Nov 19, 2016 | Advocacy
Ten years after the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) ended Nepal’s bloody civil war, Nepali authorities must renew their commitment to ensure truth, justice and reparation for victims of the conflict who are still waiting for redress, the ICJ said today.
The CPA, signed by the Government of Nepal and the country’s major political parties, including the then Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on 21 November 2006, called for a credible transitional justice process that would ensure victims’ rights to truth, justice, reparation and effective remedy in accordance with Nepal’s international human rights obligations.
“The hope and promise to conflict victims towards fulfillment of their rights to truth, justice and reparation that came with the signing of the CPA and the end of the conflict ten years ago have yet to be realized,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia director.
“Over the last ten years, various governments from all the different parties have blocked or hindered the transitional justice process, ignoring rulings by the Supreme Court that demanded compliance with international law and standards,” he added.
The full statement can be downloaded here:
nepal-statement-cpa-anniversary-advocacy-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Nov 18, 2016 | News
The ICJ condemned Singapore’s execution of two people today and is concerned over the Singapore government’s lack of transparency with regards to its implementation of executions.
The government does not update the list of names and number of death row inmates and often does not give death row inmates and their families adequate notice prior to executions, the ICJ notes.
“The very short notice does not allow the death row inmates and their families enough time to file last minute appeals,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Singapore authorities, by hastening executions, hinder measures that could save the lives of those on death row, and also try to minimize public outcry over the executions,” he added.
Both Nigerian national Chijoke Stephen Obioha and Malaysian national Devendran A/L Supramaniam were convicted of drugs-related charges.
Chijoke Stephen Obioha was convicted of possession and trafficking of drugs on 30 December 2008, while Devandran was convicted on 29 July 2014 for importing 83.36 grams of diamorphine into Singapore.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception and considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The ICJ calls on the Singapore government to publicly release the number of death row inmates awaiting execution, and the number and names of individuals who have been executed in 2016.
ICJ also calls on the Singapore government to immediately establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view towards its abolition.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 14, 2016 | News
The Philippines government must immediately halt its initiative to restore the death penalty to the country after abolishing the practice a decade ago, said the ICJ today.
The ICJ received reports that the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reform of the House of Representatives of the Philippines has commenced hearings on a bill bringing back the death penalty into Philippine domestic laws.
The first hearing reportedly occurred on 8 November 2016.
It took place without adequate notice, preventing important stakeholders from participating or giving input.
“President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration seems to be hell-bent on returning to the bad old days of executing people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“Reinstating the death penalty would breach the Philippines’ international legal obligations and would constitute an all-out assault on decades of global advances in protecting the right to life through abolition of this barbarous practice,” he added.
Under international standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States may not reintroduce the death penalty once it has been abolished.
The ICJ considers that the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“There appears to be a deliberate strategy on the part of the House of Representatives to circumvent meaningful consultations and a full debate on this unconscionable measure,” said Zarifi.
“The ramifications on the Philippines’ obligations under international law appear not to have been properly considered by legislators who proposed the measure bringing back the death penalty.”
Until now the Philippines had set an example of regional and global best practice on the abolition of the death penalty.
It abolished the death penalty in 2006 and became the first member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to become party to the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR on the abolition of the death penalty.
The 2nd Optional Protocol provides for no possibility of denunciation or withdrawal and the Human Rights Committee has affirmed that States Parties may not withdraw from this treaty.
Moreover, the Committee has stressed that under the ICCPR, no abolitionist State may lawfully reintroduce the death penalty under Article 6 on the right to life, whether or not they are party to the 2nd Optional protocol.
“The Philippines Congress must perform its role as an equal branch of the government and stop such a horrific move backwards for the country,” Zarifi added.
“Filipino legislators must question the government as to why it’s even considering such an action, especially at a time when the country is facing an outbreak of extrajudicial executions with apparent government complicity.”
On 31 May 2016, the ICJ wrote to President Rodrigo Duterte underscoring that the death penalty was not only an affront to human rights, but that it had no demonstrable deterrent effect on addressing serious crime.
The ICJ pointed out that investing in improved investigation techniques and capacity, and making other needed reforms to the criminal justice system would be the best way to reduce crime.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 14, 2016
Prime Minister Najib Razak should withdraw proposed amendments to Malaysia’s Legal Profession Act 1976 because they will undermine the independence of the Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, said ICJ today in a letter together with other human rights organizations.
The amendments, which will be introduced when Parliament opens in October, seek to allow the Minister in charge of legal affairs to appoint two members of the Bar Council.
Furthermore, they aim to restrict the eligibility for leadership positions to those elected by the Bar Council by the various State Bars, thereby severely limiting those who can stand for office.
