Oct 1, 2018 | News
The ICJ expressed disappointment regarding Friday’s ruling by Thailand’s Administrative Court dismissing a case filed against the Royal Thai Police (RTP) for unjustified restriction of the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and again called on Thailand to lift its ban on political gatherings and fully reinstate fundamental freedoms in Thailand.
On 28 September 2018, the Administrative Court dismissed a case filed by the organizers of a “We Walk Friendship March” (‘We Walk march’) against the RTP and six policemen for restricting the march on the basis that it was in violation of Head of NCPO Order No. 3/2558 (2015) (‘HNCPO Order 3’).
The Administrative Court referred to the Thai Constitution, the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Thailand is a State party, and HNCPO Order 3, in deciding that the march was a public assembly. Its decision clarified that the case had to be dismissed as the RTP’s actions had complied with the Public Assembly Act.
“It is astonishing that more than four years after the coup, HNCPO Order 3 and other repressive laws, orders and announcements which restrict fundamental freedoms remain in place,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The Administrative Court missed a critical opportunity to deliver an opinion that the ban on political gatherings should be lifted and that all laws, orders and announcements that are inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations should be amended or revoked immediately to reinstate all fundamental freedoms in Thailand,” added Abbott.
The march, which went ahead peacefully, aimed to bring attention to the need in Thailand for universal healthcare services, policies guaranteeing food security, laws that would not violate human rights, and public participation in the development of the Constitution.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
The ICJ’s full statement in English is available here: Thailand-Ban on Political Gatherings-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
The ICJ’s full statement in Thai is available here: Thailand-Ban on Political Gatherings-News-Web- Story-2018-THA
Aug 31, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in advance of Committee’s examination of South Africa’s initial periodic report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa ratified the Covenant in 2015.
When CESCR convenes to consider South Africa’s report on 2-3 October 2018, it will therefore be the first time that the Committee has the opportunity to review a report from South Africa on the implementation of its Covenant obligations.
In its submission, supplementing submissions made by a range of South African civil society organizations, the ICJ drew the Committee’s attention to:
a) South Africa’s incomplete discharge of its obligations in terms of the Covenant;
b) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to work;
c) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to an adequate standard of living;
d) The South African Government’s failure to report effectively and accurately on its efforts to realize the ESC rights of persons with disabilities;
e) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s commitment to the enactment of legislation to ensure the implementation of the Covenant;
f) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s intention to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant; and
g) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s declaration with regard to the right to education.
The ICJ’s submission invites CESCR to make various specific recommendations to the Government of South Africa in its Concluding Observations on each of these issues. Broadly, the ICJ also invites CESCR to recommend to the Government of South Africa time-bound commitments to processes leading to:
1. The full domestication of Covenant in South African law;
2. A comprehensive review of South Africa’s domestic laws and policies on ESC rights to ensure that they are implemented consistently with South Africa’s obligations in terms of the Covenant; and
2. The ratification of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The ICJ’s submission also supports submissions by civil society organizations and the South African Human Rights Commission inviting CESCR to recommend that South Africa withdraw its declaration relating to its “immediate” obligations in terms of the Covenant right to education.
Finally, the ICJ considers it critical that the South African Government reflect on the ways in which the Covenant to increases, alters and nuances the nature and content of its human rights commitments and obligations in terms of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
This the ICJ submits is particularly crucial in regard to rights which are entrenched in the Covenant but not the South African Constitution such as the right to work (Articles 6-8) and the right an adequate standard of living (Article 11).
In undertaking this process, the ICJ submits that due regard should be had the standards set out in the Covenant as interpreted by the Committee in its general comments.
SouthAfrica-ICJSubmissionCESCR-Advocacy-Non-legal submission-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Jul 27, 2018 | News
On 25 July, the ICJ visited the displaced persons of the Laguna Larga community, who were forcibly evicted from their homes over a year ago.
These displaced persons are now living in makeshift tents in infra-human conditions in the El Desengaño community, municipality of Candelaria, State of Campeche on the frontier between Guatemala and Mexico.
Their health and well-being are at serious risk.
On 8 September 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted precautionary measures in favour of the evicted and displaced community of Laguna Larga (Resolution 36/2017 Precautionary Measures No 412-17), calling on the Guatemalan authorities to adopt the “necessary measures to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiaries, through measures designed to improve, among other aspects, their sanitary and health conditions, in particular of children, women and the elderly”.
