Apr 7, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should intervene to stay the imminent execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, said the ICJ today.
Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 after an unfair trial, the ICJ says.
On Monday, 6 April 2015, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected Kamaruzzaman’s last-ditch petition for independent review of the sentence – he was claiming discrepancies in prosecution witness testimony during the trial – paving the way for his imminent execution.
“The ICJ has long supported the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 war to gain Bangladesh’s independence, but the death penalty, especially after a trial with procedural and substantive flaws, perpetuates the cycle of violence and is a perversion of justice,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that the ICT does not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of his review petition, Kamaruzzaman must now decide whether to seek clemency from the President, as the last resort.
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.
“The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment,” Zarifi said. “Especially where the death penalty is concerned, the trial process has to meet the highest standards of fairness and due process, but this case falls far short of that.”
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
In May 2013, the ICT found Kamaruzzaman guilty of mass killing during the 1971 Liberation War and sentenced him to death.
In November 2014, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on appeal upholding Kamaruzzaman’s conviction and death sentence.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing 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 towards its abolition.
117 UN Member States, a clear majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Apr 7, 2015 | News
Venezuela is intimidating and harassing human rights defenders, and making unsubstantiated allegations that they are seeking to undermine Venezuelan democracy, 28 international and Latin American human rights organizations, including the ICJ, said today.
The authorities’ allegations concern the groups’ legitimate functions of documenting abuses and representing victims before international human rights bodies.
Venezuelan authorities should cease this tactic immediately, the groups said.
Governments participating in the Summit of the Americas in Panama on April 10-11, 2015, should press the administration of Nicolás Maduro to ensure that human rights defenders can do their job without fear of reprisals, the organizations said.
The government harassment is clearly intended to discredit and intimidate groups that document human rights violations, the groups said.
On February 12, Diosdado Cabello, president of the National Assembly and member of the governing party, stated on the website of his weekly TV show, Con el Mazo Dando, aired on the state-run Venezolana de Televisión, that “NGO representatives from the Venezuelan extreme right” would participate in hearings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in March.
Cabello had previously criticized Venezuelan human rights defenders who participated in the country’s review by the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva, or traveled abroad to conduct advocacy meetings.
On March 18, during his show, Cabello read a list of names of individuals and organizations who had traveled to Washington, DC, to participate in the IACHR hearings.
The list included leading human rights groups such as Provea, Espacio Público (Public Space), Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones (Venezuelan Observatory of Prisons), Transparencia Venezuela (Transparency Venezuela), Cofavic, Codevida, and Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social (Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflicts).
Cabello accused them of receiving instructions from the US Embassy in Caracas before traveling to the hearings.
Cabello contends that the information presented on the show had been provided by anonymous “patriotic informants” (patriotas cooperantes).
Twelve human rights defenders who arrived in Caracas on various flights between March 20 and 22 have said that they were followed by unidentified men from when they landed until they left the airport, were filmed or photographed, and/or that officials irregularly searched their bags.
On March 23, María Alejandra Díaz, a lawyer who represented the government at the IACHR hearings, said on Venezolana de Televisión that “The issue of human rights is just a façade” and that nongovernmental groups that participated in the hearings “say they are Venezuelan” but “play the imperialist game” and “lie in front of the IACHR to make Venezuela look like the devil.”
An article published on April 3 in the official newspaper Correo del Orinoco accused two well-respected human rights defenders of being part of the US Central Intelligence Agency’s “Venezuelan delegation” at the Summit of the Americas.
Their objective is to “legitimize destabilization actions” in Venezuela, the article says.
Under international law, governments must ensure that human rights defenders are allowed to pursue their legitimiate activities without reprisals, threats, intimidation, harassment, discrimination, or unnecessary legal obstacles.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held in 2003 that “[r]espect for human rights in a democratic state depends largely on human rights defenders enjoying effective and adequate guarantees so as to freely go about their activities.”
The rights to freedom of expression and association may be subject to limitations, but the limitations must adhere to strict standards so that they do not improperly impede the exercise of those rights. Any restrictions should be prescribed by law, be necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the aim pursued.
In 2012, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association called on countries to ensure that these rights “are enjoyed by everyone and any registered or unregistered entities” and that no one is subject to “harassment, persecution, intimidation or reprisals” for exercising them.
