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
Oct 10, 2019 | Advocacy, News
On 9 October 2019, in commemoration of the World Day against the Death Penalty (10 October), the ICJ, Thai Journalists Association (TJA), Internews, and the Delegation of the European Union in Thailand held a workshop on “Legal, Moral and Human Rights Issues in Death Penalty” at the Thai Journalists’ Association.
The participants included 35 journalists from various news agencies in Thailand and journalism and human rights students.
The course aimed to help strengthen the capacity of journalists to write informatively and critically about death penalty issues in Thailand. Through this course, journalists learned about the abolition of death penalty in other regions of the world and reviewed cases which have transformed public opinion on capital punishment around the world.
Sanhawan Srisod, the ICJ’s Legal Adviser, held a session to discuss capital punishment in Thailand’s criminal justice system. She underscored that there is no perfect justice system and as the risk of miscarriage of justice is always present, the death penalty should not be retained. She further encouraged journalists to help strengthen calls for an effective criminal justice response to serious crimes, as an alternative to the death penalty. She further pointed out current domestic investigation and prosecution practices which risk breaching international law and standards. These, she noted, may hamper the legality and efficiency of investigations and prosecutions, and pose a risk of rendering an innocent person eligible for capital punishment.
Other speakers at the Workshop included:
- E. Mr Pirkka Tapiola, Ambassador of the European Union to Thailand
- E. Mr Emilio de Miguel Calabia, Ambassador of Spain to Thailand
- Judge Hanne Sophie Greve, Commissioner, the International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP)
- Representative from Thailand’s Ministry of Justice
- Toshi Kazama, Photographer and anti-death penalty advocate
- Orasom Suthisakorn, Author and prison writing course instructor
Background
The ICJ categorically opposes the death penalty in all situations and considers it a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Thailand has repeated commitments on the international stage to work towards abolition and has committed to becoming an abolitionist state in its master plan for human rights.
In June 2018, however, 26-year-old Teerasak Longji was executed by lethal injection for aggravated murder. It was Thailand’s first execution in nine years. The last previous execution occurred in 2009 when two men were executed for drug-related crimes.
The UN General Assembly, has repeatedly adopted Resolutions supported by very wide majorities, calling on all retentionist states to observe a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to full abolition.
Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thailand has not become party to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty in law and practice.
In March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee, the body mandated to interpret and monitor compliance with respect to the ICCPR, issued Concluding Observations after reviewing Thailand’s 2nd country report on the implementation of its obligations under the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee recommended that Thailand “consider abolishing the death penalty and acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR”, and if the death penalty is maintained, to “take all measures necessary… to ensure that it is limited to the most serious crimes, such as acts carried out with the intention of killing.”
There are reportedly 55 crimes punishable by death in Thailand, including crimes relating to corruption, bribery and drugs, which do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” within the meaning of the ICCPR.
Oct 9, 2019 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the release from detention and the dropping of charges against, of Maurice Kamto and other opposition figures.
The ICJ has called on Cameroonian authorities to ensure that they and others are able to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms without harassment or fear of arrest and prosecution.
The ICJ also called for the authorities to embark on wider legal and institutional reforms to facilitate respect for human rights and the rule of law in order to build genuine constitutional democracy in that country.
‘’Neither the arrest, nor detention nor prosecution of people for exercising their fundamental freedoms, including political dissent and peaceful opposition nor the trial of civilians before a military court was in compliance with Cameroon’s international legal obligations,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Regional Director in reaction to news of the release.
Maurice Kamto, a leading international jurist, former ICJ Commissioner, and presidential candidate of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC), was arrested on 28 January 2019 along with dozens of other opposition figures for protesting and challenging the results of the last Presidential elections held in October 2018.
They were facing trials before military courts, in contravention of their rights to a fair trial trial, on charges of ‘’insurrection, hostility to the motherland and rebellion’’ – charges which potentially carry the death penalty.
The detainees were released last weekend after Cameroon’s President Paul Biya’s tweet on 4 October 2019, that he had ordered the discontinuance of proceedings against them. The bringing and dropping charges should be in the remit of independent prosecutorial authorities, not the President.
Nonetheless, the ICJ stressed that the release of Maurice Kamto and the other leaders provides a welcome window of opportunity for Cameroonian authorities to begin an inclusive process of revamping the legal and constitutional framework to meet international standards.
The ICJ called on the Cameroonian authorities to desist further from applying the law and legal process to persecute or otherwise harass any person for the exercise of fundamental freedoms and from administering justice through military courts, which should be reserved for prosecution military personnel for military offences only.
The ICJ stressed that the release of Maurice Kamto and other opposition figures presents a unique opportunity for Cameroonian authorities to restore public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions by including all Cameroonians in the building of a society based on the rule of law.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, C: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Africa, C: +234 8034927549; E: Solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org
Oct 8, 2019 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) have jointly sent an international observer to attend the third hearing of the criminal trial on the “Gezi Park” protest at the Silivri Prison Courthouse in Istanbul, scheduled to take place on 8 and 9 October 2019.
The ICJ and IBAHRI observer will be monitoring a trial hearing before İstanbul 30th Assize Court with prinicipal defendant Osman Kavala, and 15 others; Ali Hakan Altınay, Ayşe Mücella Yapıcı, Ayşe Pınar Alabora, Can Dündar, Çiğdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yılmaz, Handan Meltem Arıkan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoğlu, İnanç Ekmekci, Memet Ali Alabora, Mine Özerden, Şerafettin Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Yiğit Aksakoğlu and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi.
