Feb 22, 2017 | News
The Pakistan Government must not bring back military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, the ICJ said today.
An earlier law giving military courts authority to try civilians lapsed after two years on 6 January 2017.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards, the ICJ recalled.
“Evidence from practice clearly shows that not only have military trials of civilians been blatantly unjust and in violation of the right to a fair trial, they have also been ineffective in reducing the very real threat of terrorism in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
According to media reports, the draft amendment, if adopted, would extend the “exceptional” use of military courts for another three years. The ICJ fears that repeated extensions risk making the practice effectively permanent.
It would also give military courts jurisdiction over any offence considered to be an act of terrorism, a broader mandate than 2015 constitutional amendment, which was applicable only to “terrorism motivated by religion or sectarianism” and where the accused were “members of proscribed organizations”.
“Bringing back military courts deflects attention from the real issue: the Government’s complete failure to enact necessary reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system in the two years military courts were in operation,” Zarifi said.
“The Government must account for its failure to deliver on the promise of delivering justice for the victims of terrorism and other abuses in Pakistan instead of once again extending the “exceptional” use of military courts for civilian trials,” he added.
The Government has scheduled a meeting with opposition parties on 23 February in an attempt to achieve consensus over a constitutional amendment to restore military courts.
Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of parliament to be enacted.
While the ruling party has the requisite majority in the National Assembly (lower house), it appears to lack the numbers in the Senate (upper house) to pass the amendment.
The Pakistan Parliament must stand up to the executive in defense of the rights of all people in Pakistan, instead of allowing the administration to bring back—and even expand—a discredited and abusive process, the ICJ says.
Pakistan passed the 21st amendment to the Constitution in January 2015, authorizing military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences for a period of two years. The 21st amendment lapsed on 6 January 2017.
Military courts have convicted 274 people in the two years since they have been used to try civilian terror suspects. . One hundred and sixty-one people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 12 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
The ICJ unequivocally opposes the use of the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Feb 9, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today welcomed the indefinite suspension of the hearings on the death penalty bills by the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Committee’s Chairman, Senator Richard Gordon, indicated the suspension was needed until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
That instrument requires the Philippines to maintain its abolition.
“Abolitionist States may not return to the use of the death penalty generally under the ICCPR, and States that become party to the Second Optional Protocol assume very specific obligations to that effect,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “There really is no inconsistency between the Second Optional Protocol and the Philippine Constitution.”
“As a general rule, the Philippine Constitution prohibits the death penalty except for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. But in no way does it mandate that the death penalty be put into effect,” she added.
By ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippines has voluntarily chosen to be bound by an international obligation not to impose the death penalty – which it might otherwise have had the option to do under the Constitution.
As the ICJ explains in a memorandum on this issue, this is the very essence of treaty making.
“To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which Philippines is a party,” Gil said.
“This would contradict the most basic foundations of the international legal system and would lead other countries to view the Philippines as virtually incapable of making a reliable international legal agreement,” she added.
The ICJ emphasized that if the Philippines brings back the death penalty into its domestic laws, it would also be in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR, which effectively prohibits States from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
The Philippines cannot withdraw from Second Optional Protocol, which has no denunciation or withdrawal clause, the ICJ says.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted because once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Second Optional Protocol, they shall not be deprived of such protection.
Background
On 7 February 2017, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights held its first hearing on the proposed measure reintroducing the death penalty for illegal drugs and other crimes.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty is also currently being debated in plenary at the House of Representatives.
At the Senate hearing, senators opposing the proposed measure recalled that the Philippines is a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol, and thus, it is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.
Senator Richard Gordon, who chairs the Committee, thereafter, called for the indefinite suspension of the hearings on this matter until there could be clarity on the ramifications on the Philippines if it breaches its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Memo OP2 and Const-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
Feb 7, 2017 | News
Cambodian authorities should immediately drop the politically motivated criminal investigation of human rights defenders Am Sam-at and Chan Puthisak, the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
Cambodian officials have accused Sam-at, a respected human rights monitor at the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) for nearly 20 years, and Puthisak, a land rights activist from Boeung Kak Lake and former prisoner of conscience, of instigating violence at a 10 October 2016 demonstration.
Para-police forces, who are regularly used to suppress demonstrations, violently dispersed what had been a peaceful protest in Phnom Penh.
When Puthisak attempted to prevent para-police from confiscating a drum that was being used by a demonstrator, four or five para-police attacked him, repeatedly beating him on the head with their fists, according to a video of the incident.
When Sam-at tried to stop the assault, the para-police attacked him, also beating him on the head. Both men sustained injuries that needed medical attention.
“The investigation of Sam-at and Puthisak by the Cambodian authorities is a typically absurd and undisguised case of judicial harassment,” said Champa Patel, Southeast Asia and Pacific Director at Amnesty International.
“As usual, unnecessary and excessive use of force by the para-police goes unpunished, and those who work to promote and protect human rights find themselves subject to criminal proceedings.”
On 4 November, two members of the para-police filed a complaint with the Phnom Penh Court of First Instance, alleging that they were injured during the dispersal of the demonstration.
The authorities are investigating Sam-at and Puthisak for instigating intentional violence, under Articles 27 and 217 of Cambodia’s Criminal Code, which carry penalties of up to three years in prison.
Both men are due for questioning on 8 February by Phnom Penh Court of First Instance Deputy Prosecutor Ngin Pich.
There has been no indication that complaints filed against para-police by Sam-at and Puthisak after the incident on 10 October 2016 are being investigated.
The 10 October demonstration involved approximately 150 participants peacefully calling for respect for housing and land rights in Freedom Park, an area designated for demonstrations.
The protestors were marching on a street adjacent to the park when the incident took place.
