Mar 11, 2019
A new ICJ report examines the right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, analyzing the country’s legal framework to identify protections of and limitations on the exercise of this right in law and in practice.
The report highlights that jurisdictional disputes affecting the adjudication of matters relating to religion and belief – between civil courts which apply federal and state laws, and Syariah courts, which apply Islamic laws – have emerged as the main arena of contestation.
These disputes have arisen amidst a national legal framework where there remains a lack of clarity in existing jurisprudence and law about the dual jurisdictional regime and insufficient legal safeguards exist to protect the rights of individuals with respect to personal and family matters concerning religion and belief.
Protective mechanisms for persons who wish to change or adopt a new religion also remain inadequate in law, while laws have been misused in practice to curtail the right to religion and belief of religious minorities.
The report explains the general international legal framework governing the right to freedom of religion or belief, before highlighting several concerns relating to the protection and promotion of this right in Malaysia. These include:
- Discrimination against religious minorities;
- Limitations on the rights of children relating to personal matters governed by Islamic Law;
- Discrimination against persons who wish to change or adopt a new religion;
- Criminalization and prosecution of proselytism among Muslims;
- Prohibitions on the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims;
- Criminalization of free expression through the crime of sedition.
These concerns are detailed in the report. In light of these challenges, the report offers a number of recommendations to the Government of Malaysia to assist authorities in ensuring Malaysia’s legal framework is implemented in accordance with international human rights law and fully protects the right to freedom of religion or belief.
The report situates its legal analysis within Malaysia’s socio-political context, where religion and ethnicity play significant roles in politics and society, and concerns are emerging of rising intolerance against religious and ethnic minorities.
This report is part of a series of ICJ publications on the right to freedom of religion or belief, produced with the support of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion and Belief (IPPFoRB).
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski@icj.org
See also
New primer on freedom of religion or belief in international human rights law
New briefing paper: challenges to freedom of religion or belief in Nepal
Download
Malaysia-Freedom of religion Exec sum-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (executive summary, in PDF)
Malaysia-Freedom of religion brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (full report, in PDF)
Feb 15, 2019
The ICJ has published an overview of international standards on judges’ and prosecutors’ freedoms of expression, association and assembly, in a submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.The document responds to the Special Rapporteur’s call for input for an upcoming report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The submission outlines the relevant international standards and key regional jurisprudence and standards, as well as illustrative national cases and practice and several academic sources.
The ICJ concludes, among other things, that:
- Judges and prosecutors are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, subject only to necessary and proportionate restrictions for valid purposes.
- In principle any such restrictions that are specifically related to their judicial functions, should be established by the judiciary itself or another independent body with majority membership of judges.
- Any proceedings against a judge or prosecutor related to their exercise of these freedoms should comply fully with international human rights law and standards in terms of the grounds and procedures, including as set out in standards on independence of the judiciary and prosecutors.
- Judges and prosecutors should be required to recuse themselves from any case where they have previously exercised these freedoms in a way that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in their subsequent conduct of the case.
- At the same time, the above considerations do not mean that a judge or prosecutor can never engage in expression, association or assemblies that touch on issues or parties that could speculatively come before the courts at some future point. Total isolation from the community and society is neither realistic nor desirable.
- In general, involvement in or comment on matters of party politics carry particularly high risks of giving rise to perceptions of lack of independence and there is relatively wide scope to enact restrictions on this ground.
- It is particularly important that judges (and prosecutors) can exercise their freedoms of expression, association and assembly in order to address: threats to the independence of the judiciary; threats to judicial integrity; fundamental aspects of the administration of justice; or to otherwise promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. As such, there is very limited scope for any authority to restrict exercise of these freedoms for these purposes.
- The relevant standards and principles apply to online forms of expression and association (including social media) in an equal or analogous manner to their application to offline forms. However, judges and prosecutors should be aware of and take into account practical aspects of online forms of expression and association.
The full submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: Universal-SRIJL Judges-Advocacy-non legal submission-2019-ENG
Jan 25, 2019
The ICJ has issued “A primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief” in which the organization outlines and analyses international human rights law and standards relevant to the right to freedom of religion or belief.
The primer is part of a series of ICJ publications on this theme.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is a wide-ranging right encompassing a large number of distinct, and yet interrelated entitlements.
International human rights law provides for and guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief broadly, encompassing the right to freedom of thought and personal convictions in all matters, and protecting the profession and practice of different kinds of beliefs, whether theistic, non-theistic or atheistic, and the freedom not to disclose one’s religion or belief.
International law also guarantees and protects the right not to have a religious confession.
Among other things, the Primer describes in detail certain key aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief; the right to manifest a religion or belief; as well as the relationship between the right to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights, including the principle of non-discrimination, and the right to freedom of expression.
Finally, the primer concludes with a number of recommendations addressed to States in light of its analysis of international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Download
To download the Executive Summary in English, click here.
To download the full primer in English, click here.
To download the full primer in Burmese, click here.
Jan 16, 2019
The trial of civilians by military courts is a glaring surrender of human rights and fundamental freedoms, found the ICJ in its Briefing Paper Military Injustice in Pakistan released today.
