Sep 10, 2019 | News
ICJ expressed concern over the decision given on 27 August 2019 by the Malaysian High Court that a fatwa issued against the women’s organization, Sisters in Islam, should be referred to the Syariah Court.
The High Court used as a basis Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, which states that secular courts do not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Islam.
The ICJ called on the Malaysian authorities to ensure that custom, tradition, and religion should not be used as a justification to undermine human rights, including women’s human rights.
In 2014, the Selangor Fatwa Council issued a fatwa declaring the Sisters in Islam a “deviant organization.” For many years, Sisters in Islam has been promoting more egalitarian interpretations of Islamic laws with the aim of ending discrimination against women and achieving equality in the Muslim family.
“For women to fully exercise their religious freedom, they must be able to retain or adopt the religion of their choice, and they must be able to continue belonging to this religion without being discriminated against within the religion,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
The ICJ stressed that under international law, States have an obligation to protect people who are prevented from exercising their religious freedom by private actors, such as their own religious communities.
“The Malaysian government, including the judiciary, has the obligation to protect groups like Sisters in Islam when they face persecution from within their religious communities for propounding alternative views about their religion,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Furthermore, the ICJ had previously underscored in a 2019 briefing paper on the challenges to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Malaysia, the tensions emerging from jurisdictional disputes between civil courts, which apply federal and state laws, and Syariah courts, which apply Islamic laws.
In 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in reviewing the performance of Malaysia, voiced its own concern over “the existence of a parallel legal system of civil law and multiple versions of Syariah law, which have not been harmonized in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).” The CEDAW Committee concluded that this “leads to a gap in the protection of women against discrimination, including on the basis of their religion.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, ICJ, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 15, 2019 | News
The ICJ called on the Government of Malaysia to take immediate steps to protect the right of all persons in the country to freedom of expression and assembly, after seven organizers of the International Women’ Day (IWD) March were summoned for questioning by police authorities on 14 March 2019.
“It is very concerning that the Malaysian authorities continue to rely on repressive legislation to control and undermine freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in the country,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
The Women’s March took place in Kuala Lumpur, on 9 March 2019. The demands of the participating groups included an ‘end of all violence based on gender and sexual orientation’, the ban of all child marriages, and the setting of RM1,800 as a minimum wage.
A statement by the Dang Wangi District Police Deputy Chief identified the organizers as individuals who had spoken at an ‘LGBT’ rally.
There were reportedly taken in for questioning on 18 March for potential violations of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act and Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act. They remain at risk of being charged for these offences.
The ICJ considers the Sedition Act 1948 and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 to be incompatible with international standards. The ICJ has previously called on the Government of Malaysia to abolish both laws, which have historically been used to silence voices of those challenging governmental policy.
The laws place restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are overbroad, unnecessary and disproportionate, and inconsistent with rule of law and human rights principles. The Pakatan Harapan Government committed itself to abolishing the Sedition Act 1948 and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, but has not done so to date.
“The vague definition of ‘seditious tendencies’ in the Sedition Act has been used as a tool for silencing government critics and human rights defenders by previous administrations. It is disappointing that the Malaysian authorities have ended the moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act 1948, and continue to use it, instead of moving towards its abolition,” said Gil.
According to international standards, any limits on the right to peaceful assembly should not require prior authorization by the authorities. Notification requirements must not be unduly bureaucratic and be used only for the purpose of allowing the authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly, and to protect public safety.
In a 14 March statement, the organizers claimed to have been in regular communication with the police and to have been in compliance with the relevant notice provisions of the Peaceful Assembly Act.
The ICJ calls on the Malaysian authorities to end any investigations targeting the organizers of the Women’s March pursuant to the Peaceful Assembly and Sedition Act. It also calls on the Government to abolish the Peaceful Assembly Act and the Sedition Act.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Malaysia-Womens March-News-web stories-2019-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Mar 5, 2019 | News
On 4 March 2019, Malaysia acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), making it the 124th State Party to the ICC.
“The decision by Malaysia’s government to become party to the Rome statute should be commended as a positive sign of its commitment to the rule of law and acceptance to work with the global community to end impunity and ensure accountability for some of the gravest crimes under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
The ICJ considers the establishment of the ICC as a watershed achievement in the development of international law and the will and capacity of States to act in concert to address atrocities around the world that carry devastating consequences for the victims.
The aim to end impunity on a global scale requires that the Rome Statute be ratified universally.
The ICC was established in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to investigate and, where warranted, put on trial individuals charged with the some of the most serious crimes of international concern, particularly the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The Rome Statute operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning that the ICC can only become engaged when the responsible States are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute allegations at the national level.
“Malaysia’s accession serves as an example for the entire Asian region, which has been significantly underrepresented at the ICC,” said Rawski.
