Dec 15, 2017
On the fifth anniversary of the enforced disappearance of the Lao civil society leader, the ICJ and 121 other organizations, express outrage at the government’s failure to investigate Sombath Somphone’s disappearance and return him to his family.
To read the letter:
Lao PDR-Sombath 5 years-Advocacy-open letter-2017-ENG (English version, in PDF)
Lao PDR-Sombath 5 years-Advocacy-open letter-2017-LAO (Lao version, in PDF)
Dec 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today urged the Government of Singapore to end the harassment of human rights defender Jolovan Wham and to amend laws used to restrict his work and the work of other human rights defenders.
Jolovan Wham is to appear at a pre-trial conference on seven criminal charges today. Jolovan Wham is a well-known human rights defender in Singapore who previously worked for a group that advocates for the rights of migrant workers and plays a leading role against the death penalty and the promotion of freedom of expression.
“These charges are not only an impermissible attack on Jolovan Wham individually, but human rights work more generally in Singapore,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of ICJ.
“It is an unmistakable message to other human rights defenders that they may face the same harassment and intimidation if they continue their work,” he added.
Jolovan Wham was charged in connection with facilitating a Skype conference with Hong Kong human rights defender, Joshua Wong Chi-Fung, on “civil disobedience and democracy in social change”.
Other charges relate to his organizing peaceful public assemblies, allegedly without permits, to protest the death penalty and to commemorate the day when 16 individuals were arrested by Singapore authorities in 1987 and detained without trial under the country’s Internal Security Act (ISA).
He was also charged for refusing to sign statements prepared by police authorities when he was taken in for investigation on 28 November 2017.
Most of the charges against Jolovan Wham were for alleged violations of Section 7 of the Public Order Act, which makes an offence the holding of a public assembly or public procession without a permit.
The ICJ considers that aspects of Section 7, particularly as applied to the charges against Jolvan Wham, may serve to impermissibly restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore, which is protected under international standards.
“Singapore should immediately act to amend the Public Order Act with a view to ensuring that it is consistent with international human rights law and standards, particularly as they relate to the exercise freedoms of expression and assembly,” Zarifi said.
Under international law and standards, prior authorization of assemblies is generally inconsistent with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, except for narrow exceptions.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, in a 2012 report, clarified that prior authorization should generally not be necessary.
At most, it should require notification that is not unduly burdensome, so as allow the authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and to take measures to protect public safety and public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
The Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), emphasizes the right of human rights defenders “to meet or assemble peacefully” and “to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and through these and other appropriate means, to draft public attention to those matters
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Singapore-Wham harrassment-News-Press releases-2017-ENG (full story with additional info, in PDF)
Dec 13, 2017
Today, the ICJ and other human rights groups urged changes to a new law in Lao PDR that would enable violations of freedom of association and other human rights.
The groups sent an open letter to the Lao PDR Government calling for the repeal of or for significant amendments to be made to the Decree on Associations that came into force in Lao PDR in November 2017. A legal brief detailing analysis of the new law was attached to the open letter.
The letter emphasized that repeal or amendments to the new law needed to be part of fundamental reform of the framework of regulation of associations in Lao PDR, in line with international human rights law and standards.
The new law supersedes the 2009 Decree on Associations, which had already included imprecise and overly broad terms leading to arbitrary restrictions on the rights to freedom of association, freedom of opinion and expression and privacy.
“The 2009 law had already imposed restrictions on fundamental freedoms which were clearly in contravention of Lao PDR’s obligations under international human rights law,” said Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The new law makes things worse.”
In the attached legal brief, the ICJ and other human rights groups analyzed provisions in the decree which arbitrarily restrict or deny fundamental rights by giving government authorities in Lao PDR sweeping powers to, among other things,
- unreasonably control and/or prohibit the formation of associations;
- arbitrarily inspect, monitor and curtail the activities and finances of associations;
- order the dissolution of associations on arbitrary grounds and without right of appeal;
- discipline associations and individual members on arbitrary grounds and
- criminalize unregistered associations and allow for prosecution of their members.
The letter concluded by urging the Lao PDR Government to respect its obligations under international human rights law by removing arbitrary, overbroad and discriminatory elements from its framework of regulation of associations.
Any regulation regime should make clear that individuals are free to form private unincorporated associations without needing to notify or register with the State.
The letter further urged that for associations wishing to acquire legal personality, the law should at most provide for automatic registration upon notification and fulfillment of simple administrative requirements, rather than a system requiring prior permission of State officials.
“The rights to form and participate in associations, to freely express one’s opinions and to lead a private life are fundamental freedoms, which the Lao PDR Government has a duty to protect, promote and fulfill,” said Rawski.
Background
The Decree on Associations, dated 11 August 2017, came into force on 15 November 2017. Pursuant to its article 81, the new law supersedes the Decree on Associations (No. 115 of 2009) dated 29 April 2009 (‘2009 Decree’).
The new law only applies to local non-profit associations (NPAs) and does not govern international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in Lao PDR, which are instead regulated by the Decree on International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) (No. 013 of 2010).
As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Lao PDR has a legal obligation to respect, protect and guarantee, among others, the rights to privacy (article 17), freedom of opinion and expression (article 19), and freedom of association (article 22), which includes the right to form and join associations, subject only to narrow restrictions.
The ICCPR also requires States to implement necessary legislative, administrative or other measures for effective promotion and protection of these freedoms.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser (Bangkok), e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Lao-Decree Associations-Advocacy-open letters-2017-ENG (open letter + briefing paper, in PDF)
Dec 9, 2017 | Artículos, Multimedia, Noticias
Los dirigentes de comunidades indígenas que buscan proteger sus tierras y recursos naturales contra los impactos negativos de operaciones industriales y proyectos de infraestructura, han sido acusados de actividades criminales y en algunos casos detenidos de manera arbitraria.