Videos of the incident establish that the demonstration was peaceful and that Sam-at was wearing a blue human rights monitor vest when the para-police attacked him.
The case investigation of the two falls within a wider pattern of judicial intimidation in Cambodia.
There are currently as many as 26 human rights and political activists in prison on charges which have all the hallmarks of being politically motivated.
This includes 14 political activists who were jailed following a demonstration in July 2014, when para-police violently clashed with participants.
No efforts have been reported of the authorities’ efforts to bring to justice the para-police responsible for the unlawful use of force.
“The case against Sam-at and Puthisak is part of an extensive effort by the Cambodian authorities to discredit the legitimate work of human rights organisations and to make clear the threat of prison for everyone working to promote and protect rights in the country,” said, Phil Robertson, Asia Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch.
“This campaign of intimidation against rights advocates has to stop now.”
Para-police, often referred to as “district security guards,” are auxiliary security forces that are regularly used to violently suppress demonstrations in Cambodia.
No single legal document sets out the rules governing their functions and powers. Rather, their legal basis and the rules governing their activities are set out in a confusing combination of government statements and policies, and by instructions from the Ministry of Interior.
They work in tandem with police, under the authority of district governors.
“The Cambodian government should be commending people like Sam-at and Puthisak for their work to promote and protect human rights rather than trying to intimidate them,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Advisor at the ICJ.
“The case should be immediately and formally closed and a genuine investigation initiated into wrongful use of force by the para-police.”
Feb 1, 2017 | News
The ICJ today launched a new global initiative focussed on redress and accountability for gross human rights violations.
In all regions of the world, perpetrators of gross human rights violations enjoy impunity while victims, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized, remain without effective remedies and reparation.
Governments of countries in transition and/or experiencing a wider rule of law crisis often seek to provide impunity for perpetrators of gross violations of human rights, or make no effort to hold them to account, or misuse accountability mechanisms to provide arbitrary, politically partial justice.
Yet international law requires perpetrators to be held accountable and victims to be provided with effective remedies and reparation, including truth and guarantees of non-recurrence.
This is reinforced by the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which recognizes the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide equal access to justice, are based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, and provide for accountability.
“Impunity and lack of redress dehumanizes victims and acts as an impediment to the cementing of democratic values and the rule of law”, said Alex Conte, coordinator of the ICJ initiative.
Lack of accountability and claims for justice dominate national debates, frequently leading to a paralysis or reduced functioning of the institutions of the State and detracting from the pursuit of other rule of law and development initiatives.
Impunity threatens a nascent democracy by rendering its constitution hollow, weakening its judiciary and damaging the political credibility of its executive.
Public institutions often act in ways that bring them into disrepute and undermine the public confidence in them that is required for sustainable transition, for example through the legislature enacting laws providing for impunity, through law enforcement and the judiciary acting on a selective basis or without independence, and/or through the executive ignoring rule of law based judgments by higher courts.
A failure to guarantee redress and accountability has too often also resulted in former structures of power, to the extent that they enjoy impunity, transforming into criminal and hostile elements that may perpetuate violence and conflict.
The ICJ’s new initiative, generously sponsored by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, currently focuses on seven countries (Cambodia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Venezuela) aims to combat impunity and promote redress for gross human rights violations.
It concentrates on the transformative role of the law, justice mechanisms and justice actors, seeking to achieve greater adherence of national legal and institutional frameworks with international law and standards so as to allow for effective redress and accountability; more independent justice mechanisms capable of dealing with challenges of impunity and access to redress; and judges, lawyers, human rights defenders, victims and their representatives that are better equipped to demand and deliver truth, justice and reparation.
The initiative will commence with the production of baseline studies on the situation in each focus country concerning accountability, access to justice/redress and the independence and accountability of judges and lawyers.
These will form the basis for tailored plans of action for each country identifying interventions and capacity building activities that can best drive the brining to justice of perpetrators of human rights violations and the access of victims to effective remedies and reparation.
Implementation of those activities will follow, alongside the production of global manuals and guides on key challenges for redress and accountability.
GRA Initiative Factsheet
Jan 6, 2017 | News
As Pakistani military courts once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must urgently reform the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks must be brought to justice pursuant to fair credible trials and in accordance with due process, the human rights organization added.
The 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act 1952 are scheduled to lapse today, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expire. So far, the Pakistani Government has not proposed any legislation to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians, the ICJ says.
The Geneva-based organization has published an updated list of people convicted by military courts, the charges against them, and their alleged organizational affiliations.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly, there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively handle terrorism-related cases,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The National Action Plan envisioned military courts as a short-term “exceptional” measure to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
“The Pakistani Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to human rights protections,” Zarifi added.
Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials and bringing perpetrators to account, the ICJ says.
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 274 people for their “involvement” in terrorism-related offences, 161 of whom have been sentenced to death.
Twelve out of the 161 people sentenced to death have been hanged, 113 people have been given prison sentences. Details of only seven people given life imprisonment have been made public. The names, charges, and duration of prison terms for the remaining 106 people have not been disclosed.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also
Pakistan: stop military trials for civilians
Pakistan: ICJ urges Government not to extend oppressive counter-terrorism law
Additional information
At least 159 out of 168 people (95 per cent) whose convictions have been publicly acknowledged by the military had allegedly “admitted” to the charges, raising serious questions about the possibility of torture or other coercive measures being used to secure these confessions.
The ICJ’ 2009 global study on state responses to security threats examined in detail the dangers of the “exceptionalism doctrine”, which justifies a departure from the normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of the “exceptional” character of the threat.
In time, many of these measures became permanently incorporated into ordinary law, blinding governments to the actual reasons behind the lack of accountability for terrorism and serious crime.
