Oct 2, 2023
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Access Now sent a joint letter and an accompanying legal analysis to Cambodia’s Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and Ministry of Justice, calling for the withdrawal or substantial amendment of its Draft Law on Cybersecurity to bring its provisions in line with international human rights standards.
The draft law, if adopted, would likely undermine the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, while also risking personal security and exposing people to increased cyber threats.
“The Draft Law would require government licenses of cybersecurity services – an excessive provision that would hamper the ability of people and businesses in Cambodia from being able to secure themselves against intrusion into their networks and safeguard their data,” said Golda Benjamin, Asia Pacific Campaigner at Access Now. “Cambodia wants this draft law to deal with malicious cyber activities but in its current form, it will only create a new problem of having a cybersecurity landscape that imposes unreasonable administrative burdens to organizations, including small and medium enterprises and civil society.”
In the legal analysis attached to the joint letter, Access Now and ICJ point out that the vaguely worded and sweeping provisions in the Draft Law may be abused to allow government cybersecurity inspectors overbroad access to private data. It fails to provide for safeguards, but instead would grant a newly created body of cybersecurity inspectors immense power to investigate, observe, monitor, prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents. The Draft Law also fails to make provision to ensure that cybersecurity inspectors are properly qualified.
“These proposed arrangements are a recipe for executive abuse, especially given that the bill fails to provide for any independent or effective oversight or remedial mechanism to serve as check on governmental conduct and safeguard against any potential overreach,” said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director at the ICJ. “If this legislation is put forward for adoption, it needs to amended to correct these deficiencies and comply with Cambodia’s international legal obligations and rule of law principles.”
Access Now and ICJ urge Cambodia to strengthen their cybersecurity landscape to deal with malicious cyber activities and ensure that any law, policy, or practice to implement this goal complies with the country’s international human rights obligations. Effective cybersecurity requires a human-centric and human rights respecting approach.
Download
Read the joint letter here, and the joint legal analysis of the Draft Law on Cybersecurity here.
Contact
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Sep 29, 2023 | News
The ICJ is concerned that the newly proposed Online Safety legislation, if adopted in its present form, would serve to crush free expression and further contract an already shrinking civic space in Sri Lanka.
On 18 September 2023, the Ministry of Public Security gazetted a bill titled “Online Safety” intended to dramatically regulate the content of online communication, including by the general public.
The ICJ considers that several provisions of the bill would serve to undermine the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, including freedom of information and expression. Of particular concern are provisions related to the setting up, appointment and functions of an Online Safety Commission and other experts, the vague and overbroad wording of conduct designated as punishable offences and unnecessary and disproportionate punitive sanctions.
“While the spread of online hate-speech and disinformation need to be tackled, this bill is deeply flawed in its design and would be open to abuse by the Sri Lankan government, which has persistenty failed to uphold freedom of expression,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director. “It risks being used to suppress important public debate regarding the conduct of the government and matters of public policy,” he added.
The Bill would establish an “Online Safety Commission” that would act to: “prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact; prevent the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes; make provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements,” as well as other unspecified matters.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has called for the immediate withdrawal of the bill and for the adoption of a process of meaningful consultations with all relevant stakeholders prior to gazetting bills which ‘have a serious impact on the community at large.’
“The current draft fails to adhere to the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality required for any State activity that restrict rights. It must be withdrawn or amended to be brought in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations guaranteeing freedom of expression, opinion, and information.” Seiderman added.
The ICJ considers that the Bill should not be evaluated in a vacuum, but instead must be read in conjunction with existing and proposed legislation that threaten human rights. Such laws include the extremely misused ICCPR Act of 2005, the Prevention of Terorrism Act (PTA), the Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, and the proposed Anti-Terrorism law which seeks to replace the PTA. This body of legislation, taken together, fosters a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms restricting civil society while unduly expanding the reach of the security state.
Article 14 (1) (a) of the Sri Lankan Constitution gurantees the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 of the International Covernant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a party, affirms the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
In July 2018, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a resolution affirming that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Contact: Ian Seiderman, Legal & Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
See annexed below a summary analysis of some problematic aspects of the Online Safety Bill.
