Apr 22, 2020 | News
In a joint letter to EU Member States, the ICJ and other human rights NGOs have urged them to recognize the grave implications for human rights and the rule of law, of the Hungarian government’s recent emergency measures.
Ahead of the Council of the EU videoconference of EU Affairs Ministers to discuss the response to COVID-19, Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights Watch, the ICJ, Open Society European Policy Institute and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urged the Council to take immediate steps to protect the principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is particularly needed in light of the already deteriorated state of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary, which warranted the activation, in September 2018, of the procedure laid down in Article 7.1 TEU.
The organisations urged the member states of the European Union to:
- include in the agenda of the upcoming session of the EU General Affairs Council an Article 7.1 TEU hearing on the situation in Hungary, including recent developments in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak, and address to the government of Hungary, as a matter of urgency, concrete recommendations to safeguard respect for the rule of law and human rights in the country, that the Hungarian government must implement by a set deadline;
- commit to assessing the implementation of the recommendations in a timely manner in order to reach a determination under Article 7.1 TEU and, should conditions warrant it, move forward under Article 7.2 TEU.
- ensure enhanced monitoring of the Hungarian government’s use of EU funding, including funds aimed at supporting member states during the public health crisis.
The organisations urged both the Council and the Commission to cooperate with each other, and with the European Parliament and national parliaments, to ensure a coordinated, consistent and effective response to the situation.
The full letter is available here: CSO Letter to GAC -rule of law in Hungary April 2020
Apr 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ called upon the Sri Lankan authorities to respect human rights in the conduct of their investigation of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, including ensuring that investigations into the alleged involvement of Sri Lankan lawyer, Hejaaz Hizbullah, are conducted in accordance with due process and fair trial guarantees under international law.
Specifically, the authorities must specify the charges against him, grant him full and immediate access to a lawyer, and investigate the circumstances of his arrest for potential rights violations.
Sri Lankan Lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah was arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police (CID) on April 14, 2020 pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and has since been kept in detention. No reasons were provided at the time of the arrest. During a media briefing, a police spokesperson stated that he was arrested as a result of the evidence found against him during investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings. The ICJ understands that no remand or detention orders authorising his continued detention have been served even after the lapse of 72 hours as required by Sections 7 and 9 of the PTA. Moreover, Hizbullah was only granted limited access to legal counsel on April 15 and 16, under the supervision of a CID official, who had insisted that the conversation be in Sinhala, in breach of attorney-client privilege. Legal access has been denied at least since April 16, 2020.
“No one questions the government’s need and obligation to investigate the horrendous Easter Sunday attacks, but these investigations must be conducted in a way that is consistent with international law and the Sri Lankan Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “Not serving Hizbullah a remand order as required by law, and denying him full and confidential access to legal counsel is unacceptable and in violation of international standards on the right to liberty.”
A Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Hizbullah’s father on April 17 seeking his release from detention, and demanding that he be given access to his attorneys. According to the application, five persons posing as officials of the Ministry of Health entered his home and interrogated him, after placing him in handcuffs. They demanded access to two of his case files, recorded a statement from him and subsequently took him into custody at the Criminal Investigation Department.
“By allowing warrantless entry, search of premises and the arrest of persons, the Prevention of Terrorism Act violates basic due process guarantees under international law,” added Rawski. “This legal provision is one of many problematic provisions of the PTA. The ICJ reiterates it calls for the PTA to be repealed, and replaced with an a law that conforms with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations.”
According to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.” Article 14 entitles anyone charged of a criminal offence “to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing”. Similar guarantees are enshrined under Article 13 of the Sri Lankan Constitution.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that, “Governments shall further ensure that all persons arrested or detained, with or without criminal charge, shall have prompt access to a lawyer, and in any case not later than forty-eight hours from the time of arrest or detention.”
The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. The ICJ reiterated its call for the repeal and replacement of this vague and overbroad anti-terror law in line with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Apr 18, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ joined other legal organizations in condemning the arrest of 15 pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong for organizing and taking part in ‘unauthorized assemblies’ in 2019. The arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and the right to assembly in Hong Kong.
The joint statement reads:
The international legal community is seriously concerned by the arrest of 15 veteran pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong on Saturday 18 April 2020. In what appears to be a further clampdown on civil liberties and democracy following the 2019 protests, which began over the introduction of a controversial extradition bill, those arrested today include senior figures in the pro-democracy movement. These include lawmakers, party leaders and lawyers such as the democratic politician and legislator, Martin Lee QC who was also involved in the drafting of the Basic Law, the media owner, Jimmy Lai, and the barrister, Dr Margaret Ng. In October of last year, Margaret Ng and Martin Lee were jointly awarded the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Award for their lifelong defence of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
The arrests are purported to be based on suspicion of organising and taking part in ‘unauthorised assemblies’ on 18 August, 1 October and 20 October 2019, pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance. No explanation has been reported for the apparent delay between those protests and the timing of today’s arrests. The leaders of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement have long argued for their rights to peaceful assembly and protest to be exercised without the need for consent from the authorities.
