Sep 16, 2015 | News
Myanmar’s government must end the practice of appointing newly retired military officials as judicial officers to its courts and ensure that the judiciary carries out its functions as a separate branch and independent of the Executive, said the ICJ today.
At least 20 former military officers who have just recently resigned from the military were reportedly appointed as vice director generals to the country’s Supreme Court this month.
They will be performing administrative functions but according to section 310 of the Myanmar Constitution will be in line for senior judicial appointments at the state or regional level after 5 years or sooner if the President considers them to be ‘eminent jurists’.
“One of the fundamental aspects of an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary is the appointment of judges, through proper procedures, on the basis of their legal competencies,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The process for appointing and promoting judges must be transparent and ensure judicial independence and impartiality.”
A group of leading members of the Myanmar bar launched a “yellow ribbon” campaign last Friday in Yangon to protest the practice of assigning military officers to serve as judicial officers.
“The process of selecting these officers and assessing their legal qualifications is totally opaque,” Zarifi added. “The lawyers wearing yellow ribbons are emphasizing the belief of people in Myanmar that strengthening the rule of law is essential to guaranteeing justice and the country’s political and economic development, so it’s important to improve the judiciary’s qualifications and increase public trust.”
The Supreme Court of Myanmar launched its Strategic Plan 2015-2016, citing “judicial independence and accountability” as one of its key strategy areas.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that that “Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law.”
“The Myanmar judiciary is trying to shake off decades of interference from the Executive branch in order to assert its proper role as defender of the rights of people in Myanmar, and it can’t do so without a clear and transparent appointment and promotion process,” Zarifi said.
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.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, t: +95 9250800301; e: vani.sathisan(a)icj.org
Sep 14, 2015 | News
The ICJ expressed disappointment over the decision made today by the Malaysian Federal Court to refer human rights defender Lena Hendry for trial, after dismissing the constitutional challenge on section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002.
The ICJ said this provision is being applied in a manner inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and impart information of all kinds.
“The decision by the Federal Court is incompatible with the commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights which was expressed by Malaysia during its last Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Lena Hendry is clearly a human rights defender and Malaysia has the special duty not only to respect her right to freedom of expression, but to protect her exercise of this right through the exposure of human rights violations in Sri Lanka,” he added.
The constitutional challenge was brought by the lawyers of Lena Hendry who was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for screening the film “No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka” on 3 July 2013.
Authorities allege that she violated section 6(1)(b) of the law for showing a film that had not been approved by the Board of Censors.
The lawyers of Lena Hendry are now preparing for the trial before the Magistrate’s Court.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to drop all charges against Lena Hendry and to undertake steps to make its laws consistent with the country’s obligations and commitments under international law.
Background:
Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 states that “No person shall circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell, or hire any film or film publicity material, which has not been approved by the Board [of Censors].”
On 14 September 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia dismissed the constitutional challenge on Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002. The question posed to the Federal Court was: “Whether section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 read together with section 6(2)(a) violates Article 10 read together with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and therefore should be struck down and void for unconstitutionality.”
The Federal Court answered the question in the negative and ordered that the case be sent back to the High Court. The High Court, in turn, will transfer the matter back to the Magistrate’s court for trial. The Magistrate’s Court is where the matter initially originated.
If convicted, under section 6(2)(a) Lena Hendry could be fined up to RM30,000 (approximately US$6,900) and/or sentenced to up to three years imprisonment.
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia under Section 10(1)(a), which states that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders also affirm the duty of all states to respect and facilitate freedom of expression, particularly as regards information or opinions about human rights.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Sep 14, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In advance of the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption of the outcome of its review of the Maldives’ human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, the ICJ has submitted a written statement.
It highlights the Maldives’ failure to accept and implement a number of member states’ UPR recommendations.
