Jun 20, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN the ICJ today addressed abuse of laws in Southeast Asia to restrict freedom of expression.The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (A/HRC/38/35), on online expression. Such concerns are reflected in the continued weaponization of laws to criminalize and unduly restrict freedom of expression in Southeast Asia. Increasingly, laws are misused to harass and intimidate civil society, journalists, politicians and ordinary individuals.
For example, in Cambodia, three persons were arrested – two charged and detained in May, and one reportedly arrested this past weekend – for sharing content on Facebook in alleged violation of a recent lèse majesté law. Another man was similarly detained, and a woman extradited from Thailand to Cambodia and imprisoned, for Facebook posts deemed critical of the government. An inter-ministerial order signed last month now allows government agencies to monitor and censor information on websites and social media.
Another example is Vietnam, where as well-known bloggers remain in jail, last week lawmakers adopted a cybersecurity law that will compel companies to store users’ data in-country, pass personal data to government authorities, and censor information online when directed to do so by the government.
A further example is Thailand, where this year alone at least 132 people were charged for “illegal assembly” after protesting for elections to be held – 27 were also charged with a sedition-like offence carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. Last week, arrest warrants were reportedly issued alleging dissemination of false information on Facebook, which may lead to charges under the Computer Crimes Act carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, despite international standards precluding imprisonment as an appropriate penalty.
The ICJ urges all States to implement the recommendations in the report of the Special Rapporteur, and to ensure the right to freedom of expression by revoking or amending all laws, orders, policies or other actions which unjustifiably restrict this fundamental freedom.”
Jun 20, 2018 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ held a joint side event at the 38th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council on freedoms of expression, association and assembly in the context of elections in Asia.
The event was co-organized by the ICJ, in collaboration with Forum Asia and Human Rights Watch.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, spoke at the event, highlighting the regression in human rights and the rule of law in the Southeast Asian region, focusing on Thailand and Cambodia in the lead up to elections.
He identified recent developments in the misuse of the law to violate human rights in Thailand and Cambodia, and called for a necessary push back against the weaponization of the law and the misuse of the principle of the ‘rule of law’ in both countries.
Other speakers at the event included Iniyan Ilango, from Forum Asia, who spoke about fundamental freedoms in the context of elections in Bangladesh and the Maldives and other countries in Asia; and UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, who addressed the event more broadly on the protection and promotion of freedom of assembly and association in the context of elections.
The event was moderated by by Laila Matar, Deputy Director, United Nations, Human Rights Watch.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Cambodia-Side-event-HRC38-Freedoms-of-Expression-Advocacy-2018-ENG (full speech in PDF)
Jun 1, 2018 | Events, News
Between 30 May and 1 June 2018, the ICJ co-hosted a workshop for authorities from Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar and Nepal on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance in accordance with international human rights law and standards.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and took place as part of the ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, which has as one of its core objectives, “increasing the knowledge and capacity of lawyers, prosecutors and investigators to deal with challenges of impunity and access to redress.”
The participants included more than 30 criminal investigators, forensic doctors, forensic scientists, prosecutors, police trainers, senior judges and representatives of the Cambodian Ministry of Justice, the Myanmar Attorney General’s Office, the Thai Ministry of Justice and the Nepal Office of the Attorney General.
The event commenced with opening remarks by the Ambassador of Finland, Ms. Satu Suikkari-Kleven; the Ambassador of Germany, Mr. Peter Prügel; Adviser on the Promotion of the Rights and Freedom from Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, Mr. Pitaya Jinawat; and the Asia Director of the ICJ, Frederick Rawski.
Alex Conte, Senior Law and Policy Advisor, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, gave an overview of the international human rights legal framework that applies to the investigation of unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ, then provided an overview of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017 and which formed the core of the materials used at the workshop.
Other speakers included Ms. Jennifer Prestholdt, Deputy Director, the Advocates for Human Rights, who presented on the Rights of Victims and Families and witness interviews; Mr. Glenn Williams, Detective Inspector, Field Crime Manager, New Zealand Police National Headquarters, who presented on the investigation process including crime scene management;
Ms. Shivani Verma and Ms. Pratubjit Neelapaijit, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who presented on Witness Protection; and Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunan, Adviser, Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS)/Member of the Advisory Panel who presented on forensic pathology.
This workshop followed two workshops the ICJ co-hosted between 5 to 8 December 2017 in Thailand on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance for lawyers from Thailand and India, academics and the Thai authorities.
Contact
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 27, 2018 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ testified before the Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights on the human rights and rule of law crisis in Cambodia.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, addressed the Subcommittee on two key issues:
- The misuse of the law in Cambodia under the pretext of the “Rule of Law”; and
- The lack of an independent and impartial judiciary.
Other witnesses were former members of the Cambodian Parliament for the main opposition party, the CNRP, before its dissolution in November 2017, Mu Sochua and Kong Sophea.
Kingsley Abbott also requested that the ICJ’s October 2017 Baseline Study on the state of the rule of law and human rights in Cambodia be added to the record.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-SDIR-Statement-ABBOTT-Advocacy-2018-ENG (Full opening statement ENG, PDF)
Mar 23, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, reflecting on the 37th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement was delivered by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of:
- The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (DefendDefenders)
- The Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
- CIVICUS
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights Leagues
- Conectas Direitos Humanos
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Amnesty International
- International Lesbian and Gay Association
- Human Rights Watch
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).
The statement read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud for lack of time):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in reaffirming that all approaches to development must comply with the State’s international human rights obligations.
We agree that “cooperation and dialogue” are important for the promotion and protection of human rights, and that States should fully cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms, and ensure that all stakeholders are able to cooperate and engage with them without fear of reprisals.
However, we must now be vigilant to ensure that the resolution on Mutually Beneficial Cooperation, lacking in balance, does not undermine other important parts of the Council’s mandate: to address human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies in specific countries.
The Council has failed to take meaningful action to address the alarming situation on the ground in Cambodia. We welcome and echo the joint statement on Cambodia by over 40 states calling for further action if the situation does not improve in the lead up to the elections and for a briefing by the High Commissioner before the next Council session. We are concerned by Cambodia’s attempt to shut down criticism under item 10 debate on the worsening human rights situation in the country, as they are doing domestically.
We are disappointed by the weak outcome on Libya. Given the gravity of the human rights situation on the ground and the lack of accountability for crimes under international law, the Council cannot justify the lack of a dedicated monitoring and reporting mechanism.
We welcome the co-sponsorship of the Myanmar resolution by groups of States from all regions, making a joint commitment to address the continuing human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the country and support for the Special Rapporteur and Fact-Finding Mission to fulfil its mandate to establish truth and ensure accountability for perpetrators.
We also welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan allowing it to continue its vital investigations and identification of perpetrators. These developments acknowledge the importance of accountability for serious human rights violations and crimes under international law, which cannot be understated.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on drugs and human rights as the OHCHR report will provide human rights indicators related to the drug issue that would help in future policies.
We welcome the resolution on Eastern Ghouta adopted after an urgent debate, demonstrating how this Council can respond in an agile manner to crises.
Having long supported the resolution on “protection of human rights while countering terrorism”, we appreciate the efforts that led to the end of the separate and deeply flawed initiative on “effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights“. Future versions of the resolution must address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.
We welcome the Dutch-led joint statement on strengthening the Council, emphasising the importance of substantive civil society participation in any initiative or process and that the Council must be accessible, effective and protective for human rights defenders and rights holders on the ground.
Finally, we call on the Bureau co-facilitators on improving the efficiency and strengthening the Council to closely engage with all Members and Observers of the Council, human rights defenders and civil society organisations not based in Geneva.”
