Apr 6, 2016 | News
Newly appointed Myanmar Attorney General U Tun Tun Oo must commit to strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country, said the ICJ today.
U Tun Tun Oo (photo) has been one of the Deputy Attorney-Generals in the Union Attorney General’s Office since 2006.
“U Tun Tun Oo is taking over a post that is Myanmar’s most powerful legal officer. He plays a complex role, at once a member of the Executive, adviser to the President and the Hluttaw, the authority drafting and amending laws,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “As an immediate matter, he should review all political cases and stop the harassment of human rights defenders.”
The Attorney General represents the government in judicial proceedings and advises the cabinet on the legality of its actions.
He also leads Prosecutors in the country, and thus has the authority to select, initiate and undertake investigations into criminal and politically sensitive cases.
The Attorney General is also the president of the country’s only officially recognized Bar Association.
The Attorney General is, in effect, the minister of justice, and as such has controlled much of the work of the judiciary, too.
The Union Attorney General’s Office has historically followed the interests of the military and impeded an independent judiciary, the ICJ notes.
It has been criticized for failing to tackle major problems such as corruption and human rights abuses while continuing to prosecute human rights defenders and political opponents.
“Within the Union Attorney General’s Office, prosecutors must act with integrity in an independent, impartial and objective manner and in the protection of the public interest”, said Zarifi.
“Prosecutors must exercise sound discretion in the performance of their functions. They must seek justice, without fear of favour, not merely convict.”
“The Attorney-General’s Office must not shy away from prosecutions that will combat impunity,” he added.
The Union Attorney General’s Office launched its Strategic Plan for 2015-2019, establishing important benchmarks for measuring the institution’s development.
The Strategic Plan acknowledges the public’s low confidence in the office and commits the office to the rule of law, human rights, fair trials, prosecutorial ethics and accountability, in accordance with international standards.
“The Union Attorney General’s Office must investigate and prosecute criminal offences, including gross human rights violations and abuses, with impartiality. The Union Attorney General’s Office must be free from unwarranted interference from the legislative and the executive branches of government. Likewise, it must not interfere with judges or lawyers in an independent judiciary,” Zarifi said.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, t: +95(0)9250800301; e: vani.sathisan@icj.org
Additional information:
Under international standards, prosecutors are required to “respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights” and “give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law.” These principles are set out in the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors.
An exposition and analysis of international law and standards are available in English and Myanmar language in the ICJ’s authoritative Practitioners’ Guide on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
Apr 5, 2016 | News
Thailand must immediately revoke National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 13/2016 which confers sweeping powers on the Royal Thai Armed Forces in contravention of human rights and the rule of law, said today the ICJ and other human rights groups.
On 29 March 2016, pursuant to Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Head of the NCPO, issued Order 13/2016 which provides appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons.
“The implementation of Order 13/2016 will almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and the rule of law and must be revoked immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“We have observed a steady erosion of human rights protections in Thailand since the military coup of 22 May 2014 and this Order signifies another, jarring, movement in the same direction,” he added.
The Order raises numerous human rights concerns say the ICJ, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), and Fortify Rights (FR). These concerns include:
1. Grants a form of immunity from prosecution to those acting under the Order, leading to impunity contrary to the principle of accountability required by the rule of law.
“Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic rule, the Thai junta has broadened its powers to do almost anything it wants, including committing abuses with total impunity,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Repression becomes a daily reality as Thailand descends further into military dictatorship.”
2. Actions taken under the Order are not subject to judicial review, contrary to the rights to effective remedy, to judicial control of deprivation of liberty, and to a fair trial, as for instance recognized under Articles 2, 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The Order is yet another example of the pernicious removal of powers from the judicial system to review the military’s actions, to the detriment of rights protection and the rule of law,” said Champa Patel, Interim Director, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Amnesty International.
3. Provides untrained military officials with broadly and ambiguously worded powers of law enforcement likely to lead to abuse, inconsistent with human rights standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
“The Order provides law enforcement powers to military officials who do not have law enforcement experience or protocols to summon, search, and arrest persons,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.
“This makes the absence of judicial oversight all the more concerning. The fact that this may lead to an abuse of power and the disproportionate use of force by military officials in violation of international laws and standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is very worrying. There is a real risk the Order may be used to restrict the legitimate rights of people such as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” she added.
4. Authorizes the deprivation of liberty of persons for up to seven days in unrecognized places of detention, without judicial oversight, which increases the risk of further human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearance.
“Despite its pretense to suppress criminal activities, this Order is likely to result in the commission of very serious crimes that are prohibited under human rights instruments that Thailand has either signed or ratified,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.
5. In practice, the Order is open to abuse to repress and silence those perceived as dissenters, including human rights defenders, in violation of international human rights law and standards.
“This Order stands to fuel the fire of retaliation against human rights defenders in Thailand,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Thailand has an obligation to protect human rights defenders, but this Order could easily be used to target and obstruct their legitimate work.”
Contact
Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +41 (0) 229793800 ; e: wilder.tayler(a)icj.org
Thailand-NCPO Order-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text, in PDF, Thai version)
Thailand-NCPO Order unof trsl-Advocacy-2016-ENG (unofficial translation of the Order, PDF)
Apr 5, 2016 | News
The Court of Appeal’s decision to lift the stay of execution of Kho Jabing is a serious blow to human rights in Singapore, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to grant Kho Jabing clemency and immediately impose a moratorium on executions, with a view towards abolishing the death penalty in the near future.
“The death penalty is never justifiable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “If Singapore goes through with the execution of Kho Jabing, it will go against the growing international consensus to abolish the death penalty.”
Currently, 117 member states of the United Nations support the General Assembly resolution passed in December 2014 calling for an international moratorium on the use of death penalty, the ICJ reminds.
