Jul 9, 2015 | News
In a letter sent today, the ICJ and seven other human rights organizations urge the Thai Government to drop criminal charges against two journalists from the online news outlet Phuketwan who are about to go on trial for writing about the trafficking of the Rohingya.
The letter was sent to the General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Prime Minister of Thailand.
The trial, which is set to start on 14 July, revolves around criminal charges brought by the Royal Thai Navy against Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian for reproducing one paragraph from a Pulitzer Prize-winning article written by Reuters news agency implicating the Navy in the smuggling of the Rohingya off the coast of Thailand.
“Thailand must drop these charges immediately and unconditionally,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Criminal prosecution of speech is a violation of international law, and the Thai Navy’s relentless pursuit of this case seems even more misguided as it comes at a time when journalists have played a vital role in uncovering mass graves on the Thailand-Malaysia border and thousands of migrants and refugees, including Rohingya, left stranded on boats in the Andaman Sea,” he added.
On 16 December 2013, the Royal Thai Navy lodged complaints of criminal defamation and offences against Thailand’s Computer Crimes Act (CCA) against the journalists.
On 17 April 2014, the journalists were charged with criminal defamation under articles 326 and 328 of the Thai Criminal Code, which carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (USD $6,000); and violation of article 14(1) of the CCA, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of up to 100,000 Baht (USD $3,000).
“The absurdity of these prosecutions was emphasized when the Office of Thailand’s Prime Minister recently asked one of the two journalists, Chutima Sidasathian, who is working towards a Ph.D. on the Rohingya, to suggest a solution to the ‘boat people’ crisis,” Zarifi further said.
“It is not too late to follow that request with an unconditional withdrawal of all charges as an official recognition of the important work by Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian in raising these issues and as a concrete gesture of Thailand’s purported commitment to addressing them,” he added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
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.
The ICJ, an increasing number of governments, the Human Rights Committee and other international authorities, believe that criminal defamation laws should be abolished. Such laws are inherently incompatible with the ICCPR and other international laws and standards on freedom of expression. Criminal penalties are always 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.”
Thailand-Letter to PM Prayuth re Phuket Wan-Advocacy-open letters-2015-ENG (full text of the letter, in PDF)
Thailand-Phuketwan cases-News-Press release-2015-THA (full text of press release in PDF, Thai)
Thailand-Letter to PM Prayuth re Phuket Wan-Advocacy-open letters-2015-THA (full text of the letter, in PDF, Thai)
Jul 8, 2015 | News
The ICJ held a successful workshop with the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on ‘Investment Law Challenges: Defending Public Policy in Investor State Arbitration’.
The event took place in Nay Pyi Taw from 6 to 8 July 2015 and was attended by 60 participants from the OAG and other Ministries.
The workshop was designed to raise awareness about Myanmar’s human rights obligations in relation to investment and to build the OAG’s capacity to draft law that carves out regulatory space for public policy making.
The workshop also prepared the OAG for challenges to public policy through arbitration with a moot court exercise.
The topic is timely as Myanmar rushes to draft new investment law and sign Bilateral Investment Treaties that give investors standing to challenge public policy promoting and protecting human rights.
In opening the workshop, Director General U Kyaw San spoke of the rapid increase of investment in Myanmar and the corresponding changes in its regulatory system.
Dr. Na Chi Oo, a speaker for the OAG, outlined the challenges this poses to the drafting of new public policy.
Participants heard from ICJ Commissioner Prof Andrew Clapham who discussed globalization, investment arbitration and public policy.
He examined the use of human rights law in investment arbitrations.
Guest speaker Prof. Anthony Daimsis introduced bilateral investment treaties and highlighted provisions that can restrict state regulatory space.
Prof. Errol Mendes gave examples of international cases in which public policy has been challenged.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, from the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore gave practical advice for drafting law that protects the regulatory role of the state.
Dr. Daniel Aguirre, ICJ Legal Adviser, added that “Myanmar needs to update its regulatory system to protect the environment and human rights. It must make sure it does not sign away its regulatory role through investment law and bilateral treaties.”