Sri Lanka: Selected flaws in the Online Safety Bill
- Wide ranging and overly broad powers of the Online Safety Commission and appointed Experts
The bill provides for the establishment of a five-member ‘Online Safety Commission’ that is to be appointed on the sole discretion of the President (clause 5). This is in contrast to other notionally independent commissions in Sri Lanka, the appointments to which require the consent of the Constitutional Council by way of nomination or ratification. This bill would give the president unfettered discretion where both appointment and removal is concerned.
The Commission would also be vested with a wide range of powers, some of which encroach into the functions of the judiciary. It essentially acts as sole arbiter of matter of fact and is entitled to issue notices or directives against any person, internet service provider (ISP) or internet intermediaries who/which is alleged to have communicated a prohibited or false statement. The bill does not specify the process through which the Commission would arrive at this decision.
Moreover, the Commission is granted authority to block websites and instruct ISPs to restrict access to specific online locations. This may result in undue government overreach and censorship and impermissible limitations on the exercise of the right to information protected by Article 14A of the Constitution and international law.
Further clause 37 allows for the Minister to appoint ‘Experts’ to assist police officers in investigations. The experts are private individuals who can accompany police officers during search procedures, but are also given the power upon authority granted by a police officer above the rank of a sub-inspector to require a person to hand over any documents or device, provide traffic data or be orally examined (clause 37 (6)). Such excessive powers in the hands of unaccountable private individuals provide avenues for abuse.
The bill does not provide provide for judicial review of the Commission’s decisions or procedures. Instead clause 49 seeks to protect the Commission, its staff, or any expert appointed under clause 37 from being brought to court for any act or omission done in good faith.
- Vague and overbroad offences
A particularly problematic aspect of the bill are provisions of vague and overbroad definitions of offences.
Article 19(3) of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression and opinion may be subject to certain restrictions, but that these restrictions must be provided by law and necessary for one of a limited numbers of legitimate purposes, namely to protect the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order or public health or morals. The measure of limitation must be proportionate, using the least restrictive means possible to achieve the purpose. The requirement that any restrictive measure be provided by law means that they must comply with the principle of legality, by which the law must be stated with precision as to allow persons to be able to conform their conduct in compliance.
Similarly, Article 15 (2) of the Sri Lankan Constitution provides for possibility of restriction of the right “as may be prescribed by law in the interests of racial and religious harmony or in relation to parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The prohibitions listed in this draft legislation go beyond the restrictions allowed for under the ICCPR and the Sri Lankan Constitution, as clause 12 states that “any person who poses a threat to national security, public health or public order or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, by communicating a false statement, commits an offence.”
In addition, several acts that would constitute offence are only vaguely defined, if at all. This includes communicating a false statement “with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any other person” (clause 16) or “outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class” (clause 17). These clauses are overbroad in that they would encompass expression that is protected under human rights law. Clause 14 makes it an offence to ‘wantonly giving provocation by false statement to cause riot’. This language is open to abuse by the authorities, as evidenced by practices arising from other legislation, including the ICCPR Act and the PTA.
Repeated mention of ‘religion’ in these provisions is a cause for concern as they come in a context where there is ongoing strife relating to contested religious sites between majority and minority religious communities, thus creating risk of selected application to silence expression by persons from minority religious communities.
- Disproportionate Punishment
The draft bill prescribes unjustifiably hefty punishments of fines and a period of imprisonment ranging from one, two, three or five years for overbroad and ill-defined offences. It also states that “in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, such term of imprisonment or fine or both such imprisonment and fine may be doubled.”
Clause 25 of the bill, which refers to ‘failure to comply with the directives of the Commission’ would make it an offence to fails to comply with such directive within a period of 24 hours and makes the person liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding one million rupees.
Sep 28, 2023 | News
The ICJ is concerned at Thailand’s continued failure to bring justice to the loved ones of Karen activist Pholachi ‘Billy’ Rakchongcharoen, who was the victim of an apparent enforced disappearance in 2014, and apparent subsequent killing.
The ICJ calls on the responsible authorities to ensure that there is continuous effective investigation to determine definitively the fate of Billy and deliver justice to his family.
Today, Thailand’s Criminal Courts for Corruption and Misconduct Cases acquitted four Kaeng Krachan National Park officials, the last individuals seen with Billy, of murder-related charges, including premeditated murder and concealing the victim’s body. Only one of the accused, Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn, former chief of Kaeng Krachan National Park, was convicted of charges and sentenced to three years in prison related to “malfeasance in office” for failing to hand Billy over to the responsible authorities after his arrest.
