Sep 11, 2015
Today marks 1,000 days since prominent Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone “disappeared” at a police checkpoint on a busy street in Vientiane.
We, the undersigned organizations, reiterate our call for the Lao government to intensify its efforts to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into Sombath’s apparent enforced disappearance, to determine his fate or whereabouts, and to take the necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice.
At the second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Laos, held in Geneva on 20 January 2015, 10 states made recommendations to Laos to investigate Sombath’s disappearance. In addition, five states raised questions about the issue.
We are dismayed by the Lao authorities’ failure to provide any specific information on the status and progress of the investigation since 7 June 2013.
This failure has occurred despite the government’s claim in June 2015, during the UPR process, that it was “still thoroughly conducting” an investigation into Sombath’s “whereabouts.”
It is not enough for Laos to simply assert it is still investigating the case. Laos’ international legal obligations require it to carry out a prompt investigation and to keep Sombath’s family informed on the progress and status of the investigation.
We are troubled by the Lao government’s continued refusal to accept external assistance regarding the investigation of Sombath’s enforced disappearance.
The government has ignored important recommendations made by several human rights organizations despite an official statement that it is “ready to receive suggestions from any interested parties” regarding the investigation.
We also decry the Lao government’s refusal to disclose any information concerning all other victims of enforced disappearances in the country.
To this day, the fate or whereabouts of at least 13 individuals, including three student leaders who were arrested on 26 October 1999 for organizing a peaceful pro-democracy protest in Vientiane remain unknown.
On 29 September 2008, Laos signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
However, almost seven years on, the government has made no demonstrable progress towards the ratification of the treaty.
We urge the Lao government to immediately ratify the ICPPED, incorporate its provisions into the country’s legislation, and effectively comply with its treaty obligations.
In January 2016, Laos will assume the Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The government’s protracted failure to resolve the case of Sombath’s enforced disappearance is a clear dereliction of its international obligations, which seriously undermines Vientiane’s attempts to gain credibility as a rights-respecting member of the regional bloc.
We call on Laos to undertake prompt, impartial, and effective investigations into Sombath’s case and all other outstanding cases of enforced disappearances and provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims pursuant to its international legal obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT), and ratify the ICPPED.
Signed:
- ALTSEAN-Burma
- ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
- Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
- Civil Rights Defenders
- FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights)
- Focus on the Global South
- Forum-Asia
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Justice for Peace Foundation
- Lao Movement for Human Rights (LMHR)
- Sombath Initiative
Sep 1, 2015 | News
The Thai government must end proceedings against two journalists who were today acquitted of charges of defaming the Royal Thai Navy and immediately repeal the country’s criminal defamation laws, the ICJ said today.
The two journalists with the Phuketwan online news outlet, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian, were charged with criminal defamation under the Thai Criminal Code and violation of Article 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act.
“Today’s verdict affirms the right of journalists in Thailand to freely express their views, even if – especially if – they sometimes have to criticize public authorities when it is in the public interest to do so,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, who observed the proceedings.
“The verdict today is a relief not only for the two brave journalists who could have faced jail sentences for doing their job, but also for other journalists in Thailand who followed this case with anxiety about potentially significant new restrictions on their ability to work,” he added.
The prosecution now has 30 days to appeal the verdict.
“The charges against these two journalists generated severe international criticism for Thailand and harmed the country’s reputation more than any article in Phuketwan,” said Abbott. “The prosecution should take heed of this verdict and drop the case without further appeal.”
The Royal Thai Navy had complained that the journalists defamed it when, on 17 July 2013, the journalists reproduced a paragraph from a Pulitzer prize-winning Reuters article that alleged “Thai naval forces” were complicit in human trafficking.
In a decision read out today at the Phuket Provincial Court, with respect to the charges of criminal defamation, the Judge held that the journalists had reproduced information from a news source, Reuters, that they believed to be reliable.
Regarding the charges under the Computer Crimes Act, the Judge found that the information that was published was not “false computer data” and was not information that could “cause damage” to national security which are elements of Article 14(1).
The Judge also noted that the Computer Crimes Act was not intended to cover allegations of defamation.
“Thailand must repeal its criminal defamation laws in recognition that criminal penalties are a disproportionate means to address reputational damage,” Abbott added.
“Thailand should also reform the Computer Crimes Act to more precisely define that its purpose and scope is not intended to place limitations on freedom of expression.”
Background
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart information.
The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors State compliance with the ICCPR, has expressed its concern at the misuse of defamation laws to criminalize freedom of expression and has said that such laws should never be used when expression is made without malice and in the public interest.
It has also clarified that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation.
The ICJ, the Human Rights Committee, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and other international human rights bodies and an increasing number of governments believe that criminal defamation laws should be abolished. Such laws are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.
Criminal penalties are a disproportionate means to protect against reputational harm and pose an impermissibly severe impediment to the exercise of free expression.
