Apr 8, 2013 | News
On 5 April, Vietnam’s Hai Phong court sentenced Doan Van Vuon and three of his male relatives to imprisonment sentences ranging from two to five years, for attempted murder. The ICJ condemns this decision.
Mr. Doan’s wife and sister-in-law received suspended sentences in the form of 18 and 15 months respectively for resisting persons in the performance of their official duties.
Vuon, along with his brothers Doan Van Quy and Doan Van Sinh, as well as Sinh’s son Doan Van Ve, were initially arrested on 5 January 2012 for injuring four policemen and two soldiers with homemade weapons when more than 100 security forces tried to forcibly evict them from their fish farm in a district approximately 90 kilometres from Hanoi.
The four men had remained in detention for more than a year waiting for the commencement of last week’s trial.
Under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam is a signatory to, states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge…and be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.
“Pre-trial detention should only be used in criminal proceedings as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time period, when required to meet the needs of justice,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “The prolonged period of detention in this case is detrimental as it could possibly have violated the defendants’ presumption of innocence and due process.”
During the trial, it was concerning to note that all the judges involved in the case were members of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party and were carrying out their judicial duties under the central government’s directions.
Article 14 of the ICCPR further guarantees that a person is “entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
“Vietnam’s blatant disregard of the right to fair trial violates not only their international law obligations, but also the proper administration of justice in a criminal proceeding,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ also observed that the court’s judgment failed to incorporate the fact that the defendants had acted in such a manner only as an attempt to defend and protect their land, which was legitimately given to them by the Vietnamese government in 1993.
The right to receive a reasoned judgment is an inherent principle in safeguarding fair trial rights and it is the general rule that court rulings must include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning.
“The failure to adhere to the minimum international fair trial standards reveals Vietnam’s serious lack of commitment towards upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in the country; a violation most certainly not in line with the profile of a country wishing to obtain a seat at the UN Human Rights Council 2014-2016 tenure,” Gil added.
In the event of an appeal, the ICJ calls that the Vietnamese Court of Appeal be consistent with the international basic judicial guarantees and the principles of independence, impartiality and competency.
Apr 5, 2013 | News
The ICJ urged the Cambodian Bar Association to make it clear that its new Code of Ethics, launched today, does not restrict the freedom of lawyers to express their opinions.
Article 17 of the new Code of Ethics states (in an informal translation by the ICJ) that “All interventions made publicly or through public media by lawyers in their capacity as lawyers may be permitted only within the framework of strict compliance with the duties of the legal profession. Such interventions require diligence.”
This language replaces Article 15 of the 1995 Code, which demanded all lawyers in Cambodia to “inform” or “consult” the Bar President before making media statements.
“The language of the new Article 17 is an improvement over the old Code, but it is ambiguous and raises fears that lawyers will not be able to exercise their right to express their opinions freely,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia. “The Cambodian Bar Association must clarify that under Article 17, lawyers, like all others, can address important legal and policy issues publicly and openly.”
The ICJ asserted that the Bar Association must clearly and publicly state that Article 17 shall not be construed to mean that lawyers must seek permission prior to engaging in public activities in their professional capacity.
The ICJ also expressed concern over the previous statements made by the Bar Association implying that lawyers could be sanctioned for expressing certain views of the country’s laws or legal reforms. During a press conference on 15 March 2013, the Bar Association said that the purpose of Article 17 was to prevent lawyers from misinterpreting the law and thus “making society chaotic”.
“The best means of increasing public awareness of the laws and strengthening the rule of law is to encourage greater public discussion,” said Emerlynne Gil. “Disagreements about the meaning of laws are part of the nature of the legal process and should be encouraged publicly.”
The ICJ recognizes the grave difficulties of facing the legal system in Cambodia, where fewer than 1000 active lawyers must provide services for a population of more than 14 million people. “We share the Cambodian Bar Association’s concerns about the need to uphold the professional competence and integrity of its members,” said Emerlynne Gil. “However, this concern should be addressed through efforts to improve legal education expertise rather than limiting the right of lawyers to freedom of expression.”
