Mar 9, 2016 | News
The recent decision of the Thai Supreme Court in the case of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit demonstrates Thailand must urgently ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and enact domestic laws consistent with the Treaty, said the ICJ today.
On 29 December 2015, the Supreme Court of Thailand upheld the acquittals of five police officers charged with gang-robbery and coercion. These charges related to Somchai’s abduction and the taking of his property.
The authorities have blamed the failure to charge anyone to date with Somchai’s actual enforced disappearance or presumed death, in part, on the absence of physical remains.
The Supreme Court further held that Somchai Neelapaijit’s wife, Angkhana Neelapaijit, and his children could not participate in the proceedings as plaintiffs as, under Thai law, it had to be shown that Somchai Neelapaijit was either injured or killed such that he could not represent himself.
The Court reasoned that this was not the case as “it is not currently known whether or not Mr. Somchai is alive” and the accused had only been charged with gang-robbery and coercion.
“The Supreme Court decision does not in any way end Somchai’s case,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The Thai government is obliged to seek and provide truth and justice for Somchai and his family,” he added.
The Department of Special Investigations (DSI), often described as the FBI of Thailand, has been conducting an ongoing investigation into Somchai Neelapaijit’s fate or whereabouts since 2005.
“The glacial pace of the DSI’s investigation and unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court after all these years is heart-breaking,” said Zarifi.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
“But to do its ‘utmost’ to resolve this case, Thailand must take urgent and concrete steps to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and pass domestic laws that retrospectively recognize enforced disappearance as a distinct offence and the full rights of victims, including family members,” Zarifi added.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill, which, in a draft seen by the ICJ, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, t: +66807819002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Additional information
Angkhana Neelapaijit, now Commissioner of the Thai Human Rights Commission, told the ICJ: “The decision of the Supreme Court acquitting the five accused and denying my children and me the right to participate in the proceedings shows that victims of enforced disappearance have nowhere to turn to obtain justice in Thailand. It is clear that nothing will change until Thailand urgently ratifies the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and amends its laws to ensure the rights of victims are upheld.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012. Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention, which among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Forthcoming event
On 11 March 2016, the ICJ, together with Amnesty International (Thailand), Human Rights Watch, and the Justice for Peace Foundation will hold “a discussion on enforced disappearance in Thailand focusing on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Somchai Neelapaijit’s case and the draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill” to mark the 12-year anniversary since Somchai Neelapaijit “disappeared” on 12 March 2004.
Date: 11 March 2016
Time: 10.00am -12.00pm
Location: The Sukosol Hotel, room Kamolthip 3, Sriayutthaya Road, Bangkok
The speakers will be:
- Angkhana Neelapaijit
- Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Advisor, the International Commission of Jurists
- Sunai Phasuk, Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch
- Laurent Meillan, Acting Representative, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office for South-East Asia
- A representative from the Department of Rights and Liberty Protection, Ministry of Justice
Related readings
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
On 11 December 2015, the ICJ published an English version of its Practitioners Guide “Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction”, originally published in Spanish in March 2015.
Thailand-Somchai disap anniversary 2016-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 4, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement on the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia, for today’s interactive dialogue at the Human Rights Council with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The statement could not be delivered in the limited time available for civil society statements; its text is set out below:
ICJ Oral Statement in the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mr. Michel Forst
SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN MALAYSIA
3 March 2016
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The work of human rights defenders is particularly under challenge in States where governments have conferred on themselves sweeping powers to restrict human rights on grounds of national security. One example, as reflected in the Special Rapporteur’s “Observations on communications” (UN Doc A/HRC/31/55/Add.1), is the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia.
The ICJ welcomes the Attorney General’s decision to drop sedition charges against law lecturer Dr. Azmi Sharom; however, the Sedition Act and the Peaceful Assembly Act are still being abused to harass human rights defenders and others. Most recently, the High Court of Malaysia sentenced activist Hishamuddin Rais to nine months in jail for sedition, for calling for peaceful protest against the results of the 2013 general election on the basis that it was not transparent. Maria Chin Abdullah and Jannie Lasimbang, organizers of the Bersih 4.0 peaceful assembly calling for good governance, were charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act for allegedly omitting to inform the police about the assembly. There have reportedly been at least 91 cases of arrests, charges or investigations for sedition during 2015, and more than 30 cases of arrests under the Peaceful Assembly Act since 2013. Most, if not all, of these people are human rights defenders, including Eric Paulsen, the Director of Lawyers for Liberty, Adam Adli, a human rights activist, and Mandeep Singh, the Secretariat Manager of Bersih.
