Sep 14, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On 13 September 2020 the ICJ hosted a workshop on the impacts on economic, social and cultural rights associated with the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Thailand. Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from across Thailand attended the Workshop.
The event began with an introduction to ICJ’s report – the Human Rights Consequences of the Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones in Thailand – and outlined the deficiencies in the legal and regulatory framework governing economic development in Special Economic Zones and the Eastern Economic Corridor.
During the group discussions, participants were introduced to the international laws and standards that are applicable in the context of Thailand and can be applied to allegations of human rights violations and negative environmental impacts. They were urged to use these standards for their advocacy work.
These included economic, social and cultural rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Thailand is a State party and other internationally recognized principles, including:
- Right to an adequate standard of living and housing under article 11 of the ICESCR, General Comments 4 and 7 of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement – which stress the need to provide adequate legal protection from forced eviction, due process, alternative accommodation, and access to an effective remedy of those that are affected by eviction orders;
- Human rights obligations that are exercised in relation to the environment, such as obligation to facilitate public participation in decision making related to the environment, and duties to protect human rights defenders and to conduct the prior assessment of the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies; and
- Rights to and at work under article 6 to 8 of the ICESCR, General Comment No. 19 and 23 of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and several ILO Conventions, particularly regarding rights abuses suffered by migrant, seasonal and subcontracted workers, as well as restrictions on freedom to join and form trade unions.
At the conclusion of the Workshop, participants exchanged views on strategies and collaboration for action to mitigate potential impacts of the Special Economic Zones and the Eastern Economic Corridor and to advance the protection of economic, social and cultural rights.
Further reading
Thailand: laws governing development of Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones fail to adequately protect human rights – ICJ report
Thailand: ICJ hosts discussion on human rights consequences of Special Investment Zones
ICJ and Chiang Mai University discuss Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and Thailand
Aug 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the conviction and imprisonment of human rights defender Jolovan Wham following the dismissal of his appeal by Singapore’s highest court in connection with a conference he had organized in 2016.
The ICJ urged the Singapore’s authorities to take action to quash the conviction and immediately release Wham from prison.
The ICJ further called on the authorities to refrain from targeting human rights defenders for harassment through unwarranted legal proceedings and to amend the country’s Public Order Act which formed the basis for the charges against Wham.
“Wham will now be in jail for organizing an indoor private discussion, in violation of his rights to free expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly,” said Ian Seiderman, the ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
In November 2016, Wham organized a discussion entitled “Civil Disobedience and Social Movements” for approximately 50 participants in an indoor event venue, which included Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong as a speaker who called in via a video call. Prior to the event, Wham had not applied for a police permit to conduct the discussion, which was required under the Public Order Act (POA) as Wong is not a citizen of Singapore.
In 2019, Wham was convicted of violating section 16(1) of the POA and sentenced to a fine of S$2,000 (approx. USD 1,463) or ten days’ imprisonment in default by the District Court, following which his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Yesterday, his appeal against the High Court decision was dismissed by Singapore’s apex Court of Appeal. Today, Wham began his prison term of ten days.
“The highly flawed Public Order Act was initially adopted to regulate public assemblies and processions, but has now perversely expanded in its scope of application to cover even private discussions,” said Seiderman.
In January 2019, the UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the situation of human rights defenders and the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association issued a joint statement expressing concern that the conviction was “clearly neither a necessary nor a proportional response to the actions of Jolovan Wham.” The Special Rapporteurs noted that the action had wrongly targeted the “legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore.”
“The conviction and imprisonment of Wham marks a continued trend of abuse of poorly conceived laws to limit free expression, association and peaceful assembly in Singapore and harass individuals who seek to bring human rights violations to light in the country,” said Seiderman.
The ICJ calls on Singapore’s legislators also to act to amend other non-human rights compliant laws, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AJPA), and criminal defamation provisions under its Penal Code.
Wham was previously convicted in 2018 under the AJPA for alleged contempt of court following a comment on Facebook that “Malaysian judges are more independent than Singapore’s in cases with political implications”. He currently has active charges under the POA relating to the organizing of a vigil for a death row inmate and the holding of a silent protest on an MRT train and is being investigated under the POA for holding signs silently in solidarity with other activists.
See also
In a 2019 regional report, the ICJ found that in Singapore, non-human rights compliant provisions in POFMA, AJPA and other contempt of court provisions, civil and criminal defamation laws have been used to curtail freedom of expression and information online.