The event culminated with a moot arbitration exercise where OAG participants engaged in a mock consultation process and a simulated arbitration over a public health policy.
The ICJ was impressed by the interest and genuine commitment of the participants to promote the rule of law and public policy in Myanmar.
The ICJ staff enjoyed open and frank discussion with the Attorney General and is Director Generals on relevant legal developments and looks forward to further discourse.
The ICJ remains committed to provide support in this field in line with the promotion and protection of human rights.
Jul 3, 2015
The three-day hearing on the assessment of damages on the civil defamation case against blogger Roy Ngerng was concluded today in Singapore. The Supreme Court will issue its decision at a later date.
A representative of the ICJ observed the hearing that took place from 1 to 3 July 2015. The ICJ considers the judge, Justice Lee Seiu Kin, to have conducted himself independently and impartially with regard to the procedural aspects of the hearing.
During the first day, Prime Minister Lee himself took to the witness stand and was cross-examined by Roy Ngerng.
Prime Minister Lee brought this action against Roy Ngerng claiming that the blogger suggested in his blog post that the Prime Minister was guilty of criminal misappropriation of the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the social security savings plan of the citizens of Singapore.
Roy Ngerng maintains a blog called The Heart Truths, where he comments on pressing social issues. Many of the posts on his blog advocate for more transparency in the management of the CPF.
Last year, the High Court ordered Roy Ngerng to pay Prime Minister Lee SG$29,000 (approximately US$22,300) for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgment.
In June, the ICJ produced a legal opinion (download text below) which was submitted to the court in support of certain aspects of the defendant’s position.
The brief drew attention to relevant international law and standards.
It underscored, among other things, that the exercise of freedom of expression is essential to enable the work of human rights defenders to carry out their work.
It also noted the particular standards applying to defamation cases involving public offices, particularly that those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of states may legitimately be subjected to criticism and challenges.
It also emphasized that damages awarded that are disproportionate to the harm caused could serve to create a chilling effect on the freedom of expression in Singapore.
At the end of the hearing, the court directed the parties to file written submissions to address issues that were raised during the three-day hearing by 30 August 2015.
Singapore-RoyNgerng-Advocacy-LegalSubmission-2015-ENG (download the legal opinion)
CONTACT:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia,
email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org or mobile: +668 4092 3575
Jul 2, 2015 | News
The Royal Thai Government must immediately end its harassment and intimidation of human rights lawyer, Sirikan Charoensiri, the ICJ said today.
Sirikan Charoensiri (photo), a lawyer with Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), has been providing legal aid to 14 students who were arrested on 26 June 2015 after carrying out peaceful protests calling for democracy and an end to military rule.
Since then, the Royal Thai Police have threatened Sirikan Charoensiri with legal action, publically announced they are considering charging her with a crime, and visited her home and questioned her family.
“The government must immediately end its harassment and intimidation of human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri,” said Matt Pollard, Head of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in Geneva. “The case against her clients clearly violates Thailand’s obligations under international law, and cannot be a valid basis for the police to take any action against her for defending their rights.”
On 30 June 2015, the ICJ met in Geneva with staff members of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, in order to bring Sirikan Charoensiri’s case to their attention.
“The ICJ has been repeatedly warning of Thailand’s steady slide away from open democracy and the rule of law,” added Pollard. “These actions of the police, targeting peacefully protesting students with prosecution in a military court, and then targeting the lawyer who comes to their defence, underscores the urgent need to restore respect for human rights in Thailand.”
Contact:
Matt Pollard, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, t: +41 22 979 38 12, e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The 14 students were arrested during the evening of 26 June 2015 and were brought to a police station in Bangkok and then to the Bangkok Military Court for a hearing on pre-trial detention, which proceeded until midnight.