Should these amendments take effect, the current president and vice-president and the leaders of the State Bar committees will be precluded from any leadership role in the Bar Council.
“These amendments appear to be another attempt to muzzle an independent institution that has consistently been vocal in its defense of the rule of law and human rights in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, are more important than ever to help protect the rights of people and the rule of law, especially during this critical time in Malaysia when these are imperiled,” he added.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (UN Basic Principles) guarantees the right to freedom of association of lawyers.
It specifically provides that “lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests.” Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles provide that the governing bodies of professional associations of lawyers “shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”
“These amendments follow other efforts by the government to undermine the Malaysian Bar’s independence and prevent its members from engaging critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” Zarifi said. “This move seems part of the Malaysian government’s efforts to stifle civil society and silence critical voices.”
The ICJ urges the government of Malaysia to respect the independence of the Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, and not pass these proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976.
The letter to Prime Minister Najib Razak was signed by ICJ, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights, Civil Rights Defenders, the Asia Democracy Network, Fortify Rights, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, and the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights.
Background
Early this year, Malaysian authorities commenced sedition investigations against members of the Malaysian Bar after a motion was passed by a majority vote during the institution’s 70th Annual General Assembly calling for the resignation of Attorney General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of the Attorney General after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by the Prime Minister. A month after, a proposal was made by parliamentarian Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur to make the Attorney General automatically the chairman of the Bar Council.
The ICJ has denounced these efforts, pointing out that these are inconsistent with the essential guarantees for the functioning of an independent legal profession under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
malaysia-ngo-letter-on-lpa-amend-advocacy-open-letters-2016-eng (full text of letter, in PDF)
Nov 8, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must act to stop and redress the ongoing harassment, and death threats against the organizers of the Bersih 5.0 protest rally, scheduled for 19 November 2016, said the ICJ today.
The ICJ is calling on the authorities to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation into unlawful acts of intimidation against the organizers with a view to identifying and bringing to account those responsible.
The Bersih (or Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil) is a coalition formed in 2006 by Malaysian non-governmental organizations to call for free, clean and fair elections.
“The Malaysian government has the obligation to respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “These rights are not only guaranteed under the Malaysian Constitution, but also under international human rights law.”
The ICJ recently received reports that Bersih leaders Maria Chin Abdullah, Mandeep Singh, and former Chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan received death threats from unknown individuals.
Family members of Maria Chin Abdullah also received similar threats.
On 29 October 2016, police arrested Maria Chin Abdullah for distributing flyers promoting the forthcoming public assembly.
She was investigated on suspicion of having violated Section 11 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which requires every publication printed or published within Malaysia to bear the name and address of the printer and publisher. Maria Chin Abdullah was subsequently released.
On 1 October 2016, men wearing the customary red shirts of ‘anti-Bersih’ groups and riding motorbikes tailed the convoy in Perak, kicked the cars and punched the vehicles’ side mirrors, while on 8 October 2016, unknown persons smashed the windows and slashed the tires of cars participating in a Bersih convoy in Sabah state.
Last week, police authorities launched investigations under Section 124C of the Penal Code against Bersih and other Malaysian NGOs that are alleged to have received foreign funding. Section 124C penalizes persons who are found to “attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.”
“Section 124C is impermissibly vague and ambiguous, and allows authorities to engage in arbitrary prosecution, conviction, and punishment of people who are exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly,” Zarifi said. “These claims against Bersih seem to be the latest effort by the Malaysian government, which is facing allegations of massive corruption, to repress political opposition.”
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Over the years, Bersih has been organizing peaceful assemblies attended by thousands of Malaysians in Kuala Lumpur and other parts of the country.
Last year, monitors from the ICJ observed Bersih 4.0 and reported that it had been a peaceful assembly, in exercise of the right to freedom of assembly and that the organizers took careful measures to keep it orderly and free from violence. The ICJ will again be sending observers to this year’s Bersih rally in Kuala Lumpur.
Under Article 10(1)(b) of the Malaysian Constitution, “all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.” Furthermore, the right to peaceful assembly is also guaranteed under several international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In his 2012 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association emphasized that States “have a positive obligation to actively protect peaceful assemblies”. This State obligation includes “protection of participants of peaceful assemblies from individuals or groups of individuals, including agents provocateurs and counter-demonstrators who aim at disrupting or dispersing such assemblies.”
With regard to the use of Section 124C of the Penal Code to commence investigations against Bersih and other non-governmental organizations, the ICJ has emphasized that the ambiguity and vagueness of this provision makes it inconsistent with the principle of legality, a basic tenet of law. The principle of legality in the criminal law context requires that any offense must be established in law and defined precisely and unambiguously so as to enable individuals to know what acts will make them criminally liable.