For questions and clarifications, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477, fax no. +662 6198479 or emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Mar 22, 2013 | News
Indonesia’s resumption of the death penalty after a four-year moratorium is a major setback for the country’s human rights record, the ICJ said today.
Indonesia executed Adami Wilson Bin Adam on 15 March 2013. After the execution, Indonesia’s Attorney General Basrief Arief announced that the government was set to execute nine more convicts this year.
“The Indonesian government should immediately reverse its decision to proceed with more executions in defiance of global trends toward the abolition of the death penalty,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity.”
Adami Wilson Bin Adam was convicted in 2004 for smuggling one kilogram of heroin into the country. In Indonesia, the law prescribes the penalty of death for trafficking narcotics.
During its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia rejected recommendations to abolish the death penalty or establish a moratorium on executions.
In its reply, the Government of Indonesia said that death penalty is imposed “selectively only for serious crimes.” However, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in his report, emphasized that “the death penalty should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and drug-related offences.”
Indonesia last carried out executions four years ago. In 2008 it executed three men convicted of the 2002 Bali bombings.
“This execution undermines Indonesia’s repeated efforts to position itself as a regional human rights leader,” Gil added. “Its resumption of executions is indeed a very grave setback not only for Indonesia, but also for the region and ASEAN, the Association of South East Asia Nations.”
The ICJ says that use of the death penalty violates the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Last November 2012, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution calling on all Member States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming number of votes from Member States. Indonesia abstained from the vote.
The ICJ calls Indonesia to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
In the immediate term, the country should implement a moratorium on the practice, the ICJ adds.
Mar 22, 2013 | Feature articles, News
The inclusion of an amnesty provision, which could cover the worst possible crimes, in Nepal’s new Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearance Ordinance, will make it impossible for thousands of victims of gross human rights violations to obtain justice, ICJ and other right groups said today.
The Asian Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL pointed to fundamental flaws in Nepal’s new law, passed by President Ram Baran Yadav on March 14, 2013.
“The new ordinance leaves open the door to amnesties for persons implicated in gross human rights violations and crimes under international law,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director in Kathmandu. “Amnesties for serious rights violations are prohibited under international law and betray the victims, who would be denied justice in the name of political expediency.”
At least 13,000 people were killed and over 1,300 subjected to enforced disappearance in Nepal’s decade-long conflict between government forces and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) combatants.
The fighting ended with the signing of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, consolidating a series of commitments to human rights.
However, the government has yet to take steps to ensure that those responsible for crimes under international law during the fighting are identified and prosecuted.
International and local human rights groups have consistently decried the government’s efforts to side-step promises of justice and accountability, represented most recently by this new ordinance.
The revised ordinance calls for the formation of a high-level commission to investigate serious human rights violations committed during Nepal’s armed conflict from 1996 to 2006.
It grants the commission discretion to recommend amnesty for a perpetrator if the grounds for that determination are deemed reasonable.
The government then decides whether to grant an amnesty. There is no definition of what is reasonable.
Confusion over scope of amnesty provision
The ordinance states that “serious crimes,” including rape, cannot be recommended for an amnesty, but it does not define what other “serious crimes” are not subject to an amnesty.
Gross violations of human rights, such as extrajudicial killing, torture and enforced disappearance, are not mentioned.
Torture and enforced disappearance are not specific crimes under Nepali domestic criminal law.
The organizations expressed concern that the commission’s powers to recommend prosecution may mean little without crimes being adequately defined in law.
The final decision on whether to prosecute can only be made by the attorney general, a political appointee of the government, instead of an independent entity.
Human Rights Watch, ICJ and TRIAL have previously documented the systematic failures of the Nepali criminal law system to address serious human rights violations.
