Feb 26, 2018 | Events
On 28 February 2018, the ICJ is holding a workshop on combatting sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in Swaziland, in cooperation with Women and Law in Southern African – Swaziland (WLSA Swaziland) and the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA).
The workshop, held as part of the ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, will consider the prevalence of SGBV in Swaziland, and contributing factors, and will focus on the extent to which perpetrators of such violence are, and can be, held accountable in law and in practice and the means by which victims of SGBV may better access effective remedies and reparation.
Participants will also discuss opportunities for engagement with UN mechanisms on addressing SGBV in the Kingdom of Swaziland.
The workshop is set against the backdrop of urgent recommendations adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2017 on the combatting of violence against women, in respect of which Swaziland must report to the Committee by July 2018.
It comes ahead of Swaziland’s anticipated report, also due in July 2018, to the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which in 2014 also adopted several recommendations on the combatting of violence against women.
The workshop also comes as national debates continue on the enactment of the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, which Swaziland had committed to enact without delay at its 2016 Universal Periodic Review.
Workshop Agenda
Feb 15, 2018 | News
Thailand should immediately cease misusing criminal and civil defamation laws to legally harass victims, human rights defenders and journalists who raise allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, the ICJ said today.
Yesterday, the Director of the Internal Operations Security Command (ISOC) Region 4, Lt. Gen. Piyawat Nakwanich, reportedly authorized Lt. Col. Seathtasit Kaewkumuang to lodge defamation complaints against Isma-ae Tae, a founder of Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP).
ISOC is responsible for security operations in Thailand’s deep South.
“It is astonishing that after all of the Government’s repeated commitments to address allegations of torture and protect victims and human rights defenders, ISOC is now misusing the justice system to legally harass an alleged victim of torture,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Thailand should immediately stop these defamation complaints against Isma-ae Tae and ensure an investigation that meets international law and standards is conducted into all allegations of torture or other ill-treatment without delay,” he added.
The accusations relate to a TV program entitled “Policy by People” that aired on the Thai PBS channel on 5 February 2018 in which Isma-ae Tae described being tortured and ill-treated by Thai soldiers when he was a student in Yala, located in Thailand’s restive deep South.
Criminal defamation in Thailand carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (USD $6,300).
The imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines under these laws has the effect of discouraging victims of torture or other ill-treatment from coming forward to seek the remedies and reparations to which they are entitled under international human rights law binding on Thailand, the ICJ said.
The complaints were made against the backdrop of a ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court on 19 October 2016, which ordered the Royal Thai Army and the Defence Ministry to pay 305,000 baht (USD $9,700) compensation to Isma-ae Tae, after it found he was “physically assaulted” during detention and had been illegally detained for nine days – exceeding the limit of seven days permitted under Martial Law Act B.E. 2457 (1914) (Martial Law).
“Even more astonishing is that a superior Thai court has already found that the military physically assaulted Isma-ae Tae and awarded him compensation, which only serves to highlight the injustice of these complaints”, added Abbott.
In 2008, Isma-ae Tae was arrested pursuant to Martial Law and allegedly tortured in order to purportedly extract a confession in relation to a national security case. To date, no perpetrators have been brought to justice.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org
Thailand-Isma-ae Tae defamation case-News-Press releases-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Thailand-Isma-ae Tae defamation case-News-Press releases-2018-THA (Thai version of full sory, in PDF)
Read also
Thailand: ICJ welcomes decision to end proceedings against human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture
Thailand: ICJ welcomes dropping of complaints against human rights defenders but calls for investigation into torture
Thailand: stop use of defamation charges against human rights defenders seeking accountability for torture
Thailand: immediately withdraw criminal complaints against human rights defenders
Further reading on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act
UN Committee against Torture: ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission on Thailand
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Thailand: ICJ commemorates international day in support of victims of enforced disappearances
Thailand: pass legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture without further delay
Feb 8, 2018 | News
A proposed new law regulating public assembly adopted by the Philippine House of Representatives would allow for unlawful restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, the ICJ said today.