The students have been charged with violating order 3/2015 of the National Council for Peace and Order (which prohibits the public assembly of more than five people for political purposes) and a ‘sedition’-type offence under section 116 of Thai Criminal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
Upon hearing of the students’ arrest, Sirikan Charoensiri and three other lawyers drove in her car to the Bangkok Military Court in order to provide legal aid to the students.
Following the hearing and during the early morning of 27 June 2015, the police asked Sirikan Charoensiri for her permission to search her car for the student’s phones, without a warrant. She refused to consent to the warrantless search. As a result, the Police impounded her car, which contained the lawyers’ case files and personal computers, and five phones belonging to the students.
At 12:45pm, Sirikan Charoensiri went to the police station to file a complaint of malfeasance regarding the seizure of her car. The police refused to accept the complaint and in the meantime another police team searched her car with a warrant. Five phones belonging to the students were seized as evidence.
At 18:00pm, Sirikan Charoensiri again attempted to file a complaint at the police station for malfeasance. A senior investigator told her that the police had power to search her car and suggested that if she filed a complaint, it would not finish there and that the police would consider countering with some form of legal action against her. The police finally accepted the complaint at 11:00pm.
On 28 June 2015, a senior police officer told the media that they had found “important evidence” in Sirikan Charoensiri’s car and are considering whether to charge her with a crime.
On 29 June 2015, the police visited Sirikan Charoensiri’s family home and asked her parents to identify her in photos and questioned them about her background.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; the right to freedom of expression; the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (including the right of prompt access to a lawyer and precluding jurisdiction of military courts over civilians in circumstances such as these); and the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence (which includes arbitrary searches or seizures).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms the right of everyone peacefully to oppose human rights violations. It prohibits retaliation, threats and other harassment against anyone who takes peaceful action against human rights violations, both within and beyond the exercise of their professional duties. It protects the right of persons to file formal complaints about alleged violations of rights. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments are to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Sirikan Charoensiri formerly served as a National Legal Consultant with the ICJ.
Thailand-Sirikan case-News-press releases-2015-THA (full text in PDF, Thai version)
Jun 25, 2015 | News
While welcoming the recent momentum towards finalizing the drafting of a new Constitution, the ICJ said that the Constituent Assembly in Nepal must ensure strong and effective protections for all human rights, consistent with its international human rights obligations.
In addition, they also must ensure that the drafting process is fully inclusive and participatory,
After seven years of political impasse, the devastating earthquake of 25 April 2015 provided Nepali political leaders an opportunity to restore public faith in public authority by reinvigorating the constitutional process.
The country’s four major political parties have now apparently reached agreement on some previously contentious issues and developed a fast-tracked process for the adoption of a new democratic Constitution.
“The horrific earthquake and the government’s response to it has led to a renewed sense of urgency about finalizing and adopting a Constitution that will help create a stable, representative government structure in Nepal consonant with rule of law principles”, Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director. “The country’s political leaders have a unique responsibility, and opportunity, to adopt a strong, progressive and human rights-compliant constitutional text”.
International law and standards require meaningful public consultation through a transparent and inclusive process. However, the lack of transparency in the current fast-tracked process, combined with the accelerated timeframe, risks undermining people’s ability to participate effectively in the development of the Constitution.
“None of Nepal’s previous Constitutions were the result of meaningful consultation and public participation”, Zarifi said. “The current government must take immediate steps to consult and ensure the participation of all stakeholders, including marginalized groups and minorities”.
The new Constitution must serve to implement the full range of human rights guaranteed under international law. Specifically, while drafting the new constitution, the ICJ urges the Government of Nepal to ensure, among other things, that:
- The new constitution guarantees all of Nepal’s international human rights obligations;
- Permissible limitations on human rights and provisions derogating from rights during emergencies in the new Constitution comply with international human rights laws;
- There is no impunity for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the armed conflict, and criminal law is applicable to acts committed at the time;
- The right to effective remedies and reparation for all human rights is recognized;
- Economic, social and cultural rights are recognized as justiciable; and
- Judicial independence is reinforced.
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; Email: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