“Nepal has had years to investigate some 1,300 suspected enforced disappearances during the conflict and thousands of other human rights violations, but it has failed to deliver any credible or effective investigations,” said TRIAL Director Philip Grant in Geneva. “The provisions on prosecution contained in this ordinance don’t appear to be strong enough to overcome Nepal’s entrenched practices of safeguarding impunity by withdrawing cases or failing to pursue credible allegations. It does not leave victims with much faith that the commission will fulfill its mandate to end impunity.”
Call for review and consultation
The organizations called upon the government to establish a mechanism to review and amend the legislation in consultation with victims of human rights abuses and representatives of civil society.
“This ordinance was signed by the prime minister and president in record time without any consultation with conflict victims and civil society,” Schonveld added. “If the government had carried out proper consultations, the result would have been different, and we wouldn’t have an ordinance that entrenches impunity.”
The rights organizations also expressed concern about the ordinance’s heavy emphasis on reconciliation at the possible expense of justice for victims.
The ordinance cedes authority to the commission to implement “inter-personal reconciliation” between victim and perpetrator, even if neither the victim nor the perpetrator requests it, which could result in pressure being placed on a victim to give up any claims against a perpetrator.
Although the ordinance mentions the need for victim and witness protection, there are no specific safeguards to ensure the safety and security of victims who become involved in reconciliation processes.
Violation of international obligation for political expediency
Under international law, Nepal is obliged to take effective measures to protect human rights, including the right to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment.
Where a violation occurs, Nepali authorities must investigate, institute criminal proceedings, and ensure victims are afforded access to effective remedy and reparations.
“The passage of this ordinance is just the latest example of the Nepali government’s cynical willingness to trade meaningful justice and accountability for political expediency,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is kidding itself if it thinks it can ignore the voices of Nepal’s thousands of victims of human rights abuses. Nepal needs meaningful government initiatives to address its human rights problems, not the veneer of justice that this flawed ordinance represents.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Ben Schonveld: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
In Bangkok, for ICJ, Sheila Varadan: +66-857-200-723; sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Mar 22, 2013 | News
The Dalai Lama and the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) will honour the ICJ with the Light of Truth Award in recognition of the organization’s consistent support of the Tibetan cause over six decades.
The Award will be presented to ICJ Secretary-General Wilder Tayler at a ceremony in Fribourg, Switzerland, on 13 April 2013.
The ICT presents the Light of Truth Award to individuals and institutions who have made significant contributions to the public understanding of Tibet and the struggle for human rights and democratic freedoms for the Tibetan people.
The award itself is an antique Tibetan butter lamp, symbolizing the light that each recipient has shed on the Tibet issue.
In addition to the ICJ, there will be four other Light of Truth Awardees in 2013, including ICJ Honorary Member Theo van Boven. Professor van Boven is a Dutch jurist and professor emeritus in international law, a former UN Rapporteur on Torture and served as ICJ Vice-President in the 1990s. He will be awarded for putting the spotlight on Tibet within and beyond the United Nations system.
Other honorees include Professor Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, former German Minister and Parliamentarian, who has been working in a low-key manner for many years on the issue of the Tibetan-Chinese relationship; Ms. Sigrid Joss-Arnd, the longest-standing member of the Swiss Red Cross officials who was involved in helping Tibetans in the diaspora from the early 1960s; and Mr. Robert Ford, CBE, for his tireless advocacy on Tibet for more than half a century. Mr Ford is the only Westerner who was given official ranking in the Tibetan government before 1950 and he was imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for nearly five years.
The Light of Truth Award is the most prestigious award in the Tibet movement and has been presented by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, on behalf of the ICT, for many years.
Previous recipients include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the late Václav Havel, Chinese scholar and writer Wang Lixiong, and film director Martin Scorsese.
At the ceremony, French politician and doctor Bernard Kouchner, former Minister in the French government and co-founder of the international humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) will introduce the Dalai Lama.
Photo/Phuntsog/Namgyal Archive
