Nepal: lack of progress on ending impunity

Nepal: lack of progress on ending impunity

The ICJ has submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council, on lack of progress in Nepal to end impunity.

The written statement, published by the United Nations today, notes that in 2012 the Government of Nepal adopted a plan to implement the recommendations made during its 2011 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the Human Rights Council.

However, Nepal has failed to take necessary measures to implement recommendations on ending impunity.

Key concerns include:

  • the failure to implement recommendations for strengthening the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC),
  • failure to draft constitutional provisions consistent with international legal principles on the protection of human rights, rule of law and the right to effective remedy,
  • failure to establishment of credible transitional justice measures,
  • failure to take the necessary practical steps in relation to individual cases, towards ending impunity

Nepal-WrittenStatement-HRC25-Advocacy-2014 (download PDF)

Event: enforced disappearances of human rights defenders in Southeast Asia

Event: enforced disappearances of human rights defenders in Southeast Asia

This side event to the 25th Human Rights Council session will take place on Friday, 7 March 2014, 12.00 – 14.00 pm, in Geneva, Palais des Nations, Room XXI.

The panel, which includes family members of victims of enforced disappearance, will discuss unresolved cases of enforced disappearances in Southeast Asia, including human rights defenders Somchai Neelapaijit (Thailand) and Sombath Somphone (Laos).

The panel will also discuss the response of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), the regional human rights body composed of representatives from all ASEAN Member States, to these two cases and more generally to enforced disappearances of human rights defenders in the region.

Speakers:

Aileen Diez-Bacalso
Secretary General, Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)

Angkhana Neelapaijit
Chairperson, Justice for Peace Foundation

Emerlynne Gil
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Southeast Asia

Chair/moderator:

Wilder Tayler
Secretary General, the International Commission of Jurists

The presentations by panelists will be followed by an open interaction with the audience. Copies of ICJ’s legal memorandum on the case of Sombath Somphone and the report Ten Years without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and enforced disappearances in Thailand will be available. Light refreshments will also be available immediately before the event.

Pakistan: ICJ condemns bombing of Islamabad Court and assassination of Judge Rafaqat Awan

Pakistan: ICJ condemns bombing of Islamabad Court and assassination of Judge Rafaqat Awan

The shooting and bombing at an Islamabad Court today should be condemned as a presumed attack against the judicial officials and the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, says the ICJ.

The attack resulted in the killing of Additional Sessions Judge Rafaqat Ahmad Khan Awan and at least ten other persons, including several lawyers.

According to reports, armed gunmen forced their way into a court complex in Islamabad, openly firing on judges and lawyers before at least two of the men blew themselves up inside the court complex.

One of the attackers detonated himself outside the door of a judge’s office, while the other targeted the office of the Lawyers’ Union President.

Another gunmen entered Judge Rafaqat Awan’s courtroom, where he shot and killed him.

“An intentional killing of a member of the judiciary can be seen as nothing other than an attack against the independence and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director.

“In addition to personal tragedy that has befallen the slain victims and their families, this attack and those like it are devastating for the people of Pakistan,” he added. “Courthouses, which should be places where justice is administered, are instead becoming slaughterhouses.”

This is the third armed attack against members of the judiciary in Pakistan in under a year. In March 2013, a judicial compound was attacked in Peshawar, killing four people.

In June 2013, a Sindh High Court judge’s convoy was attacked in Karachi, killing nine people.

As set out in the UN Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Pakistan must take steps to protect and ensure the safety of members of the judiciary from threats and violence from any quarter for any reason.

The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region further elaborates that the executive branch must at all times ensure the security and physical protection of judges and their families.

As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Pakistan is under a general obligation to ensure the safety of all persons within its territory at all times.

“If judges are under constant fear of violence from insurgent groups, they cannot function as an independent and impartial judiciary – an indispensible requirement for preserving rule of law and democracy,” Zarifi said.

The ICJ calls on the Government of Pakistan to take steps to immediately investigate and bring to justice those persons responsible for the armed attack on the Courthouse.

Contact:

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org

Reema Omer, ICJ Legal Advisor, Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org

Photo credit: MYRA IQBAL

 

Brunei: Sultan must allow debate on new Penal Code

Brunei: Sultan must allow debate on new Penal Code

A statement by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah suggesting that critics of Brunei Darussalam’s new Penal Code may be criminally prosecuted for slander is clearly meant to curb freedom of expression and opinion in the country, the ICJ said.

The ICJ urged the Government of Brunei to ensure full respect for the right of freedom of opinion and expression.

In a speech marking Brunei’s 30th National Day on 23 February 2014, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said that social media had been used to express opposition to the implementation of the new Penal Code.

He said that those who use social media to express their opinions against the new Penal Code may be committing offences under the General Offences Chapter of the new law. He reportedly characterized some of this expression as amounting to slander, including of the King and of Ulamas, or Muslim scholars. The Sultan also warned that these critics “cannot continue to be allowed to inflict insults” and that they “can be brought to court.”

“Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah’s statement illustrates that human rights, particularly respect for freedom of opinion and expression, is widely disregarded by the authorities in Brunei,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

The ICJ has criticized the new Penal Code for being an affront to human rights and at odds with international standards.

The ICJ reiterates its concern that provisions in the new Penal Code are not in accord with the commitment made by Brunei Darussalam as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to promote and protect human rights in the region.

“Free, unhindered debates on issues like the enactment or implementation of a law are important cornerstones of a democratic society,” said Zarifi.

Freedom of opinion and expression is a right that is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to both of which Brunei Darussalam is a party.  Under international law, any restrictions or limitations must be exceptional, in accordance with the principles of the proportionality and necessity.

The ICJ urged the Government of Brunei to allow free discussion, particular on matters of public importance such as State law and policies and to fully respect the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org

 

Malaysia: High Court decision curtails lawyers’ freedom of expression

Malaysia: High Court decision curtails lawyers’ freedom of expression

The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision today to convict prominent Malaysian lawyer Karpal Singh on charges of sedition is inconsistent with international law and standards regarding free expression of opinion by lawyers, the ICJ said.

“This conviction sends a message that lawyers in Malaysia are not free to express their opinions about legal issues,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia.

Karpal Singh’s conviction was based on the fact that during a press conference held at his law firm in early 2009 he had spoken allegedly “seditious words” when questioned about whether Sultan Azlan Shah had the legal authority to remove the province’s Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, from office.

“This case is another sign of the lack of respect of the Malaysian government for the principle of free expression,” said Gil. “Karpal Singh was expressing an opinion in his capacity as a lawyer over a matter of law. He has every right to do that, as a lawyer, and of course as someone exercising his right to free expression of his views. He also has acted in fulfilment of a core function of the legal profession, which is to contribute to the public discourse on matters of law.”

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specifically provide that lawyers, like ordinary citizens, are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression. They have the right “to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights” without fear of suffering professional restrictions or repercussions due to their lawful action.

The High Court has fixed 7 March 2014 to hear Karpal’s mitigating circumstances, and for sentencing.

Under section 4(1) of the 1948 Sedition Act, Karpal Singh now faces a fine of up to RM 5,000 (approximately US$1,5010) and/or imprisonment of up to three years.

The conviction may force Karpal Singh to give up his seat as a member of the Malaysian parliament. Under the Federal Constitution, an elected representative is disqualified from office if fined more than RM 2,000 or jailed for a term exceeding one year.

Karpal Singh has provided legal defense in several high profile cases, including that of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial on charges of ‘sodomy’ has drawn heavy criticism in Malaysia and internationally.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org

 

 

 

Translate »