Mar 12, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ co-hosted an art exhibition and public forum titled 15th Year of Somchai’s Disappearance and the Voices of the Disappeared at the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok.
The event was held to commemorate 15 years since the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, a prominent human rights lawyer, whose case has never been adequately by the Thai authorities.
Somchai was abducted after being stopped on a road in Bangkok on 12 March 2004 and taken from his car by a group of police officers. He has not been seen since. Fifteen years after his disappearance, Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown and no one has been held accountable for the crime against him.
More than 100 participants attended the event, including family victims of alleged disappearance cases, students, lawyers, members of civil society, diplomats, and members of the Thai authorities and media.
Opening remarks were delivered by Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Somchai Neelapaijit, and Kenza Tarqaât, First Secretary of the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok.
The opening session included remarks by the victims who spoke about their challenges and about the progress and development regarding investigations into the alleged disappearance cases of their relatives. The session included the following speakers:
Sanhawan Srisod, the ICJ’s National Legal Adviser, spoke during the second session on recent amendments to the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act.
She highlighted concerns that the recent amendments would, if adopted, fail to bring the law into full compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Sanhawan further expressed concern that the fate of the Draft Act was uncertain as Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) that is considering the bill, while it may also continue their work in case of the necessity, will stop considering laws on 15 March, prior to the scheduled elections of 24 March 2019.
She stressed that it is crucial the Thai Government continues to consider and amend the bill, and pass it without delay in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
The panel was moderated by Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong from Cross-Cultural Foundation and also included the following panelists:
- Nongporn Roongpetchwong, Human Rights Expert, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Badar Farrukh, Thailand Team Leader, United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South East Asia
Closing remarks was delivered by Pratubjit Neelapaijit, daughter of Somchai Neelapaijit.
The forum was co-organized with the Neelapaijit family, Amnesty International – Thailand, Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok, Human Rights Lawyers’ Association and the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South East Asia.
Read Also:
Thailand-Summary ICJ analysis Draft Act-Advocacy-2019-ENG (Summary of the ICJ analysis of the Draft Act, in PDF)
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Missed Opportunities: Recommendations for Investigating the Disappearance of Sombath Somphone
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Mar 12, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 9th to 10th March 2019 in Dhaka, Bangladesh to discuss applicable international legal mechanisms designed to achieve accountability for serious human rights violations in Asia.
Bangladesh-based non-government organizations the Centre for Peace and Justice and Naripokkho co-hosted the event with the ICJ, with a representative of AJAR (Asia Justice and Rights) also joining. Twenty Bangladeshi lawyers, activists and academics attended the event.
Legal advisers from the ICJ provided an overview of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), currently being established following a UN Human Rights Council resolution in September 2018.
They also discussed the structure and procedures of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose prosecutors are currently conducting a preliminary examination into the deportation of Rohingyas from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Unlike Myanmar, Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, and its pre-trial chamber has indicated the Court has jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Stature were one element, or part of a crime, was committed inside the territory of Bangladesh.
AJAR’s co-founder provided an overview of transitional justice processes, drawing upon international and regional experiences of truth-seeking, prosecutions, reparations and reforms to guarantee non-repetition of human rights violations.
Two of the ICJ’s legal advisers also travelled to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, where they met relevant stakeholders to discuss the situation of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, and to share information about accountability mechanisms, including about expected timelines, outcomes and limitations.
The activity is part of the ICJ’s global work on promoting accountability and redress for gross human rights violations to facilitate justice and deter repetition.
Contact: Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor for Global Redress and Accountability e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Mar 11, 2019 | Advocacy
The “Independent Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) on Rakhine State, announced by the Government of Myanmar in May 2018 and established in July, has not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of meeting international standards of independence, impartiality or effectively contributing to justice or accountability for human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The ICOE is not transparent about how its information gathering will, if at all, shed light on the truth, or contribute to accountability and redress, while protecting individuals it comes into contact with. It is also yet to fulfill conditions called for by the UN Human Rights Council in its September 2018 resolution 39/2.
Any move to shift reference in the Council resolution currently under discussion, to include more positive recognition of the ICOE, would be wholly unjustified.
Furthermore, the government continues its unwillingness to address credible allegations of crimes under international law, including in its report to the CEDAW Committee in February in which rape allegations were dismissed as “wild claims.”
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in response to a “Call for Submissions” on 12 December 2018, inviting “individuals, groups, witnesses and alleged victims to submit their complaints or accounts, with supporting data and evidence,” wrote to the ICOE Chairperson with four questions, summarised as:
- Are any measures in place to protect complainants and witnesses against threats of violence, legal action or other forms of reprisals for providing information to the ICOE? What specific measures have been taken to ensure the confidentiality of any materials submitted, and to protect the identities and wellbeing of witnesses?
- Given statements by commissioners that accountability is not part of their mandate, as the ICOE is seeking submissions of data and evidence from victims and witnesses, please clarify the ICOE’s position on how these submissions will be utilized – including for possible criminal investigations.
- Can you provide information on any measures taken to deal with real or perceived conflicts of interests that may affect the public’s trust in the ICOE’s impartiality and independence, including victims and witnesses and others who may submit materials in response to your call?
- The recommendations of past Commissions of Inquiry have not been fully implemented. Given the sensitive nature of the ICOE’s mandate, what considerations have been taken into account to increase the likelihood that recommendations will be more effectively implemented than in the past?
