The ICJ today made a statement to the UN Human Rights Council concerning the death penalty, and freedom of expression, in Singapore.The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC32-OralStatement-UPR Singapore-2016-ENG
The ICJ, International IDEA (Australia) and the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Thailand have collaborated to produce an unofficial translation of the draft Constitution of Thailand which is scheduled to be the subject of a national referendum on 7 August 2016.
The original Thai text as formally published by the Royal Thai Government shall in all events remain the sole authority having legal force.
Thailand-Draft-Constitution-EnglishTr-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, t: +66807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
The Pakistan government must stop putting civilians charged with terrorism-related offences on trial before military tribunals, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in its Briefing Paper Military Injustice in Pakistan released today.
Since January 2015, when Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, 11 military courts have been constituted to hear cases related to terrorism.
These 11 military courts have thus far concluded the trials of 105 people, finding the defendants guilty in 81 cases. Seventy-seven people have been sentenced to death and four have been given life sentences. At least 12 people have been hanged after trials that are grossly unfair.
“There is no doubt that the Pakistan government has an obligation to protect people in Pakistan from terrorist acts, but military tribunals are not a proper or effective response to this real threat,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“These tribunals are opaque and operate in violation of national and international fair trial standards, and so are not effective in providing justice, truth or even proper remedies for the victims of terrorism,” he added.
Families of 17 people convicted by military courts have alleged the convicts were denied a right to a fair trial in petitions to the Supreme Court. The Court is expected to issue rulings on the petitions imminently.
Specific violations alleged by the petitioners include: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; and failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict.
In some cases, the petitioners have alleged the convicts were subjected to enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment, and in at least two cases, the petitioners have also alleged that the convicts were children under the age of 18 at the time they were arrested by law enforcement agencies.
Recent media reports of letters said to be from a judge (unnamed) of a military court have raised concerns about the accuracy of the testimonies against the accused; discrepancies between the charges and the evidence provided; and lack of legal training of military courts’ officers.
The ICJ is not in a position to verify the authenticity of the letters, but, noting the consistency of these concerns with those expressed by the ICJ and families of people convicted by military courts, the organization calls on the Pakistan government to investigate the allegations.
The ICJ reminds that in August last year, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the trial of civilians before military courts in contravention of long-established principles of international law and the Court’s own jurisprudence.
“The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to ensure that at the very least, the procedures of military courts meet basic standards of fairness,” Zarifi said.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals through the amendments to the Constitution and the Pakistan Army Act were a key part of the Pakistani government’s 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014.
NAP envisioned military courts to be a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
“Now, with just six months left before the 21st Amendment expires, Pakistan has also failed to address failures of the criminal justice system, which were used as a justification for military trials for militants,” Zarifi added.
The ICJ has called on the Pakistan government to roll back the system of “military injustice”, and ensure that the 21st Amendment is not extended at the expiration of the sunset clause.
The ICJ has also urged that Pakistan reinstate a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in law and practice.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Pakistan-Military court-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
In a briefing paper published today, the ICJ explained the legal issues and political context of the case against Colonel Kumar Lama, a Nepali Army officer.
Earlier this month, Colonel Lama’s trial on allegations of torture of two Nepali detainees in 2005 resumed in the United Kingdom.
“This case is one of the all too rare occasions when the principle of universal jurisdiction has been applied in judicial procedures in the UK, if not the world over,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The decision will have far reaching implications, not only for the victims in this case but for all victims of torture and other serious abuses around the world seeking justice.”
In January 2013, the UK exercised a form of “universal jurisdiction” to charge Colonel Lama on two counts of committing torture under Section 134(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988.
The charges are based on allegations that Colonel Lama was involved in the torture of two Nepali detainees in 2005, at the height of Nepal’s decade-long internal armed conflict. Colonel Lama’s trial began in February 2015 in London. After a few weeks, however, the trial was adjourned because there were problems with interpretation in court. The trial began afresh earlier this month.
The briefing paper addresses questions around the charges against Colonel Lama; the political context in Nepal when the acts of torture allegedly happened; the principle of “universal jurisdiction”; and procedural questions around such trials in the UK.
“The case comes at a time when an agreement between the ruling parties in Nepal is threatening to entrench impunity for those who planned and carried out unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, and other serious crimes in Nepal’s civil war,” added Zarifi.