On 5 February 2018, the House of Representatives passed on third reading House Bill 6834, which proposes to repeal the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
The law would prohibit persons below the age of 15 from organizing a public assembly and would subject participants or organizers to potential criminal liability for holding a peaceful assembly without the approval of local executives.
“This legislation deceives us into thinking that there is no more need to obtain prior permission to holding a public assembly,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“But in effect, organizers will still need to secure the approval of the local executive before holding a public assembly,” she added.
The proposed law states that any person or group intending to organize a public assembly will only need to serve notice to the city or municipal mayor at least three days prior to the assembly without having to secure a permit.
However, at the same time it prohibits the “holding of a public assembly at a time and place other than that approved by the city or municipal mayor.”
“The proposed law does not improve on the old one. It now increases the penalty for holding a public assembly without approval of local authorities to six (6) years,” Emerlynne Gil said.
“The law is also silent as to who may be penalized. Hence, the ICJ fears that organizers and participants alike could be held liable,” she added.
Under international standards, freedom of people to assemble should generally not require prior permission.
The law would also contravene the rights of children that are protected under the Philippines’ legal obligations.
“The provision incorporates into law the arcane and discredited attitude that ‘children should be seen but not be heard’,” said Emerlynne Gil.
“If children are prohibited from organizing a peaceful assembly, this prevents them from exercising their right to impart information freely,” she added.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children must be guaranteed the right to freedom of assembly.
The bill now goes to the Philippine Senate for its consideration.
The ICJ calls on lawmakers in the Philippines not to adopt the proposed law in its current form.
Any new legislation should conform to international standards, including on the right to freedom of assembly without prior permission and the rights of children to assemble freely, the ICJ adds.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Public assembly act 1985-News-Web stories-2018-ENG (Full story in PDF)
Jan 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the executions of 22 civilians during the past month, following death penalty cases before military courts in which fair trial guarantees appear to have been flagrantly violated.
The Egyptian authorities should establish an immediate moratorium and halt all pending executions with a view towards the total and permanent abolition of the death penalty, the ICJ added.
“The executions of these civilians constitute blatant, egregious violations of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Carrying them out based on military trials, which furthermore failed to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards, amounts to the arbitrary deprivation of life,” he added.
Based on information provided by the defendants’ lawyers and families, Egyptian NGOs have reported a litany of fair trial violations that marred these proceedings.
These included the case of a defendant who was convicted following one trial session, in the absence of his counsel.
It also included instances involving enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, some of which were documented in the prosecution reports.
In one case the defendants’ lawyers filed a motion to “review the case” under article 448 of the Code Criminal Procedure which should normally suspend the carrying out of any sentence of execution.
The executions were nevertheless carried out on 9 January, before the Military Court’s review, which was due on 28 February 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have brushed aside the most basic legal safeguards on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty,” Benarbia said.
“Because they cannot ensure respect of fair trial rights, they must impose an immediate moratorium on executions.”
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian judiciary fails to conform to these standards.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Executions-News-2018-ARA (Arabic translation in PDF)
Background
International standards recognize the particular concerns with judicial independence and impartiality that arise in relation to the trial of civilians by military courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to military personnel in cases of strictly military offences, i.e. alleged breaches of military discipline.
The above-mentioned cases involved civilians and allegations of ordinary offenses, including theft, rape, and murder (including murder of military officers).
Particularly in these circumstances, there could be no justification for these cases to have been adjudicated before military courts and the ICJ considers that this factor in itself renders the executions in violation of the right to life.
The ICJ furthermore opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation to the right to life and to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The cases in question were: Case No. 411/2013 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (15 executions in 26 December 2017), case No. 22/2015 before Tanta Criminal Military Court (4 executions in 2 January 2018) and case No. 93/2011 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (3 executions in 9 January 2018).