Esta respuesta tiene como objetivo silenciar las voces de protesta y las demandas legítimas de consentimiento libre, previo e informado relativas a obras de infraestructura y otros proyectos en las comunidades indígenas.
Este video incluye entrevistas con Ramón Cadena, director de la CIJ para Centroamérica, dos dirigentes indígenas, que fueron víctimas de detención arbitraria, así como una dirigente comunitaria, explicando el impacto de la detención en la familia y toda la comunidad.
La criminalización del trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos es un fenómeno por el cual se acusan a las y los dirigentes comunitarios de diferentes actividades criminales a causa de su oposición a un modelo de desarrollo basado en las industrias extractivas o la privatización de servicios sociales esenciales.
Este modelo de desarrollo afecta a los recursos naturales (el agua, la tierra y el medio ambiente) en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas.
Se trata de un fenómeno global que es particularmente agudo en Guatemala.
La explotación de los recursos naturales, tales como la minería a cielo abierto y las operaciones de industrias extractivas en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas, es una razón principal que explica los ataques a las protestas sociales y las acciones de defensa de los derechos humanos.
Las diferentes comunidades afectadas buscan defender sus territorios y oponerse a las diferentes formas de explotación de los recursos naturales que se hallan en sus territorios o en áreas vecinas porque puede afectar el abastecimiento en agua, la tierra y el medio ambiente.
Varios dirigentes han sido asesinados a causa de su oposición a estos proyectos.
Algunos miembros de las familias de los asesinados han asumido a su vez la tarea de oponerse a estos proyectos, y también han sido acusados de actividades criminales.
También, en Guatemala existe un conflicto social intenso por la manera de abastecimiento de electricidad.
Como resultado de la privatización del servicio en 1996, el Estado de Guatemala ha consentido concesiones a compañías nacionales e internacionales para proveer servicios de electricidad.
Durante los años, muchas y muchos usuarios se han quejado de la mala calidad y el alto coste de los servicios de estas compañías privadas.
La Comisión Nacional de Electricidad ha fallado en su deber legal de “asegurar que los concesionarios y contratistas cumplan con sus obligaciones, y proteger los derechos de los usuarios,” lo que ha sido reclamado por muchos usuarios descontentos.
Las protestas sociales conciernen las tres fases diferentes de la producción de electricidad: la generación de electricidad que incluye la construcción de presas hidroeléctricas por compañías multinacionales que causan impactos sobre los territorios de los pueblos indígenas; redes de transmisión de electricidad; y los servicios de electricidad.
Debido a esta situación, muchos usuarios de electricidad han declarado que están en resistencia citando el Artículo 45 de la Constitución de Guatemala que dice: “Es legítimo que el pueblo resista para proteger y defender los derechos y las garantías establecidos en la Constitución.”
Las acciones realizadas bajo esta protección constitucional han causado muchos ataques a los derechos humanos de muchos dirigentes comunitarios, abogados y defensores de derechos humanos.
La CIJ apoya el acceso a la justicia para las personas víctimas de tales violaciones de sus derechos humanos.
La CIJ brinda su apoyo a los abogados que defienden a estas víctimas de la criminalización de protestas sociales; actúa como observador de procesos en casos emblemáticos; promueve dialogo entre las comunidades y las autoridades estatales pertinentes, así como los alcaldes locales; y en algunos casos, apoya sumisiones de casos ante la Corte Constitucional.
Dec 8, 2017 | News
From 5 to 8 December 2017, the ICJ co-hosted two workshops – the first one for lawyers with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the second one for authorities in Thailand – on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance.
The first workshop’s attendees included 17 lawyers and academics from Thailand and eight lawyers from India.
Participants in the second workshop included 26 participants from Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, Department of Special Investigation (DSI), Royal Thai Police, Office of the Attorney-General, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior, Southern Border Province Administration Centre and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
The first event commenced with opening remarks by OHCHR Human Rights Officer and Thailand team coordinator, Imesh Pokharel, and Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Aem-on Siang-Yai, Director of the Office of Rights and Freedoms Protection from the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Justice made additional opening remarks in the second event.
In both workshops, Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia at the ICJ provided an introduction to the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017; ICJ Practitioners Guide No 9 – Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction (2015, in English, Spanish and Thai); and the international legal framework governing investigations into unlawful deaths, noting that Thailand has legal obligations including under its Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a State Party, to respect, protect and fulfil the right to life.
These obligations entail a duty to ensure investigations into potentially unlawful deaths are independent, impartial, effective, thorough and transparent.
Sean Buckley of OSACO Group, former New Zealand Police Detective and now an independent, international, investigative specialist with more than 20 years of investigations experience including more than seven years with the United Nations (including at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), provided in both events a technical training on a range of topics relevant to investigations using the revised Minnesota Protocol as a guide.
Kingsley Abbott was a member of the Forensics and Legal Working Groups which assisted with the revision of the Minnesota Protocol, while Sean Buckley was a member of the Advisory Panel.
The workshops focused on investigation techniques of potentially unlawful deaths, including controlling the crime scene, preserving the security of evidence and ensuring the safety of all parties involved in investigations, including witnesses, investigators and family members of victims.
The workshops also covered witness identification and interview techniques, collection of DNA evidence, drafting of investigation reports and crime file management.
Sean Buckley shared with participants different means of international assistance available for investigations of potentially unlawful deaths.
The Workshop also covered the collection and potential use of telecommunications evidence.
Sean Buckley and Imesh Pokharel presented on the interview and protection of witnesses.
Thailand and India are both state parties to the ICCPR.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