“It is an important and long overdue opportunity to challenge the systemic impunity for conflict-era human rights abuses in Nepal.”
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nepal-Lama Q&A-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full paper in PDF)
The ICJ has joined other leading NGOs in an open letter urging the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to set out clear benchmarks for assessing progress in Sri Lanka’s implementation of the Human Rights Council resolution on accountability and reconciliation.
20 June 2016
To: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Dear High Commissioner,
Subject: Open letter on the oral update on Sri Lanka at the 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council
We write to you ahead of your oral update to the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka. October 1, 2015 marked an important milestone in the UN’s engagement with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka joined the international consensus and cosponsored resolution 30/1 at the UN Human Rights Council. The resolution called on the Office of the High Commissioner to “assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to accountability reconciliation and human rights.” The resolution identified your forthcoming oral update as a midway point in this process of assessment prior to a comprehensive progress report next March.
While the government’s assurances on progress have been plentiful its performance on the ground has been mixed and not befitting expectations outlined in your report and in the resolution as well as those of victims and people on the ground. There have been some positive developments on international cooperation such as the government’s recent decision to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearances and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the extension of standing invitations to Special Procedures and the visit of a number of Special Procedures, your own visit and that of other UN officials.
At the same time there have been mixed signals on the government’s commitments made through the October resolution, at the highest level of the government. There have been distressing reports on the ongoing use of arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) instead of the regular criminal code. The PTA is a draconian law consistently condemned by UN bodies and officials and which the government had pledged to repeal as part of its October commitment. Repealing the PTA and dealing with the outstanding cases of those still detained under the law should be a foremost priority.
While there is more space for freedom of expression and assembly, incidents of intimidation are still taking place. For example the WGEID reported incidents of intimidation of those who met them, and persons planning to meet you on your visit reportedly were also subjected to intimidation a day before your visit. Some land occupied by the military has been released, but much has not been.
A draft law of the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP), one of the four transitional justice mechanisms committed to by the government, has been published with minimal consultations, and before the Task Force established to conduct consultations had even begun face-to-face consultations with affected communities and citizens. It is crucial that laws for the other three mechanisms are passed by March 2017, but unlike the OMP, with greater transparency and allowing sufficient opportunities and time for genuine consultations. It is also important to clearly indicate the inter-linkages and complementarity of the different mechanisms and how they will together guarantee rights to truth, criminal justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, and not undermine any of these rights and the working of each mechanism.
We are convinced that the government needs to meet clear benchmarks in relation to commitments it had made to its own people and the international community. Mindful of the long history of failed efforts towards reconciliation and accountability for human rights violations in Sri Lanka, we are worried that in March 2017, the absence of clear progress may cause a loss of confidence in the current UN backed process for justice, accountability and reconciliation.
Member states of the Council have indicated that their engagement with the Sri Lankan government will be guided by your oral update on the implementation of the October Council resolution on Sri Lanka. This expectation has been heightened by your and your staff’s visits to Sri Lanka and those of the Special Procedures. Thus, we believe it is crucial for your oral update to identify areas where progress has been made, as well as areas where there is a lack of progress and incorporate clear benchmarks that include immediately achievable steps.
At the end of your visit to Sri Lanka in February this year, you identified some of these steps in stating that “the military needs to accelerate the return of land it has seized and is still holding to its rightful owners” and “the size of the military force in the North and the East can be reduced to a level that is less intrusive and intimidating, as a first step in security sector reform.”
In your statement to the current session of the Council on June 13, you identified a comprehensive transitional justice strategy as critical for the government’s implementation of its commitments. In this regards, the establishment, without delay, of a judicial mechanism with full participation of international judges, lawyers and prosecutors, is an element of the Council resolution (and the OISL and OHCHR reports on a judicial mechanism) that represents an essential benchmark for the credibility of the overall process.
Please accept the assurances of our highest consideration
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Franciscans International
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights
The open letter can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC32-SriLanka-OpenLetter-2016
Africa Region: Human Rights Defenders and Lawyers Propose Means to Strengthen Access to Redress for Victims of Human Rights Atrocities
Europe: Experts stress the role of intermediaries in access to justice for children with disabilities
HRC63: ICJ and HRW Call for Protection of Black African Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Tunisia and Libya
Pakistan: End the cycle of detention and judicial harassment of lawyers Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha