Mar 8, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan government must act swiftly and in line with human rights to prosecute those responsible for recent communal violence.
Particularly for attacks against the minority Muslim community in Kandy district, while avoiding the abusive practices of the past, said the ICJ today.
Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, proclaimed an island-wide state of emergency on 6th March 2018, following a curfew imposed in several areas since Monday.
The action came following a spate of attacks against members of the Muslim community that was spreading in the Kandy district, following attacks in Ampara last week, in Gintota in 2016, and Aluthgama in 2014.
“The government must show that it will bring to account those who have incited communal violence, particularly notorious figures who have been emboldened by the pervading impunity to preach hatred openly and publicly. The arrest of key suspects yesterday is a start and convictions must follow,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
“But the government must ensure that its investigation is impartial and effective and follows due process of the law,” he added.
The ICJ called upon the government of Sri Lanka to swiftly prosecute those responsible for inciting and carrying out the communal violence using existing legal provisions in the Penal Code and the ICCPR Act, the latter of which prohibits advocating “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
The ICJ is concerned that the Emergency Regulations issued by the President through powers under the Public Security Ordinance, confer excessively broad powers on the army and the police to search, arrest and investigate.
“Given Sri Lanka’s experience of Emergency Regulations, the government should ensure that these regulations are time-bound and comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Rawski.
The government has further restricted access to selected instant messaging applications and social media platforms “as an extraordinary but temporary response to limit the increasing spread of hate speech and violence through social media websites and phone messaging applications.”
“Blocking social media and other communication channels, even with the best of intentions, typically has the negative effect of restricting affected persons from seeking assistance, journalists from reporting around the situation and may actually undermine efforts to counter violence and hate speech. Any such measures should be narrowly targeted and limited in time,” said Rawski.
“A better approach would be for the Sri Lankan government to aggressively push back against these hateful narratives by demonstrating in actions as well as its rhetoric that Sri Lanka is a diverse country in which all of its citizens’ rights are respected and protected equally,” he added.
Background
Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance of Sri Lanka empowers the President to make emergency regulations in the interest of ‘public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ Sri Lanka has a history of governance using emergency powers, which in the past has posed a challenge for democratic governance and human rights, providing law enforcement with wide powers, circumventing ordinary checks and balances.
The President, while justifying circumstances that led to his proclamation of a state of emergency, has stated that he “has given special instructions the Police and the tri-forces to take action in terms of these regulations, in a lawful manner in good faith while ensuring minimum disturbance to the life and well-being of people, in conformity with Fundamental Human Rights of people.”
Feb 14, 2018 | News
From 12 to 14 February, representatives the ICJ visited Uzbekistan as the first step in a new programme of work on access to justice in the area of economic, social and cultural rights.
During the visit, ICJ representatives met with a number of State institutions relevant to this topic, including the Supreme Court, the High Judicial Council, the Ministry of Justice, the Bar Association of Uzbekistan as well as the Commission of the European Union Technical Assistance Programme National Coordination Unit (NCU).
The ICJ also met with the Delegation of the European Union to Uzbekistan.
The visit allowed the ICJ to provide information and begin plans for its work to advance access to justice for the protection of economic, social and cultural rights in Uzbekistan in the framework of the ACCESS project (“Advancing Civil Society in promoting ESCR Standards”), supported by the Delegation of the European Union to Uzbekistan.
During this visit, the ICJ signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Research Centre for the Study of Justice under the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan, with which it held an international seminar on Comparative Approaches to Selection, Appointment and Evaluation of Judges in September 2017.
The memorandum will serve as a platform for furthering ICJ’s work with the judiciary in Uzbekistan within the ACCESS project and other initiatives.
The ICJ is grateful to all those who met with the ICJ representatives in Tashkent.
Feb 14, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ addressed an academic seminar on the topic of “Public interest and the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)”.
It was organized by Thaksin University’s Faculty of Law, in collaboration with the Embassy of Canada in Bangkok, the Thai Ministry of Justice’s Justice Office, and the Community Resources Centre Foundation (CRC).
Participants in the seminar, which was held at Thaksin University, included more than 50 undergraduate students and lecturers from Thaksin University, around 20 villagers from affected communities, and approximately 20 justice officers from the Justice Office of Songkhla Province, Ministry of Justice.