ICJ, Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia, December 2019
Similarly, the ICJ and other human rights organizations have called on Singapore authorities to drop investigations of human rights lawyer M Ravi and others under the contempt of court law and cease their harassment of human rights defenders. On 13 August, in relation to a death penalty case M Ravi is defending, the Court of Appeal opined that a statement made by the Attorney-General’s Chambers against the lawyer could have been “reasonably construed as intimidating”, offering a recent glimpse into the trend of legal harassment faced by human rights defenders in the country.
ICJ, ICJ and other groups call on authorities to drop investigations under abusive contempt of court law, March 2020
Aug 13, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ and 64 civil society organizations jointly called on the Royal Government of Cambodia (“RGC”) to discard the draft Law on Public Order (“draft law”) which, if adopted, would breach Cambodia’s international legal obligations.
The draft law aims to regulate public spaces and public behavior within those spaces, covering aesthetics, sanitation, cleanliness, noise, and social values, all under the broad aim of maintaining “public order”. It sets out a number of specific activities that are prohibited, lists a range of penalties that may be imposed for violations, and grants unfettered enforcement powers to authorities across all levels of government, with the proclaimed objective of creating “a more civilized society”.
The organizations expressed concern that the draft law contains multiple overbroad and arbitrary provisions which violate numerous human rights protections enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia and human rights treaties to which Cambodia is party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Amidst an ongoing crackdown on fundamental freedoms in Cambodia, a number of existing laws already grant overbroad and unfettered powers to the RGC and are regularly deployed abusively to undermine human rights. Adoption of this draft Law on Public Order would serve to facilitate a further deterioration of the human rights situation in Cambodia.
The joint statement is available in English here.
The joint statement is available in Khmer here.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Global Accountability Initiative e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘ICJ and 31 organizations jointly urge Governments to call for respect of human rights in Cambodia’, 22 July 2020
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law’, 8 April 2020
ICJ, ‘Misuse of law will do long-term damage to Cambodia’, 26 July 2018
ICJ report, ‘Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia: Baseline Study’, October 2017
Aug 11, 2020 | News
The ICJ is concerned at reports that on 8 and 9 August, Lebanese security forces, including Internal Security Force (ISF) units, parliamentary police and the army, employed excessive and unlawful force against hundreds of protestors, resulting in the injury of more than 700 people and dozens of hospitalizations.
The ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression and refrain from using excessive and unlawful force against protestors demanding justice for the 4 August explosions in Beirut’s port district.
The explosions devastated the city’s infrastructure and resulted in the death, injury and internal displacement of large numbers of its inhabitants.
The ICJ stressed that credible allegations of excessive and unlawful use of force in the context of the protests must be promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated and those responsible must be held to account.
According to information available to the ICJ, at least 14 journalists and media personnel covering the protests were among the wounded.
According to reports, a policeman also died after falling down an elevator shaft while being chased by protesters. While there were reports that some demonstrators threw rocks and firecrackers at security forces, reports also indicate that the security forces’ response was indiscriminate and, in some instances, excessive.
“Many protestors in Lebanon continue to be met with excessive and unlawful force by security agencies, telling the same grim story of how the Lebanese authorities habitually respond to unwelcome political expression and the grievances of the Lebanese public,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Senior Legal Adviser.
“The people of Beirut have the right to peacefully express their outrage, at alleged official malfeasance that apparently contributed to last week’s tragic devastation, and to expect security forces will comply with the law,” she added.
Information from ICJ interviews with three protestors, and substantiated by reports by multiple media and news agencies, reveal that security forces fired large quantities of tear gas, in addition to rubber bullets, at protestors in several locations in central Beirut, including a gathering of at least 10,000 people including children at Martyr’s Square and those who occupied Parliamentary and ministerial buildings.
Reports also indicate that live ammunition was fired by security forces during the protests, namely birdshot.
A protestor interviewed by the ICJ stated that he was shot in the arm by a rubber bullet and in the leg by a pellet gun, the latter lodging shrapnel into various parts of his body.
Social media reports reveal that some protestors were shot in the face and eyes with rubber bullets. The ISF has denied using rubber bullets.
According to another protestor, government loyalists attacked her in the presence of ISF officers and the army as she filmed scenes outside the American University Hospital, threatening her with violence and by breaking her mobile phone.
Similar reports of security forces indiscriminately beating and harassing protesters have surfaced on social media platforms.
