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 18, 2020
In amicus curiae observations submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 16 March 2020, the ICJ argued that the Court had competency to exercise its jurisdiction over the whole of the Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
The ICJ submitted that competing claims challenging Palestine statehood under international law and its sovereignty over the territory were without merit.
The ICJ emphasized that failure to accept jurisdiction in respect of the State of Palestine, a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, would run counter to the Statute’s object and purpose of combatting impunity for serious crimes under international law.
The amicus observations were filed in response to the ICC Prosecutor’s request to the Court to rule on “the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the situation of Palestine and to confirm that the ‘territory’ over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction … comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”
“Palestine is a State under international law, satisfying recognized international law criteria for statehood, displaying and effectively exercising State authority over parts of the Palestinian territory and demonstrating capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign States and exercise treaty-making powers. Israel’s decades-long occupation of the Palestinian territory has no bearing over the ultimate question of Palestine’s sovereignty and statehood, and, thus, over the ICC’s jurisdiction,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The ICJ also submitted that moves by Israel to annex portions of Palestinian territory and thereby nullify the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination should not be accepted by the Court as a basis for determining Palestine’s statehood status.
The ICJ also urged the Court to reject claims that Palestine has no jurisdiction over “Area C” – which pursuant to the 1995 Oslo II Accord was placed under full Israeli control for security purposes – East Jerusalem, and Israeli citizens, and thus cannot validly delegate such jurisdiction to the Court.
“The Court can and should exercise jurisdiction over all individuals responsible for crimes under the Rome Statute committed in the Palestinian territory, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the victims. By exercising such jurisdiction, the Court will fulfil its very raison d’être of combating impunity and holding those who bear responsibility for the most serious crimes under international law to account,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Senior Legal Adviser.
Because the State of Palestine is a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over the serious crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed on its territory by persons of any nationality, including Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinian nationals also fall under its jurisdiction for any crimes committed anywhere in the world.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Palestine-Amicus brief ICC-Advocacy-Legal submission-2020-ENG (Amicus brief, in PDF)
Palestine-ICC Amicus-News-Press releases-2020-ARA (Press release in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 15, 2020
The briefing paper Access to Challenges faced by Victims and Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Eswatini comes in the wake of the 2018 adoption of the country’s Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence (SODV) Act.
This law followed years of advocacy from civil society and women’s human rights organizations in the Kingdom. It is a landmark piece of legislation aimed at ending sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the country.
However, the effective investigation and prosecution of SGBV crimes presents complex challenges to the justice system in Eswatini.
It will take more than the passage of a new law to protect women in Eswatini and strengthen access to justice for women and girls in the country.
Gender stereotypes and gender bias, sometimes based on traditional, religious and cultural norms continue to permeate the justice system, preventing women and girls from effectively accessing justice for SGBV.
Download
Eswatini-SGBV Report-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2020-ENG (full paper, in PDF)
Mar 12, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the need for Kazakhstan to ensure the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary, in particular by ending the arbitrary disbarment of lawyers.
The statement, delivered during the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Kazakhstan by the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the acceptance by Kazakhstan of the recommendations by Denmark (138.83), France (139.85), Mexico (139.86) and Austria (139.113) to uphold the rule of law and to protect the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.
The ICJ however regrets that Kazakhstan only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendation by Czechia to “take immediate measures to ensure the effective protection of lawyers, media workers, bloggers and human rights defenders against any form of harassment” (139.114).
Furthermore, based on ICJ research, we regret to report that Kazakhstan’s assertion that the accepted recommendations are “in the process of implementation” (A/HRC/43/10/Add.1, para. 4) is simply not correct.
On the contrary, the ICJ considers that the independence of the legal profession is being actively undermined in the country.
The ICJ expresses particular concern at disbarment proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Justice, including the recent disbarment of Amanzhol Mukhamediarov and Yerlan Gazymzhanov.[1]
Finally, the situation is exacerbated by a Law on Advokatura that does not require the Bar Association’s authorisation to initiate disbarment proceedings.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Kazakhstan, ICJ calls on Kazakh authorities to stop all harassment of lawyers through disciplinary proceedings, readmit the lawyers unduly disbarred and reform its Law on Advokatura in line with international standards on independence of the legal profession.”
[1] See ICJ statement at https://www.icj.org/kazakhstan-disbarment-of-erlan-gazymzhanov-and-amanzhol-mukhamediarov-undermines-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession-icj-says/ .
Mar 12, 2020 | News
On 11 March 2020, the ICJ co-hosted a panel discussion and an exhibition entitled “Committed to Memory: The Disappeared and Those They Left Behind.”
The event was held to mark the 16th anniversary of the enforced disappearance of a prominent lawyer and human rights defender Somchai Neelapaijit and other individuals who were subject to apparent enforced disappearance and whose fates remain unknown.
The event was held at Bangkok Art and Cultural Centre (BACC). More than 100 participants attended the event.
Opening remarks were delivered by Jenni Lundmark, Programme Officer, Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, and Associate Professor Dr. Gothom Arya, Adviser of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University.
Jenni Lundmark highlighted the European Union’s commitment to address torture and enforced disappearance and urged the Thai Parliament to pass pending anti-torture and enforced disappearance legislation without undue delay. Associate Professor Dr. Gothom called on the public to preserve the memory of the Thai persons who were victims enforced disappeared as well as many others whose disappearance were not recorded. He also encouraged the establishment of a network of victims of enforced disappearances to strengthen their advocates’ ability.
The event also featured photos and personal belongings of victims or potential victims of enforced disappearance, including: Somchai Neelapaijit, Thanong Po-Arn, Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, Kamol Laosophaphan, Jahwa Jalo, Surachai Danwattananusorn, Siam Theerawut and Den Khamlae. For some of these cases, there has been a failure of authorities to conduct a prompt, effective, impartial and independent investigation into their cases. During the event, family members of the victims described stories from photos and personal belongings of the “disappeared” that were exhibited.
The panel discussion focused on progress of the investigations into enforced disappearances and evaluated the progress in developing legislation in Thailand to address this critical issue. The speakers included Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Somchai Neelapaijit; Thipwimon Sirinupong, lawyer who is representing Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen’s family; and Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s legal adviser.
During the discussion, speakers expressed concern at the recurrent delays in the amendment and enactment of the law against torture and enforced disappearance which will be critical for ensuring accountability and justice for victims of enforced disappearance. They also regretted that the latest Draft Act, after several rounds of revisions and public hearings, still had not addressed many of the principal shortcomings which the ICJ and other stakeholders and experts have indicated need necessarily be amended in order to bring the law into line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
The key concerns include the incomplete definitions of the crimes of enforced disappearance, the absence of provisions concerning the continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance and statute of limitations for torture and enforced disappearance crimes, and the inadequacy of provisions concerning safeguards against enforced disappearances.
Background
Somchai was stopped at a Bangkok roadside on 12 March 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since.
At the time, Somchai was defending clients from Thailand’s restive southern provinces who were accused of attacking a military base as part of the ongoing insurgency in the region. Somchai had alleged police tortured the Muslim suspects.
Since 19 July 2005, DSI has spent more than 14 years and eight months investigating the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit. However, there is little information in the public domain regarding its progress.
From 1980 to May 2019, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded and transmitted 90 cases of alleged enforced disappearance to Thailand. Currently, 79 cases remain outstanding.
Further reading
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Thailand: continuing delay in the enactment of the draft law on torture and enforced disappearance undermines access to justice and accountability