The Pakistani Government must not extend the tenure of military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, the ICJ said.
“Military trials of civilians have been a disaster for human rights in Pakistan,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“As a recent judgment of the Peshawar High Court has confirmed, proceedings in these tribunals are secret, opaque, and violate the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal,” he added.
In the briefing paper, the ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions – more than 97 per cent – based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
The ICJ has also demonstrated how military courts are being used to give legal cover to the practice of enforced disappearances.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards, the ICJ recalled.
According to the military, in the four years since military courts were empowered to try terrorism-related offences, they have convicted at least 641 people. Some 345 people have been sentenced to death and 296 people have been given prison sentences. Only five people have been acquitted. At least 56 people have been hanged.
An earlier law giving military courts authority to try civilians will lapse on 30 March 2019. Last week, the Cabinet approved a proposal to extend the tenure of military courts for another two years. The Government is currently in consultation with opposition parties to get consensus on the extension.
“Extending the tenure of military courts is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue: the Government’s failure to enact reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system during the four years military courts have been in operation,” said Rawski.
“The Government must account for its failure to deliver on the promise of delivering justice for the victims of terrorism and other abuses in Pakistan instead of once again extending the “exceptional” use of military courts for civilian trials,” he added.
The ICJ fears that repeated extensions risk making the practice effectively permanent.
If the Government decides to table legislation to extend the tenure of military courts, the Parliament must take a stand in defense of the rights of all people in Pakistan, instead of once again extending a discredited and abusive process, the ICJ says.
Contact
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional Information
The National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan passed the 21st amendment to the Constitution in January 2015, authorizing military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences for a period of two years. The 21st amendment lapsed on 6 January 2017.
Despite earlier promises that military courts were only temporary and “exceptional”, after the expiration of the 21st Amendment, Parliament enacted on 30 March 2017 the 23rd Amendment and amendments to the Army Act to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians. The amendments were given retrospective effect from 7 January 2017, and were due to lapse two years after their date of “commencement”.
According to the law ministry, the expanded jurisdiction of military courts will lapse on 30 March 2019. (Earlier reports had suggested the amendments expired on Jan 6, 2019 — two years after the date of “operation” of the 23rd Amendment.)
Pakistan-military courts-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (full briefing paper in PDF)
Nov 20, 2018
The ICJ said today that the Nepal Army’s petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn convictions of soldiers for the 2004 killing of 14-year-old Maina Sunuwar was riddled with legal flaws. Its success would be a blow to the fight against impunity in Nepal.
On the 12th Anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the ICJ released an analysis of the Nepal Army’s legal arguments in the petition to upend the convictions issued by the Kavrepalanchowk District Court for the killing Maina Sunuwar while in Army custody.
“The Nepal Army has sought to overturn the convictions of Maina’s killers by putting forth specious legal arguments that do not hold up under Nepali or international law, or in light of the past decisions of the Supreme Court,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
In the legal briefing, the ICJ sets out (i) Nepal’s obligations under international law and the Nepal Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of human rights violations; (ii) the impropriety of jurisdiction by a military court-martial in cases of serious human rights violations; and (iii) refutes the argument that the convictions violated principles of ‘double jeopardy’.
The briefing sets out international law and jurisprudence establishing the Government’s duty to prosecute serious human rights violations as distinct and separate from its obligation to establish the truth, including as part of a transitional justice process.
The briefing comes at a moment when the future of justice for conflict era crimes and human rights violations in Nepal is uncertain.
In July, a draft bill amending the existing legislative framework governing the transitional justice process was criticized by civil society, victim groups and human rights organizations – including in a joint analysis by the ICJ, Amnesty International and Trial International.
While a government panel elicited comments at consultations with victims and civil society, the government never produced a revised draft or conducted follow-up.
“How can the people of Nepal, and particularly conflict victims, have faith in government proposals to press forward on transitional justice when the Nepal Army continues to fight even minimal accountability with disingenuous legal arguments, such as in the case of Maina Sunuwar?” said Rawski.
“The foundation for any process moving forward must be the best interests of victims, a commitment to accountability, and respect for international human rights obligations. This has been affirmed many times over by the Supreme Court,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Background
Maina Sunuwar was subjected to enforced disappearance, torture and unlawful killing after a covert military operation, which included the involvement of then captain Niranjan Basnet on 17 February 2004.
The military refused to acknowledge Maina’s detention for many months.
After overcoming a number of procedural and political hurdles stretching over years, on 16 April 2017, the Kavre District Court sentenced three retired army officers to life imprisonment for Maina Sunuwar’s murder.
In September 2017, the Nepal Army filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Kavre Court on several grounds, including that military courts had proper jurisdiction over the original case, that the District Court convictions violated the principle of ‘double jeopardy’ because the defendants had already been tried by a court-martial, and that the court system no longer had jurisdiction over conflict-related cases following the establishment of transitional justice institutions.
Nepal-Petition to overturn convictions for Maina Sunuwar killing-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-ENG (Full Analysis brief, in PDF)
