Apr 16, 2018 | News
On the fourth anniversary of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, “Billy,” the ICJ repeats its calls for the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) to assume responsibility for effectively investigating the case.
To date no progress has been made to establish the fate of Billy and the DSI has declined to take up the matter.
Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials.
At the time of his apparent enforced disappearance, Billy had been working with ethnic Karen villagers and activists on legal proceedings the villagers had filed against the National Park, the Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and the former Chief of Kaeng Krachan National Park concerning the alleged burning of villagers’ homes and property in the National Park in 2010 and 2011.
“The very reason the DSI was created was to investigate complex cases of this kind, including where Government officials may be implicated in gross human rights violations that amount to crimes under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser with the ICJ.
“If the DSI continues to refuse to open a special investigation after four years of little apparent progress by the police, the DSI will risk being perceived as contributing to the pervasive culture of impunity that exists within Thailand,” he added.
This week, Billy’s wife, Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, advised the ICJ that the last time the DSI had discussed Billy’s investigation with her and her family was over a year ago.
The ICJ was further informed that on 9 April 2018, Phinnapha submitted a letter to the Director-General of the DSI seeking updates on the progress of Billy’s case and clarification as to why the DSI had not accepted Billy’s case for a special investigation.
“Thailand has a clear legal duty to continue to investigate the case until Billy’s fate or whereabouts are established and to ensure that the investigative process and any outcomes are transparent – which is especially important to victims’ families who play a crucial role in investigations,” added Abbott.
On 23 May 2017, Thailand established a Committee consisting of 18 officials, including from the DSI, to formulate policies for the prevention of acts of torture and enforced disappearance, and to investigate and provide remedies in accordance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which Thailand is a party, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), which Thailand has signed but not yet ratified.
On 26 June 2017, the Committee reportedly stated that it would consider past, pending and new cases of enforced disappearance, including the case of Billy.
However, the Committee has yet to demonstrate effectiveness in efforts to implement Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
“While any steps Thailand takes towards accountability for allegations of torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance is welcome, the Committee should not be seen as a meaningful substitute for establishing these as crimes under domestic law,” Abbott said.
Thailand-Billy disappearance 4th year-News-web story-2018-ENG (Full story in PDF)
Thailand-Billy fourth-News-webstory-2018-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Further Reading
Billy’s case
ICJ, ‘Launch special investigation into enforced disappearance of “Billy”’, 6 August 2015
ICJ, ‘Strengthen efforts to solve the apparent enforced disappearance of “Billy”, 16 April 2015
ICJ, ‘“Disappearance” of Billy demands special investigation’, 17 July 2014
ICJ, ‘Thai authorities must urgently investigate Billy’s ‘disappearance’’, 28 April 2014
Draft Act criminalizing torture and enforced disappearance
ICJ and Amnesty International, Open letter to Thailand’s Minister of Justice on the amendments to the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act, 12 March 2018
English
Thai
ICJ and Amnesty International, Recommendations to Thailand’s Ministry of Justice on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act, 23 November 2017
Human Rights Committee review of Thailand
ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights and Cross-Cultural Foundation, Joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
UN Committee against Torture review of Thailand
ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, Joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture, 29 January 2018
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 28, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today submitted a report to the UN Committee against Torture, calling for recommendations to be made on prevention of and accountability for continued recourse to torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan.
The ICJ’s submission is made ahead of consideration by the Committee against Torture in April to May 2018 of Tajikistan’s third periodic report on the implementation of its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The ICJ’s report draws from an earlier study on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Tajikistan and calls on the Committee against Torture to make recommendations concerning:
- The obligation to adequately sanction torture;
- The obligation to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including in places of detention;
- The obligation to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment;
- The use of amnesties and pardons for torture;
- The prohibition against the use of evidence obtained by torture;
- The right to complain about torture and ill-treatment; and
- The right of victims to effective remedies and reparation.
Tajikistan-CAT-Advocacy-AlternativeReport-2018ENG (download the ICJ’s submission, in PDF)
Mar 19, 2018
The Government of the Philippines should reconsider and reverse its hasty and ill-conceived decision to withdraw as a State Party to the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court, the ICJ said today.