The observer will report directly to the IBAHRI and ICJ Secretariats on the proceedings following the mission.
The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon turned into nationwide demonstrations.
The protest was quelled by police with the use of tear gas and water cannons against the protesters in Taksim Square. Following a six-year investigation into the events, the 657-page indictment issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was accepted by the 30th A Court in Istanbul on 4 March 2019.
The defendants are to be charged under Turkish Criminal Code Article 312 (attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government or attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury); crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136, and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863.
The total sentence asked for by the prosecution for these offences amounts to approximately 47,520 years imprisonment.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Oct 7, 2019 | News
The apparent suicide attempt of a judge in southern Thailand highlights the need for urgent reform of the judiciary to improve its independence from political interference, the ICJ said today.
Judge Khanakorn Pianchana, Vice Presiding Judge of the Yala Provincial Court in Thailand’s restive southern region, reportedly shot himself in the chest following his delivery of a verdict on 4 October in a case in which he alleged political interference in his judicial functions. Judge Khanakorn is currently hospitalized in critical condition.
“This unfortunate incident again shows the need for sustained reforms of law enforcement and particularly of the independence of the judiciary in Thailand,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
Judge Khanakorn had alleged in a 25-page note that he was ordered in confidence to rewrite his ruling exonerating five suspects of murder charges – a decision he had allegedly reached on the basis of lack of sufficient evidence. The five have had been detained and interrogated under special security laws in force in the Southern Border Provinces of Thailand.
Under Thai law, if a superior judicial officer disagrees with a ruling of any judge, he or she must express such disagreement in writing and is forbidden from speaking to a judge in confidence to reverse the ruling.
“The ICJ has worked for years with the judiciary in southern Thailand to improve the administration of justice, especially by addressing problems such as the improper admission of evidence and problematic evidence-gathering by security forces countering armed groups,” Rawski said. “This case again shows how misuse of emergency decrees in southern Thailand has aggravated the political pressure exerted on judges.”
Today, the case was submitted to the Office of the Judicial Commission for its consideration. The Commission, chaired by the President of the Supreme Court, comprises of qualified members who are judicial officers of each level of the Court. Consequently, the Commission passed a resolution to set up a Sub-Committee comprises three of its members to investigate into the allegations.
Particularly because Judge Khanakorn’s claim involves several senior judges in active services, the Sub-Committee set up by the Commission to investigate the allegations must therefore be independent institutionally and functionally, at all stages of the investigation. Their mandate should be broadened to look into whether there is wider pattern and practice of interference beyond this case.
Background
Judge Khanakorn presided over a trial involving the alleged murder of five people in Yala province in 2018. Following the killing, authorities arrested five suspects who were charged with murder, secret association, conspiracy and gun-related offences. If convicted, three out of five defendants could be sentenced to death.
The five suspects were reportedly detained and interrogated under much-criticized special security laws which remain in force in the Southern Border Provinces of Thailand – i.e Martial Law and Emergency Decree. The ICJ has repeatedly criticized how the Martial Law confers upon military authorities the powers to arrest and detain any person without a warrant for up to seven days for interrogation and questioning and does not require detainees to be brought before a court at any stage of their detention. The ICJ has also repeatedly analyzed and criticized the Emergency Decree, which breaches international law and standards, by allowing authorities to detain suspects, with the leave of the Court, for up to 30 days. The law does not require a detainee to be physically brought before the Court during this period.
Information submitted to the court as evidence in this case had reportedly been obtained from the suspects during detention periods prescribed under Martial Law and the Emergency Decree. Judge Khanakorn noted in his statement that he was of the view that any information obtained during this period should not be admissible because rights protections had not been afforded to the suspects who had been detained under security laws, as they are provided to suspects in other criminal trials. This position had reportedly led to the disagreements between the judge and his supervisor over the case ruling.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed concern on the use as evidence of information obtained during interrogation under emergency laws in criminal proceedings of security-related cases, in the form of witness statements or inquiry reports from interrogation officials. The ICJ has called on Thailand to review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards.
Judge Khanakorn also described in his statement that certain evidence needed to have been ruled inadmissible as it had not been collected by competent authorities but by volunteers who were not competent or specialized in evidence collection.
Judge Khanakorn further asserted that interference in his judicial functions had also occurred in 2018 when he had been under pressure to reduce the sentence of three military officers who had been found to have shot villagers to death.
The right to a fair hearing in judicial proceedings before an independent and impartial court or tribunal is guaranteed in several human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand is a party. The right is also enshrined in section 188 of the 2017 Constitution of Thailand.
International standards also reaffirm that judicial independence requires not only the independence of the judiciary as an institution from the other branches of government; it also requires judges being independent from each other. Such freedom from undue influence that might come from other judges is guaranteed in several internationally accepted standards, including Principle 1.4 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and its Commentary; article 3 of the Universal Charter of the Judge; and article 2 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
Further reading:
International principles on the independence and accountability of judges, lawyers and prosecutors – Practitioners’ guide, no. 1
Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context
Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards
Thailand : implementation of Thailand´s emergency decree
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Download:
Thailand-Suicide of Judge-News-2019-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
