Jul 24, 2018 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ has submitted recommendations to Thailand’s Criminal Justice Reform Committee concerning the Draft Amending Criminal Procedure Code Act and the Draft Act On Judicial Process Timeframe, which were scheduled for public consultation today.
The ICJ welcomed the Criminal Justice Reform Committee’s efforts to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of the criminal justice system in Thailand, through proposed amendments to Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code B.E. 2551 (2008) and the Judicial Process Timeframe Act.
The ICJ noted, however, that modifications would be necessary to some of these amendments to ensure they optimally served the ends of justice and were in conformity with international standards.
In particular, the ICJ commended the Committee’s inclusion within the Draft Amending Criminal Procedure Code Act of the following provisions and made recommendations as to how these provisions could be further strengthened:
- Section 13/1. Video and audio recordings of arrests and/or searches
- Section 13/2. Prohibitions against violation of the presumption of innocence
- Sections 121/2, 123 and 124/2. Lodging of criminal complaint with the public prosecutor, at any location and through email or other online medium
- Section 136. Video and audio recordings of inquiry or interrogation
- Section 161/1. Right of the court to dismiss a case where it is filed in bad faith or with misrepresentation of facts in order to harass or take advantage of a defendant
- Section 165/1. Allowing the defendant to submit a defence plea and produce supporting evidence in court
- Section 179/1. Trial in absentia
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Full letter in English (PDF): Thailand-CPC-Amendments-Advocacy-Open-letters-2018-ENG
Full letter in Thai (PDF): Thailand-CPC-Amendments-Advocacy-Open-letters-2018-THA.pdf
Jul 15, 2018 | News
On 14 July 2018, the ICJ co-organized a discussion on extrajudicial killings in Thailand, focusing on the cases of Chaiyaphum Pasae and Abe Saemu.
The discussion was held at the Student Christian Centre in Bangkok.
Chaiyaphum Pasae, a Lahu youth activist, was killed by a military officer in the Chiang Dao district of Thailand’s northern Chiang Mai province in March 2017. The killing took place during an attempt to arrest him as an alleged drug suspect. Officials claimed Chaiyaphum Pasae had resisted arrest and was subsequently shot in “an act of self-defence”.
Abe Saemu, from the Lisu hill tribe, was killed by a military officer in February 2017 in the Chiang Dao district of Chiang Mai province in an attempt to arrest him on allegations of drug coffences. Officials claimed Abe Saemu had resisted arrest and was killed in “self-defence”.
During the discussion, ICJ’s National Legal Adviser Sanhawan Srisod addressed the audience to set out the international law and standards that apply to investigating potentially unlawful deaths, including the rights of victims and family members, referring to the standards set out in the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017.
Participants in the event included members of the families of Chaiyaphum Pasae and Abe Saemu, the lawyers in both of their cases, interested members of the public, media representatives, students and academics.
The discussion opened with an art exhibition and Lahu dance show by the Save Lahu group. Human Rights Commissioner Angkhana Neelapaijit then made a presentation on challenges in seeking accountability for extrajudicial killings in Thailand.
A panel discussion on the latest updates in the cases of Chaiyaphum Pasae and Abe Saemu followed, moderated by Pranom Somwong from Protection International.
The panel included relatives of Chaiyaphum Pasae and Abe Saemu; Ratsada Manuratsada, a lawyer representing the families in both cases and Krissada Ngamsiljamras, a representative from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
A second panel considered challenges on the administration of criminal justice in the context of unlawful deaths.
Moderated by Pratubjit Neelapaijit of UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the panel included Malee Sittikreangkrai (Chiang Mai University); Sumitchai Hattasan (Human Rights Lawyers’ Association); Namtae Meeboonsalang (Provincial Chief Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney-General); Kritin Meewutsom (Forensic doctor, Ranong Hospital); and Sanhawan Srisod (ICJ).
The event was conducted in collaboration with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF); Protection International (PI); UN OHCHR; Human Rights Lawyers’ Association (HRLA); Thai Volunteer Services (TVS); Dinsorsee Creative Group; Center for Ethnic Studies and Development, Chiang Mai University (CESD); Legal Research and Development Center, Chiang Mai University (LRDC) and Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (NIPT).
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 13, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan Government should reconsider and reverse its decision to bring back the death penalty for drug related offences, the ICJ said today.
On 10 July, the Sri Lankan Cabinet unanimously approved an action plan to implement the death penalty for “drug smugglers”.
According to the spokesperson of the Cabinet, 19 people convicted for “large scale drug offences” who “are still involved in drug trafficking…from within prisons” would initially be those initially designated for execution.
