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
Jan 29, 2015 | News
Three recent decisions by the Bangkok Military Tribunal affirming its jurisdiction over civilians violate international law and represent another serious setback for human rights in Thailand, the ICJ said today.
“International standards are clear – military tribunals are not competent to prosecute civilians,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General. “Military tribunals are not independent from the executive and the lack of an appeal removes any possibility of a remedy against the judgments of the Tribunal.”
The first case concerns a political activist, Sirapop Korn-arut, who was charged with violating an order of Thailand’s ruling military junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to report to the military for allegedly violating Thailand’s highly restrictive lese majeste law. The second case concerns the prosecution of an anti-military coup activist, Sombath Boonngam-anong, accused of violating NCPO orders and instigating rebellion in June 2014. In the third, a Thammasat University law lecturer, Worajet Pakeerat, is charged with violating a NCPO summons to report to the military.
All three had challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to prosecute civilians.
In three separate rulings, delivered on 22, 23 and 26 January 2015, the Tribunal rejected the defendants’ challenges to its jurisdiction.
“These decisions set a worrying precedent for all civilians currently facing prosecution before military tribunals in Thailand. All cases of civilians facing charges before military tribunals must be transferred to civilian courts immediately if Thailand is to comply with its international obligations,” said Tayler.
According to observers, at least 100 civilians have faced prosecution in military tribunals since the military coup. The Royal Thai Government has not yet released the official number.
While the ICJ observed Professor Worajet’s hearing on 26 January, written decisions have not yet been made publically available in these cases.
Background
Under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party, everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The imposition of Martial Law and the State’s suspension of some of its obligations under the ICCPR, including the right to appeal guaranteed by Article 14(5) for cases heard by military tribunals, does not affect the applicability of this provision.
Article 61 of the Thai Act for the Organization of the Military Court prevents any appeal from the decision of military tribunals so long as Thailand remains under Martial Law, which has been in force nationwide since 22 May 2014.
The Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals sets out principles that apply to state use of military tribunals.
Principle 5 states “Military courts should, in principle, have no jurisdiction to try civilians. In all circumstances, the State shall ensure that civilians accused of a criminal offence of any nature are tried by civilian courts.”
Further, Principle 2 clarifies that even in times of crisis military tribunals must “apply standards and procedures internationally recognized as guarantees of a fair trial.”
Nov 19, 2014 | News
Thailand must end immediately the prosecution of civilians in military tribunals and transfer all remaining cases to the civilian courts, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
On 18 November 2014, the Bangkok Military Tribunal convicted a political broadcaster, Khathawut B., of lese majeste under article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act, and sentenced him to five years in jail following a plea of guilty. The court barred observers and the public from the proceedings on the ground that they “concerned matters of national security.”
There is no appeal possible under article 61 of the Thai Act for the Organization of the Military Court so long as Thailand remains under Martial Law, which has been in force nationwide since May 22.
“Under international standards, civilians should not be subject to the jurisdiction of military tribunals, particularly where, like in military-ruled Thailand, military tribunals lack the institutional independence from the executive required by international law regarding fair trials. Thus, civilians convicted before such tribunals should have the right to a new trial before a civilian court,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ. “This case also highlights another very serious problem with the state of human rights in Thailand: Thailand’s misuse of criminal defamation laws to imprison people exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) extended the jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians after it took power by a coup d’etat and imposed Martial Law throughout Thailand. Prior to this, civilians had not been subject to military jurisdiction in Thailand for crimes not directly involving the military for decades, including during the state of emergency in place in southern Thailand since 2004.
Among crimes now within the jurisdiction of military tribunals in Thailand is lese majeste – criminalizing the making of statements that could be construed as defaming or insulting the Thai Monarchy. Such broad restrictions violate the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party.
Since the coup, at least 69 civilians have faced prosecution before military tribunals in Thailand on charges ranging from breaching NCPO orders, to planning a terrorist act and lese majeste.
Under article 14 of the ICCPR, everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” The imposition of Martial Law, and the State’s suspension of some of its obligations under the ICCPR, including the right to appeal guaranteed by article 14(5) for cases heard by military tribunals, does not affect the applicability of this provision.
“All prosecutions of civilians before military tribunals must be transferred to civilian courts immediately, if Thailand is to comply with its international obligations,” said Tayler. “There is absolutely no excuse or justification for the use of military tribunals to prosecute civilians in Thailand, and especially not for simply exercising the right to freedom of expression.”
The Draft Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals, set out principles that apply to state use of military tribunals.
Principle 5 states “Military courts should, in principle, have no jurisdiction to try civilians. In all circumstances, the State shall ensure that civilians accused of a criminal offence of any nature are tried by civilian courts.”
Further, Principle 2 states “Military tribunals must in all circumstances apply standards and procedures internationally recognized as guarantees of a fair trial.” Military tribunals must in all circumstances respect the principles of international law relating to a fair trial, even in times of crisis.
Thailand-military courts-news-press release-2014-THAI (full text, PDF)
Oct 13, 2014 | News
On 11-12 October 2014, the ICJ held a “Strategic Litigation” meeting for 25 Muslim Attorney Centre (MAC) lawyers and paralegals in Hat Yai, in Thailand’s deep South.
The objective of the meeting was for MAC lawyers to discuss and exchange litigation strategies with a leading international criminal lawyer.
The meeting focused on the use of expert witnesses, forensic evidence and the appellate jurisdiction.
MAC was founded by a group of Muslim lawyers in February 2007 to provide free legal aid to disadvantaged people in the four southernmost provinces of Thailand, especially those who have been affected by the special security laws in place including Martial Law and the Emergency Decree.