The Court, constituted of a panel of two judges, indicated that it did not believe that Billy had been released as claimed by the accused. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the park officials orchestrated the killing.
“More than nine years of delays, including by inaction by the government until recently, and still no justice, is a blow to the victims. This constitutes yet another marker of Thailand’s consistent failure to hold accountable perpetrators of serious human rights crimes, potentially committed by State authorities,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Legal Adviser.
Billy was the victim of an apparent enforced disappearance, as he was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials. The officials claimed they detained Billy for illegal possession of honey, but that they released him later the same day.
On 12 September 2019, the DSI located bone fragments, along with an oil tank submerged in water, which they identified as likely belonging to Billy. The subsequent DNA test indicated a maternal relation between the fragment and Billy’s mother, suggesting a blood relationship through the maternal line. However, the Court ruled today that there was insufficient evidence to establish that they belong to Billy, as opposed to other relatives who may have passed away during the same period.
This decision was made despite testimony from State forensic experts affirming the validity of the DNA test used in this case, which needed to be considered alongside other supporting facts. This includes testimonies given by the relatives and cultural expert about the absence of known blood relatives who had passed away without knowledge, and the Karen practice of not scattering the remains of the deceased in the river. Such testimony also aligns with the opinions of international forensic experts, specifically the Independent Forensic Expert Group established by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, who were consulted by the prosecutors’ lawyers.
Enforced disappearance was recently made a specific crime under Thai law, following the adoption of the long-delayed Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance, which came into effect in February this year. Under the Act, and international law, enforced disappearance is a continuous crime, which is not completed until the fate or whereabouts of the victim becomes known. Therefore, to the extent that there is any doubt that the discovered remains belonged to Billy, the crime must be considered to be ongoing and the law is applicable to Billy, even if it was not in force when he first “disappeared.”
Nevertheless, the Prosecution did not attempt to charge the accused with enforced disappearance, and the Court consistently rejected any reference to the crime made by the prosecution during the proceedings. This includes the rejection of expert witnesses proposed by the prosecutor’s lawyers who intended to testify about international law and standards governing enforced disappearance, following the rejections made by the accused.
“It is also unfortunate that the Thai court did not take into consideration the specific nature of the crime of enforced disappearance, often accompanied by very limited circumstantial evidence, which may be the only available means of establishing the crime. Such a crime also normally includes the powerlessness of the victim in the hands of the authorities, the use of state power to destroy direct evidence in an attempt at total impunity or to create the illusion of a perfect crime, all factors that have been taken into consideration in many cases in various jurisdictions worldwide when assessing the possible involvement of the suspects in crimes of this nature,” added Srisod.
During the trial, pursuant to the Act on Establishment of the Criminal Court for Corruption Cases B.E. 2559 (2016), the Court also used the so-called inquisitorial system, which is new to both lawyers and public prosecutors accustomed to the accusatorial style of the usual Thai court system. In this regard, lawyers voiced complaints that the judge on several occasions cut short the follow-up questions that the lawyers had planned to ask, citing that these issues had already been covered during their own examinations and other written submissions.
Background
Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn was convicted under section 157 of the Criminal Code and section 123 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption B.E. 2542 (1999).
Thailand has signed but not yet ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) and is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). The latter two treaties prohibit conduct making up enforced disappearance, and the crime is recognized as violation of both treaties.
The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and local Thai Civil Society Organizations continue to receive complaints of alleged human rights violations at the hands of security forces constituting serious criminal conduct, including extraterritorial killings, torture and other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
Between 1980 and August 2023, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances also recorded and transmitted 93 cases of alleged enforced disappearance to Thailand. Currently, 77 of these cases remain unresolved.
Unfortunately, the number of cases in which these allegations have been investigated, let alone perpetrators prosecuted, remains low, as are instances where there has been access to effective remedies and provision of reparations for victims. In several instances, alleged victims of torture and other ill-treatment or the families of those who died as a result of these abuses have received some monetary payments falling short of full reparation, but the perpetrators have not yet been brought to justice.
This case also follows the acquittal of five police officers charged with the robbery and coercion of the “disappeared” human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit in December 2015 due to a lack of evidence.