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ National Legal Adviser, delivered an introduction to basic international human rights law on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and Thailand’s international legal obligations in relation to these rights.
Other speakers at the Workshop were Ms. Jantima Thanasawangkul, Special Prosecutor, Department of Legal Aid and Civil Rights Protection, Office of the Attorney General; Ms. Sor.Rattanamanee Polkla, Lawyer, Community Resources Centre Foundation; and Mr. Tawan Puakpong, Justice Office of Songkhla Province, Ministry of Justice.
Jan 25, 2018 | News
Myanmar’s publication in state media of lists with the names and accompanying photographs of more than 1,400 men, women and children under the heading “Members of ARSA Terrorist Group” constitutes an assault on human rights and contravenes key principles of the rule of law.
Authorities have not explained why or how listed persons were identified, if they are currently in detention, or if they are wanted for prosecution or for questioning pursuant to criminal investigations. Some or all persons listed appear to have been “accused” outside any formal judicial process.
Given the lack of publicly available information as to the basis of ascribing membership of a prescribed terrorist organization to the persons in the photos, and the manner in which their information has been publicized, the ICJ is concerned that the stated accusations may be arbitrary.
To the extent that there may be any credible basis for ascribing criminal conduct, the authorities have an obligation to administer justice through due process and fair trials, and not name calling and public shaming.
Authorities should cease publishing such material and take effective protective measures to ensure the safety and security of the people named in these publications and their families.
Serious crimes, including alleged acts of terrorism as well as human rights violations, necessitate investigations that are prompt, independent, impartial, effective and transparent in line with international standards.
As with other crimes, the investigation and prosecution of alleged acts of terrorism should conform to applicable national laws, including Myanmar’s Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent these do not violate applicable international standards.
If any of the listed individuals have been detained, they must be brought promptly before a judge and charged with a cognizable offense or else released.
Accused persons must be afforded legal protections, and if properly charged, they must be brought to justice through fair trials.
State authorities have a duty to respect and ensure the presumption of innocence.
Authorities must refrain from making public statements that are defamatory in nature, that violate fair trial rights by affirming or implying the guilt of persons accused of crimes, and that violate the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers, all of which are recognized in national and international law.
Particularly given the heightened tensions prevailing in northern Rakhine State, persons included in these lists and their families are at great risk of extra-judicial reprisals, which violates their right to security of the person.
In addition, the potentially defamatory publication of these photos by the government constitutes a violation of their right to privacy.
It also seriously undermines the government’s stated commitments to facilitating the safe return of refugees, and its responsibility to safeguard the physical security and integrity of all individuals from all communities in Myanmar.
Background
From 17 to 23 January 2018, Myanmar authorities published lists with the names, photos and identifying information of more than 1,400 men, women and children who they summarily accuse in the publications of involvement in or association with terrorism-related acts in Rakhine State.
These lists contain photos accompanied by captions with information variously including the name, age, village, alleged transgression, and other identifying information.
Most individuals are identified as “the terrorist” while others are characterized as a “family member of terrorists” or having “sympathized with the terrorist groups.”
The lists have run as supplements in the daily Burmese-language Myanmar Alinn newspaper and in the daily English-language Global New Light of Myanmar newspaper, published by the Ministry of Information.
Extracts have been published by the Office of the President of the Union, and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which on 16 January requested Bangladesh authorities to extradite “accused” persons to Myanmar.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that during and following security operations in Rakhine State, authorities have systematically failed to respect the rights of detainees in accordance with national and international law and standards.
Authorities have also so far failed to hold to account members of security forces, including soldiers and police, who appear to have perpetrated crimes against both Rohingya and Rakhine inhabitants of Rakhine State.
More than 650,000 inhabitants of northern Rakhine State, the vast majority of whom are Rohingya Muslims, have been displaced as a result of security operations commanded by Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on 25 August 2017.
The government’s Counter-Terrorism Central Committee has declared ARSA as a ‘terrorist organization’ and stated that its supporters would be held responsible for acts of terrorism, pursuant to the 2014 Counter-Terrorism Law.
Myanmar-Terrorist Lists-News-web story-2018-BUR (story in Burmese, PDF)
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