To date, the Guatemalan authorities have taken no action to implement the precautionary measures.
The ICJ was able to observe that the only measure adopted by the Guatemalan State has been to provide the displaced community with two teachers to give classes to the children.
However, the ICJ could also observe that the educational installations are precarious, too hot and very dark, which makes it difficult to give classes.
No sanitary nor health services have been provided by the Guatemalan authorities. On 24 July, a child died only 30 hours after her birth, seemingly a consequence of lack of medical attention.
Neither have other precautionary measures concerning food, access to water and housing been implemented.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the Guatemalan State has not fulfilled the requirements of the IACHR and that after a year, the rights to life and personal integrity of the displaced community of Laguna Larga is at risk of irreparable harm.
In the face of the inaction of the Guatemalan authorities, members of the Laguna Larga community with the support of Mexican and Guatemalan organizations have managed to implement various projects to provide drinking water, electricity, food and health services.
However, despite these important efforts, this humanitarian support remains insufficient given the serious crisis.
While the efforts of the Laguna Larga community and Mexican and Guatemala non-governmental organizations have been an example of civil society organization, it in no way exonerates, substitutes or reduces the responsibility of the Guatemalan State to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of the displaced population and to implement the precautionary measures ordered by the IACHR.
Ramon Cadena, Director of ICJ’s Central American Office, said:
“Given this situation, the ICJ urges the Guatemalan authorities immediately to fulfil the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ precautionary measures 412-17 and to resume the dialogue that was started before the eviction. According to international standards, the State should provide reparations for all the harm and prejudice caused.”
Jul 24, 2018 | News
For many years, human rights defenders in Izabal have been the victims of persecution because of their opposition to the Phoenix nickel mining project.
This project has been operated by the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN), formally owned by Hudbay and now owned by the Solway Group.
“The ICJ expresses its deep concern about the persecution of human rights defenders opposing to nickel mining operations that are causing serious environmental damage and irreparable harm to the Lake of Izabal.
The local communities’ peaceful resistance contrasts with the violent repression that they face,” Ramon Cadena, Director of the Central American Office of the ICJ, said today.
Ramon Cadena added: “the Guatemalan government must urgently put an end to the criminalization and persecution of community leaders, journalists and all human rights defenders in the Department of Izabal.
Internal disciplinary measures should be taken against judges who through their acts contribute to the persecution of persons exercising their legitimate rights and freedoms.
The State should provide reparations for the harm and prejudice caused to human rights defenders by the public authorities. Furthermore, the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) should fully investigate these acts.“
Eduardo Bin Poou, Vice-President of the Izabal Fishers’ Association was recently detained and falsely accused without any evidence that he had committed any crime.
Last year, on 27 May 2017, Carlos Maas Coc, a leader of the Fishers’ Association was assassinated, and another fisherman, Alfredo Maquín Cocul, was wounded and these crimes remain in impunity today.
From 18-20 July, 2018, the ICJ carried out a visit to the Department of Izabal. On 19 July, the ICJ observed the hearing when the case against Jerson Xitumul, a community journalist, was dismissed for lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, at the Court for Criminal, Narcotics and Environmental Offences in Puerto Barrios.
The ICJ then held a meeting with the Izabal Fishers’ Association and on 20 July, the ICJ interviewed the Vice President of the same Association, Eduardo Bin Poou, arbitrarily detained in the Puerto Barrios prison.
The ICJ is deeply concerned by the role that judges in the Department of Izabal have played in the criminalization of human rights defenders.
Judge Edgar Aníbal Arteaga López has often abused his office by imposing exemplary punishments against human rights defenders.
This judge has handed down arbitrary sentences against journalists, fishermen, community leaders, land rights’ defenders and all those opposed to the nickel operations or who defend community rights in the Department.
For example, because of the arbitrary actions of Judge Arteaga, the community leader, Abelardo Chub Caal, remains in detention although there is no evidence that he has committed any crime.
There are other cases including that of Maria Magdalena Cuc Choc, from the Chabilchoch community, who was detained on 17 January 2018 in Puerto Barrios.
