Mar 20, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations on strengthening Thailand’s Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law to the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice is tasked to conduct a “study on the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP,” in accordance with Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022) (NAP).
Articles 161/1 and 165/2, which are intended to implement the NAP, entered into force on 20 February 2019 and 21 March 2019. They were introduced to end SLAPP lawsuits or similar forms of harassment through the legal process against any individuals, including human rights defenders. NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.
The use of SLAPPs and similar procedures frequently undermine human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly and the right to political participation. These are protected under Thailand’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
In the letter, the ICJ expressed its concern that these laws were inadequate to prevent harassment through the legal process and SLAPP. The ICJ therefore called for the adoption of a comprehensive stand-alone law, or the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to protect human rights defenders and others from harassment through the legal process.
Background
In an effort to give effect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), on 29 October 2019, Thailand’s Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP sets out plans to be followed by public and private stakeholders to ensure that businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations – respect human rights, and that the government fulfils its duty to ensure remedy and reparation in cases of business-related human rights violations.
The Thai government has identified in the NAP its four key priority issues: (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting human rights defenders, including:
- to study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP;
- to push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of human rights defenders, for example with respect to witness protection laws;
- to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, and ensure their safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures;
- to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights, and preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders;
- to provide trainings and enhance capacity of lawyers;
- to urge businesses to ensure that human rights defenders will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected;
- to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system; and
- to increase access to justice of human rights defenders.
However, NAP’s effectiveness is yet to be assessed because it does not have the status of a law, and is merely a resolution by the executive branch of the Thai government. The NAP was adopted in the form of a Cabinet Resolution, which is considered a “by-law” in accordance with section 3 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).
Download the letter to the Ministry of Justice in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ and HRLA express concern about inadequate protections for human rights defenders in draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022)
Mar 12, 2020
An opinion piece by Ruth Panjaitan, ICJ National Legal Adviser in Indonesia.
Late last year, the Indonesian parliament was about to vote on a new Penal Code to replace the existing Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), the culmination of decades of efforts to revise the country’s penal laws. The draft of the new Penal Code, however, was met with massive protests and vigorous public opposition that it prompted President Joko Widodo to appeal to lawmakers to postpone its passage.
The proposed Penal Code is now back in the hands of lawmakers who are promising more consultations with the public, including on its most contested and problematic provisions. The Parliament and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights jointly agreed to include the Penal Code as one of 50 priority draft laws in the national program legislative (prolegnas). It is thus expected that the Penal Code will be finalized this year.
There are a number of provisions in the draft law that, if implemented, would not comply with Indonesia’s international law obligations and would carry adverse human rights consequences for numerous people in the country. These provisions relate to such areas as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
In many ways, the law would pose particularly dire consequences for women’s human rights in Indonesia. Article 433 on adultery is one such provision that the ICJ and many human rights organizations and advocates have called on lawmakers to remove this from the draft.
The existing Penal Code already problematically criminalizes adultery, defining it as sexual intercourse between a married man or woman when the sexual partner is not his/her spouse. But under the proposed draft law, the definition of adultery has been expanded to include sexual acts between an unmarried woman and an unmarried man. Furthermore, the penalty has been increased so that a person found guilty thereof may be imprisoned for up to two years. The prosecution of Article 433 may only be commenced upon the complaint of the spouse, parents, or children of the alleged offenders.
The criminalization of adultery is not compliant with international law and standards, including the right to privacy and non-discrimination and equal protection of law. In this connection, various international human rights instruments, including the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and the UN Working Group on Discrimination against women in law and practice, have consistently called for the repeal of laws criminalizing adultery. This is because the enforcement of adultery laws leads to discrimination and violence against women, as well as an infringement on the right to privacy.
