Oct 3, 2016 | News
The government should drop all proceedings against human rights lawyer, Sirikan Charoensiri, including the specious accusation of sedition, which apparently relate to her organization’s representation of 14 student activists peacefully protesting in June 2015, the ICJ and other groups said today.
On 27 September 2016, Sirikan Charoensiri (photo), a lawyer and documentation specialist at Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), received a summons from the Thai Police following accusations that she violated Article 12 of the Head of National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 3/2015, prohibiting the gathering of five or more people for political purposes, and Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code, a ‘sedition’-type offence.
According to the summons, the accusations are made by an army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Pongsarit Pawangkanan.
Sirikan Charoensiri received the summons, dated 20 September 2016, when she returned to Thailand after attending the 33rd Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva where she conducted advocacy on the human rights situation in Thailand on behalf of FORUM-ASIA and the ICJ.
Sirikan Charoensiri did not receive an earlier summons, dated 14 September 2016, the police claimed had been sent to her apartment, as she was not home at the time.
Sirikan Charoensiri has already been charged with two offences under the Criminal Code of Thailand: “giving false information regarding a criminal offence” and “refusing to comply with the order of an official” in relation to TLHR’s provision of legal aid to 14 student activists – the new summons appears to relate to the same case.
“The army’s accusation that Sirikan Charoensiri has violated the frequently abused sedition law with its extremely serious penalties and risk of a military trial is indefensible and must be withdrawn immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ.
“The fact that the authorities have made these accusations more than one year after TLHR’s clients were charged with sedition in the same case suggest the accusations have been made in retaliation for her high-profile national and international human rights advocacy since the military coup,” he added.
The other groups who signed the statement are: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (an FIDH–OMCT partnership), Protection International (PI), Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), Fortify Rights, and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).
thailand-sirikan-charoensiri-conviction-news-press-releases-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
thailand-sirikan-charoensiri-conviction-news-press-releases-2016-tha (Thai version, in PDF)
Sep 16, 2016 | News
Indian authorities have detained a Kashmiri human rights activist after stopping him from traveling to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
Khurram Parvez was arrested in his home on 15 September 2016, a day after being prevented from leaving the country with a group of rights activists who were traveling to Geneva to raise concerns about the security force crackdown in Jammu and Kashmir.
Human Rights Watch and the ICJ call on authorities to immediately release Parvez and allow him to attend the Human Rights Council session.
“Indian authorities seem to have missed the irony of blocking a rights activist on his way to the UN Human Rights Council,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at the International Commission of Jurists.
“Monitoring and engage
ment by civil society is necessary to prevent human rights violations and ensure accountability. The Government should immediately release Khurram Parvez and begin working with him and other activists to address the difficult issues facing Jammu and Kashmir,” he added.
Parvez, 39 years of age, is chair of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and program coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS).
He has documented cases of enforced disappearances and investigated unmarked graves in Kashmir.
According to his lawyer, Parvez has been detained by Kashmir police under “preventive detention” provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including section 151 (arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offense).
The Government’s actions against Parvez violate his right to freedom of movement.
Under international human rights law, any restrictions on freedom of movement for security reasons must have a clear legal basis, be limited to what is necessary and be proportionate to the threat.
This is further supported by article 5 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which states that “[f]or the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, at the national and international levels… to communicate with nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations.”
“Instead of trying to silence human rights activists, India should be addressing the serious human rights problems in Jammu and Kashmir and holding perpetrators of abuses to account,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
“Preventing open discussion of these issues, whether in India or in Geneva, sends a message to Kashmiris that the government has no interest in addressing their concerns,” she added.
Background
Violent protests broke out in Jammu and Kashmir state after the killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahedin militant Burhan Wani in an armed encounter on 8 July.
Since then, the authorities have placed large parts of the state under curfew restrictions to try to stop protesters who hurl stones at security forces and attack police posts.
Security forces have used unnecessary lethal force to contain the violence, which has resulted in the death of 80 protesters and 2 police officers, and thousands injured.
Some protesters, including children, lost their vision from pellets fired from riot-control guns.
While police have a duty to protect lives and property, under the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, they should use non-violent means as far as possible, only use force when unavoidable and in a proportionate manner, and use lethal force only when absolutely necessary to save lives, Human Rights Watch and International Commission of Jurists said.
The authorities have also attempted to censor news and restrict access to information.
The Government shut down local newspapers for three days, blocked mobile internet services temporarily, and ordered local cable operators to block the transmission of five news channels on television.
India has failed to address longstanding grievances in Jammu and Kashmir.
Numerous expert committees in India have recommended steps to address past human rights violations, including a repeal of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, but the Indian Government has ignored these recommendations.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66(0) 807819002; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Sep 12, 2016 | News
The Thai junta’s Order today phasing out the prosecution of civilians in military courts is a welcome step but the military government must do much more to comply with its international human rights obligations, said the ICJ today.
Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 55/2016, dated 12 September 2016 and issued under Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, phases out the heavily criticized practice of prosecuting civilians before military courts for four categories of offences, including offences against internal security; violation of NCPO orders; possession and use of war weapons; and the highly punitive offence of lese majeste.
The Order only applies to offences committed from the date the Order comes into force – today – and not to past or pending cases.
Since the May 2014 coup, at least 1,811 civilians have been tried in Military Courts, based on information the Judge Advocate General’s Department (JAG) provided to Thai Lawyers For Human Rights (TLHR) in July 2016 and covering the period 22 May 2014 to 31 May 2016.