In a letter transmitted to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, the ICJ questioned the stated basis for the decision to withdraw from the Rome statute, to which it has been party since 2011, and to commit itself to effectively investigate the numerous allegations of widespread and systematic extrajudicial killings and bring to justice those responsible.
The ICC has jurisdiction over certain serious crimes under international law including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
“The Philippine government’s submitted justifications for withdrawing from the ICC are a litany of poorly thought out pseudo-legal arguments and self-serving statements that focus on President Duterte’s fear and resentment at facing questions for the horrific campaign of extrajudicial executions that his government has explicitly condoned,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“At any rate, despite what the Philippine president may wish, withdrawal from the ICC will not prevent the Prosecutor from conducting a preliminary examination because the acts complained of were committed prior to the date when the withdrawal becomes effective,” he added.
Under the Rome Statute, withdrawal as a State Party takes effect only after one year from notification of the UN Secretary General, unless a later date is specified.
The ICJ’s letter to President Duterte highlights some of the legal and factual errors contained in the Philippine government’s official submission of the justifications for the withdrawal.
The letter points out that the launch of a preliminary examination does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence or due process.
In order to proceed with a full investigation, if the Prosecutor determines it is warranted, a pre-trial chamber of judges would still have to give approval.
The letter notes the Philippine government will have the opportunity to argue that it is willing to investigate and prosecute, and that its domestic processes are sufficient to address the crimes alleged.
Since President Rodrigo Duterte assumed office in June 2016, there has been a notable increase in the number of killings of persons allegedly involved in the trade and sale of illegal drugs.
It has been alleged that the number of persons killed has reached to the thousands, and that many of these killings were unlawful, amounting to extrajudicial executions.
“President Duterte has very publicly stated that he will block investigations into the conduct of his government and its role in the killings of thousands of people; he has insulted and threatened United Nations officials; he has bullied and belittled domestic critics and civil society. He’s now trying to avoid accountability under international law, too,” Zarifi said.
“There is no indication so far of a genuine, thorough, prompt, impartial, and independent investigations of these crimes in the Philippines, and the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to do so is one of the grounds on which the ICC can and should assert jurisdiction to undertake its own investigation,” he further said.
“Instead of engaging in legal maneuvers to facilitate impunity, President Duterte must unequivocally denounce extrajudicial killings, whether of alleged criminals or of any person in the Philippines, and allow a proper investigation of these crimes,” he added.
The ICJ calls on the Government to take immediate and effective measures to address the thousands of cases of extrajudicial killings in observance of its domestic laws and to respect its obligations under human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Investigations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings should be geared towards establishing the crime and bringing perpetrators to justice.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +662 619 8499 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-ICJ Letter ICC Withdrawal-Advocacy-Open letters-2018-ENG (full letter, in PDF)
Mar 14, 2018 | Events, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Today, the ICJ highlighted threats to and defenders of the rule of law around the world, at a side event to the UN Human Rights Council, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
The rule of law is under attack and human rights and human rights defenders everywhere are at risk, whether as targets or “collateral damage”.
The human rights movement has overcome similar challenges in the past. This side event to the 37th session of the Human Rights Council discussed the situation today and lessons from the ICJ’s history since its founding in 1952.
ICJ’s regional directors, gathering in Geneva from around the world, provided a unique snapshot of the “state of the world” for rule of law and human rights, from ICJ’s position on the global frontlines of the struggle to defend essential legal safeguards:
• Saïd Benarbia, Director for Middle East North Africa
• Ramón Cadena Rámila, Director for Central America
• Róisín Pillay, Director for Europe and Central Asia
• Frederick Rawski, Director for Asia and Pacific
• Arnold Tsunga, Director for Africa
Moderator: Saman Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General
In addition to highlighting the global and regional trends, specific examples for discussion included Azerbaijan, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Myanmar, the Philippines, Poland, the Russian Federation, South Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, the United States of America, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
For more information, contact un@icj.org
Watch the video:
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/10157996747579616/
Universal – Rule of law frontlines – News – Event – 2018 – ENG (Event flyer in PDF)
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.”