Harmful gender stereotypes and rigid constructions of femininity lay at the core of this disparity. Women are expected to be sexually modest. A woman’s modesty is inextricably linked to her partner’s masculinity and her family’s honor. Hence, if a woman shows or is perceived to be sexually immodest, then her male partner would be viewed as weak and vulnerable. The woman would also be accused of bringing dishonor to her family. These harmful gender stereotypes are still very much present in Indonesia. In fact, in 2012, the CEDAW Committee expressed concern in its Concluding Observations on Indonesia’s periodic reports that there is the “persistence of adverse cultural norms, practices, traditions, patriarchal attitudes regarding roles, responsibilities and identities of women and men in the family and in society.”
There has been continuous trend throughout the world of countries reforming and abolishing often archaic laws criminalizing adultery. In 2018, India made the move of abolishing its colonial-era adultery law. The Philippines is now currently revising its Penal Code and one of the key considerations in the discussions is the abolition of the provisions on adultery. Indonesia now has the opportunity to step up and assert itself as a progressive leader in Asia in eliminating discrimination against women by removing the provision criminalizing adultery in its draft Penal Code.
To download in Bahasa Indonesia , click here.
This article was first published in Tempo, available at: https://kolom.tempo.co/read/1318052/dekriminalisasi-pasal-perzinaan
Mar 4, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ called on the Malaysian authorities to cease investigations of human rights defenders engaging in peaceful protest.
The ICJ further said that the investigations pose a threat to the exercise of the right to expression and peaceful assembly, which is protected under international law and the Malaysian Federal Constitution.
“These investigations have the effect of harassing and intimidating human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists and look worryingly like a new crackdown on dissent,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
Malaysian law enforcement authorities have opened investigations against Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, an ICJ Commissioner, and nineteen (19) other individuals including human rights defenders Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Dobby Chew, Amir Abd. Hadi and Nalini Elumalai. They are being investigated for violations of the deeply problematic Sedition Act 1948 and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, in connection with wholly peaceful gatherings held over the past few days that were called attention to the recent, sudden political changes in Malaysia.
The ICJ raised concerns that the laws pursuant to which the investigations are being conducted are inconsistent with international and constitutional human rights law and standards. The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 imposes onerous requirements to organize a peaceful assembly. Meanwhile, the Sedition Act 1948 contains wide, overbroad definitions of what amounts to a ‘seditious tendency’, placing critical voices at risk.
“International law protects the right to hold peaceful assemblies, with limited exceptions not applicable here,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser. “The ICJ has repeatedly called on Malaysia to abolish these laws, which impose unjustifiably burdensome restrictions and disproportionate penalties on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and other international legal authorities has also said that while some regulation can be appropriate concerning places of protest, “no authorization should be required to assemble peacefully.”
Previous governments have promised to abolish the Sedition Act, including the Pakatan Harapan coalition which pledged to scrap both the Sedition Act and reform the Peaceful Assembly Act as part of their election manifesto in 2018. To date, no such reforms has been undertaken.
The ICJ reiterated its call on the government to abolish the Sedition Act and abolish or reform the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. The ICJ also called on the Malaysian government to end the use of these laws to harass and investigate persons solely for participation in peaceful protest.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists, t: +66 2 619 8477 local 203; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Malaysian human rights defenders and civil society groups have been organizing peaceful assemblies to express concern over the current political developments. On 2 March 2020, Malaysian police opened investigations into several individuals for alleged violation of the Sedition Act.
Section 4(1) of the Act reads “[a]ny person who… does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have seditious tendency… shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgits or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.”
The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 sets down onerous requirements that must be met in order to carry out a peaceful assembly, including: restrictions on the right to organize or participate in an assembly (Section 4) which includes non-citizens; requirements for a ten day notice of an assembly to the Officer in Charge of the Police District, failure to do so will be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit (Section 9(5)); and broad restrictions and conditions that may be imposed by the Officer in Charge of the Police District at their discretion (Section 15).
Mar 4, 2020 | News
Following the arrest on 28 February of at least three persons, the ICJ has called on the Hong Kong authorities to drop criminal charges of taking part in an “unauthorized assembly” against them and to reform the Public Order Ordinance in compliance with international human rights obligations.
