Nov 14, 2019 | News
On 14 November 2019, the ICJ called on the Government of Cambodia to drop apparently politically-motivated charges of treason against Kem Sokha, leader of the now-defunct Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP).
The ICJ also called on the government to remove restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms of all individuals in Cambodia.
On 10 November, Kem Sokha was released from court-imposed conditions amounting to house arrest, following his arrest in 2017 on spurious charges of treason under article 443 of the Criminal Code. This came after Phnom Penh Municipal Court partially lifted the judicial supervision conditions to which Sokha had been subject. He remains banned from participating in political activities and from leaving Cambodia, and must respond to summons from any authority. Charges of alleged “conspiracy with a foreign power” remain active against Sokha, pursuant to which he risks being imprisoned for between 15 and 30 years.
“Although the release of Kem Sokha from house arrest is a welcome development, it is not nearly enough to show that the government is committed to ending its persecution of civil society and political rivals,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director.
The release comes just after the European Commission released a preliminary report outlining the findings of an investigation triggered in February 2019 on possible removal of tariff preferences granted to Cambodia under the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) trade agreement, on the basis that the Cambodian government had failed to comply with its international obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and the rule of law. A fact-finding mission completed by the Commission last year found ongoing serious, systematic violations of human rights in Cambodia, particularly of the rights of free expression, association, assembly and political participation. In February 2020, the European Commission will finalize its decision.
“The fact that the charges remain in place, and Kem Sokha’s rights to freedoms of association, expression and the right to political participation continue to be suppressed is further evidence of an overall dire human rights and rule of law environment in Cambodia,” said Rawski.
Cambodia has seen a sharp deterioration in human rights and the rule of law since before the 2018 general elections, which has seen abuse of legal and judicial processes to harass and silence members of the political opposition, civil society, and independent media.
Members of the political opposition have been targeted in recent months. In 2019 alone, Cambodian authorities have charged more than 100 members of the political opposition with offences for political reasons, and detained more than half of them. The Cambodian government has also attempted to ban the return of opposition members in exile by urging neighbouring governments to stop their movement into Cambodia, and through increased monitoring of border crossings. In October 2019, the ICJ and other organizations also called for the dropping of spurious charges against former Radio Free Asia (RFA) journalists Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin, who are being tried for multiple offences in connection with carrying out their journalist functions.
Background
The charges against Kem Sokha appear politically-motivated. His arrest in 2017 came just months before the CNRP – the main opposition party which he led – was dissolved, and more than 100 of its members banned from political activity following a Supreme Court judgment in November 2017. Soon after, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party won the July 2018 general elections by a landslide. The ICJ has highlighted that the “single largest problem facing the Cambodian justice system is the lack of independent and impartial judges and prosecutors”, including “an endemic system of political interference in high-profile cases and an equally entrenched system of corruption in all others”.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: charges against journalists Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin must be dropped’, 4 October 2019
ICJ, ‘Misuse of law will do long-term damage to Cambodia’, 26 July 2018
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: weaponization of the law (UN Statement)’, 22 March 2018
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: the ICJ condemns dissolution of main opposition party’, 16 November 2017
Nov 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The Government of Myanmar should adopt constitutional and legislative guarantees to enable the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) to better protect and promote human rights for all persons in the country, according to a new ICJ briefing note.
Entitled Four Immediately Implementable Reforms to Enhance Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission, the note analyzes the ability of the MNHRC to address various human rights violations, some of which have been found by experts to constitute the most serious crimes under international law. The briefing is available in Burmese and English.
“The NLD-led government should promptly reform the MNHRC Law, allowing for the selection of better qualified and representative Commissioners, and granting them the independence and resources necessary for their work. This reform is a low-hanging fruit for the NLD, and overdue” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser.
“At the same time, Commissioners should robustly pursue their mandate, including by advocating for the rights of society’s most vulnerable people,” he added.
The MNHRC itself has recognized the need for law reform, in its self-assessment of 2018, and in its reform proposals to the Government. Any law reform process should be opened up to genuine public consultation, enabling inputs from experts and the general public.
“The MNHRC generally fails to act on reported human rights violations, from crimes by soldiers in border areas through to regular attacks on the press, rendering it ineffective in providing redress to victims,” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser. “The MNHRC’s routine inaction in critical cases demonstrates its lack of the necessary independence to stand against state actors, particularly the military,” he added.
