Mar 20, 2015 | News
The Malaysian government should immediately release from detention Malaysian Parliamentarian Tian Chua, the ICJ said.
Tian Chua, who is also Vice President of the opposition Parti Kaedilan Rakyat (PKR), was arrested today for allegedly committing acts under section 143 of the Penal Code on unlawful assembly.
The arrest took place before noon after Tian Chua voluntarily appeared at the Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur to provide a statement in connection with the investigations regarding his participation in the peaceful KitaLawan rally on 7 March 2015.
The police detained Tian Chua before he could provide his statement.
He has so far not been charged with any offence.
However, if he is charged under section 143 of the Penal Code and convicted, he may be imposed the penalty of imprisonment for up to six months or fined, or both.
“At least 11 opposition figures associated with the KitaLawan rally have now been targeted by the authorities, who have been arresting and detaining them for 24 hours as a form of harassment and intimidation,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia. “It seems that Malaysia is rapidly returning to the dark days during the late 1980s of systematic pretrial and arbitrary detention under the Internal Security Act.”
The KitaLawan rally was convened in protest at the conviction and imprisonment of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in February 2015 on charges of sodomy, following a trial conducted in violation of international human rights standards.
The ICJ underlines that in the absence of charges for a cognizable criminal offence not predicated on the exercise of a protected human right, Tian Chua and the other individuals who participated at the KitaLawan rally should not have been arrested and any form of harassment against them must be ended.
Under Malaysian law, police arresting a person without a warrant has to bring the arrested person before a judge “without unnecessary delay”.
The law also provides that no person arrested without a warrant shall be detained for more than 24 hours before being presented to a judge.
“The authorities are abusing their powers and using the law as a form of punishment even before they are convicted of, or even charged with, an actual crime in violation of Tian Chua’s right to presumption of innocence,” added Gil. “This abuse of pretrial detention as a form of harassment aggravates the repressive atmosphere created by the recent misuse of sedition laws to silence critics.”
Tian Chua is expected to be held overnight in prison. He will have his remand hearing on 21 March in the morning.
The ICJ calls for Tian Chua’s immediate release and urges the Government of Malaysia to end all forms of harassment against persons for their participation in peaceful assemblies.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org, tel. no.: +66 2 619 8477 ext. 206 or +66 840923575
Mar 16, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest and detention of Malaysian Member of Parliament and daughter of imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Nurul Izzah Anwar, under section 4(1) of the colonial-era 1948 Sedition Act.
The arrest, which took place around 3.30pm at Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur, appears to be linked to a speech she gave in Parliament on 10 March 2015 that reportedly criticized the judges in her father’s sodomy II case.
It was reported that Nurul Izzah (photo) was at the police station today to provide statements for her involvement in a demonstration on 14 February, as well as her parliamentary speech.
She managed to complete part of her statement, but was arrested before she could provide a statement on the alleged seditious speech.
Nurul Izzah has yet to be formally charged and it is unclear as to whether the detention is in relation to a specific section of her speech or to the entire speech.
“The Malaysian authorities must stop the continued use of the offence of sedition to arbitrarily detain and stifle freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
On 10 February 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to convict and sentence Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Since then, a cartoonist has been charged under the Sedition Act, while several opposition politicians and lawmakers have been investigated for allegedly making seditious comments on the Federal Court’s decision.
The ICJ has previously denounced the use of the Sedition Act and repeatedly called for its abolition of the Act as its vague and overbroad provisions are incompatible with international human rights standards.
Nurul Izzah will reportedly remain in prison for the night and will have her remand hearing first thing in the morning on 17 March 2015.
The ICJ will continue to monitor her case.
The ICJ also calls on the Government of Malaysia to immediately release of Nurul Izzah and reiterates its call for the repeal of the Sedition Act.
Background
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director of Asia and the Pacific, mobile: +668 07819002 or email: email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 13, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The Colombian Commission of Jurists, an affiliate of the ICJ, today called for the UN Human Rights Council to uphold the use of civilian courts, rather than military tribunals, to try civilians and to adjudicate claims for human rights violations.
An oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council highlighted that:
- military tribunals should as a matter of principle have no jurisdiction to try civilians or to adjudicate claims of serious human rights violations;
- These matters should be the domain of civilian courts; and
- The jurisdiction of military tribunals should be restricted to specifically military offenses committed by military personnel.
