Mar 10, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement on counter-terrorism legislation in these countries, in an interactive dialogue at the UN Human Rights Council with the the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
The text of the statement follows:
COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN EGYPT, TUNISIA AND PAKISTAN
10 March 2016
Mr President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the attention given by Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, to defective counter-terrorism legislation that facilitates violations of human rights, as reflected for example by communications on Egypt, Tunisia and Pakistan in the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/31/79).
Numerous counter terrorism laws promulgated or applied in these and other countries include overly broad or imprecise definitions of terrorism-related offences. These extend the laws’ reach beyond acts of a truly terrorist character. Such laws can be and are abused or misapplied to criminalize the legitimate and peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Further, these laws provide sweeping immunities that contribute to pervasive impunity for unlawful killings by security forces.
These laws also facilitate violations of the right to liberty and fair trial rights and insufficiently safeguard against abuses in detention. In Tunisia a person can be held in police custody without being brought before a judge for up to 15 days. In Pakistan, suspects can be held in preventive detention without charge, and without being brought before a judge, for up to 90 days.
Egypt and Pakistan continue to use military courts to conduct unfair trials of civilians in terrorism cases, contrary to international standards. At least eight civilians sentenced to death in secretive trials by military courts in Pakistan have been hanged since January 2015. “Expedited” procedures in terrorism circuit courts in the Egyptian civilian system also give rise to fair trial concerns.
The ICJ invites the Special Rapporteur to comment on measures or mechanisms that states, inter-governmental organisations, and civil society can take to help ensure that states such as Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan repeal or amend counter-terrorism legislation to bring it into line with their international human rights obligations and commitments.
Mar 9, 2016 | News
The recent decision of the Thai Supreme Court in the case of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit demonstrates Thailand must urgently ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and enact domestic laws consistent with the Treaty, said the ICJ today.
On 29 December 2015, the Supreme Court of Thailand upheld the acquittals of five police officers charged with gang-robbery and coercion. These charges related to Somchai’s abduction and the taking of his property.
The authorities have blamed the failure to charge anyone to date with Somchai’s actual enforced disappearance or presumed death, in part, on the absence of physical remains.
The Supreme Court further held that Somchai Neelapaijit’s wife, Angkhana Neelapaijit, and his children could not participate in the proceedings as plaintiffs as, under Thai law, it had to be shown that Somchai Neelapaijit was either injured or killed such that he could not represent himself.
The Court reasoned that this was not the case as “it is not currently known whether or not Mr. Somchai is alive” and the accused had only been charged with gang-robbery and coercion.
“The Supreme Court decision does not in any way end Somchai’s case,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The Thai government is obliged to seek and provide truth and justice for Somchai and his family,” he added.
The Department of Special Investigations (DSI), often described as the FBI of Thailand, has been conducting an ongoing investigation into Somchai Neelapaijit’s fate or whereabouts since 2005.
“The glacial pace of the DSI’s investigation and unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court after all these years is heart-breaking,” said Zarifi.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
“But to do its ‘utmost’ to resolve this case, Thailand must take urgent and concrete steps to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and pass domestic laws that retrospectively recognize enforced disappearance as a distinct offence and the full rights of victims, including family members,” Zarifi added.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill, which, in a draft seen by the ICJ, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, t: +66807819002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Additional information
Angkhana Neelapaijit, now Commissioner of the Thai Human Rights Commission, told the ICJ: “The decision of the Supreme Court acquitting the five accused and denying my children and me the right to participate in the proceedings shows that victims of enforced disappearance have nowhere to turn to obtain justice in Thailand. It is clear that nothing will change until Thailand urgently ratifies the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and amends its laws to ensure the rights of victims are upheld.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012. Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention, which among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Forthcoming event
On 11 March 2016, the ICJ, together with Amnesty International (Thailand), Human Rights Watch, and the Justice for Peace Foundation will hold “a discussion on enforced disappearance in Thailand focusing on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Somchai Neelapaijit’s case and the draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Bill” to mark the 12-year anniversary since Somchai Neelapaijit “disappeared” on 12 March 2004.
Date: 11 March 2016
Time: 10.00am -12.00pm
Location: The Sukosol Hotel, room Kamolthip 3, Sriayutthaya Road, Bangkok
The speakers will be:
- Angkhana Neelapaijit
- Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Advisor, the International Commission of Jurists
- Sunai Phasuk, Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch
- Laurent Meillan, Acting Representative, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office for South-East Asia
- A representative from the Department of Rights and Liberty Protection, Ministry of Justice
Related readings
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
On 11 December 2015, the ICJ published an English version of its Practitioners Guide “Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction”, originally published in Spanish in March 2015.
Thailand-Somchai disap anniversary 2016-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Mar 8, 2016
The ICJ addresses women’s access to justice for gender based violence in its new Practitioners’ Guide, launched today on International Women’s Day.
Since the early 1990s there has been international recognition of the problem of gender-based violence and awareness that this impairs the ability of women and girls to access and enjoy all the rights that should be available to them as afforded under international law.
However, in 2016, violence against women remains a public health problem of epidemic proportions, thought to affect between 35-70 per cent of all women and girls at some point during their lives.