One illustrative case is the Commission’s reluctance to further pursue justice for the death in military custody of journalist Ko Par Gyi, whose killers were secretly tried and acquitted in a military court, despite the MNHRC’s finding that a public criminal prosecution was warranted. Commissioners have also been notably silent on gross human rights violations against Rohingyas, perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers in the context of “clearance operations”.
The note highlights that the Commission refrains from investigating alleged human rights violations by referencing Section 37 of the 2014 MNHRC Law. This provision is narrowly construed to effectively preclude the MNHRC from conducting inquiries on matters that are already the subject of a legal proceeding.
The composition of the Commission also does not reflect Myanmar’s ethnic, religious, regional and gender diversity, which further erodes its ability to address the conflict-related violations and abuses particularly prevalent in border areas such as Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states.
While amending problematic provisions in the 2014 MNHRC Law is warranted, a constitutional guarantee would also significantly improve the Commission’s institutional independence.
“A constitutional provision, in contrast to ordinary legislation, is subject to a stricter amendment process that would less likely render the MNHRC politically vulnerable,” said Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
“Myanmar can look to the experience of the national human rights institutions of East Timor and the Philippines, which were established by constitutional provision at a time that both countries were transitioning to a democratic and rule of law based order”,” she added.
Four immediately implementable reforms for the Government of Myanmar are recommended:
- To the Union President and the Selection Board: appoint Commissioners through a transparent and fully consultative process that enables its composition to effectively protect human rights and appropriately reflect the full diversity of the population of Myanmar, including ethnic, religious, regional, gender and sexual identities;
- To the Commissioners: adopt a broad and active interpretation of their mandate, including by taking steps to address the most serious violations, including crimes under international law, and certain human rights cases that have gone before courts;
- To the Myanmar parliament: amend the 2014 MNHRC Law to include provisions that strengthen the MNHRC’s capacity and independence, and improve the appointment process for commissioners
- To the Constitutional Amendment Committee: propose provisions guaranteeing the structural and financial independence of the MNHRC in amending the 2008 Constitution.
To download the press release in Burmese, click here.
Download
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-ENG (in English, PDF)
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-BUR (in Burmese, PDF)
Contact
Jen Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org, t: 09968134317
Daw Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org, t: 09428122794
Related material:
Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar: Baseline Study
Myanmar: Five years without justice for journalist Ko Par Gyi
Oct 25, 2019 | News
Today the ICJ condemned the response of Lebanese security forces to predominantly peaceful protests that erupted across Lebanon on 17 October following the government’s attempt to introduce a daily tariff on voice calls made through applications such as WhatsApp.
The ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to respect and protect the right of protestors to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression; to refrain from using unlawful force to disperse protests and ill-treatment of protestors and; to effectively investigate and ensure accountability for any abuses committed in connection with the protests.
Security forces in Lebanon have employed excessive and unlawful force against protestors, amid nationwide dissent over Lebanon’s worsening economic crisis.
NGOs and video footage circulating on news and social media platforms document a number of disproportionate measures used to disperse crowds and quell the unprecedented protests, including by firing tear gas, beating protestors and forcefully removing them from their peaceful sit-ins.
“The Lebanese authorities must ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of all abuses committed in the context of these protests by State or Non-state actors, including the arbitrary use of force, arrests and ill-treatment,” said Said Benarbia.
With respect to the use of force, the Lebanese authorities are bound by international law and standards, which stipulate that the use of force by law enforcement officials is only permissible when it is a last resort, is strictly necessary and is used to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
Attacks by armed groups affiliated with the Amal Movement and Hezbollah have also been reported by local organizations and media.
At least 15 protesters were injured in Nabatieh and six persons in Riad al-Solh and admitted to hospital. Additional violent attacks on protesters, allegedly attributed to the Amal Movement, also took place in the city of Soor.
Background
The protests purportedly broke out in response to years of rampant corruption, unemployment and poverty.
By 18 October, protests were characterized by calls to oust governmental authorities perceived as Lebanon’s ruling elite, including the president, government and legislative authority, and fundamental change to the sectarian political system.
In an attempt to diffuse the increasingly tense situation and appease protestors, Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced the adoption of a raft of economic reforms on 21 October.