“It sends a timely message of support for international accountability, at a moment when the actions of two of Malaysia’s neighboring countries – Myanmar and the Philippines – are the focus of preliminary investigations by the ICC, and after Philippines announced its intent to withdraw from the Statute last year,” he added.
In March 2018, the ICC was formally notified by Philippines of its intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute after the court initiated a preliminary examination into allegations of crimes committed in the context of the Philippines’ government’s “war on drugs” campaign since July 2016. The ICJ condemned this move as a blow to international justice.
In September 2018, the ICC launched a preliminary examination into allegations of forced deportations of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar into Bangladesh, on the basis that the court had jurisdiction because Bangladesh is a State Party and the deportations occurred in part on Bangladeshi territory. The ICJ submitted an amicus curiae in support of such jurisdiction.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
Philippines: the Government should reconsider withdrawal from ICC
ICJ submits Amicus Curiae Brief to International Criminal Court
Dec 18, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Lawyers from a diverse range of countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Nepal, the Philippines, Tunisia and Uzbekistan have identified the many barriers that women typically face in accessing justice in their countries.
Common trends and practices identified included socio-economic marginalization, gender stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes.
The observations came during two training workshops held in Geneva in June and September to coincide with sessions of the UN Human Right Council and UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The workshops were part of a project on enhancing women’s access to justice through UN human rights mechanisms, supported by the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN in Geneva.
A lawyer from Uzbekistan noted that domestic violence flourishes in states where common attitudes hold that this is an internal matter to be resolved within families.
A particular concern raised in respect of Lebanon was discrimination linked to transference of nationality, where Lebanese women married to a foreigner cannot pass their nationality to their children but Lebanese men married to a foreigner can.
Meera Maharjan, lawyer from Nepal, noted the cultural, educational and economic barriers that impede women from being able to take on decision-making roles and the impact this has on the exercise of their rights.
Malaysian lawyer Yvonne Lim explained that the women who are often in need of access to justice tend to be from the lower rungs of the socio-economic strata and lack the resources, support and basic awareness about their human rights and the remedies that may be available to them.
During the September training session the ICJ organized a side event to the 39th session of the Human Rights Council on ‘applying a women-centred approach to access to justice’ to further explore these issues.
Secretary-General Saman Zia-Zarifi moderated the event and panelists included:
• ICJ Commissioner Justice Sanji Monageng, former Vice-President of the International Criminal Court
• Lisa Gormley, Research Officer for the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics
• Meera Maharjan, Nepalese lawyer and legal officer for Resilience for Sustainable Women Empowerment (RISE)
You can watch a recording of the event, and interviews with two of the workshop participants below.
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/565112000574216/UzpfSTQ3MTQ2NzA4NjIyMTM3MzoyMjEyNTUzNjc1NDQ2MDMw/
Oct 5, 2018 | News
The proposal to implement caning on those found guilty of corruption would directly violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law, said the ICJ today.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) called on the Government of Malaysia last week to consider caning as a punishment for those convicted of corruption to underline the efforts of eliminating corruption in the country.
Malaysia currently implements caning in a wide range of offences, including the Immigration Act 1959/63, the Penal Code (rape, criminal breach of trust), and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
At present, under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, the punishment for those found guilty of bribery is payment of a fine and imprisonment for up to twenty (20) years.
“Malaysia must immediately and completely abolish caning as a form of punishment. The proposals to implement caning for those found guilty of corruption, bribery, or any other offence is a significant setback for the country.
If this proposal is implemented, it will violate Malaysia’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and prosecute all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as.” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
After Malaysia’s historic election results on 9 May 2018 and the corruption charges levied against its former Prime Minister, Najib Razak, it would be superficial for Malaysia to view the implementation of severe punishments for the crime of corruption as the panacea to the deeply-rooted culture of corruption among those that have held public office and state authorities.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law, as well as international treaties binding on Malaysia, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that “any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It cannot be considered a “lawful sanction” under international law.
The ICJ urges the Government of Malaysia to abandon any proposal to implement caning as a form of punishment for any crime. The ICJ also calls on the Government of Malaysia to immediately abolish the practice of caning as it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment prohibited under international human rights law and standards.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists,
mobile: +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
At a press conference on 1 October 2018, Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission’s Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Mohamad Shukri Abdul had proposed that the Malaysian government consider implementing caning for bribery offenders.
Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code states the mode of executing the sentence of ‘whipping’, in Section 288(3) it defines the ‘Rattan used for whipping shall not be more than half of an inch in diameter’ (the word caning is not mentioned), while Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the sentence of whipping is forbidden in the case of ‘females’, males sentenced to death and males whom the Court considers to be more than fifty years of age, except males sentenced to whipping under Section 376, 377, 377CA or 377E of the Penal Code.