Unless repealed or drastically revised, these laws will continue to facilitate sweeping and arbitrary repression of freedoms of expression, assembly and association of human rights defenders, under the flag of national security. This contravenes the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and numerous other resolutions of the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, including General Assembly resolution 70/161, adopted by the General Assembly in December with Malaysia voting in favor. Among other things, resolution 70/161 urged States ensure that human rights defenders are able to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, which are essential for the promotion and protection of human rights; and it emphasized that national security measures must not hinder the work and safety of individuals engaged in promoting and defending human rights.
In this context, the ICJ would like to ask the Special Rapporteur to comment on the obligations of governments to repeal or amend legislation that allows for abusive arrest or prosecution of human rights defenders on grounds such as “national security”, “sedition” or for not giving prior notice of assemblies.”
Feb 19, 2016 | News
The ongoing incommunicado detention of human rights defenders Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà must end, said today seven human rights groups, including the ICJ. It violates their right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All charges against Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà, should be withdrawn and they should be immediately and unconditionally released, the organizations added.
An incommunicado detention is one in which a detainee is held without access to the outside world, particularly to family, lawyers, courts and independent doctors. The practice of incommunicado detention violates key rights of persons deprived of liberty and facilitates torture and other ill-treatment. Prolonged periods of incommunicado detention can themselves constitute a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment.
Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà were arrested on 16 December 2015 and charged under Article 88 of the Penal Code, ‘Conducting propaganda against the state’. All efforts by family and legal counsel to visit the pair since their arrests have been denied.
Vietnam-Release prisoners-News-webstory-2016-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Feb 12, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council as a response to the latest report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
The written submission recognized the Special Rapporteur’s active participation in the Regional Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief in Southeast Asia, organized by the ICJ in collaboration with the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Boat People-SOS (BPSOS) in Bangkok, Thailand from 30 September to 1 October 2015.
It also highlighted the adoption of the Conference Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief in Southeast Asia, a document through which participants expressed their commitment to working to enhance the right to freedom of religion or belief in the region.
The ICJ expressed its concern regarding the banning of Christmas celebrations in Brunei Darussalam, as the restrictions imposed are inconsistent with international law standards, specifically with the principle of non-discrimination.
Finally, the statement called on Brunei to eliminate the restrictions imposed for celebrating non-Muslim festivities and encouraged the Government of Brunei to implement the measures recommended by the Special Rapporteur in his report.
SouthEast Asia-HRC statement on freedom or belief-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2016-ENG (full text, in PDF)
Feb 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan and called it a further attack on the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary.
“President Abdulla Yameen’s Government has dealt another blow to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan is another step down in the country’s downward spiral away from democracy and stability, and is squarely at odds with the Maldives’ international obligations,” he added.
Maldivian officials confirmed in a statement that Ahmed Nihan, a magistrate’s court judge, and Muhthaz Muhsin, former Prosecutor General, were arrested on Sunday night on charges of forging a warrant for the arrest of President Abdulla Yameen.
Muhthaz Muhsin was released soon after, but Judge Ahmed Nihan was placed in judicial custody for one week.
“Judge Ahmed Nihan’s arbitrary and seemingly politically motivated arrest is yet another example of executive highhandedness and the corrosion of separation of powers in the Maldives,” said Zarifi.
“Undue interference with the Human Rights Commission, the arbitrary dismissal of the Auditor General, and the unlawful removal of two Supreme Court justices are just a few examples,” he added.
According to the Maldivian media, the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by Judge Ahmed Nihan, related to an on-going investigation against President Abdulla Yameen for embezzlement of state funds.
President Yameen’s spokesperson said in an interview the warrant was “fraudulent” because it “did not originate from any official authority.”
The Maldivian police (photo) claim the arrest warrant was issued using “falsified information”.
The ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately release Judge Ahmed Nihan and allow him to continue his judicial duties.
The ICJ also reiterates its previous calls on the Maldivian Government to implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
In a fact-finding report released in August last year, the ICJ noted with concern the serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Maldives acceded to in 2006, safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
International standards on judicial independence, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, provide that judges shall be free from any “inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process”.
The fact that executive or legislative actors may disagree with a judge’s decision or interpretation of the law cannot be a valid ground for removal or punishment of the judge.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary further stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only through proceedings that guarantee the right to a fair hearing (Principle 17); and then only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18); that all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct (Principle 19), and decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review (Principle 20). The Basic Principles elaborate on legal obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant and Civil Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003 contain similar provisions.
Article 154 of the Maldivian Constitution states that a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the person is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct.
