Jun 9, 2016 | News
The Thai military must immediately withdraw its abusive criminal complaints against three leading human rights defenders for raising allegations of torture in Thailand’s restive deep South, said the ICJ today.
“It is simply astonishing that the Thai government is lodging these complaints at a time when Thailand has just promised to adopt important anti-torture legislation and has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to protect human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Regional Director.
“The military must immediately withdraw its complaints and instead ensure all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated in line with Thailand’s international legal obligations,” he added.
On 10 February 2016, three Thai organizations, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Duay Jai Group (Hearty Support Group), and the Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP), issued a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Thai authorities in the deep South since 2004.
On 17 May 2016, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4, responsible for national security operations in the Southern Border Provinces, responded to the report by filing complaints of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007) against the report’s three co-editors, Somchai Homlaor and Pornpen Khongkachonkiet of CrCF, and Anchana Heemmina of Hearty Support Group.
Criminal defamation carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (USD $5,600). Violation of article 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act, carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of up to 100,000 Baht (USD $2,800), or both.
It is the second time since 2014 that the Thai military has filed criminal defamation complaints against Pornpen Khongkachonkiet and Somchai Homlaor for raising allegations of torture in the deep South.
“The Thai military should also take heed of the recent decision of the Phuket Provincial Court in the Phuketwan case, which found that the Computer Crime Act was not intended to cover allegations of defamation,” said Zarifi.
On 1 September 2015, the Phuket Provincial Court acquitted two journalists of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crime Act after the Royal Thai Navy complained the journalists defamed it when, on 17 July 2013, the journalists reproduced a paragraph from a Pulitzer prize-winning Reuters article that alleged “Thai naval forces” were complicit in human trafficking.
The use of criminal defamation laws, carrying penalties of imprisonment, against human rights defenders reporting on alleged human violations, constitutes a violation of Thailand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a state party.
As affirmed in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others:… freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Background
On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 127 other states at the UN General Assembly in adopting a UN Resolution on human rights defenders. The Resolution calls upon states to refrain from intimidation or reprisals against human rights defenders.
Last month, Thailand informed the Human Rights Council during its Universal Periodic Review that the Cabinet was considering a draft Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance. It was reported that the Cabinet approved the draft law on 24 May 2016.
At the conclusion of the review, Thailand also adopted several recommendations to protect human rights defenders and investigate reported cases of intimidation, harassment and attacks against them.
The right to an effective remedy against torture and other ill-treatment and to have complaints promptly, fully and impartially investigated is guaranteed under international treaties to which Thailand is party, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the ICCPR.
Thailand has an obligation under both treaties to conduct such investigations where there are allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to bring to justice those responsible in fair criminal proceedings.
Thailand was criticized in May 2014 for its failure to address violations when the United Nations Committee Against Torture expressed its concern “at the numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders and their relatives, including verbal and physical attacks, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, as well as by the lack of information provided on any investigations into such allegations.”
The Committee recommended that Thailand “should take all the necessary measures to: (a) put an immediate halt to harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and community leaders; and (b) systematically investigate all reported instances of intimidation, harassment and attacks with a view to prosecuting and punishing perpetrators, and guarantee effective remedies to victims and their families.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, Asia Regional Director, t: +66 80 781 9002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Retaliation HRDs-News-web stories-2016-ENG (full story in Thai, PDF)
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the disbarment proceedings against lawyer Muzaffar Bakhishov that are taking place before the Narimanov district court.
The ICJ calls for the disbarment proceedings to respect international standards on the role of lawyers and to ensure that no sanction is imposed contrary to the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under international law.
The ICJ understands that the proceedings against Mr Bakhishov, following a recommendation for disbarment by the Plenum of the Bar Association, are related to critical statements he made in a media interview with the news website moderator.az on the functioning of the Azeri judiciary with regard to judicial review of detention.
In the interview, he criticized the arrests of large number of persons by officers of the Ministry of National Security and the tendency of judges to approve orders of detention without proper scrutiny. He further raised concerns about lack of accountability of judges for failure to protect against arbitrary detention.
Under international law and standards, lawyers, like other individuals, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, including in regard to their professional role. Protection of lawyers’ right to freedom of expression is not only important to the individuals in question. It also serves to safeguard the important public function played by lawyers in a democratic society to comment on matters related to the rule of law and the administration of justice. Lawyers must be able to carry out these and their other professional functions without interference or intimidation.
The right to freedom of expression is protected in international human rights law, including by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Azerbaijan is party to both of these treaties.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specify that lawyers “…shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights …” The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that lawyers are entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, provided that their criticism does not overstep certain bounds, based on principles of dignity, honour, integrity, and respect for the fair administration of justice.
The ICJ considers that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, solely for expressing criticism of the conduct or functioning of the judiciary, whether in the course of court hearings or elsewhere, constitute an unjustified interference with freedom of expression. As the European Court of Human Rights has noted in Maurice v. France, this is particularly the case where the allegations have been presented in good faith and are substantiated by evidence.
Azerbaijan-BakhishovDisbarment-Statement-2016-AZE (download statement in Azeri)
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 9793805, e-mail: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
May 9, 2016 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid must stay the execution of opposition political leader Motiur Rahman Nizami, said the ICJ today.