The right to peaceful protest is protected under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. As part of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy, the Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees freedoms that are not available to those in mainland China until 2047. Hong Kong residents are guaranteed the rights to ‘freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration’. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised.” The Basic Law expressly preserves the ICCPR as applicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The State has a duty to protect and facilitate such protest, and the Public Order Ordinance must be implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
Following growing concerns of eroding civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong, the 2019 protests have been unprecedented in their scale and reach and have led to physical violence by authorities, as well as a regrettable violent response by a minority of demonstrators. Excessive crowd dispersal techniques have been used by the authorities, including the dangerous use of tear gas, water cannons, firing of rubber pellets, pepper spray and baton charges by the police to disperse pro-democracy demonstrations, and there is reliable evidence of violence upon arrest. No proper investigation into excessive force has taken place and indeed calls from the international community, including the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, have been rejected.
Today’s arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and right to assembly in Hong Kong. Indeed, we are gravely concerned that the arrests of senior lawyers and legislators who set out to protect human rights in a non-violent and proportionate manner, and pursuant to both rights granted in both domestic and international legal frameworks, represent an assault on the rule of law itself. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly expressed concern that charges of ‘unlawful assembly’ against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong risks violating human rights. The arrest of a prominent media owner also sends a chilling message to those whose journalism is vital to a free society.
It is critical that authorities do not use their powers to encroach on fundamental human rights, and it is vital that legal systems continue to protect citizens from any abuse of power which may otherwise be unseen during the COVID-9 crisis in which the international community is submerged..
We strongly urge the Hong Kong authorities to immediately release the 15 individuals arrested and drop all charges against them. Moreover, we call on the authorities to discontinue such politicised and targeted prosecutions immediately and urge the Hong Kong government instead to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of the pro-democracy movement to foster a climate in which their legitimate concerns over democracy and human rights can be met.
To download the statement with more information and list of organizations, click here.
Apr 17, 2020 | Articles, Nouvelles
Un article de Martine Comte, Commissaire française de la CIJ.
En France, dans le cadre de la lutte contre l’épidémie de Covid-19, la loi n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 a introduit de nouvelles dispositions en matière pénale et a habilité le gouvernement à adapter notamment, par ordonnance, compte tenu des circonstances, diverses règles de procédure pénale.
Ce texte a notamment prévu « d’adapter les règles relatives au déroulement et à la durée des détentions provisoires pour permettre l’allongement des délais au cours de l’instruction et en matière d’audiencement, pour une durée proportionnée à celle de droit commun (…) et la prolongation de ces mesures au vu des seules réquisitions écrites du parquet et des observations écrites du prévenu et de son avocat ».
Dans ce cadre, l’article 16 de l’ordonnance n° 2020-303 du 25 mars 2020 a prorogé de plein droit les délais maximums de détention provisoire d ‘une durée de 2, 3 ou 6 mois selon la peine encourue.
Ce texte, combiné aux dispositions de la loi d’habilitation, a donné lieu à deux interprétations divergentes :
– La première, contenue dans la circulaire du ministère de la Justice en date du 26 mars 2020, complétée par une réponse faite à la conférence des premiers présidents de cours d’appel, considère que la notion de délais maximum n’est pas « entendue comme s’appliquant à la durée totale cumulée de détention, mais à la durée du titre de détention en cours ».
Prenons l’exemple d’une instruction en matière criminelle, qui autorise en temps normal la détention provisoire pour une durée de 1 an, renouvelable à deux reprises pour une durée de 6 mois, soit une durée maximale de 2 ans. Dans ce cas, chaque prorogation ne peut être ordonnée que par un juge après débat contradictoire avec avocat.
Ainsi, les prolongations de la détention initiale ordonnée en février 2020 donneraient lieu à débat contradictoire devant un juge en février 2021, puis en août 2021 pour se terminer au plus tard en février 2022 (soit 2 débats contradictoires).
Dans cet exemple, si l’on applique la prolongation de détention prévue par la loi du 25 mars 2020 de 6 mois, une personne placée en détention provisoire au mois de février 2020 serait privée de débat contradictoire devant un juge jusqu’en août 2021, au lieu de février 2021, et aurait droit à un débat contradictoire sur la prolongation en février 2022, la durée maximale de détention prenant fin en août 2022 (soit 2 débats de prolongation).
