Dec 7, 2023 | Events, News
On 5 – 6 December 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) co-organized a workshop, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the Philippines, on ensuring the protection of human rights in the online sphere under international human rights law.
The workshop was aimed at enhancing the capabilities of public prosecutors to integrate into their work the relevant international human rights law and standards pertaining to human rights in the online space.
“More than forty percent of our time each day is now spent connected to the internet. This has changed our lives. New technologies have also engendered new challenges for the fulfilment of human rights,” stressed Santiago Canton, ICJ Secretary General, during his opening remarks. “International human rights law provides the framework for us to better understand and respond to these new developments.”
Expert international and Filipino participants reaffirmed the pivotal role that public prosecutors play in protecting and promoting human rights in the digital sphere.
“This workshop was scheduled to coincide with the National Human Rights Consciousness Week in the Philippines, and the inauguration of the DOJ’s Human Rights Office, as part of our efforts to integrate human rights-based approaches into our prosecutorial work,” said Prosecutor Hazel C. Decena-Valdez, OIC Senior Deputy State Prosecutor, Department of Justice, noting the particular timeliness of the workshop in her opening remarks.
Participants raised concerns about human rights violations and abuses perpetrated in digital spaces, including the particular risks experienced by individuals from certain groups, such as children and women.
“The risks of violations or abuses of children’s rights in the digital environment include exposure to unlawful or harmful contents, and online bullying, threats, attacks, punishment, censorship and digital surveillance,” highlighted ICJ Commissioner Mikiko Otani, Former Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. “The role of prosecutors in securing the rights of the child in digital environments is very important, by holding perpetrators of violations accountable, and protecting child victims from secondary victimization.”
The participants discussed the numerous challenges they face when prosecuting cases impacting human rights in the digital space, and mapped out how to better integrate international human rights law and standards into their investigatory and prosecutorial work in order to ensure access to justice and effective remedies.
Some of these challenges include how to: handle criminal cases based on domestic laws that conflict with international human rights law; ensure that there is accountability for violations and abuses of human rights online; and prevent biases and stereotyping, such as those based on gender, when investigating and prosecuting cases.
“Prosecutors should ensure that they develop protocols to help eradicate structural gender bias, and ensure gender-responsive approaches to their work. This includes preventing revictimization and ensuring confidentiality when handling cases,” underscored Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Online violence should not be distinguished as a lesser crime, and the human rights implications of online gender-based violence must be fully recognized.”
Contact
Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director, Asia and the Pacific, e: melissa.upreti@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Caleen Obias, ICJ National Legal Consultant, e: caleen.obias@icj.org
Background
The workshop was attended by 22 public prosecutors from the Department of Justice.
The key thematic issues discussed during the workshop were:
- The right to online freedom of expression and information;
- Domesticating international human rights law;
- Protecting children’s rights online;
- Protecting women’s rights online; and
- Court technologies, access to justice and impacts on the right to a fair trial.
The speakers at the workshop were:
- Santiago Canton, Secretary General, ICJ;
- Prosecutor Hazel C. Decena-Valdez, OIC Senior Deputy State Prosecutor, Department of Justice;
- Justice Adolfo Azcuna, ICJ Commissioner; Justice, Supreme Court (Ret.); Chancellor Emeritus, Philippine Judicial Academy;
- Mikiko Otani, ICJ Commissioner; Member and Former Chair, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child;
- Melissa Upreti, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, ICJ; and
- Atty. Oliver Xavier Reyes, Senior Lecturer, University of the Philippines College of Law.
Dec 6, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The second revision of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law), which was passed on 5 December 2023, does not comply with international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression and information, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
On 5 December 2023, the Indonesian House of Representatives passed the bill for the second revision of the ITE Law into law.
The ICJ is gravely concerned that the revised ITE Law fails to rectify the main flaws of its previous iteration, which has been used to wrongly criminalize and restrict free expression in online spaces. The criminal provisions contained in the revised law are inconsistent with international human rights law and standards, with added provisions having the potential to exacerbate repression of online expression.
“The retention of overbroad criminal provisions in the revised ITE Law signals the continuing failure of Indonesia to comply with its international human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression,” said Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The revision process lacked transparency, and important recommendations made by civil society to remove the ITE Law’s fatally flawed provisions have been disregarded.”