Jan 16, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Myanmar’s government must take concrete action to counteract decades of military impunity for human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report published today.
The report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar finds that gross human rights violations in Myanmar rarely go punished, particularly in conflict areas.
Justice remains elusive for victims and their families as a result of laws, institutions and investigative practices that protect members of security forces from prosecution, the ICJ says.
“Decades of denial of justice for victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and impunity for the perpetrators, particularly when involving the military, have severely eroded the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The Myanmar government must now take concrete steps to combat impunity, especially for the military,” he added.
The release of the ICJ’s report follows last week’s statement from the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, acknowledging that security forces had participated in the killing of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State’s Inn Dinn Village.
It is the Tatmadaw’s first admission of serious crimes perpetrated by security forces during its ‘clearance operations’, which have resulted in mass displacement and human rights violations, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on 25 August 2017.
Military and security personnel in Myanmar seldom face justice for human rights violations, because they are protected by legal provisions of the 2008 Constitution, the 1959 Defence Services Act and the 1995 Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law, which include immunities and special courts that shield soldiers, police and officials from public criminal prosecutions for serious crimes, the ICJ notes.
The ICJ’s report finds that investigations into allegations of rights violations rarely result in effective prosecutions or redress.
Eight case studies – from Kachin, Karen, Mon and Rakhine states – illustrate how victims and their families, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, lack access to justice and are even harassed for seeking it.
“Admission of culpability for this one incident is an important first step and must be followed by a full and proper investigation, and justice for the victims and their families,” said Zarifi.
“The dire human rights situation in northern Rakhine State, and in conflict areas such as in Shan and Kachin states, necessitates credible, independent and impartial investigations with a view to publicly prosecute those responsible for unlawful acts and their commissioning.”
“Options available to the parliament and to the executive include addressing barriers to accountability, by reforming laws that protect security forces involved in serious crimes, and by aligning investigative procedures with international standards,” he added.
Contact
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Accountability Coordinator (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 6 4478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Special inquiries commissioned by the Government of Myanmar into allegations of human rights violations generally fail the test of independence and impartiality, or are severely undermined by inadequate resources and or restricted mandates.
These inquiries rarely result in effective prosecutions or access to remedies and reparation.
Members of security forces, when prosecuted, usually appear in military or special police courts, which generally impose low or meaningless sanctions that are wholly inconsistent with penalties applicable in Myanmar’s Penal Code.
Laws governing military and police acts are inadequate for the victims of human rights violations because they do not contemplate the provision of remedies and reparation.
There is very limited precedent or established practice for the provision of effective remedies or reparation for victims of criminal acts in Myanmar, particularly when such crimes involve human rights violations by State actors.
Wittingly or unwittingly, relevant authorities routinely violate national laws that prescribe procedures for the conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations.
Violations of basic fair trial rights, included in national laws, are commonplace.
State authorities continue to exert improper influence on politically-sensitive court cases including those involving allegations of gross human rights violations.
Courts tend to not intervene where human rights violations are occurring nor do they guarantee non-repetition where they have occurred.
Prosecutors rarely, if ever, accept petitions from victims of gross human rights violations to initiate criminal proceedings.
The judicial harassment of victims of human rights violations is commonplace in Myanmar when victims, their families or lawyers seek remedies or reparation through the courts or other mechanisms.
Defamation and unlawful association are among the criminal charges commonly instituted by authorities, including against journalists investigating human rights violations or working in conflict areas.
Overall, Myanmar’s prosecutors lack the independence to effectively prosecute acts involving human rights violations.
Interference with and intimidation of lawyers, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations, undermines their to effectively represent clients and to pursue effective remedies and reparations.
Download
Myanmar-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-GRA-Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic-reports-2018-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Accountability Baseline report-News-Press releases-2018-BUR (Burmese translation)
Read also
Questions & Answers on Human Rights Law in Rakhine State
Reuters journalists detained in Myanmar: respect their rights, end their incommunicado detention