– La seconde, partagée par différentes associations et syndicats, considère que l’allongement prévu ne s’applique qu’à l’issue des délais maximums de détention, c’est à dire à la fin de la durée totale maximale (ou durée plafond) de cette détention et que la loi d’habilitation ne peut avoir pour effet de priver le détenu de son droit à un débat contradictoire à chaque prolongation.
Si l’on prend le même exemple, avec application de la loi du 25 mars 2020, une personne placée en détention provisoire au mois de février 2020 verrait sa situation examinée dès février 2021, puis en août 2021. Le délai plafond de la détention provisoire étant de 2 ans, il appartiendrait dès lors au juge compétent, en février 2022, s’il en était besoin, de statuer sur la prolongation exceptionnelle de 6 mois, soit jusqu’à août 2022 (soit 3 débats).
C’est dans ce cadre que le Conseil d’Etat a été saisi et a, par décision du 3 avril 2020, rejeté les recours formés pour obtenir la suspension des dispositions des articles 16, 17 et 18 de l’ordonnance du 25 mars 2020 et /ou de l’exécution de la circulaire susvisée, et a implicitement entériné la position du Ministère de la Justice.
Les conséquences de cette décision posent le problème du nécessaire équilibre entre les droits fondamentaux de la personne détenue et les difficultés des juridictions confrontées à la crise sanitaire.
En effet, la prorogation systématique du titre de détention en cours prive les détenus de la possibilité, prévue par le code de procédure pénale, de voir leur situation examinée par un juge à la fin de la durée de ce titre de détention dans le cadre d’un débat contradictoire, avec l’assistance d’un avocat.
Le fait que les détenus ou le ministère public puissent saisir le juge d’une demande de mise en liberté ne peut être de nature à remédier à cette modification substantielle des droits des personnes en détention provisoire, dans la mesure où on ne peut remplacer par une demande, toujours aléatoire et conditionnée par de multiples éléments, un droit fondamental à bénéficier d’un examen de la prolongation de détention dans le cadre d’un débat contradictoire devant un juge.
Par ailleurs, la possibilité d’utiliser l’écrit, ou la visioconférence, développée dans le cadre des mesures de lutte contre l’épidémie, permettent de garantir la sécurité de tous, détenus comme magistrats ou avocats.
Il convient également d’insister sur le fait que les investigations menées dans le cadre de l’instruction sont extrêmement perturbées, eu égard aux difficultés engendrées par le confinement, ce qui renforce la nécessité d’un examen contradictoire de la situation des détenus, aux échéances « normales » au regard notamment des conditions de détention et de propagation du virus.
Enfin, le dispositif, tel qu’il résulte de la loi du 25 mars 2020 et de la circulaire d’interprétation n’est, me semble-t-il, pas conforme aux articles 5 et 6 de la convention européenne des droits de l’homme, et à l’article 9 et 14 de la Pacte International relatif aux droits civils et politiques, dans la mesure où il restreint considérablement le contrôle effectif de cette privation de liberté par un juge indépendant, dans le cadre d’un débat contradictoire et avec l’assistance d’un avocat.
Il revient maintenant à la cour de cassation, et, peut-être à la CEDH, de trancher ce débat, au risque que le Covid-19, s’il porte une atteinte dramatique à la vie, à la santé et aux conditions de vie, actuelles et futures, des personnes, n’ait aussi pour conséquence une atteinte disproportionnée aux droits et libertés fondamentales.
Apr 17, 2020 | News
On the sixth anniversary of the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen activist, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, the ICJ repeated its calls for Thailand to bring those responsible to justice and apply appropriate penalties that take into account the extreme seriousness of the crime.
On 23 December 2019, after the Thai Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) in September had located bone fragments which they identified as likely belonging to Billy, eight charges, including premeditated murder and concealing the body, were brought against four officials of Kaeng Krachan National Park, with whom Billy was last seen. However, in January 2020, public prosecutors suddenly dropped seven murder-related charges against the four accused on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to take the cases to trial.
“It is disturbing that after six years the prosecutors could not move forward with the prosecution because the authorities failed to gather evidence to identify the perpetrator for Billy’s murder despite the discovery of bone fragments,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Regional Director of the ICJ. “Thai authorities should, pursuant to its international legal obligations, continue to gather other direct and circumstantial evidence to prosecute and punish perpetrator with appropriate penalties.”
The four suspects are now facing only a minor charge for failing to exercise their official functions because they released Billy instead of handing him over to the police after they took him into custody in April 2014 for collecting wild honey in the park.
“Thailand needs to implement legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance without delay so that prosecutors have the appropriate tools to prosecute those responsible, and are not forced to bring charges for crimes of lesser gravity,” he added.
Download the statement with detailed background information in English and Thai.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: discovery of “Billy’s” remains should reinvigorate efforts to identify perpetrator(s)
Thailand: continuing delay in the enactment of the draft law on torture and enforced disappearance undermines access to justice and accountability