The ICJ is also concerned that the drafting process for the second revision was opaque, with public feedback on the draft having been ignored. The lack of transparency in the drafting process contravenes Indonesia’s obligation to ensure the effective exercise of the right to participate in public affairs, as guaranteed under article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The second revision of the ITE Law failed to capitalize on the opportunity for the Indonesian authorities to strengthen the protection of online freedom of expression and to reaffirm its commitment to respecting and protecting human rights in the online space. It is imperative that the revised law repeals or substantially amends the overbroad criminal provisions that have been used with concerning frequency to arbitrarily suppress online freedom of expression and create a climate of fear,” said Upreti.
In light of these concerns, the ICJ calls for the repeal or substantial amendment of the revised ITE Law to bring it in line with Indonesia’s human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression and information, through a transparent process that involves the effective participation of civil society.
Criminalization of free expression online
The revised ITE Law retains the overbroad and vague provisions criminalizing “contents that violate propriety” (article 27(1)); criminal defamation (article 27A); and “content that incites, persuades or influences” others that “causes feelings of hatred or hostility” based on protected characteristics (article 28(2)). A violation of these offences may result in imprisonment and criminal fines if found convicted (articles 45 and 45A).
Additionally, the revised law incorporates a new provision that imposes criminal liability for intentionally disseminating content that a person “knew contained false statements that cause public unrest” (article 28(3)), which may result in imprisonment if found convicted (article 45A(3)).
Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression and information must comply with the elements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality required under article 19(3) of the ICCPR. This means that any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be based on law that is precisely worded, and be necessary for and the least restrictive measure to respond to a legitimate aim. The only aims identified as legitimate in article 19(3) are ensuring respect of the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The criminal provisions in the revised law are unnecessary for any legitimate government purpose and risk making criminals of large numbers of ordinary internet users, and chilling many others from speaking online. They are clearly inconsistent with Indonesia’s obligations under article 19 of the ICCPR to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and information. They threaten unwarranted criminal sanctions for acts that are based on vague and overbroad language, which could be applied to unduly interfere with the rights of individuals and disproportionately impact those from disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
For instance, article 27(1) of the revised ITE Law threatens criminal sanctions for disseminating content that violates “propriety”, defined as “displaying nudity, genitalia, and sexual activity that contravenes with the values existing in society […]”. While the law now includes an exemption for public interest and self-defence (article 45(2)), this definition for “propriety” is vague and overbroad, having the potential to be weaponized to unjustly sanction any form of expression by individuals from marginalized groups, such as LGBTI-related content. Further, it could enable legal reprisals against victims/survivors of gender-based violence and lead to revictimization.
Defamation should never be subject to criminal, as opposed to civil, sanctions. The UN Human Rights Committee, which authoritatively interprets the ICCPR, has called on States to end the use of the criminal law for such purposes and affirmed that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty [for defamation]”. While the revised ITE law now incorporates a public interest exemption, the retention of criminal defamation will continue to have a chilling effect on online freedom of expression and information. Indeed, the previous criminal defamation provision in article 27(3) of the ITE Law, has already been applied to target expression critical of the government.
The criminalization of disseminating content that incites “feelings of hatred or hostility” in article 28(2) cannot be used to justify the application of criminal law. While States must act under the ICCPR article 20 to protect against actual incitement to violence and discrimination, provoking mere “feelings” of ill-defined conceptions of “hatred or hostility” stands well below the threshold of actual acts of violence or discrimination. In any event, the use of the criminal law is a plainly disproportionate measure to address any legitimate objective. The ICJ notes that the previous criminal hate speech provision in the ITE Law has been applied in an arbitrary manner to charge journalists and convict forms of expression that do not give rise to substantial harm.
The addition of article 28(3) in the revised ITE Law to criminalize disseminating “false statements” that causes “public unrest” is vague, overbroad and imprecise, which is inconsistent with the legality principle. Authorities may not rely on the prevention of “public unrest”, vaguely defined as “conditions that disturb public order […]”, to justify the disproportionate threat of criminal sanctions, especially imprisonment. The ICJ notes how other criminal provisions sanctioning disinformation, based on colonial-era regulations, have been used to arbitrarily sanction legitimate expression protected under international human rights law, including public interest reporting or critical opinions concerning public officials.
This press release can be downloaded in Bahasa Indonesian here.