In particular, the ICJ pointed out the urgent need for Maldives to accept and implement recommendations regarding the following issues, among others:
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judicial Service Commission;
- Strengthening the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the Paris Principles;
- Strengthening women’s representation in the judicial profession;
- Immediately releasing former president Mohamed Nasheed and other political prisoners, and ensuring the fairness of any further legal proceedings in such cases; and
- Safeguarding freedom of expression and media, association and peaceful assembly by investigating cases of human rights abuse and violations against journalists, civil society and human rights defenders, and taking effective measures to prevent further abuses
The Council will consider member states’ UPR recommendations for the Maldives during its 30th session on 24 September 2015, ahead of which the Maldives government will be expected to formally respond and indicate which of the recommendations it will commit to implement.
Sep 1, 2015 | News
The Thai government must end proceedings against two journalists who were today acquitted of charges of defaming the Royal Thai Navy and immediately repeal the country’s criminal defamation laws, the ICJ said today.
The two journalists with the Phuketwan online news outlet, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian, were charged with criminal defamation under the Thai Criminal Code and violation of Article 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act.
“Today’s verdict affirms the right of journalists in Thailand to freely express their views, even if – especially if – they sometimes have to criticize public authorities when it is in the public interest to do so,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, who observed the proceedings.
“The verdict today is a relief not only for the two brave journalists who could have faced jail sentences for doing their job, but also for other journalists in Thailand who followed this case with anxiety about potentially significant new restrictions on their ability to work,” he added.
The prosecution now has 30 days to appeal the verdict.
“The charges against these two journalists generated severe international criticism for Thailand and harmed the country’s reputation more than any article in Phuketwan,” said Abbott. “The prosecution should take heed of this verdict and drop the case without further appeal.”
The Royal Thai Navy had complained that the journalists defamed it when, on 17 July 2013, the journalists reproduced a paragraph from a Pulitzer prize-winning Reuters article that alleged “Thai naval forces” were complicit in human trafficking.
In a decision read out today at the Phuket Provincial Court, with respect to the charges of criminal defamation, the Judge held that the journalists had reproduced information from a news source, Reuters, that they believed to be reliable.
Regarding the charges under the Computer Crimes Act, the Judge found that the information that was published was not “false computer data” and was not information that could “cause damage” to national security which are elements of Article 14(1).
The Judge also noted that the Computer Crimes Act was not intended to cover allegations of defamation.
“Thailand must repeal its criminal defamation laws in recognition that criminal penalties are a disproportionate means to address reputational damage,” Abbott added.
“Thailand should also reform the Computer Crimes Act to more precisely define that its purpose and scope is not intended to place limitations on freedom of expression.”
Background
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart information.
The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors State compliance with the ICCPR, has expressed its concern at the misuse of defamation laws to criminalize freedom of expression and has said that such laws should never be used when expression is made without malice and in the public interest.
It has also clarified that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation.
The ICJ, the Human Rights Committee, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and other international human rights bodies and an increasing number of governments believe that criminal defamation laws should be abolished. Such laws are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.
Criminal penalties are a disproportionate means to protect against reputational harm and pose an impermissibly severe impediment to the exercise of free expression.
Thailand was criticized in May 2014 when the United Nations Committee against Torture expressed its concern “at the numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders and their relatives, including verbal and physical attacks, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, as well as by the lack of information provided on any investigations into such allegations.”
The Committee recommended that Thailand “should take all the necessary measures to: (a) put an immediate halt to harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and community leaders; and (b) systematically investigate all reported instances of intimidation, harassment and attacks with a view to prosecuting and punishing perpetrators, and guarantee effective remedies to victims and their families.”
Read also:
The Phuketwan trial: an insidious prosecution of free expression
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Phuketwan trial-News-Press releases-2015-THA (full text in PDF, Thai version)
Sep 1, 2015 | News
Nepal’s Constituent Assembly must ensure that the new Constitution Bill contains strong and effective protections for all human rights in accordance with Nepal’s international legal obligations, said the ICJ today.
The Constituent Assembly endorsed a Constitutional Bill last week.