The oral statement emphasised to the global reach of the issue, referring by way of example to the military commissions established by the United States of America at Guantánamo Bay, as well as recent negative developments in Colombia, Egypt, Thailand and Pakistan.
The statement noted that the Principles Governing the Administration of Justice Through Military Tribunals presented to the Commission on Human Rights by Emmanuel Decaux in 2006 (UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/58), are widely referenced, but have yet to receive full recognition by the Human Rights Council. The statement added its support to the calls by the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and others, for the Council to endorse and seek implementation of the Principles without further delay.
The statement responds to an expert consultation on the administration of justice through military tribunals convened by the Council (UN Doc A/HRC/28/32).
The full oral statement can be downloaded in pdf format here: Advocacy-HRC28-MilitaryCourts-OralStatement-2015
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East North Africa Programme participated in the expert consultation.
His statement can be found here: MENA-Military Courts HRC28-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF).
Thailand exercised its right of reply, which can be viewed in the UN webcast archive, here.
Mar 12, 2015 | News
Thailand must live up to its repeated promises to bring justice to the case of Somchai Neelapaijit, who was forcibly disappeared eleven years ago today, said the ICJ.
In multiple statements since Somchai Neelapaijit was abducted on a street in central Bangkok, the Royal Thai Government has pledged to resolve the case.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
In April 2014, Thailand gave assurances to the UN Committee that monitors the implementation of the Convention Against Torture in Geneva that the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) was continuing to investigate Somchai Neelapaijit’s case without any interference.
“Despite the passage of eleven years, Thai authorities have not carried out a comprehensive investigation or exhausted the possible sources of evidence,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “What is required is the DSI’s real and determined effort to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012.
Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention, which among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Torture and Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Suppression Bill, which, in its current form, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
“This new law must ensure there is no statute of limitations on enforced disappearance, which is not only a serious human rights violation but also a crime under international law,” added Zarifi. “Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unresolved, and his family continue to demand truth and justice from the authorities.”
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
The report highlighted several key problems, such as poor use of forensic evidence, failure to follow and develop leads, unduly restrictive interpretation of national and international law, and above all, a lack of political will to resolve a case that remains emblematic of the culture of impunity in Thailand.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 6, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its dismay that the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a judgment issued on 4 March 2015 declined to declare caning, a painful form of corporal punishment, to be unlawful.
The administration of caning violates the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.
Despite this prohibition, the Court of Appeal determined that any international legal prohibition had no effect on Singapore, since the legislature had not made it part of the country’s domestic law.
The ICJ emphasized that Singapore’s failure to prohibit caning in its own national law in no way makes caning a lawful act.
Under international law, caning remains wrong and illegal, irrespective of the country’s domestic arrangements.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that caning, administered as a form of judicially imposed punishment in Singapore, does not amount to torture.
The Court of Appeal stated that caning did not “breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture.”
The ICJ notes that the international prohibition against ill-treatment extends not only to torture, but also to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The ICJ considers that caning constitutes both types of ill-treatment.
The ruling was issued by the Singapore Court of Appeals in the case of Yong Vui Kong, a 26-year old man who appealed against his sentence of 15 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment imposed as a punishment for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Upon his conviction in 2011, Yong Vui Kong had initially been sentenced to death.
Following changes in the law and an application for re-sentencing to the High Court, his sentence was modified in 2013 to life imprisonment and ‘15 strokes of the cane’.
In his appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Yong Vui Kong challenged this sentence on several grounds, including that caning constitutes torture, which is prohibited under international law.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is out of step with Singapore’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and punish all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. International human rights bodies have made clear that caning and other forms of corporal punishment violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it must be prohibited,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of the ICJ.
Laws in Singapore that permit the imposition of corporal punishment are inconsistent with Singapore’s obligation to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment at all times and in all circumstances.
Consequently, in 2011 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Singapore to “prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings”.
In addition, when Singapore went under the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, several States recommended that the authorities abolish all corporal punishment, including caning.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law and international treaties binding on Singapore, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The prohibition against torture is also a peremptory norm of international law, as recognized by numerous legal authorities and by all States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions.
The peremptory character of the norm means that it overrides all other laws, international or domestic. The Court of Appeal dismissed any effect that the peremptory character of the prohibition might have on its administration in Singapore.
The ICJ calls on the lawmakers in Singapore to act without delay to outlaw corporal punishment.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66840923575 ; e emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
