Jul 11, 2020 | News
The Malaysian authorities must immediately put an end to their increasing attacks on freedom of expression, especially the media, international non-governmental organisations the ICJ, Amnesty International, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation said today.
Laws incompatible with international human rights law and standards, including the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, are being used to limit free speech and press freedom and should be repealed by the legislature.
In the latest move in the ongoing clampdown on criticism and other expression, authorities have targeted those involved in making the documentary “Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown,” by news broadcaster Al Jazeera and its 101 East series – which reported on the authorities’ arrests of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Al-Jazeera is being investigated for sedition and defamation, and has also been accused of breaching the Communications and Multimedia Act by the Malaysian authorities.
On 3 July 2020, Al Jazeera on its 101 East Stream published a documentary that investigated the arrests, detention, and ill-treatment of refugees and undocumented migrant workers during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Malaysia. The documentary highlighted raids conducted by authorities; the inhumane conditions of detention; and the situation of migrant workers who fear arrest. Those detained were found to be held in cramped facilities, while migrant workers at risk of detention suffered from a severe lack of adequate food. The documentary also highlighted the chilling effect the government crackdown has had on the migrant worker community, who fear for their lives and safety.
Rather than addressing the concerns raised in the documentary, the government has instead sought to question the reporters involved, and pursue migrant workers who spoke with Al Jazeera. By initiating a public campaign against migrants and refugees and publishing personal details of the migrant workers who were featured in the report, the authorities have also placed the lives and safety of those interviewed in jeopardy.
The government’s subsequent threats to revoke the visas of foreign workers appears intended to intimidate other migrant workers from speaking up about human rights violations, including mistreatment. These actions have contributed to a worrying rise in intolerance towards freedom of expression, including critical views.
Amnesty International, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and the ICJ consider these actions as forms of harassment and intimidation of the media, migrant workers, and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, including criticism or dissent.
The use of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, and criminal investigations against the media set a dangerous precedent and are incompatible with international law and standards. These laws place restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are overly broad, unnecessary and disproportionate, and inconsistent with rule of law and human rights principles.
We reiterate their our previous calls on the Government of Malaysia to abolish both laws, which have historically been used to silence voices of those challenging government policy.
Background
Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged earlier this year, the Malaysian government has launched a crackdown on refugees, asylum-seekers and migrant workers, carrying out a series of raids on settlements in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Most notably, raids were carried out as Labour Day operations on 1 May 2020, but also continued afterwards.
In response to these raids, the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) denounced the crackdowns on migrant workers and journalists on 21 May. Migrant workers fear for their safety and there have been reports of suicide amongst them.
Amid growing concerns about the crackdown, the government has increasingly sought to silence criticism.
On 7 July, refugee aid worker Heidy Quah was questioned by police for posting a statement on the raids and the treatment of migrant and refugee children on social media. Her lawyer confirmed that she is being investigated under the Penal Code for criminal defamation and the Communications and Multimedia Act for the ‘improper use of network facilities or network service’.
Since the Perikatan Nasional government assumed power, numerous investigations have been launched against individuals who have criticized government actions. Since February 2020, a journalist has been investigated by police for reporting on immigration raids; a member of parliament was investigated for criticising the May parliamentary session for not permitting debates; and a large number of ordinary Malaysians have been convicted for a variety of social media postings, including for criticising the enforcement of quarantine orders under the Movement Control Order (MCO).
In another recent attack on media freedom, on 2 July 2020, contempt of court charges were filed against Steven Gan, editor-in-chief of online news outlet Malaysiakini, over comments that were posted by readers that were allegedly critical of the judiciary. The Federal Court will next hear the case on 13 July. If convicted, Gan faces an unlimited prison sentence or fine.
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and the World Organization against Torture (OMCT) today highlighted a range of human rights violations, including of freedom of association and assembly, in India’s repression of peaceful protests and the impact of COVID-19 measures in the country.
The joint statement “OMCT and ICJ welcome the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and echo his concerns over the intensity and seriousness of the threats to the enjoyment of these rights, including the impact of current Covid-19 pandemic on the already fragile civic space.
We are particularly alarmed over the increasingly violent repression of dissent in India and the arbitrary detention and harassment of activists and human rights defenders by the state in relation to their participation in peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA), the National Population Register and the National Register of Citizens.
The repression of anti-CAA protests has been brutal, with the police reportedly using excessive force against demonstrators, including firing indiscriminately into crowds, using teargas and water cannons, beating bystanders and detaining and torturing protesters, including children. At least 31 persons were killed during these protests and scores were injured. No impartial and transparent investigations into the violence have been conducted to this day.
Reportedly fabricated charges of sedition, murder, and terrorism under repressive anti-terror and national security laws – such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act – have been filed against activists and human rights defenders participating in the protests. Those arrested and detained include Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Isharat Jahan, Dr. Kafeel Khan, Sharjeel Imam, Akhil Gogoi and Asif Iqbal. They are still in prison despite repeated calls for their release by national and international human rights groups and the United Nations.
Severe restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association have been imposed in the framework of the Covid-19 emergency. These include blanket shutdown of internet services and the imposition in several areas of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a colonial law banning public protests and gathering of more than five people. While appreciating India’s efforts to prevent the spread of Covid-19, we remind the government that restrictions must meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and shall not be abused to muffle dissent.
We call on the Government of India to take urgent steps to ensure that its people enjoy the rights to express dissent and to participate in peaceful protests without fear of being arrested, brutally beaten, tortured or killed. The right to life and from the prohibition of torture and other ill treatment as well as the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are protected under international law including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party.
We further call for a thorough, prompt, transparent and impartial investigation into allegations of unlawful use of force by police, and for the immediate release of all unjustly detained activists and HRDs.”
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Nepal’s human rights record in January-February 2021.
In the submission, the ICJ, Advocacy Forum – Nepal (AF), Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD Alliance) & University of Passau, provided information and analysis to assist the Working Group to make recommendations to the Government of Nepal to take measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment; to implement a human rights compliant legal framework for accountability and remedy and reparation for victims; and institute other measures to comply with its international obligations, including ratification of international human rights instruments.
In light of the concerns set out above, the ICJ, AF and THRD Alliance call upon the UPR Working Group and the Human Rights Council to recommend the following to Government of Nepal:
- Ensure that the law criminalizing torture is consistent with international law, through the passage of an anti-torture law, and/or through amendment to the current Penal Code, including that the:
-
- Definition of torture in national law is in line with the CAT and other international treaty provisions;
- Statutory limitation or prescription periods for the filing of complaints or cases of torture or other ill- treatment be removed;
- Penalties for torture are commensurate to the gravity of the offence;
- Definition of reparation encompasses restitution, compensation, rehabilitation (including medical and psychological care, as well as legal and social services), and guarantees of non-repetition;
- Independent mechanisms for the regular monitoring of places of detention are established, or existing mechanisms adequately supported.
- Ensure that all allegations of torture are registered, investigated and prosecuted by an independent and impartial investigative body;
- Ensure that all detainees have access to legal representation;
- Collect and publicize data on allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including prosecutions and any measures, including disciplinary measures, taken against perpetrators;
- Establish an independent police service commission or equivalent body to ensure fair and transparent appointment, promotion, transfer of police officers and to oversee disciplinary complaints against the police;
- Establish a consistent system of documentation in each police station and at any detention facilities, in particular, concerning the entry into and release of detainees from custody, as well as the procedure during interrogations;
- Systematize human rights education and training in police training programmes, including medico-legal training (based on Istanbul Protocol);
- Ensure that victims are adequately involved in criminal proceedings, in accordance with international standards developed for this purpose;
- Ratify OPCAT and establish a national preventative mechanism that complies with its requirements; become a party to other core human rights treaties to which Nepal is not yet a party;
- Accept the requests to visit Nepal from UN special procedures, including the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Download
Nepal-UPR-Submission-2020-ENG (PDF)
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Jul 10, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Myanmar’s human rights record in January-February 2021.
The ICJ stressed the lack of accountability and redress for victims – and the resulting continued culture of impunity – for widespread gross human rights violations constituting crimes under international law in Myanmar, particularly those involving members of Myanmar’s Defence Services.
Certain provisions under the 2008 Myanmar Constitution as well as national laws such as the 1959 Defence Services Act and 1995 Myanmar Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions in civilian courts. Closed court martial proceedings also deny victims and their families the right to truth about human rights violations.
The Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC), Myanmar’s national human rights institution with the mandate to investigate allegations of human rights violations, has not initiated any substantive or credible investigation into allegations of widespread and systematic human rights violations perpetrated in recent years by soldiers against persons from ethnic minorities, despite being recorded in detail in the reports of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
Rather than strengthen the role of civilian courts and the MNHRC, Myanmar has set up ad hoc commissions of inquiry to investigate such incidents. However, these inquiries have a recommendatory mandate and an unclear relationship with the judiciary. The full report of the findings of these commissions are generally not publicly disclosed. Against this backdrop, Myanmar has ceased cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur for Myanmar and rejected other UN and international accountability mandates.
In light of this, the ICJ recommended the following actions, among others:
- For the MNHRC to investigate all allegations of gross human rights violations, especially including crimes under international law;
- For the Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards and ensure that gross human rights violations and serious international humanitarian law violations perpetrated by soldiers can only be prosecuted in civilian courts;
- For the Union Government to publish the full report of the findings of ad hoc commissions of inquiry, such as that of the Independent Commission of Enquiry;
- For the Union Government to issue an open invitation to and cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism on Myanmar; and
- For the Union Government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.
The ICJ also called for Myanmar to become a party to key human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the State committed – yet failed – to accede to in its previous UPR cycle.
Download
Myanmar-UPR-Submission-2020-ENG (PDF)
Contact
Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 9, 2020
Today, the ICJ called on Chinese legislators to repeal the new National Security Law for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and in the interim for the authorities to suspend the implementation of provisions that are incompatible with the rule of law and the State’s international legal obligations.
In an 11-point Q and A format briefing paper, the ICJ assesses a number of procedural and substantive concerns with the Law and its enactment, including its implication for the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights, as well as the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong SAR.
The Law was passed by the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress (NPC) on 30 June 2020.
“The law’s creation of new security bodies with expansive powers, subject to little or no accountability or oversight, is a recipe for disaster. Given the recent history of police abuse in Hong Kong, we know that these provisions will be used to target human rights defenders and other activists, particularly those involved in the democracy protests,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“Arrests have already taken place in the few days since the law has come into effect. Without a right of appeal to an independent judicial body, and a near total lack of transparency, the threat of prosecutions under the law’s criminal provisions poses an existential threat to the rule of law.”
The briefing paper highlights the numerous ways in which it falls short of international law and standards, and raises concerns about its impacts on the protection of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
The ICJ stressed that the Law falls afoul of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region 1997. In addition, enforcement of the law would undermine the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed under Article 14 of the ICCPR. It is also inconsistent with the 1985 Sino-British Joint Declaration which stated that “the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.”
The ICJ is particularly concerned about the creation of a new national security body and a new police division with overly broad investigative and surveillance powers, but weak accountability mechanisms.
The briefing paper on the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region asks and answers the following questions:
Q 1. What is the historical context of Hong Kong’s special administrative status?
Q 2. What is the background to the national security legislation in the HKSAR?
Q 3. What are China’s human rights obligations in relation to the national security legislation?
Q 4. How is the new National Security Law structured?
Q 5. What are the key concerns regarding the procedural deficiencies in the law?
Q 6. What are the crimes and penalties under the new law and what are the key concerns?
Q 7. Is the right to a fair trial by an independent judiciary safeguarded in the law?
Q 8. What is the mandate of newly established security agencies?
Q 9. How does the law threaten to undermine freedom of expression in the HKSAR and abroad?
Q 10. What kind of powers do the police have under the new law?
Q 11. What does the International Commission of Jurists recommend?
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Download
Hong-Kong-National-Security-Law-Briefing-Paper-ENG-2020 (PDF)
See also