As per the CA Rules of Procedure, CA members have until 5 September to submit proposals for amendments.
“This draft includes some improvements from earlier versions, but it needs serious revisions to meet international standards regarding human rights protections,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“As an immediate matter, the Constituent Assembly must extend the 5 September deadline, and provide adequate time for public consultation and discussion of this essential legal text,” he added.
The ICJ released a detailed briefing paper in July 2015 analyzing provisions of the Draft Constitution on citizenship, fundamental rights and judicial independence, in light of Nepal’s international human rights obligations.
The ICJ also highlighted the non-inclusive and non-representative nature of the constitution-making process.
Many of those concerns still remain and must be addressed urgently, including:
- Non-citizens are excluded from key rights and protections. For example, Articles 18 (right to equality), 25 (right to property), 27 (right to information), 31 (right to education), 33 (right to employment), 35 (right to health), 36 (right to food), 37 (right to housing), and 43 (right to social security) are all restricted to citizens. These protections must be extended to all persons under Nepal’s jurisdiction, not only citizens, in accordance with Nepal’s international obligations;
- The right to gender equality under women’s rights (particularly in article 38) is not adequately protected. For example, the Constitution should include explicit guarantees for equal pay for work of equal value, and prohibit multiple, intersecting grounds of discrimination on basis of gender and sexual orientation, caste, religion, etc;
- Key economic, social and cultural rights – including in articles 33 and 34 (employment and labour), 35 (health), 37 (housing), and 43 (social security) – are not adequately protected;
- Restrictions and limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, information and press freedom, are broad and vague and do not conform with international human rights standards (including articles 17 and 19 and 27);
- Provisions on remedy for human rights violations (articles 46 and 47) are inadequate;
- Provisions regarding the impeachment of judges (articles 101, 130 and 131) and composition of the Judicial Council (as in article 153, responsible for the appointment, disciplining and dismissal of judges) fail to safeguard judicial independence;
- Provisions on emergencies and consequent restriction of rights are overbroad (as in article 268(10)).
The ICJ noted some improvements in the current draft, such as:
- Making any person whose father or mother is a Nepali citizen eligible for citizenship through descent. Previous drafts required both parents to be Nepali citizens;
- Guaranteeing a broader range of women’s rights, including the right to reproductive health;
- Revising the understanding of victim’s rights to ensure that victims of crime are entitled to “justice including compensation and restitution”;
- Adding more rights to the list of those designated as non-derogable rights during emergencies – including the right to social justice (as contained in article 42 of the Constitution Bill, which amongst other things, guarantees the rights of marginalized groups to participate “in the state structure and public service on the basis of principle of proportional inclusion”), and the rights of dalits (as contained in article 40 of the Constitution Bill, which contains guarantees of equality and non-discrimination).
“While these amendments are welcome, more revisions are necessary,” said Narayan. “The CA must ensure that the constitution-making process is participatory and inclusive. It should provide enough time and opportunities to make necessary amendments and produce a Constitution that fully ensures human rights protections and judicial independence.”
Nepal’s major political parties have stated publicly that they hope to have the Constitution finalized and enacted in mid-September.
However, many political parities and communities have been protesting against the Constitution since the introduction of the new Bill.
On 9 August, three protestors were killed when police fired at protestors violating curfew in Birendranagar, Surkhet.
One protestor was killed and five others were injured when police opened fire during a strike on 18 August.
On 24 August, eight police officers were killed during protests in Kailali district, and over 40 members of the security forces were badly injured.
“The deadly violence that has accompanied escalating protests across Nepal against this Draft is a warning about the high stakes for the drafters of the Constitution,” said Narayan. “The new Constitution should be the platform for bringing the country together after years of conflict, not serve as a new cause for discontent and insecurity.”
The ICJ called on the government of Nepal to conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into all protest-related deaths and injuries.
Where unlawful conduct is established, including by members of the security forces, those responsible must be brought to justice.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, Nepal Head of Office and ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977 9813187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