On 5 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh dismissed a petition by Motiur Rahman Nizami to review its previous decision confirming his death sentence.
He is now at imminent risk of execution.
“Bangladesh must stay this execution, and end its continued and unlawful use of the death penalty,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment.”
Motiur Rahman Nizami, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was found guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh, including genocide, torture, and the murder of intellectuals, and sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in October 2014.
The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and sentence on appeal earlier this year, following which Motiur Rahman Nizami filed his review petition.
Thus far, four individuals have been executed based on convictions by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid were executed in November 2015; Muhammad Kamaruzzaman was executed in April 2015; and Abdul Qader Mollah was executed in 2013. Several others have been sentenced to death.
“The perpetrators of the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence must be brought to justice and held to account for their crimes,” said Zarifi.
“However, another execution on the basis of a flawed trial that is inconsistent with international human rights standards undermines justice, and must be stopped,” he added.
Bangladesh is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges it to respect the right to a fair trial.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT are not in compliance with Bangladesh’s international legal obligations, and international standards for fair trials.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedural flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
Background information
In a statement on 8 April 2016, the UN Office of the High Commission of Human Rights reaffirmed that trials before the ICT in Bangladesh did not met international standards of fair trial and due process, and that the imposition of a death sentence in such circumstances constitutes a violation of the right to life.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition.
A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Apr 6, 2016 | News
Newly appointed Myanmar Attorney General U Tun Tun Oo must commit to strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country, said the ICJ today.
U Tun Tun Oo (photo) has been one of the Deputy Attorney-Generals in the Union Attorney General’s Office since 2006.
“U Tun Tun Oo is taking over a post that is Myanmar’s most powerful legal officer. He plays a complex role, at once a member of the Executive, adviser to the President and the Hluttaw, the authority drafting and amending laws,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “As an immediate matter, he should review all political cases and stop the harassment of human rights defenders.”
The Attorney General represents the government in judicial proceedings and advises the cabinet on the legality of its actions.
He also leads Prosecutors in the country, and thus has the authority to select, initiate and undertake investigations into criminal and politically sensitive cases.
The Attorney General is also the president of the country’s only officially recognized Bar Association.
The Attorney General is, in effect, the minister of justice, and as such has controlled much of the work of the judiciary, too.
The Union Attorney General’s Office has historically followed the interests of the military and impeded an independent judiciary, the ICJ notes.
It has been criticized for failing to tackle major problems such as corruption and human rights abuses while continuing to prosecute human rights defenders and political opponents.
“Within the Union Attorney General’s Office, prosecutors must act with integrity in an independent, impartial and objective manner and in the protection of the public interest”, said Zarifi.
“Prosecutors must exercise sound discretion in the performance of their functions. They must seek justice, without fear of favour, not merely convict.”
“The Attorney-General’s Office must not shy away from prosecutions that will combat impunity,” he added.
The Union Attorney General’s Office launched its Strategic Plan for 2015-2019, establishing important benchmarks for measuring the institution’s development.
The Strategic Plan acknowledges the public’s low confidence in the office and commits the office to the rule of law, human rights, fair trials, prosecutorial ethics and accountability, in accordance with international standards.
“The Union Attorney General’s Office must investigate and prosecute criminal offences, including gross human rights violations and abuses, with impartiality. The Union Attorney General’s Office must be free from unwarranted interference from the legislative and the executive branches of government. Likewise, it must not interfere with judges or lawyers in an independent judiciary,” Zarifi said.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Myanmar, t: +95(0)9250800301; e: vani.sathisan@icj.org
Additional information:
Under international standards, prosecutors are required to “respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights” and “give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law.” These principles are set out in the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors.
An exposition and analysis of international law and standards are available in English and Myanmar language in the ICJ’s authoritative Practitioners’ Guide on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
Apr 5, 2016 | News
The Court of Appeal’s decision to lift the stay of execution of Kho Jabing is a serious blow to human rights in Singapore, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to grant Kho Jabing clemency and immediately impose a moratorium on executions, with a view towards abolishing the death penalty in the near future.
“The death penalty is never justifiable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “If Singapore goes through with the execution of Kho Jabing, it will go against the growing international consensus to abolish the death penalty.”
Currently, 117 member states of the United Nations support the General Assembly resolution passed in December 2014 calling for an international moratorium on the use of death penalty, the ICJ reminds.
The Geneva-based organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and considers the imposition of the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The ICJ has received information that there are nine other individuals currently on death row in Singapore.
Authorities have not yet released the date of Kho Jabing’s execution.
The lawyers of Kho Jabing will be filing a petition for clemency in the next few days.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to halt the imminent execution of Kho Jabing, grant the petition for clemency and commute his death sentence.
Background
Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Singapore in 2010. After amendments were made in 2012 on the laws on the death penalty in Singapore, Kho Jabing was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The prosecution, however, appealed the re-sentencing and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal.
The court rejected his application for clemency in October 2015. On 23 November 2015, he was granted a temporary reprieve pending the outcome of a petition filed by his lawyers, which raised questions of fact and law.
The decision of the Court of Appeal this morning lifted the temporary reprieve and upheld its decision to impose the death penalty on Kho Jabing.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
