Nov 30, 2023 | Events, News
On 29 November 2023, the ICJ co-hosted a dialogue among Thai lawyers, academics, and Santiago A. Canton, Secretary General of the ICJ to exchange best practices from Latin America, specifically focusing on insights from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and domestic courts in the region – to address ongoing challenges in litigating cases involving suspected enforced disappearances within Thai courts.
The Dialogue involved challenges encountered in litigating cases of enforced disappearances, particularly in terms of accessing, collecting, and admitting evidence within Thai courts. These challenges are notably complex, especially when the crimes have occurred beyond Thailand’s borders.
Additionally, participants discussed the difficulties related to establishing the responsibility of individuals for these serious crimes and how courts have handled evidence submitted in previous enforced disappearance cases. This included instances where evidence, such as telecommunications, as well as various forensic evidence like biological evidence and DNA evidence, was dismissed, and the failure to identify the perpetrator in cases where the victims’ bodies or remains could not be located.
“The crime of enforced disappearance completely eradicates any trace of the victim, with no acknowledgment by the authorities and no effective investigation. The requirement to locate the disappeared individuals’ bodies and remains contradicts the very nature of the crime of enforced disappearance,” said Santiago A. Canton, Secretary General of the ICJ.
While highlighting that the criteria for evaluating evidence within the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) are less formal compared to domestic criminal legal systems, Canton noted IACtHR’s jurisprudence relevant to the admissibility of circumstantial and indicative evidence, which was particularly instructive as enforced disappearances typically involve deliberate attempts by state officials to destroy direct evidence, aimed at securing impunity.
“The standard of proof in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights allows lawyers, under certain circumstances, to only establish a demonstrable ‘practice’ of enforced disappearances at the time of a specific case. When combined with circumstantial evidence, this can result in a judicial presumption of enforced disappearance,” said Canton.
Participants also discussed the ‘continuous nature’ of enforced disappearance crimes, which are recognized under Thai law and enable cases from the past, where the fate and whereabouts of victims remained unknown, to be prosecutable before the court, notwithstanding the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity.
Closing remarks by Angkhana Neelapaijit, a Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, whose husband Somchai Neelapaijit was a victim of enforced disappearance, detailed the role of the Working Group and the steps taken globally to address the crime.
Background
More than 20 Thai experts, lawyers, and academics, who represent or have experience researching cases of enforced disappearances in Thailand, participated in the discussion.
Thailand’s Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance became effective in February 2023. However, its implementation has been slow. The majority of cases involving suspected torture, ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances are still in the investigation phase, and not yet moved into the adjudication phase. Limited information about its progress has been made available to the public.
Prior to the enactment of this new law, only two cases of apparent enforced disappearances reached Thai courts: the case of prominent Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit and Karen activist Pholachi ‘Billy’ Rakchongcharoen. Unfortunately, these cases concluded with limited success, mainly due to challenges surrounding the evidence submitted to the court.
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: a report on the criminal trial and investigation of the enforced disappearance of the Thai human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelapaichit
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Nov 6, 2023 | News
Today, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) opens its 71st Ordinary Session. To mark the occasion, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in collaboration with inkyfada, looks back at AfCHPR’s September 2022 judgement against Tunisia, in which it ordered the republic to return to constitutional democracy and establish an independent constitutional court. The ICJ examines the impact of the judgement on human rights in Tunisia, and how individuals can operationalize the AfCHPR to challenge the curtailment of fundamental freedoms, judicial independence and rule of law in Tunisia.
ICJ’s questions and answers:
It has been more than a year since the African Court on Human and People’s rights issued its judgment in case No. 017/2021, “Ibrahim Ben Mohamed Ben Brahim Belguith v. Republic of Tunisia”, of 22 September 2022. The case was brought by Mr. Belguith, a national of Tunisia and a lawyer, who complained of violations of his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights instruments as a result of the promulgation of several Tunisian presidential decrees adopted under the “state of exception” pursuant to article 80 of the 2014 Constitution since 25 July 2021. In this judgment, the African Court ordered Tunisia to repeal these decrees, to return to constitutional democracy within two years and to ensure the establishment and operation of an independent constitutional court within the same period.
What does this judgment mean and why is it important for the rule of law and human rights in Tunisia? The ICJ provides answers in the Q&A below:
-
- What is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
* The African Union
* The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* Tunisia’s adherence to the African Human Rights System
-
- Why was the African Court seized of the situation in Tunisia? Contextual overview
* President Kais Saied’s power grab of 25 July 2021
* The absence of a Constitutional Court
-
- What did the 22 September 2022 judgment rule?
* How the African Court came to rule on the matter: the application
* What the judgment ruled:
-
- What are the next steps?
* Implementation
* Other complaints against Tunisia pending before the African Court
Download the full Q&A in English here
Download the full Q&A in French here
Download the full Q&A in Arabic here
Oct 9, 2023 | Access to justice, Advocacy, Cases, News
Today, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), the Dutch Council for Refugees (DCR), and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), submitted a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case S.M.H. v Lithuania, concerning the deprivation of liberty of an asylum seeker.
S.M.H., an Iraqi citizen, who entered Lithuania irregularly and sought asylum, was subsequently arrested and detained in various centres. The applicant claimed that his detention was not justified, lacking both individualised assessment and effective legal assistance.
In its intervention, the ICJ and its partners focus on Article 5.1 and Article 5.4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, the interveners analyse the requirements for lawful deprivation of liberty, the right to have the lawfulness of detention promptly examined by a Court, and the right to have effective legal assistance. The intervention considers both the EU and international law and standards related to deprivation of liberty and the right to an effective remedy against unlawful detention and material conditions of detention.
The key points of the intervention are as follows:
- The interveners submit that under Article 5.1 detention must not be arbitrary, and be prescribed by law both substantively and procedurally. The intervention highlights that detention must be a measure of last resort, it should follow an individualised and exhaustive examination, and it may be imposed only when less strict measures cannot be effectively applied.
- Regarding Article 5.4, the interveners clarify that an effective judicial review of detention prescribed by law and accessible in practice constitutes a safeguard against arbitrary detention. Legal aid and competent legal representation are essential elements in ensuring the accessibility and effectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.
- Finally, the interveners stress that lack of access to clear information, lack of access to a lawyer, and lack of access to an effective remedy contravene the guarantees under Articles 3 and 13 ECHR, rendering them ineffective, theoretical, and illusory.
Read the full intervention here.
Jul 18, 2023 | News
On 11 July 2023, the Chamber of the third section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its judgment in the case of Semenya v. Switzerland finding that Caster Semenya’s right to freedom from discrimination, taken together with her rights to respect for private life and to an effective remedy had been violated.
Oct 18, 2022 | Cases, Legal submissions, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), the AIRE Centre and the Global Campus of human rights have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a A.D. v Malta, concerning the detention of a child seeking asylum in Malta.