“Almost 2,000 civilians have faced an unjust process and unfair trials before military tribunals, many of whom were prosecuted simply for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at the ICJ. “All pending cases should be transferred to civilian courts and the convictions of all civilians prosecuted in military courts since the 2014 coup should be set aside.”
Head of the NCPO Order 55/2016 also explicitly affirms that the deeply problematic Head of the NCPO Orders 3/2015 (which replaced nationwide Martial Law on 1 April 2015) and 13/2016 shall remain in force.
These Orders prohibit the gathering of more than five people for political purposes; allow for the detention of civilians in military facilities for up to seven days without charge; and provide appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons. The ICJ considers that these orders are not in accordance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations
“Its now crucial for the military to return responsibility for law enforcement to civilian authorities, and ensure they are properly trained and competent,” Zarifi said. “We hope today’s Order is a step toward returning Thailand to the rule of law and respect for human rights.”
Background
Clause 3 of Head of the NCPO Order 55/2016 notes “As appropriate, the Prime Minister may propose to the National Council for Peace and Order to amend this Order.”
Previously, NCPO Announcements 37/2014, 38/2014 and 50/2014 extended the jurisdiction of Thailand’s military courts to four categories of offences, including offences against internal security, violation of NCPO orders, possession and use of war weapons, and lese majeste.
The prosecution of civilians in military courts is inconsistent with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – to which Thailand is a State Party – which affirms that everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
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.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 9 4470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Download:
thailand-unofficial-translation-head-of-ncpo-order-55_2559-advocacy-2016-eng (full text of Order in English, PDF)
thailand-ncpo-order-55_2559-news-2016-tha (full text of news in Thai, PDF)
Read also:
Thailand: transfer all civilians to civilian courts
Thailand: end prosecution of civilians in military tribunals
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Pakistan’s Supreme Court’s rejection of petitions by families of 16 people sentenced to death who complained of unfair trials in the country’s military courts seriously set back respect for human rights and the rule of law, the ICJ said today.
“The Supreme Court failed to use an important opportunity to show that human rights protect all people, including those who are accused of terrorist acts or other heinous crimes,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Pakistan’s very serious problem with terrorism can only be addressed with more respect for human rights and the rule of law, not less, and certainly not through deeply flawed military tribunals that provide neither justice nor truth.”
Families of sixteen civilians sentenced to death by military courts in secret proceedings challenged their convictions and sentences in the Supreme Court on fair trial grounds. In its 182-page judgment, a five-member bench Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali held the petitioners had failed to prove the military violated their constitutional right to a fair trial. At convicts are now at imminent risk of execution.
The ICJ is calling on the government of Pakistan to desist from executing these or other convicts, and to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty it held from 2008 to 2014.
“Trial of civilian suspects in military courts is anathema to human rights and international standards are clear that military courts should only have jurisdiction over military officers for military offences,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan’s military tribunals in particular offer nothing like a fair trial and should be immediately dismantled.”
As highlighted by the ICJ in a briefing paper released in June, proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall well short of national and international standards requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts: judges are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied. In addition, the procedures of military courts, the selection of cases to be referred to them, the location and timing of trial, and details about the alleged offences are kept secret.
“The ICJ supports the pursuit of justice for all victims of terrorism in Pakistan,” added Zarifi. “However, justice will not be done by subverting the foundational pillar of justice: the right to a fair trial for all suspects –regardless of how serious the offence.”
Since January 2015, when Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, 11 military courts have been constituted to hear cases related to terrorism.
These 11 military courts have thus far concluded the trials of 128 people, finding the defendants guilty in 104 cases. A hundred people have been sentenced to death and four have been given life sentences. At least 12 people have been hanged after trials that are grossly unfair.
The ICJ has called on the Pakistan government to roll back the system of “military injustice”, and ensure that all terrorism suspects are guaranteed basic fair trial protections.
The ICJ has also urged that Pakistan reinstate a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in law and practice, reflecting the call of an overwhelming majority of States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions. The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a from of cruel, inhuman and 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
Additional information
In January 2015, Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences as part of its 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted by the Government following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar.
The expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians was accomplished through the 21st Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution and amendments to the Army Act, 1952. These amendments allow military courts to try offences related to “terrorism” committed by those who claim to, or are known to, belong to a terrorist organization “using the name of religion or a sect”.
Both amendments are set to expire on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a “sunset clause”, after which they will cease to be in effect, although there is a risk that they could be renewed.
In August 2015, the Pakistani Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 21st amendment and the trial of civilians by military courts for terrorism-related offences.
Aug 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe (JSC) today held a one-day workshop in Harare to review the Magistrate Court Civil Rules.
Mr Chikwana, Deputy Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe, provided the opening remarks to the meeting.
He stated that the purpose of the review was to reconcile the procedural requirements in the courts with the provisions of the new constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).
Mr Chikwana mentioned that one of the objectives of the revisions was to create uniformity in the Rules of the different courts and in so doing make court processes simpler and more accessible to the general public.
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Director for Africa, said that the whole idea behind the in-country activities carried out by the ICJ was to strengthen justice administration in Zimbabwe.
The workshop commenced with a presentation on an Overview of the current rules and feedback on input from Stakeholders by Justice Uchena.
Thereafter the delegates were assigned to groups to discuss the 34 Orders within the Rules of the Magistrate’s Court. After the 45-minute discussions, the groups presented their feedback.
The meeting was attended by judicial officers from the Constitutional Court, High Court and Magistrate Court; members of the legal profession, academia and civil society organizations.
Other notable attendees at the workshop include the Deputy Attorney General Nelson Dias and Mr Edward Mapara from the Law Society. There were 23 female and 24 male delegates at the workshop.