The Geneva-based organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and considers the imposition of the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The ICJ has received information that there are nine other individuals currently on death row in Singapore.
Authorities have not yet released the date of Kho Jabing’s execution.
The lawyers of Kho Jabing will be filing a petition for clemency in the next few days.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to halt the imminent execution of Kho Jabing, grant the petition for clemency and commute his death sentence.
Background
Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Singapore in 2010. After amendments were made in 2012 on the laws on the death penalty in Singapore, Kho Jabing was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The prosecution, however, appealed the re-sentencing and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal.
The court rejected his application for clemency in October 2015. On 23 November 2015, he was granted a temporary reprieve pending the outcome of a petition filed by his lawyers, which raised questions of fact and law.
The decision of the Court of Appeal this morning lifted the temporary reprieve and upheld its decision to impose the death penalty on Kho Jabing.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 31, 2016 | News
A Delhi Court acquitted human rights defender Irom Sharmila of an “attempt to commit suicide” charge. The government of Manipur must in turn immediately drop the charges against her, said the ICJ today.
Irom Sharmila, was charged under section 309 the Indian Penal Code.
She has been on a continuous hunger strike for over 15 years, demanding repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
“This order is a welcome recognition that Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike is a form of peaceful dissent and protest protected by the right to freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
This week, Iron Sharmila was acquitted of the charges against her in Delhi. The case against her in Manipur is, however, still on-going.
The decision of the Delhi court is not binding on the courts in Manipur, but the charges are analogous, and similar reasoning should prevail, the ICJ says.
“The government of Manipur should drop the other charges under section 309 against her, and release her immediately and unconditionally,” said Zarifi.
On at least two occasions previously, courts in Manipur have directed that Irom Sharmila be released, saying that charges under section 309 were not applicable.
“The use of section 309 against Sharmila highlights the outdated and absurd nature of this law,” Zarifi said.
“The government should expedite the repeal of 309 and, instead of criminalizing Irom Sharmila’s protest, focus on the reason behind it and repeal the AFSPA,” he added.
The AFSPA gives armed forces a range of “special powers” in “disturbed areas”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”.
Furthermore, 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.
These provisions are inconsistent with a range of human rights, including the right to life and right to remedy.
They have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances in areas where operational, the ICJ notes.
“This law is inconsistent with India’s human rights obligations, and has led to human rights violations, wide-spread impunity, and immense grief and suffering in the areas where it operates”, Zarifi said.
“It is high time that it was taken off the books”.
Background
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
She was arrested by the Manipur government in 2000 under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits an “attempt to commit suicide”.
Irom Sharmila has been in custody almost continuously since her initial arrest, and has continued her hunger strike.
She is fed through a nasal tube at the Jawaharlal Nehru hospital in Imphal where she is usually held.
The Delhi government also charged her on similar grounds with respect to an incident from 2006, when she held a protest in their jurisdiction.
In 2014, a Manipur court quashed charges under section 309 against Irom Sharmila, saying “The agitation of Irom Chanu Sharmila is a political demand through lawful means of repealing a valid statute. … she may continue with the fast till her demand is met politically by the Government”.
However, since she continued her hunger strike, she was immediately re-arrested on the same grounds.
In its 210th report, the Indian Law Commission has recommended that section 309 be repealed. In 2011, the Supreme Court said: “the time has come when [section 309] should be deleted by Parliament as it has become anachronistic.”
In 2014, the government announced that it was in the process of repealing 309.
The AFSPA applies to “disturbed areas” in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
An almost identical law is also applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
Mar 30, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must immediately halt the politically motivated sedition investigation launched by the police against members of the Malaysian Bar who had called for the Attorney General’s resignation, the ICJ said today.
“The Malaysian authorities are using the archaic, colonial Sedition Act to harass and silence lawyers who are demanding that the country’s legal authorities observe international standards of propriety and independence,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“This latest misuse of the Sedition Act constitutes a brazen political attack on the independence of the country’s lawyers,” she added.
On 29 March 2016, lawyers Charles Hector, Francis Pereira, and Shanmugam Ramasamy, received letters from police authorities summoning them to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters on 31 March 2016 for the purpose of taking down their statements regarding a complaint filed against them under the Sedition Act (1948).
The three had proposed a motion during the Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Assembly, calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali. The motion was passed by a majority vote.
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, was also notified that her statement would likewise be taken but she was not summoned to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali after 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.
“In 2012, Prime Minister Razak had promised to repeal the Sedition Act, but since then his government has increasingly relied on the law’s impermissibly vague and broad language as a useful tool of repression,” Gil said.
International standards highlight that protecting the independence of lawyers and their professional associations is essential for upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, the ICJ says.
“This police investigation is clearly designed to challenge that independence,” Gil said.
“The Malaysian Bar has been one of the few institutions consistently defending the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia, and it is crucial to maintain the ability of its members to engage critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” she added.
The ICJ urges the Malaysian government to repeal the archaic Sedition Act 1948 and fulfill the commitment it made in 2012 to abolish it.
Unless repealed or considerably revised so that it will be consistent with international law, the Sedition Act 1948 will continue to unduly limit and repress the freedom of expression, not only of lawyers and human rights defenders, but of all Malaysians exercising their fundamental rights, the ICJ says.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Like other citizens, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. Lawyers have the right to take part in the public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights (Principle 23).
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity (Principle 24).
Governments should ensure that these professional associations are able to function without improper interference (Principle 25).
In its 2016 resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously affirmed that “the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the integrity of the judicial system and an independent legal profession are 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, and should therefore be respected in all circumstances” (Resolution 30/7, 1 October 2015).
Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