Contact
Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, e: melissa.upreti@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant, e: yogi.bratajaya@icj.org
Further reading
Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Indonesia: ICJ asks court to ensure that defamation and “false information” laws not be used to silence and criminalize human rights defenders
Indonesia: Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes and Online Gender-Based Violence Against Women
Silenced But Not Silent: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons’ Freedom of Expression and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Dec 4, 2023 | Events, News
The conclusion drawn at a workshop hosted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Thailand’s Ministry of Justice on 30 November and 1 December 2023, in Ayutthaya province, was that Thailand should step up efforts to provide real access to justice for victims of corporate human rights abuses involving Thai companies abroad. This is imperative to make sure that Thailand meets its international legal obligations and fulfills the commitment it made in adopting a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 2 (NAP), aimed at regulating the conduct of Thai companies abroad.
The workshop advanced a crucial component of the set of action points outlined in the NAP, engaging nearly 30 members from the justice sector, relevant authorities across various departments, academics, lawyers, and civil society actors.
“This workshop holds particular importance as it contributes to the global initiative aimed at addressing the lack of human rights regulation and the accountability of transnational corporations, a significant gap in human rights protection,” remarked Santiago A. Canton, ICJ’s Secretary-General in an opening statement.
“The state’s obligation to prevent human rights abuses committed by the companies it may influence does not stop at the border. The adoption of the Maastricht Principles in 2011 revealed evidence of State obligations to protect economic, social, and cultural rights beyond its borders, including in the context of corporate conduct, and this obligation binds the judiciary of the State. These principles have subsequently been confirmed by several jurisprudences of the UN treaty bodies,” said Sandra Epal Ratjen, ICJ’s UN Senior International Legal Adviser.
During the workshop, participants discussed existing challenges, covering areas such as corporate veils, conflicts of law, jurisdictional issues, statutes of limitations, and remedies.
“When an abuse occurs, the legal separation of corporate entities often allows parent companies and their representatives to evade responsibility for human rights abuses committed by them, leaving victims with no means to enforce compensation awards,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s Legal Adviser.
“Courts in the parent company’s home country may serve as an alternative forum for claims seeking remedy or reparation. However, affected foreign citizens generally encounter greater barriers than Thai citizens in accessing justice due to several reasons, including language barriers, lack of understanding of the Thai legal system, financial constraints, short statutes of limitation, and the unavailability of access to legal aid, local lawyers, and internal corporate documents,” added Srisod.
Proposals from the participants included amending laws to shift the burden of proof, especially when critical facts or documents necessary to resolve a claim reside exclusively within the knowledge of the corporate defendant. This involves considering the potential influence parent companies exert over their subsidiaries in relevant actions. Other recommendations involved extending the statute of limitations for cases involving victims of transnational corporate human rights abuses, acknowledging the existence of corporate veils under Thai law, strengthening the enforcement of foreign judgments against parent companies in Thailand.
Effective measures aimed at ensuring remedies could include requiring businesses to obtain insurance coverage or establishing preventive remedial funds for Thai businesses before embarking on overseas investment. The eligibility criteria of existing funds and grievance mechanisms could be widened within Thailand to explicitly allow affected persons outside the country access to such remedies and mechanisms. There were also suggestions to explicitly broaden the scope of duties of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) to investigate and reconcile abuses occurring abroad.
Further recommendations included establishing standards for remedies with a human-centered approach and exploring the implementation of social sanction measures.
Participants considered how best to implement measures through bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Board of Investment (BOI), whose representatives attended the Workshop. This encompassed proposals for sustainable disclosure of corporate information to both the SEC and BOI. Additionally, there were suggestions to strengthen the BOI’s role or assign a permanent mandate to the NAP Committee for overseeing Thai investments abroad. Participants also explored the idea of incorporating human rights challenges faced in foreign investment as mandatory disclosure points in the SEC’s One-Report, which listed companies are required to submit annually. Furthermore, there were discussions regarding the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) assuming a more influential role in regulating transnational corporations.
Background
Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 2 (2023-2027) outlines various activities within the Action Plan on Cross Border Investment and Multinational Enterprises.
Its Action Point 1.3 designates the Ministry of Justice, supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General, with the responsibility of conducting a study. This study aims to offer recommendations for amending laws or establishing measures aimed at ensuring access to the justice system and effective civil, criminal, and administrative remedies for communities, both locally and overseas, affected by the operations of Thai companies or state enterprises abroad.
This workshop was the second of its kind. The first meeting was conducted on 10 and 11 September 2022 by the ICJ and Thailand’s Ministry of Justice.