On 28 February, Hong Kong police arrested publisher Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, which publishes the Apple Daily newspaper, and two pro-democracy activists, Lee Cheuk-yan, the vice-chairman of the Labour Party, and Yeung Sum, a former chairman of the Democracy Party, for taking part in a march banned by police on 31 August 2019. The Police prohibited the march on the stated grounds that the Civil Human Rights Front could not guarantee the march would be peaceful and orderly, shifting responsibility of maintaining order to the organizer.
“We are extremely concerned about the way in which the unauthorized assembly provisions of the Public Order Ordinance has been used to silence lawful expressions of political opinion since the Umbrella Movement of 2014,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director. “These most recent arrests, made for allegedly participating in a largely peaceful protest more than six months ago, are part of a troubling pattern of bringing legal action to harass activists involved in peaceful acts of protest.”
The arrests were made pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) Section 17A(3)(a). Under the ‘unauthorized assembly’ provisions of the law, every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly is guilty of an offence and can be sentenced up to five years imprisonment.
The authorities have wide discretion to prohibit public meetings, and prosecute those who are alleged take part in them. These overbroad provisions have been used to restrict the proper exercise of free assembly and association rights – including onerous requirements to obtain a “notice of no objection” from the government for even small gathering under a threat of a maximum five years imprisonment for violations.
“The ICJ calls upon the Hong Kong SAR government to take measures to protect the right to peaceful assembly and create an environment in which people can safely express diverse ideas and dissenting voices – consistent with international legal obligations,” said Rawski. “This includes ensuring that the law is not used to harass pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders.”
The ICJ underscores that any restrictions to the right of peaceful assembly must be narrowly drawn to be permissible under international law. Restrictions are not permissible unless they have been provided by law, and are necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose enumerated in article 21 of the ICCPR, such as public order. However, imposing criminal charge on people exercising their right of peaceful assembly who fail to comply with a procedural requirement, such as notification, unduly restricts freedom of peaceful assembly by adding unnecessary barriers to public gatherings. Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines of the Ordinance, which include the possibility of a peaceful participant of a public assembly being sentenced to five years in prison if the organizers fail to comply with the notification requirement, are extreme, disproportionate and open to abuse.
Hong Kong SAR, though not the rest of the PRC, is legally bound by the ICCPR. Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 27 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong both recognize and protect the right of peaceful assembly. The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body responsible for the ICCPR and other UN independent authorities, have repeatedly urged the authorities to ensure that the Public Order Ordinance is implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
To download the full statement with additional information, click here.
See also: Hong Kong: ensure police do not use excessive force against protesters
https://www.icj.org/hong-kong-ensure-police-do-not-use-excessive-force-against-protesters/
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Feb 27, 2020 | Advocacy, News
In January and February 2020, the ICJ supported community dialogue events on international and national law and standards relating to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
The events were organized by the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) for around 50 youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region in Myanmar.
The program sought to improve the capacity of local youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region to understand how freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is protected by the international and national legal frameworks and apply this understanding to their activities.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, introduced the concept of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) u, and applicable international standards on FoRB for Myanmar including how FoRB interacts with other human rights such as freedom of expression. She presented an overview of the domestic legal framework on FoRB and highlighted the State’s obligation to implement such laws and policies to respect and protect the equality, non-discrimination and other rights of individuals and to particularly address violations of their rights to FoRB.
The participants raised the need to improve the quality of public discussion on FoRB and related human rights, and shared this experiences in advocating for the protection of FoRB – including the limitation and challenges that they have faced.
The activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors and lawyers in Myanmar with a view to advancing FoRB in the country, and builds on the ICJ’s previous work on this theme.
Contact
Ja Seng Ing, ICJ Legal Researcher, e: jaseng.ing(a)icj.org
Related material
Primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, January 2019
New report examines right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, March 2019