The ICOE did not respond to these questions, despite having formally acknowledged receipt of the letter. The deadline for public submissions to the ICOE has now passed. Its silence in this instance illustrates a broader failure to demonstrate independence or transparency and underlines protection concerns.
The ICJ is unaware of efforts by the ICOE to genuinely seek cooperation with the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission or the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as has been called for by the Council.
Based on extensive experience and research in Myanmar and globally, and recalling a 5-page legal assessment of the ICOE published in September 2018, the ICJ remains of the view that the ICOE, like previous government-backed inquires, cannot effectively contribute to or deliver justice or accountability.
Myanmar-Inquiry Rakhine-Advocacy-2019-BUR (Burmese version, in PDF)
Mar 7, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ joined a list of 77 civil society organizations to call on relevant authorities in Myanmar to drop spurious charges against journalist Ko Swe Win, to decriminalize defamation, and to release human rights defenders currently imprisoned under repressive criminal defamation laws.
The statement reads:
On the second anniversary of the defamation charges brought upon Ko Swe Win, editor at online newspaper Myanmar Now, we, the undersigned 77 civil society organisations, call on the relevant authorities to drop the case against him. Spurious defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law were filed against him on 7 March 2017 by ultranationalists intent on suppressing free speech. The Government of Myanmar must take concrete steps in parliament to decriminalise defamation, repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law and drop the charges and release all activists and human rights defenders currently in prison and being charged under this repressive legislation.
Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law of 2013 was amended in 2017, but notably, defamation is still criminalised and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kyat or both. The law is still frequently used to stifle free speech in Myanmar and silence critics. To date, a reported 173 cases have been filed under Article 66(d) since its enactment.
The UN Human Rights Committee has called on all states to decriminalise defamation, indicating that imprisonment for defamation is a penalty that can never be appropriate or compatible with the right to freedom of expression. In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that defamation should be treated as a matter of civil rather than criminal law, stressing that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. In the case of Article 66(d), Myanmar law allows for agents of the offended party to file charges for defamation and initiate criminal proceedings on their behalf. In effect, this means that powerful organisations and individuals can operate via proxies to target those that they consider disturbing, a form of judicial harassment with severe implications for the individuals who are accused.
Ko Swe Win was charged with defamation under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law for sharing a story by Myanmar Now on Facebook. The story quoted a senior monk who said that well-known ultranationalist monk U Wirathu’s actions could be cause for him to be expelled from the monkhood as they violated the tenets of Buddhism. U Wirathu, notorious for using Facebook to agitate against Muslims, had previously expressed support for and thanked U Kyi Lin – the recently convicted gunman who shot and killed prominent lawyer U Ko Ni in January 2017. U Ko Ni was an expert on constitutional law and was working to change the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The plaintiff, a follower of U Wirathu, brought the charges in March 2017 and the court proceedings started in July 2017.
Since then, Ko Swe Win has had to travel regularly to the courthouse in Mandalay, where the charge was filed, from his home in Yangon and back – a distance of over 1,200 kilometres. The court hearings, now totaling 55, have been ongoing for almost two years, but the court has still only heard the plaintiff’s side, which has consistently been stalling the process. On some occasions, Ko Swe Win has travelled from Yangon only to find that the plaintiff or witnesses have failed to appear in court and that the proceedings have been postponed. The plaintiff himself was arrested in August 2017 and has since been detained, which has caused significant delays to the process.
U Wirathu has been summoned twice but failed to appear. On the first occasion, his lawyer informed the court that U Wirathu could not make the hearing because he was attending a donation ceremony. On the second occasion, U Wirathu’s lawyer requested that the hearing be held at his monastery compound. That request was denied by the township court, but U Wirathu appealed to the higher district court, which also denied the request. While the district court considered the request, no hearings could be held in the township court. Ko Swe Win however, was still required to make an appearance every two weeks before the township court judge just to be informed of the next date he was due to appear in court. This procedure, which required him to travel from Yangon to Mandalay, was typically over in a matter of minutes.
The many irregularities of this case highlight the lack of independence of the Myanmar judiciary. It appears that the authorities are determined to target those that are working to expose troubling truths and terrible crimes, rather than those who commit them. Those responsible for spreading dangerous speech and inciting violence face no consequences, while those who criticise such dangerous actions continue to be prosecuted. In a recent parallel case, also fraught with controversies, two Reuters reporters – Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo – were convicted to seven years in prison for exposing a mass killing of Rohingya men and boys carried out by the Myanmar military in northern Rakhine State.
In Myanmar, high-ranking military commanders, some of whom are accused by UN investigators for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide, remain at large, while journalists who expose the truth and report on human rights violations in the country are charged under repressive laws. This inverted idea of justice needs to come to an end if Myanmar is to continue its path towards democracy.
As long as Article 66(d) remains, people in Myanmar, especially those who criticise powerful individuals, officials and government policies online, will be at risk of being imprisoned for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
In light of the above, we call on the Government of Myanmar and its relevant authorities to:
- Drop the defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law against Ko Swe Win and other activists and human rights defenders and release those currently imprisoned under this repressive legislation;
- Repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, or at a very minimum, amend it to ensure that:
- defamation is no longer criminalised by deleting references to “defamation” as well as vague language such as “disturbing”;
- only a government prosecutor can file a criminal complaint under Article 66(d);
- where recognisably criminal acts such as “extortion” and “threats” occur in the law they are clearly and narrowly defined in line with international human rights law, to ensure it is not used to criminalise the peaceful expression of views.
Download
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-BUR (full statement in Burmese, 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
