Apr 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the conviction and sentencing of Siti Noor Aishah Atam for possessing twelve books allegedly associated with terrorist groups, an act which is criminal under Malaysia’s Penal Code.
The ICJ calls for her immediate release from detention and for the authorities to take steps to quash or reverse her conviction.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court found Siti Noor Aishah Atam guilty under Section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code which prohibits any “possession, custody or control of any item associated with any terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act” and sentenced her to five years of imprisonment.
Siti Noor Aishah Atam contended that she was using the supposedly proscribed books for her thesis as a graduate student at Universiti Malaya, where she majored in Islamic Studies.
The High Court indicated, however, that they were applying the standard of strict liability to this case, meaning that the particular reason a person may have of possessing the books should not be taken into account.
If a person is found to have these books in their possession, for whatever reason, he or she will be penalized under the provision.
“The prosecution and conviction of Siti Noor Aishah Atam by Malaysian authorities is a violation of her right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
The ICJ notes that while the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, any restriction must be provided by law and be strictly necessary for a limited number of purposes, such as national security.
Any restriction must also be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly.
“The law under which Siti Noor Aishah Atam had been convicted is overly vague, since nobody would know what books or other material would be impermissible. The law is also certainly overbroad – having the effect of preventing potentially important academic research,” said Gil.
The twelve books found in the possession of Siti Noor Aishah Atam have not been specifically banned by the Malaysian government.
Indeed, these books may easily be bought at any number of bookstores in the country.
This unjust verdict illustrates the need for urgent legal reform, including the repeal or modification of Section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code.
The ICJ also noted with profound concern that Siti Noor Aishah Atam has been subjected to prolonged detention under multiple laws, namely the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) and Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA).
“The Malaysian authorities appear to be abusing SOSMA and POCA by invoking them alternately to keep Siti Noor Aishah Atam in detention. This constitutes a denial of her right to be free from arbitrary detention,” Gil said.
The ICJ had previously called for the abolition of SOSMA, POCA, and similarly abusive laws.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Siti Noor Aishah Atam is a former graduate student at Universiti Malaya, majoring in Usuluddin (Akidah) or Islamic Studies.
On 22 March 2016, the police raided the residence of Siti Noor Aishah Atam and arrested her.
She was taken into custody and detained for 28 days under SOSMA at an undisclosed detention facility while her trial was ongoing.
On 25 July 2016, she pleaded not guilty and stated that the books were used for her thesis on terrorism.
On 29 September 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Siti Noor Aishah Atam.
The High Court had pointed to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ failure to ban the twelve books as one of the key reasons behind the acquittal.
On the day of her acquittal, she was again arrested and detained under POCA for 60 days and was subsequently ordered to be put under house arrest for two years.
In March 2017, the prosecution appealed the High Court’s decision. This allowed authorities to subject Siti Noor Aishah Atam to continued remand under SOSMA.
She was then detained in Kajang Prison until her conviction and sentencing today.
Mar 23, 2017 | News
Cambodia should continue to investigate the killing of prominent political commentator Kem Ley in order to address key aspects of the case that appear to have been inadequately investigated, said the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch today.
On 23 March 2017, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court found Oeuth Ang guilty of the premeditated murder of Kem Ley on 10 July 2016 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Prior to the half-day trial, which took place on 1 March 2017, the authorities released almost no information about the investigation.
“The trial revealed that the investigation appeared to be deficient in several important respects,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser who observed the trial.
“Until there is an independent, impartial and effective investigation to establish whether anyone else was involved in the killing, the victims of this serious crime, including Kem Ley’s wife and children, will be unable to obtain justice,” he added.
Even the very identity of the defendant was at issue. At trial, Oeuth Ang maintained he is 39-years-old, unmarried, and named “Chuob Samlab” – which translates in English as “Meet to Kill” – from Banteay Meanchey province.
However, the prosecutor submitted that based on the fingerprint on the ID card of Oeuth Ang, he is satisfied that the defendant is in fact Oeuth Ang, married, born in 1972, from Siem Reap province.
“The proceedings may have established that Oeuth Ang pulled the trigger, but the investigation does not seem to have considered whether someone else loaded the gun,” said Champa Patel, the Amnesty International Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “It is clear that the authorities want to close the book on this case and move on but failures in the investigation of this heinous act can only serve to compound the injustice already suffered by the family of Kem Ley”.
The hearing commenced at 8:40 and concluded at 13:00. After Oeuth Ang gave evidence, ten witnesses gave oral testimony including two Caltex workers, seven officials who were involved in the investigation in different capacities, and a doctor who examined Kem Ley’s body at the scene of death.