International law, governing the use of force by law enforcement officers, which is binding on Lebanon, mandates that force is only permissible as a last resort for the sole purpose of protecting life or preventing serious injury from an imminent threat, if strictly necessary and only to the extent necessary for the performance of their duty.
All use of force must be discriminate and proportionate to the threat of harm.
The ICJ has called for a prompt, transparent, independent and impartial investigation into the 4 August explosions by a special, independent mechanism, given the documented lack of independence in certain parts of the Lebanese judiciary, which was echoed by other human rights organizations and members of the international community.
Lebanon’s President dismissed the call as “a waste of time” and instead urged the Lebanese judiciary to act swiftly to probe the incident.
Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced his cabinet’s resignation on Monday following widespread calls for the political establishment to resign from their posts following the explosion. Nine members of Parliament, two government Ministers and the Lebanese Ambassador to Jordan had also resigned from their posts over the weekend.
“The explosions were devastating for the people of Beirut, resulting not only in the loss of life and massive injuries, but severe curtailment of their rights to housing and health and their other socio-economic rights,” said Vigneswaran.
“Based on the response of the Lebanese authorities thus far, and given their poor track record in pursuing and realizing accountability, it is clear that there is an urgent need for a proper accountability mechanism to investigate the explosions and respond to victims’ demands and calls for justice. A change in government is not enough,” she added.
Contact
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Download
Full story with additional information: Lebanon-Protests-News-Press releases-2020-ENG
Arabic version: Lebanon-Protests-News-Press releases-2020-ARA
Photo Credit: Aya Nehme
Jul 31, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The ICJ, together with the Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Right to Education Initiative (RTE), held webinars on 24 and 31 July.
The discussions explored The Guiding Principles on the Human Rights Obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education (Abidjan Principles) and their application in the context of COVID-19.
The webinars focused respectively on public education and private education.
Participants included judges and representatives of civil society organizations from Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Sierra Leone.
“The aim of the conversation in these webinars is to better understand the problems facing civil society and judiciaries in the four countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education in the context of Covid-19 and the increased privatization of education,” said ICJ Commissioner Justice Jamesina King of Sierra Leone.
The Abidjan Principles, based in large measures on existing international law and standards, were developed by leading international experts and adopted in 2019.
They clarify and set out elements of State obligations to uphold the right to education and related standards in both public and private educational settings.
Participants were able to deepen their understanding of the Abidjan Principles as well as the increased pressure placed on education systems across Africa as a result of COVID-19.
“COVID-19 has dramatically exacerbated already well-known issues in the realization of the right to education” and the “divide in quality of access to education between public and private sectors,” added Justice King.
“Private actors in particular… have been reported to have capitalized on the pandemic to extend their business in the education sectors.”
Participants raised concerns about the use of public funds to support private actors in education, an issue which is addressed by the Abidjan Principles.
Ashina Mtsumi from the GI-ESCR, summarized the Abidjan Principles and emphasized that “States’ first priority should be public education, as there is no obligation for states to fund private actors in education.”
A theme emerging from the discussions was the important role of the State in regulating private actors in education in the context of the global pandemic. Judges discussed the role of the judiciaries in their respective countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education.
“Can courts force private institutions to continue [operating] or even reduce school fees as an incidence of the right to education?,” Justice Joel Ngugi of Kenya asked.
Justice Ngugi also highlighted the need for governments to ensure that schools are safe for all learners in the context of COVID-19.
Judge Lydia Mugambe said that while in Uganda the pandemic had seen some private schools continuing with online learning, learners in public schools had had to depend on State provision of learning through newspapers and news stations which had not been sufficient. In the COVID-19 context, States must ensure that they continue to “require private instructional educational institutions to meet the minimum standards set by the State”, as indicated by the Abidjan Principles.
“The real problem is that our infrastructure is bad, the education system is bad and we have had a constitutional right to education since 1994 and I am embarrassed to say that the Covid-19 crisis has not exacerbated the problems, but has exposed the problems and have left no place to hide for years and years of government negligence,” said former Justice of the Constitutional Court in South Africa Zak Yacoob.
Representative from civil society organizations from all four countries emphasized the increasing risks introduced to the right to education as a result of privatization of education in Africa.
Watch the first webinar here.
Contact:
Khanyo Farisè (ICJ Legal Adviser) e: Nokukhanya.Farise(a)icj.org
Tim Fish Hodgson (ICJ Legal Adviser) t: +27828719905; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