Signatories
Amnesty International
Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) (Peru)
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC) (Argentina)
Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña Tlachinollan (Mexico)
Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez, A.C. (Centro Prodh) (Mexico)
Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad (Dejusticia) (Colombia)
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
CIVICUS
Ciudadanos en Apoyo a los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (CADHAC) (Mexico)
Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Colombia)
Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) (Ecuador)
Corporación Humanas (Chile)
Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Peru)
Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR) (Uruguay)
Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) (Peru)
Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Direitos Humanos (Brazil)
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Frontline Defenders
Fundación Myrna Mack (Guatemala)
Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos (INREDH) (Ecuador)
Human Rights Watch
Observatorio Ciudadano (Chile)
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights
Transparency International
World Organization Against Torture
Venezuela-Harassment of HRDs-News-web stories-2015-SPA (full text in PDF, Spanish version)
Venezuela-Harassment of HRDs-News-web stories-2015-POR (full text in PDF, Portuguese version)
Mar 30, 2015 | Advocacy
The statement was signed by a group of nine human rights organizations, including the ICJ.
The statement can be read here:
ASEAN-Statement on Shafee-AICHR-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Mar 27, 2015 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, and other NGOs present at the Brussels Conference on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights today responded to the final draft of the Brussels Declaration to be adopted today, with ten specific action points.
The response welcomes the draft Declaration’s deadline of June 2016 to improve the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, but regrets that it does not set out the specific measures that states and the Committee of Ministers should take to improve implementation.
CouncilofEurope-JointStatement-ExecutionofJudgments-BrusselsConference-Advocacy-non legal submission-2015-ENG (download the joint statement)
Mar 23, 2015 | News
The arrest and criminal investigation today of prominent human rights Malaysian lawyer Eric Paulsen, apparently in connection to messages he sent on Twitter, is another move towards Malaysia’s accelerating use of the archaic and draconian Sedition Act, said the ICJ.
Eric Paulsen (photo), co-founder of Lawyers for Liberty, was arrested in the afternoon of 22 March 2015 at the Dataran Merdeka underground in Kuala Lumpur.
Although the exact basis of the arrest is not yet clear, his lawyers believe it was because of his Tweets criticizing efforts to introduce religion-based criminal offences and punishment (hudud) by the Kelantan state government.
Eric Paulsen was detained overnight and has yet to be charged with any offence. During the remand hearing on his case at noon today, the court denied an extension of his detention, but the police kept him in detention until 6pm today for questioning.
According to media reports, the postings “were seen as an insult which could disturb public peace,” one of the bases for invoking the Sedition Act.
“Malaysian authorities have been increasingly resorting to the Sedition Act to silence any political criticism, and now they’ve taken the alarming step of expanding it to cover even statements about religion,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia at the ICJ. “The Malaysian government is trying to position itself as the authority on religious matters, while at the same time violating the right to free expression as well as Malaysia’s Constitution.”
On 22 March 2015, Malaysia’s Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, commented through his own Twitter account that the police “views seriously” comments on religion made by those who are “not experts on the subject.” He further said, that the police “ha[ve] no choice but to take action” against those people who comment on religion.
The IGP’s comments were made in relation to the launching of an investigation against the Business Radio Station (BFM) and its presenter, Aisyah Tajuddin, for criticizing the implementation of hudud in Kelantan.
In 2012, Prime Minister Najib Razak promised that the Government of Malaysia would abolish the Sedition Act.
This promise, however, was reversed when Najib Razak announced in November 2014, that the Act would instead be strengthened to include provisions to protect the sanctity of Islam and on the secession of the Sabah and Sarawak states.
“The Sedition Act of 1948 is archaic and it’s high time the government followed through on its promise to get rid of this legislation,” said Emerlynne Gil.
This is Eric Paulsen’s second investigation under the Sedition Act this year, as he was arrested in January and then charged in February under section 4(1)(c) of the Act for a Twitter comment regarding the Malaysian Islamic Development Department.
The ICJ underscores that the Government’s actions contravene Principle 23 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which states that “lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.
In particular, they 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….”
Background:
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org, t +66 2 619 8477 ext. 206 or +66 840923575
![Smoke rises after an Israeli air strike on the village of Taybeh in southern Lebanon [Source: Al Jazeera]](https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-20-at-15.56.24-300x200.png)