The ICJ’s 12th Practitioner’s Guide, Women’s Access to Justice for Gender-Based Violence, is designed to support legal practitioners and human rights defenders involved, or interested, in pursuing cases of gender-based violence.
Lasting change to address the root causes of violence against women can only take place as part of a coordinated effort on behalf of multiple stakeholders, however the ICJ believes that legal practitioners and human rights defenders are indispensible to addressing the problem and realizing women’s access to justice.
Access to justice for gender-based violence means that States must implement a range of measures that recognize violence against women as a crime and ensure appropriate procedures are in place that enable investigations, prosecutions and access to effective remedies and reparation.
These measures may, where necessary, include amending or adopting national legislation.
The ICJ produced this Guide as part of an ongoing project on empowering legal practitioners and human rights defenders seeking justice for women.
Woven into the Guide are commentaries, reflections and recommendations from legal advocates and women human rights defenders from their experiences in this area.
The Guide provides information about regional and international law and standards relevant to gender-based violence, advice on implementing these standards as part of domestic law reform and examples of existing good practice in seeking protection for women.
It also contains a summary of some leading academic literature and civil society commentary and research, signposting users to other in-depth sources where these may be potentially relevant.
The new Guide also addresses the practical issues that are faced by women who have been subject to gender-based violence and the steps that are necessary to secure their access to justice in practice.
It considers women’s experiences of the criminal justice system and reflects on how the justice process deals with women’s safety and need for access to services beyond legal assistance.
The ICJ intends for this guide to be used as a practical tool to assist in navigating individual cases as well as a means of advocating for change on a larger scale.
The ICJ believes that enabling women’s access to justice for gender-based violence will lead to new norms of acceptability, where children and young people are raised to reject gender discrimination and violence.
Download
Universal-Womens accesss to justice-Publications-Practitioners’ Guide Series-2016-ENG (full guide English, in PDF)
Universal-Womens accesss to justice-Publications-Practitioners’ Guide Series-2019-ARA (full guide Arabic, in PDF)
Mar 8, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ spoke today at the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the human rights impacts of tax evasion and avoidance, and on women’s access to food and the right to food.
The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
The statement addressed the following points, among others:
Welcoming the report of the Independent Expert, the ICJ highlighted that tax evasion and tax avoidance are forms of business’ misbehaviour that are facilitated by inadequate legislation and lack of international frameworks and cooperation in tax matters, and as such need to be tackled by the international community. This is all the more important now that the private sector has been assigned a greater role in the achievement of the 2030 development goals. In this regard, the recommendations by these Special Procedures should receive careful consideration.
The ICJ also welcomed the report on Women’s access to food by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. The report highlights the legal barriers in domestic law that prevent women from fully realizing their right to food, including property rights, land rights and intellectual property rights. The report also highlights the negative impact of certain economic and market models as well as agribusiness corporations in enhancing women’s difficulties in accessing food and achieving food security.
The full statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC31-OralStatement-IEforeigndebt-2016
Mar 4, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement on the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia, for today’s interactive dialogue at the Human Rights Council with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The statement could not be delivered in the limited time available for civil society statements; its text is set out below:
ICJ Oral Statement in the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mr. Michel Forst
SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN MALAYSIA
3 March 2016
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The work of human rights defenders is particularly under challenge in States where governments have conferred on themselves sweeping powers to restrict human rights on grounds of national security. One example, as reflected in the Special Rapporteur’s “Observations on communications” (UN Doc A/HRC/31/55/Add.1), is the situation of human rights defenders in Malaysia.
The ICJ welcomes the Attorney General’s decision to drop sedition charges against law lecturer Dr. Azmi Sharom; however, the Sedition Act and the Peaceful Assembly Act are still being abused to harass human rights defenders and others. Most recently, the High Court of Malaysia sentenced activist Hishamuddin Rais to nine months in jail for sedition, for calling for peaceful protest against the results of the 2013 general election on the basis that it was not transparent. Maria Chin Abdullah and Jannie Lasimbang, organizers of the Bersih 4.0 peaceful assembly calling for good governance, were charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act for allegedly omitting to inform the police about the assembly. There have reportedly been at least 91 cases of arrests, charges or investigations for sedition during 2015, and more than 30 cases of arrests under the Peaceful Assembly Act since 2013. Most, if not all, of these people are human rights defenders, including Eric Paulsen, the Director of Lawyers for Liberty, Adam Adli, a human rights activist, and Mandeep Singh, the Secretariat Manager of Bersih.
Unless repealed or drastically revised, these laws will continue to facilitate sweeping and arbitrary repression of freedoms of expression, assembly and association of human rights defenders, under the flag of national security. This contravenes the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and numerous other resolutions of the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, including General Assembly resolution 70/161, adopted by the General Assembly in December with Malaysia voting in favor. Among other things, resolution 70/161 urged States ensure that human rights defenders are able to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, which are essential for the promotion and protection of human rights; and it emphasized that national security measures must not hinder the work and safety of individuals engaged in promoting and defending human rights.
In this context, the ICJ would like to ask the Special Rapporteur to comment on the obligations of governments to repeal or amend legislation that allows for abusive arrest or prosecution of human rights defenders on grounds such as “national security”, “sedition” or for not giving prior notice of assemblies.”