Speakers at the Workshop included:
- Darunee Paisanpanichkul, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University
- Ruangsak Suwaree, Director-General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Sandra Epal Ratjen, Senior International Legal Adviser and UN Representative, ICJ
- Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, ICJ
- Santiago A. Canton, Secretary-General, ICJ
- Sayamol Kaiyoorawong, National Human Rights Commissioner of Thailand
- Teerachai Sanjaroenkijthaworn, Co-ordinator, Extra-Territorial Obligation Watch Coalition
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: Barriers persist in access to justice for victims of human rights abuses involving Thai transnational corporations abroad – ICJ report
Dec 1, 2023
An opinion piece by Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant and Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, Asia and the Pacific Programme, published on The Jakarta Post on 27 November 2023.
Over the past two decades, state authorities have tightened their grip on online freedom of expression in the country by enacting and applying overbroad laws purportedly aimed at legitimate objectives such as combating disinformation, but with the effect of arbitrarily censoring expression and targeting journalists and human rights defenders.
Among these are criminal provisions against intentional dissemination of harmful “false information”, i.e. disinformation. One such provision is Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946 on criminal law regulations, which criminalizes the act of “intentionally broadcasting false news or statements that incite chaos in society”, which may result in 10 years’ imprisonment.
Civil society organizations have rightly pointed out that the 1946 law and other disinformation laws inherited from the colonial justice system should not be applied in current times. In July 2023, a petition was filed with the Constitutional Court by several human rights organizations claiming that the disinformation provisions in Law No. 1/1946 contravene the state’s obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression and information.
Disinformation laws have frequently been enforced to restrict freedom of expression. Muhammad Asrul, a journalist, was charged in 2021 under Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946 for a piece detailing the alleged involvement of the son of the Palopo mayor in a corruption scandal. Human rights defenders Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti are standing trial on charges relating to the criminal disinformation provisions of the same law in relation to a YouTube video discussing allegations of a conflict of interest by the Coordinating Maritime and Investment Affairs Minister Luhut Pandjaitan.
As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Indonesia is obliged to respect and ensure the right to freedom of expression and information, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR. As affirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the monitoring body for the ICCPR, this right forms the “foundation” of a free society in ensuring the “transparency and accountability” crucial to the promotion and protection of many other rights.
Any restriction of this right must be based on a law that is precisely worded. Further, it must be necessary for and be the least restrictive measure to respond to a legitimate aim. The only aims identified as legitimate are ensuring respect for the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The criminal disinformation provisions of Law No. 1/1946 by no means meet the above standards. The use of the term “false news or statements” in the criminal disinformation provisions of the law is vague, overbroad and imprecise, as the lines between facts and opinions, and truth and falsehoods can be notoriously difficult to draw.
Further, the authorities should not rely on an overbroad definition of upholding public order to justify restrictions of freedom of expression. There appears to be nothing in the law or in any correlative pronouncements to suggest whether or how “chaos in society” relates to any of the bases in the closed list of legitimate purposes under Article 19 of the ICCPR. The failure to comply with these requirements for restriction may result in the arbitrary sanctioning of legitimate expression protected under international human rights law, including public interest reporting or critical opinions concerning public officials.
Particular care must be taken concerning the application of criminal law, as it is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the state to exert control over individuals. Criminal law may only proscribe conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm on the human rights of others or to certain fundamental public interests.
It is unlikely that “chaos in society” would meet the threshold of “substantial harm” needed to justify a criminal law response, in part due to the lack of clarity on what “chaos in society” actually entails. The potential of such disproportionate criminal penalties has a chilling effect on the free communication of ideas, opinions or information, as individuals will self-censor to protect themselves.
We, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), have documented how states across Southeast Asia have purported to combat disinformation with laws that fail to conform to international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of expression and information.
These laws are emblematic of the immense challenges of responding to disinformation using coercive legal measures, especially if they focus on the blunt instrument of criminalization. Generally, these laws targeting disinformation have been used to suppress or discourage the expression of contentious and critical views on matters of public interest.
For instance, section 14 of Thailand’s Computer-related Crimes Act B.E. 2560 (CCA) criminalizes “false computer data” that is “likely to cause damage to the public”, or “the protection of national security, public safety […] or cause panic to the public”, with these crimes being punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to 100,000 Baht (about US$3,000), or both. Similarly, Section 7 of Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 criminalizes the spreading of a “false statement of fact knowing it is false, and knowing it will or is likely to harm the public interest”, which may result in five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$50,000 (about US$35,000), or both.
