terai region in 2015, violations of the economic, social, and cultural rights of earthquake victims (photo), and the need for credible transitional justice for conflict victims.
“As the principal independent constitutional body mandated to promote and protect human rights in the country, the NHRC plays a vital role in ensuring governmental accountability, and was well within its authority under both the Nepali Constitution and international standards when it delivered its submission to the UN Human Rights Council during the UPR,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“The PM’s blatant attempt to intimidate the NHRC members for that submission is a flagrant violation of the government’s basic obligation to ensure the NHRC’s ability to carry out its work independently and without undue interference,” he added.
While it is entirely appropriate for the prime minister, like other stakeholders, to consult with the NHRC, such exchanges should be conducted with due respect for the legitimate exercise of the institution’s constitutional mandate, independently and free of undue interference or intimidation, the rights organizations said.
NHRC members present at the meeting uniformly expressed the sentiment that Oli, through his aggressive questioning and reprimanding of the commissioners over the contents of certain sections of its submission, was trying to intimidate the commission and in particular Commissioner Ansari, at whom the questioning appeared exclusively directed.
“The line and manner of questioning, including insinuations of bias and a lack of neutrality, particularly those aimed at Commissioner Ansari, the public face of the NHRC in Geneva, revealed an intent not of clarification, but intimidation that seeks to limit the role and effectiveness of the NHRC,” said Champa Patel, director of the South Asia Regional Office at Amnesty International.
Based on media accounts, discussions between the commissioners and the prime minister reflected an apparent attempt by the prime minister to discredit the commission’s statement by portraying it as the personal views of Commissioner Ansari alone or those of a nongovernmental organization.
Sharma promptly rebutted this characterization in a public statement on April 10, clarifying that “the statement delivered by NHRC Spokesperson Ansari at the UPR session was that of the commission and not her own,” and that “[i]mpunity has affected the overall promotion and protection of human rights.”
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ICJ have consistently and repeatedly highlighted rights concerns similar to those the commission expressed in its UPR submission. The prime minister and government of Nepal should implement without delay the commission’s recommendations concerning discriminatory constitutional provisions, impunity for perpetrators of Terai violence on all sides, ensuring justice in the process of transition, and protecting the rights of earthquake victims.
The prime minister and the government of Nepal must publicly state that they will respect and guarantee the independence and integrity of the National Human Rights Commission, as the principal constitutionally mandated human rights body in the country, in accordance with international standards.
“The prime minister overstepped his authority, and his attempts to intimidate and intervene in the work of the NHRC contravene the Paris Principles, which clearly provide for the establishment of autonomous and independent institutions,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The prime minister seems unwilling to recognize that the NHRC acts independently and is not an arm of the executive, subject to governmental dictates.”
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser, t: +97-7-981-318-7821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director, t: +66-807-819-002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
The Paris Principles set out internationally agreed upon standards designed to guide the work of national human rights institutions in a credible, independent and, effective manner. Crucially, the Paris Principles define the role, composition, status, and functions of these bodies, which include engaging with the UN and regional institutions and states’ obligation to ensure their real independence through a broad mandate, adequate funding, and an inclusive and transparent appointment process.
Furthermore, the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders) reaffirms the right of human rights defenders and institutions to advocate for human rights at the national and international level, including by engaging with the UN and other intergovernmental organizations.
Apr 7, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government should reject a proposal to make the Attorney General automatically the chair of the Bar Council of Malaysia, the ICJ said today.
The Malaysian Bar must remain independent and the government should not entertain this or any other measure that would compromise this independence, the ICJ says.
Yesterday, during the debate session at the Dewan Rakyat (Lower House of the Malaysian Parliament), parliamentarian Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur suggested that the Attorney General should be automatically appointed as the chairman of the Bar Council of Malaysia.
Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur made the suggestion while criticizing the Bar Council for its role in demanding greater government accountability.
“This latest proposal is just the most recent attempt by the government to silence all opposition and to weaken the rule of law,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“First the government weakened the independence of the judiciary, and now it is going after the lawyers who are standing up for justice and accountability,” she added.
Responding to the suggestion, Law Minister Nancy Shukri said that the government will look into this, noting that amendments need to be made to the Legal Profession Act 1976 for this measure to be adopted.
“International standards on the independence of lawyers state very clearly that governments should not interfere with the work of professional associations of lawyers like the Malaysia Bar,” said Gil.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers stipulate that lawyers have the right “to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training, and protect their professional integrity,” the ICJ reminds.
Furthermore, the Basic Principles distinctly state that “the executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”
“An independent and self-regulated bar association is important to safeguard the professional interests and integrity of lawyers in Malaysia,” Gil said.
“It acquires specific importance especially now in Malaysia where there have been questions regarding the way justice is being administered in the country,” she added.
The Malaysia Bar is an essential agent in the administration of justice and hence, the lawyers belonging to it play a key role in supporting and calling for law and justice sector reform in the country, the ICJ further says.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background:
The Malaysia Bar passed a motion last month during its 70th Annual General Assembly calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali because he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.
Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.
According to the ICJ, the motion passed by the Malaysia Bar calling for the resignation of the Attorney General was within its mandate as an independent professional association of lawyers, seeking as it did to draw attention to how administration of justice is being jeopardized right now.
The UN Basic Principles specifically recognize the right of lawyers to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.
The UN Human Rights Council has unanimously affirmed that “an independent legal profession” is among the “essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice”. Such independence should be respected in all circumstances.