The single Judge for Criminal Proceedings, Narcotics and Environmental Offences in Puerto Barrios, Ana Leticia Peña Ayala, despite the evidence, absolved the retired Colonel Mynor Ronaldo Padilla González (former chief of security for the CGN nickel company) of all charges and ordered his immediate liberty.
During the court case, the Judge Peña Ayala prohibited the public and journalists from entering the court room for so-called “security reasons”, so that most of the proceedings were carried out behind closed doors. With this ruling, the assassination of Adolfo Ich remains in impunity and those responsible have not been punished.
In this same case, Germán Chub was left quadriplegic and the circumstances of the attack against him have never been resolved.
In the hearing on 19 July in the case of Jerson Xitumul, without any justification, Judge Arteaga also prohibited the presence of journalists and international and national observers in the court room.
Both judges flagrantly violated the principle of public hearings established in the Guatemalan Penal Code. A formal complaint was submitted to the Auxiliary of the Human Rights Attorney of the Department of Izabal concerning the actions of Judge Arteaga on 19 July.
The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that the Guatemalan authorities have persecuted human rights defenders by charging them with crimes of land appropriation or aggravated land appropriation.
In this way, the Guatemalan authorities seek to criminalize the legitimate right to resist, enshrined in article 45 of the Guatemalan Constitution, accusing environmental human rights defenders and others of crimes such as incitement to crime, illegal detention, threats, damages, illicit meetings and marches and other acts. In practice, the State is penalizing the legitimate exercise of the rights of expression and association.
Jul 24, 2018 | Events, News
On 22 and 23 July the ICJ convened a workshop on Business, the Environment and Human Rights Law in Taunggyi, the capital of Myanmar’s Shan State.
This followed meetings between the ICJ’s legal advisers and the Shan State High Court and also with the State Advocate General on 13 July, to discuss rule of law developments.
The workshop aimed to identify ways to address the impacts of business activities on human rights and the environment, through legal advocacy including strategic litigation, and to provide a forum for cooperation and experience sharing among participants.
More than 50 lawyers, parliamentarians, human rights defenders and civil society representatives attended from Shan, Kayah and Mon states – provinces that together border Thailand, Laos and China.
An overview of the investment context was provided by Dr Myint Zaw of Paung Ku Myanmar, who also shared lessons from environmental activism in Myanmar.
As well as highlighting weaknesses in domestic law and policy, he presented concerns around lack of transparency and information sharing between the legislature and executive branches of government.
Australian lawyer and ICJ consultant Mae Tanner gave an overview of international human rights law and standards relevant to business activities and environmental protection, particularly emphasizing the obligations assumed by Myanmar in ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
She offered insights as to how UN mechanisms can be used by civil society to advance their advocacy on business and human rights in Myanmar.
Senior Advocate U Myint Thwin drew on his extensive litigation experience to share perspectives on the complex and confusing array of land laws in Myanmar and emphasized the importance of legal knowledge and training to combat corruption and achieve accountability.
The ICJ’s legal adviser Mr Sean Bain outlined the domestic laws relevant to investment and environmental protection in Myanmar and highlighted some key provisions that offer protection against human rights violations and abuses.
He noted the government’s stated aim of promoting the rule of law in Myanmar and emphasized the importance of demanding accountability, transparency and justice in this context.
Amarin Saichan, lawyer with Thai NGO EnLAW, shared experiences of pursuing strategic litigation to address unlawful and harmful business activities in Thailand, stressing the need for creativity in using the law to seek justice and accountability.
He also raised concerns around the use by government of strategic litigation against public participation in Thailand and explained how Thai lawyers are using the courts to guarantee the right protest against harmful development projects.
Participants had the opportunity to discuss how the strategies they shared could be used in the context of issues faced by their communities.
These included human rights and environmental concerns raised by energy and extractive projects, restrictions on shifting agriculture, and violations of the right to freedom of expression and assembly faced by communities who oppose state-backed developments.
They considered advocacy strategies for four case studies selected by participants from across Shan, Kayah and Mon states.
Throughout the workshop speakers and participants highlighted the importance of cooperation between civil society and lawyers, and the need to use Myanmar’s legal system more proactively as part of their broader advocacy strategies.
This workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to lawyers and civil society in Myanmar.