This worrying trend must be reversed, and Indonesia should thoroughly review its laws criminalizing disinformation, with a view to amending or repealing these provisions in line with its human rights obligations. While Law No. 1/1946 will no longer be applicable with the entry into force of the revised Criminal Code in January 2026, disinformation continues to be criminalized, including under articles 263 and 264 of the new Criminal Code.
The ICJ recognizes the complexities and challenges of responding to the spread of disinformation, including in online spaces.
When disinformation threatens human rights, states have a duty to take appropriate steps, grounded in human rights law, to address serious harms.
The crafting and use of vague and overbroad criminal laws, such as Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946, to sanction disinformation and undermine freedom of expression is rarely the answer. While certain forms of disinformation intended to cause serious harm may warrant a legal response, civil and administrative measures, rather than criminal law, will generally be appropriate where the disinformation does not involve incitement to violence. These legal responses must comply strictly with the human rights legal standards, and guard against harms that are limited and necessary to meet a legitimate purpose identified under Article 19 of the ICCPR.
More broadly, promoting and protecting, rather than limiting, human rights can serve as a means of achieving the kind of objectives that this legislation is purported to be aimed at. As emphasized by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, it is through protecting and strengthening freedom of expression, improving digital literacy and supporting the important work of a free and independent media and civil society, that disinformation can be more effectively countered.
First published on The Jakarta Post here.
Nov 30, 2023 | Events, News
On 29 November 2023, the ICJ co-hosted a dialogue among Thai lawyers, academics, and Santiago A. Canton, Secretary General of the ICJ to exchange best practices from Latin America, specifically focusing on insights from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and domestic courts in the region – to address ongoing challenges in litigating cases involving suspected enforced disappearances within Thai courts.
The Dialogue involved challenges encountered in litigating cases of enforced disappearances, particularly in terms of accessing, collecting, and admitting evidence within Thai courts. These challenges are notably complex, especially when the crimes have occurred beyond Thailand’s borders.
Additionally, participants discussed the difficulties related to establishing the responsibility of individuals for these serious crimes and how courts have handled evidence submitted in previous enforced disappearance cases. This included instances where evidence, such as telecommunications, as well as various forensic evidence like biological evidence and DNA evidence, was dismissed, and the failure to identify the perpetrator in cases where the victims’ bodies or remains could not be located.
“The crime of enforced disappearance completely eradicates any trace of the victim, with no acknowledgment by the authorities and no effective investigation. The requirement to locate the disappeared individuals’ bodies and remains contradicts the very nature of the crime of enforced disappearance,” said Santiago A. Canton, Secretary General of the ICJ.
While highlighting that the criteria for evaluating evidence within the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) are less formal compared to domestic criminal legal systems, Canton noted IACtHR’s jurisprudence relevant to the admissibility of circumstantial and indicative evidence, which was particularly instructive as enforced disappearances typically involve deliberate attempts by state officials to destroy direct evidence, aimed at securing impunity.
“The standard of proof in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights allows lawyers, under certain circumstances, to only establish a demonstrable ‘practice’ of enforced disappearances at the time of a specific case. When combined with circumstantial evidence, this can result in a judicial presumption of enforced disappearance,” said Canton.
Participants also discussed the ‘continuous nature’ of enforced disappearance crimes, which are recognized under Thai law and enable cases from the past, where the fate and whereabouts of victims remained unknown, to be prosecutable before the court, notwithstanding the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity.
Closing remarks by Angkhana Neelapaijit, a Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, whose husband Somchai Neelapaijit was a victim of enforced disappearance, detailed the role of the Working Group and the steps taken globally to address the crime.
Background
More than 20 Thai experts, lawyers, and academics, who represent or have experience researching cases of enforced disappearances in Thailand, participated in the discussion.
Thailand’s Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance became effective in February 2023. However, its implementation has been slow. The majority of cases involving suspected torture, ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances are still in the investigation phase, and not yet moved into the adjudication phase. Limited information about its progress has been made available to the public.
Prior to the enactment of this new law, only two cases of apparent enforced disappearances reached Thai courts: the case of prominent Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit and Karen activist Pholachi ‘Billy’ Rakchongcharoen. Unfortunately, these cases concluded with limited success, mainly due to challenges surrounding the evidence submitted to the court.
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: a report on the criminal trial and investigation of the enforced disappearance of the Thai human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelapaichit
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