Thailand was criticized in May 2014 when the United Nations Committee against Torture expressed its concern “at the numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders and their relatives, including verbal and physical attacks, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, as well as by the lack of information provided on any investigations into such allegations.”
The Committee recommended that Thailand “should take all the necessary measures to: (a) put an immediate halt to harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and community leaders; and (b) systematically investigate all reported instances of intimidation, harassment and attacks with a view to prosecuting and punishing perpetrators, and guarantee effective remedies to victims and their families.”
Read also:
The Phuketwan trial: an insidious prosecution of free expression
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Phuketwan trial-News-Press releases-2015-THA (full text in PDF, Thai version)
Sep 1, 2015 | News
Nepal’s Constituent Assembly must ensure that the new Constitution Bill contains strong and effective protections for all human rights in accordance with Nepal’s international legal obligations, said the ICJ today.
The Constituent Assembly endorsed a Constitutional Bill last week.
As per the CA Rules of Procedure, CA members have until 5 September to submit proposals for amendments.
“This draft includes some improvements from earlier versions, but it needs serious revisions to meet international standards regarding human rights protections,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“As an immediate matter, the Constituent Assembly must extend the 5 September deadline, and provide adequate time for public consultation and discussion of this essential legal text,” he added.
The ICJ released a detailed briefing paper in July 2015 analyzing provisions of the Draft Constitution on citizenship, fundamental rights and judicial independence, in light of Nepal’s international human rights obligations.
The ICJ also highlighted the non-inclusive and non-representative nature of the constitution-making process.
Many of those concerns still remain and must be addressed urgently, including:
- Non-citizens are excluded from key rights and protections. For example, Articles 18 (right to equality), 25 (right to property), 27 (right to information), 31 (right to education), 33 (right to employment), 35 (right to health), 36 (right to food), 37 (right to housing), and 43 (right to social security) are all restricted to citizens. These protections must be extended to all persons under Nepal’s jurisdiction, not only citizens, in accordance with Nepal’s international obligations;
- The right to gender equality under women’s rights (particularly in article 38) is not adequately protected. For example, the Constitution should include explicit guarantees for equal pay for work of equal value, and prohibit multiple, intersecting grounds of discrimination on basis of gender and sexual orientation, caste, religion, etc;
- Key economic, social and cultural rights – including in articles 33 and 34 (employment and labour), 35 (health), 37 (housing), and 43 (social security) – are not adequately protected;
- Restrictions and limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, information and press freedom, are broad and vague and do not conform with international human rights standards (including articles 17 and 19 and 27);
- Provisions on remedy for human rights violations (articles 46 and 47) are inadequate;
- Provisions regarding the impeachment of judges (articles 101, 130 and 131) and composition of the Judicial Council (as in article 153, responsible for the appointment, disciplining and dismissal of judges) fail to safeguard judicial independence;
- Provisions on emergencies and consequent restriction of rights are overbroad (as in article 268(10)).
The ICJ noted some improvements in the current draft, such as:
- Making any person whose father or mother is a Nepali citizen eligible for citizenship through descent. Previous drafts required both parents to be Nepali citizens;
- Guaranteeing a broader range of women’s rights, including the right to reproductive health;
- Revising the understanding of victim’s rights to ensure that victims of crime are entitled to “justice including compensation and restitution”;
- Adding more rights to the list of those designated as non-derogable rights during emergencies – including the right to social justice (as contained in article 42 of the Constitution Bill, which amongst other things, guarantees the rights of marginalized groups to participate “in the state structure and public service on the basis of principle of proportional inclusion”), and the rights of dalits (as contained in article 40 of the Constitution Bill, which contains guarantees of equality and non-discrimination).
“While these amendments are welcome, more revisions are necessary,” said Narayan. “The CA must ensure that the constitution-making process is participatory and inclusive. It should provide enough time and opportunities to make necessary amendments and produce a Constitution that fully ensures human rights protections and judicial independence.”
Nepal’s major political parties have stated publicly that they hope to have the Constitution finalized and enacted in mid-September.
However, many political parities and communities have been protesting against the Constitution since the introduction of the new Bill.
On 9 August, three protestors were killed when police fired at protestors violating curfew in Birendranagar, Surkhet.
One protestor was killed and five others were injured when police opened fire during a strike on 18 August.
On 24 August, eight police officers were killed during protests in Kailali district, and over 40 members of the security forces were badly injured.
“The deadly violence that has accompanied escalating protests across Nepal against this Draft is a warning about the high stakes for the drafters of the Constitution,” said Narayan. “The new Constitution should be the platform for bringing the country together after years of conflict, not serve as a new cause for discontent and insecurity.”
The ICJ called on the government of Nepal to conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into all protest-related deaths and injuries.