Official reports and the statements of several witnesses were also read into evidence, and the prosecution played eight videos from different locations, including one captured by a closed circuit television (CCTV) camera inside the Caltex station where Kem Ley was killed.
Kem Ley’s widow, who was named as a civil party, did not appear at the trial but her civil party statement was read into evidence.
“The authorities’ failure to investigate so many clear gaps in the defendant’s story and the court’s unwillingness to examine them suggest that a quick conviction rather than uncovering all involved was the main concern,” said Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Kem Ley’s family have been outspoken in their disbelief that Oeuth Ang was solely responsible for the murder, and the trial’s conduct lends credence to their skepticism.”
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Cambodia-KemLey Verdict-News-Press releases-2017-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Mar 9, 2017 | News
Amnesty International and the ICJ regret the decision of Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to further delay the passage of essential legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations call on the Thai government to cease its stalling measures and instead prioritize the amendment of the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Draft Act) in order to bring it into line with international law. The government should then ensure its passage into law without undue delay.
On 28 February, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that it had been informed that the NLA would not enact the Draft Act. The following day, an NLA official speaking to BBC Thai confirmed that the draft would be “returned [to the Thai Cabinet] for more consultations… with Interior officials, police authorities, the national security sector, military authorities and prosecutors.”
The Draft Act is the result of years of effort by government authorities, including by Ministry of Justice officials who consulted with our organizations and took account of many of our recommendations in elaborating it. The draft was approved by Thailand’s Cabinet in May 2016.
The recent decision by the NLA has indefinitely delayed the enactment of this important piece of legislation, which would represent a significant step towards preventing torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
The slow-tracking of this law in the face of all the commitments Thailand has made over the years right up to last year is extremely disappointing, especially for the victims of torture and enforced disappearances who have struggled to obtain justice in the absence of a clear legal framework.
The most recent version of the Draft Act addresses many existing gaps in Thailand’s current legal framework and could support Thailand’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. However, further amendments are needed to address significant shortcomings in the Draft Act.
In particular, the Draft Act omits key elements from the definitions of torture and enforced disappearances, does not criminalize acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and fails to define enforced disappearance as a continuing crime. Additionally, the Draft Act does not extend criminal liability beyond the direct commission of the act and fails to unequivocally bar the use as evidence in court proceedings of statements obtained by torture.
Thailand should make it a top priority to address these and other concerns and to enact the law as soon as possible. The urgent need to amend and enact the Draft Act is underscored by recent reports alleging the use of torture and other ill-treatment by state security forces and the continued failure to hold accountable perpetrators of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations remain committed to providing any necessary assistance to the Thai government in amending the Draft Act or otherwise acting to prevent torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
Background
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and has signed, but not ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The expert UN bodies overseeing the implementation of these treaties have consistently called upon states parties to criminalise torture and enforced disappearance as specific crimes.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR.
In Thailand’s 15 November 2016 reply to the Committee’s List of Issues,[1] it noted that it was in the process of passing the Draft Law which would “provide clear definition and set up specific offence on torture to be in line with the terms set forth under CAT” and “serve as an implementing legislation for ICPPED.”
It also noted that the Draft Act “aims to strengthen the prevention, suppression, and prosecution mechanism and to ensure remedy for victims as well as address the problem of misuse, and abuses of power by government authorities with regard to torture and enforced disappearances.”
It concluded by noting that “[o]n 24 May 2016, the Cabinet approved the draft Act in principle. The draft has been reviewed by the Council of State and is currently waiting to be submitted to the legislative branch for consideration.”
[1] Human Rights Committee, “Replies of Thailand to the List of Issues,” U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/THA/Q/2/Add.1, para 51.
Thailand-Joint Statement-Torture Legislation-News-2017-ENG (Press release in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, Tel: +66 94 470 1345, E-mail: Kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 7, 2017 | News
The ICJ welcomes Thailand’s decision to drop spurious criminal defamation complaints against three prominent human rights defenders who had raised allegations of torture by security forces in Thailand’s restive deep South.
“It’s good news that the Thai military has dropped these unfounded complaints, but these charges should never have been brought. Thailand should now ensure the allegations of torture and ill-treatment are independently and effectively investigated,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Thailand should also work to repair the considerable damage that was caused to alleged victims of torture and civil society who have been intimidated into silence by the prosecutions,” Zarifi continued.
On 10 February 2016, three Thai organizations, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Duay Jai Group (Hearty Support Group), and the Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP), issued a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Thai security forces in the deep South since 2004.