Sri Lanka has had a moratorium on the death penalty for over four decades.
The last execution carried out in the country was in 1976.
“The resumption of executions of convicted drug offenders would constitute a violation of the right to life under international law,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
”And, based on experience around the globe, it will not in any way serve the purported objective of tackling the problems of drug-related crime in Sri Lanka,” he added.
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Sri Lanka acceded to in 1980, guarantees the right to life and requires that states that have not yet abolished the death penalty must restrict capital punishment to only the “most serious crimes”.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, considers that the death penalty may never be used for drug offences.
The extraordinarily retrograde measure of resuming executions following a 42-year moratorium would also constitute a violation of article 6, which contemplates at least progressive movement towards abolition.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions emphasizing that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition.
In 2016, an overwhelming majority of 117 UN Member States – including Sri Lanka – voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty in law or practice,” added Seiderman.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to be a violation to the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ urges Sri Lanka to reinstate its moratorium on executions and take steps towards taking all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director, email: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor, South Asia, email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jul 12, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ filed a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of its review of Cambodia’s human rights record in January/February 2019.
In its submission, the ICJ expressed concern about the following issues:
(1) Misuse of the law under the false pretext of the ‘rule of law’; and
(2) Lack of an independent and impartial judiciary.
The ICJ further called upon the Human Rights Council and the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to recommend to the Cambodian authorities to:
(i) Repeal or amend domestic laws to bring them in line with Cambodia’s international human rights obligations;
(ii) Repeal or amend domestic laws to ensure the independence of the judiciary and remove excessive powers granted to members of the Executive branch;
(iii) Abolish government-issued regulations or directives that contravene human rights protected under international human rights law;
(iv) Halt efforts to bring into force legislation drafted with the purpose of – or in any event –violating rights protected under international human rights law;
(v) End the prosecution of individuals on so-called lèse-majesté charges under the Cambodian Criminal Code and release individuals detained in connection with them;
(vi) End all use of legislation as a tool of harassment, intimidation or silencing of members of the political opposition, civil society, critical media, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and/or individuals;
(vii) Release all prisoners currently imprisoned or detained on politically motivated charges;
(viii) Uphold the right to fair trial of all persons, including of detained persons;
(ix) Take necessary measures to hold to account perpetrators of harassment, intimidation and violence against members of the political opposition, civil society, critical media, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and/or individuals for the legitimate exercise of their fundamental freedoms;
(x) Take necessary measures, in law and in practice, to guard against legal harassment of lawyers, prosecutors and judges on the basis of the political affiliations or agendas of their clients.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Full submission in English (PDF) : Cambodia-UPR-Advocacy-Non legal-submission-July-2018-ENG
Jul 10, 2018 | News
The SC is set to reconsider the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships between adults, in response to a writ petition with significant ramifications for addressing the full range of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity in India said the ICJ.
The Indian Supreme Court commenced hearing the case, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which is joined with five connected cases, today, concerning the constitutional validity of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations between adults under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in response to writ petitions filed by several LGBTI individuals.
Section 377 criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Section 377 is a relic of the British colonial penal code and is replicated in several former British colonies even though it was it was finally repealed in Northern Ireland in 1982, following repeals in Scotland in 1980 and England and Wales in 1967.
“Hopefully, the Indian Supreme Court will follow and build upon the strong precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi that declared Section 377 and the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships to be in violation of the Indian Constitution as well as international law in 2009,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“There are real grounds for optimism as the Indian Supreme court as recently as August 2017 handed a landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others that declared the right to determine one’s sexual orientation and gender identity as core to the right of privacy,” he added
The ICJ has documented how section 377 has created a climate in which arbitrary arrest, extortion, harassment and blackmail of LGBTI persons in India thrives.
“The Indian judiciary’s decision to read down section 377 in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which was then overruled by the Supreme Court, has been used by several other jurisdictions, such as Trinidad and Tobago as support for putting an end to criminalization of same-sex relationships. So the outcome of this petition before the Indian Supreme Court is of significance not just to people in India, but to the fight against discrimination around the world,” Zarifi said.
“But even a good decision by the Indian Supreme Court will not end the discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity in India. It’s time for the Indian Parliament to repeal section 377 in its entirety and engage in a wide-ranging review to consider which gaps, if any, need to be filled, for example with respect to acts constituting rape or other sexual offences,” he added.
Contact:
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), International Legal Adviser for India, t: +91 7756028369 ; e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
India-Supreme Court and Section377-News-press release-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