Anti-government protests however, which have now entered their ninth consecutive day, have gained considerable momentum.
Lebanon is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights. Both of these treaties require the State to guarantee and protect the rights to freedom expression and freedom of assembly and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through the unlawful use of force.
Lebanon-Protests-News-web story (story in Arabic, PDF)
Oct 14, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The conviction today of Catalan separatist leaders of broadly defined offences of sedition unduly restricts rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association, the ICJ said today.
“These convictions represent a serious interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, association and assembly of the leaders. The resort to the law of sedition to restrict the exercise of these rights is unnecessary, disproportionate and ultimately unjustifiable” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
The ICJ also stressed that the overly broad definition of the crime of sedition applied in this case creates a high risk of arbitrariness.
“We are concerned that the Supreme Court does not comply with Spain’s obligations under international human rights law in the consideration of the charges against these defendants and this seriously undermines these convictions,” he added.
Nine of the twelve leaders on trial – including high-ranking Catalan government officials –were convicted of sedition in connection with their part in the administration on 1 October 2017 of a referendum on Catalonian independence. The referendum was conducted despite having been declared illegal by the Constitutional Court.
The voting process during the referendum was forcibly suppressed in many locations by the police, with credible reports of the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force in breach of Spain’s international law obligations.
“Interference with peaceful political expression and protest is not acceptable, save in limited circumstances where it is strictly necessary and proportionate for compelling purposes such as national security .” Frigo said.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Background
The 12 people convicted in connection with the October 2017 referendum include Oriol Junqueras (13 years of imprisonment for sedition and abuse of power), former Catalan vice-president; Carme Forcadell, former Catalan parliament speaker (11 years and six months of imprisonment for sedition); eight former ministers in the Catalan government – Jordi Turull (12 years of imprisonment for sedition and abuse of power), Raül Romeva (12 years of imprisonment for sedition and abuse of power), Joaquim Forn (10 years and six months of imprisonment for sedition), Santiago Vila (10 months for disobedience), Meritxel Borràs (10 months for disobedience), Dolors Bassa (12 years of imprisonment for sedition and abuse of power), Josep Rull (10 years and six months of imprisonment for sedition), Carles Mundó (10 months for disobedience); Jordi Sànchez (9 years of imprisonment for sedition) the former leader of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC); and Jordi Cuixart (9 years of imprisonment for sedition), former head of the independence organisation Òmnium Cultural.
Spain has obligations to protect freedom of expression, including political expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 21 and 22 ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on freedom of expression has affirmed that: “extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure that treason laws and similar provisions relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3” of article 19 ICCPR, which requires that restrictions on freedom of expression be provided for by law and must be necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as national security or public order .) Rights to participate in public life are protected under Article 25 ICCPR.
Oct 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ in partnership with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) convened the 2019 International Humanitarian Law (IHL) moot court competition.
The IHL moot court competition brought together 12 law students from Great Zimbabwe University, Midlands State University, University of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University; to engage with IHL issues.
The Great Zimbabwe University students won the competition and will participate in the All Africa Moot Court Competitions to be held in Arusha, Tanzania representing Zimbabwe.
Moot Court competitions are a part of the philosophy of developing a conscientious lawyer and contributing to law graduates who have an affinity for defending human rights and the rule of law. IHL incorporates human rights principles in times of war. As a result, understanding IHL allows students to have an understanding of the application and limitations of human rights during times of war. The moot court competitions additionally equip the students with an invaluable opportunity to develop key advocacy skills.
“The moot competition gives law students the opportunity to have experiential learning and can be one among an array of interventions that could be done to supplement the university education of lawyers in Zimbabwe that has not been very strong on human rights and humanitarian law,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme.
The competition was held from 8 October to 11 October 2019. On 8 October the law students underwent an advocacy boot camp which was a full training day on advocacy skills. The four law faculties participated in a preliminary round on 9 October. The top two, Great Zimbabwe University and Midlands State University qualified for the final round. The winning team, Great Zimbabwe University will participate in the All Africa Moot Court Competitions which brings together IHL national champions from all over Africa.
The competition was supported by the European Union.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, t: +26377728 3248; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Rumbidzai Muyendesi, t: +263771666579; e: rumbidzai.muyendesi(a)icj.org