In response, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) brought criminal defamation complaints against the three co-editors, Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet (Director of the CrCF), Mr. Somchai Homlaor (Senior legal advisor to CrCF and Hearty Support Group), and Ms. Anchana Heemmina (founder and Director of the Hearty Support Group).
On 26 July 2016, the Thai police charged the three human rights defenders with criminal defamation by means of publication under Article 326 and 328 of the Penal Code, and importing false information to a computer system under Article 14 (1) of the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007).
The ICJ has been concerned by the abuse of criminal laws, including the already problematic criminal defamation law, as a means of effectively silencing human rights defenders.
“Thailand should now drop other outstanding criminal complaints against human rights defenders, including the complaint of sedition made against human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri, and ensure that they are protected from retaliation,” Zarifi said. “We look forward to the ISOC following through on its commitment to working with civil society to end torture and ill-treatment and bring any perpetrators to justice.”
Background
On 7 March 2017, the ISOC 4 Forward Command – created to resolve the situation in the deep South – and the three human rights defenders, held a joint press conference.
The ISOC 4 Forward Command announced the ISOC will drop the complaints, citing the need for authorities and NGOs to work together collaboratively to address alleged human rights violations. ISOC 4 Forward Command also announced the establishment of a “joint fact-finding committee” which will be made up of officials and NGOs to look into allegations of human rights violations and to explore preventative measures.
The dropping of the charges occurs against the backdrop of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) referring a draft law criminalizing torture and enforced disappearance back to the Cabinet, effectively delaying its passage indefinitely, despite Thailand’s repeated assurances on the international stage that it will pass the law in the near future.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a State Party.
In a joint submission to the Committee, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) called for an end to the legal harassment of human rights defenders and for all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance to be independently, impartially, and effectively investigated.
Further reading
https://www.icj.org/thailand-stop-use-of-defamation-charges-against-human-rights-defenders-seeking-accountability-for-torture/
https://www.icj.org/thailand-immediately-withdraw-criminal-complaints-against-human-rights-defenders/
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, ICJ, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org or mobile: +66 94 470 1345
Thailand-HRD dropped charges-news-2017-THA (Statement in Thai, PDF)
Mar 7, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the move of the Philippines’ House of Representatives to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
The ICJ has called on the country’s Senate to block this serious threat to human rights.
Earlier today, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 4727 on third and final reading by 216 votes. 54 voted “no”, and one abstained. The bill as amended reinstates the death penalty for drug-related crimes, more than 10 years after the Philippines had legally abandoned executions.
The approved bill will be transmitted to the Senate, where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
“The passage of the death penalty bill in the Philippine House of Representatives represents a turning point in the country, but one that is for the worse. It puts the Philippines in direct conflict with its international legal obligations,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Now it’s up to the Philippine Senate to stop this terrible and unconscionable move and preserve the Philippines’ status as a regional leader against the death penalty,” Gil added.
Since 2007, the Philippines has been a Party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), requiring all parties to abolish the death penalty in law and practice. Under the ICCPR and the Second Protocol, States are prohibited from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
“Passing this law will send a negative message to the international community that the Philippines is incapable of observing in good faith the international obligations it has expressly bound itself to,” Gil said.
Ever since it abolished the death penalty in 2006, the Philippines has been viewed by many observers as a regional and global leader on the drive to abolish capital punishment. Not only was it the very first Southeast Asian country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, it also played an instrumental role in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.
Since 2007, the Philippines has consistently co-sponsored multiple UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to its total abolition. These resolutions have been adopted with large majorities.
“The Duterte administration had already engaged in hundreds, if not thousands, of extrajudicial killings justified by unsubstantiated claims that such wholesale crimes will somehow respond to the country’s drug problem. The resumption of the death penalty compounds the horrors of this bloody campaign without any evidence whatsoever that this odious practice will in any way improve the alleged drug problem in the country,” Gil said.
Rather than the death penalty, studies have demonstrated that heightened enforcement efforts which increase the chances of actually being caught and punished are more effective in deterring criminal conduct.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Senate of the Philippines to reject in full the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty in the country in accordance with the Philippines’ international obligations.
Background
The bill approved by the House of Representatives (Lower House) will be transmitted to the Senate (Upper House), where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
If the bill is approved upon the third reading at the Senate without amendments, it will be presented to the President. The bill would become a law if and when it is signed by the President.
If, however, there are amendments on the bill at the Senate and the House of Representatives do not agree with these amendments, the differences would be settled by a Conference Committee of both Houses.
The recommendations of the Conference Committee would have to be approved by both Houses.
Contact
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, tel. no. +66 840 923 575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