Where unlawful conduct is established, including by members of the security forces, those responsible must be brought to justice.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, Nepal Head of Office and ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977 9813187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Aug 28, 2015 | News
The Malaysian authorities must take effective measures to actively protect the rights of participants at the Bersih 4.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur this weekend, and ensure that the rally takes place without violent obstruction by counter demonstrators, said the ICJ today.
On 29 and 30 August, BERSIH 2.0, a coalition formed in 2005 to push for electoral reforms in Malaysia, will be organizing a 34-hour public assembly to address allegations of corruption against the Malaysian Prime Minister. The public assembly is commonly called Bersih 4.0.
The Malaysian government has declared the rally illegal and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has decided to block websites that are spreading information about the Bersih 4.0 rally, claiming that they are a threat to national stability.
“Under international law, the Malaysian government has the positive obligation to create an enabling environment and to facilitate the exercise of the right to free expression and free assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director on Asia and the Pacific.
“Instead of respecting these rights, the government’s actions such as declaring the protest illegal and blocking information on the internet, are likely to enflame the situation and are in violation of Malaysian law and international standards,” he added.
International law and standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to seek, receive and impart information, which is also an essential element of the right to freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association highlighted the important role of the internet as a basic tool for individuals to organize peaceful assemblies, and emphasized that governments must ensure access to the Internet at all times, including during times of unrest.
Any determination on what website content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body that is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences.
“The Malaysian authorities must ensure that the people of Malaysia are able to exercise their right to peacefully assemble and to freely express their opinion, including regarding matters of good governance and democracy,” Zarifi said.
“The job of the police is not to dispel the protesters, but rather to ensure their protection – such as from possible violence from counter demonstrators.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director on Asia and the Pacific, t: +668 0781 9002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Aug 25, 2015
The Maldives government must immediately reverse the politicisation of the country’s judiciary and the erosion of rule of law in the country, said the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) in a joint fact-finding report released today.
The 35-page report, entitled Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives highlights the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights protections in the Maldives, exemplified by the arrest and trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.
Nasheed, who had been under house arrest, was unexpectedly imprisoned again on Monday without a clear legal basis.
The ICJ and SAHR called on the Maldives government to immediately release Nasheed from detention and to ensure he receives necessary medical care and access to his family and lawyers.
A joint delegation of the ICJ and SAHR conducted a fact-finding mission to the Maldives in May 2015 to assess the human rights situation since the current government assumed power in 2013.
“We documented a serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which has resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government,” said Hina Jilani, SAHR Chairperson and a Commissioner of the ICJ.
“This current crisis in the rule of law risks turning the country back to the authoritarian days of the past that it had so promisingly broken away from in 2008,” she added.
After decades of authoritarian rule, in 2008 the Maldives promulgated a new Constitution that established independent democratic institutions, the rule of law, human rights protections and the separation of powers.
The new report documents how the institutional and legal reforms needed to consolidate this democratic transition stalled and have endangered a backslide to the country’s authoritarian legacy.
“The political crisis in the Maldives has hurt the country’s human rights situation, and it can only be resolved with the establishment of credible and impartial institutions in the country, particularly the judiciary,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“The Maldives should take immediate steps to establish effective and independent government institutions in compliance with its international human rights obligations under Commonwealth and UN standards on judicial independence and separation of powers,” he added.
Among the specific problems identified in the report are: judicial proceedings against the national human rights commission and other independent institutions, as well as interference in other spheres, in a manner that raises serious concerns as to judicial independence and accountability; judicial conduct in high-profile criminal cases, including former President Mohamed Nasheed, which are grossly unfair and violate international fair trial standards; arbitrary and undue parliamentary interference in independent constitutional institutions; and, instances of serious violations and abuse of fundamental rights of civil society and human rights defenders, among other concerns raised.
“The Maldives must urgently implement the necessary reforms to strengthen judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights in accordance with international standards,” said Jilani.
The Maldives’ human rights record will be discussed at the UN Human Rights Council later next month as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.
Member states of the UN have already made a range of recommendations to the Maldives, and can make further statements at the Council session.
The government will be expected formally to respond and indicate which of the recommendations it will commit to implement over the coming years.
The ICJ-SAHR report therefore comes at a timely moment, urging Maldives authorities to strengthen human rights protections, judicial independence and the rule of law, including by accepting and implementing key UPR recommendations as well as prior recommendations by UN Special Rapporteurs who have visited the country, and urging the international community to hold the Maldives to its obligations and commitments.
“The Maldivian government must make good on its assurances to the ICJ-SAHR delegation, the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and other outside observers of its commitment to the goal of strengthening judicial independence, the rule of law, fundamental rights and separation of powers, by demonstrating real steps to implement the recommendations set out by the delegation,” said Narayan.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Deekshya Illangasinghe, Executive Director, SAHR, t: + 941 12695910 ; e: deekshya(a)southasianrights.org
Maldives-Justice-Adrift-Rule of Law-Publications-fact-finding report-2015-ENG (full report in pdf)