Further reading
Thailand: Indictment of park officials for killing of “Billy” is a significant step towards justice
Thailand: discovery of “Billy’s” remains should reinvigorate efforts to identify perpetrator(s)
Thailand: special investigation into apparent enforced disappearance of “Billy” welcome, but much more is needed
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Justice for Billy: Time for Thailand to Account for Activist’s Disappearance
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, Associate International Legal Adviser, ICJ, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Sep 27, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and four other organizations condemn in the strongest possible terms the arbitrary execution of Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh in violation of his right to life and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. He was executed despite credible allegations that Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh had been subjected to severe beatings amounting to torture by the police in order to extract a “confession,” which was relied on at trial to convict him.
Despite the public outcry and the persistent calls within the international community for an impartial, independent and effective review of his case, the authorities proceeded with the execution of Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh on 22 September 2023, in defiance of international law and contrary to the global trend towards establishing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and abolition of the death penalty.
According to the death certificate issued by Thu Phong village, Cao Phong district, Hòa Bình province that Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh’s family received on 23 September 2023, he was executed at 7am on 22 September 2023. His execution was carried out only four days after his mother had received the notification from the People’s Court of Thanh Hóa, informing her that as Mạnh’s relative, she could apply in writing to receive her son’s ashes or corpse.
The execution notice issued by Thanh Hóa province police indicates that the responsible authorities had exchanged two official letters in August 2023 to uphold the decision to carry out Mạnh’s execution. This means they had waited for more than one month before notifying Mạnh’s family about his impending execution, hindering any efforts by his family and the public to call for an immediate halt of the execution. Additionally, the notification letter shared with the family did not include the date of the set execution and the family was not given the opportunity of a last visit – a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that international human rights bodies have repeatedly condemned.
Allegations of violations of due process and procedural irregularities
Lê Văn Mạnh had been convicted of robbery, rape, and murder of a 14-year-old girl – Hoàng Thị Loan – in July 2005.
According to the case’s official records, the victim, Hoàng Thị Loan, was raped and murdered in Yên Thịnh Ward, Yên Định District, Thanh Hóa Province, in March 2005. On 20 April 2005, Lê Văn Mạnh, who was 23-year old at the time, was arrested pursuant to a temporary arrest warrant issued by the investigative police unit of Đồng Nai Province for an entirely different matter earlier that month.
However, according to the criminal complaint, just three days later, by 23 April 2005, a “confession” letter, claimed to be written by Mạnh while in police detention addressed to his father, had surfaced, admitting guilt to the rape and murder of Hoàng Thị Loan. The police confiscated this letter and used it to prove Mạnh’s guilt. The criminal complaint further showed that the investigation relied on the testimony of a 9-year-old child – who was interviewed by the police without parental permission – for leads.
Between 2005 and 2008, Mạnh underwent a total of seven court hearings, including three trials, three appeals, and one cassation trial. In all of his court hearings, Mạnh vehemently denied all of the charges and retracted his earlier “confession”, alleging that he had to provide it after being beaten by both the police officers investigating his case and his cellmates who were acting under police’s instructions.
There was no physical evidence to tie Mạnh to the alleged rape and murder. The only evidence presented by the prosecution was Mạnh’s “confession” letter, which he had already retracted because it was allegedly obtained under duress and torture. Nevertheless, Lê Văn Mạnh was convicted of the rape and murder of Hoàng Thị Loan and sentenced to death.
Recommendations
The execution was arbitrary, as it took place as a consequence of a denial of the right to fair trial among other rights. The execution also is contrary to repeated resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the overall global trend towards establishing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolition. We strongly urge the authorities to:
- Immediately halt all pending executions and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in Việt Nam;
- Initiate prompt, impartial and effective investigations into the allegations of torture or other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment with a view to gaining a “confession” from Mr. Lê Văn Mạnh, noting that his was not the only case where there had been allegations of torture being used to extract a “confession” later used as evidence at trial, which resulted in the imposition of the death penalty; and
- Ensure that there is full transparency in the use of the death penalty, including through ensuring that essential information relevant to a specific planned execution is promptly provided to the prisoner and their family, and making publicly available information regarding death sentences, pardons, number of people on death row, notifications of any set executions and executions carried out.
Background
The UN General Assembly, in repeated resolutions and by overwhelming majorities, most recently in General Assembly Resolution 77/222 of 15 December 2022, has called on all States that retain the death penalty to impose an immediate moratorium on executions, with a view to abolition.
In line with opinions shared by many governments and the United Nations, we emphasize that the death penalty constitutes a denial of the right to life protected by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Việt Nam is a State party; and that it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, prohibited under Article 7 of the ICCPR and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Countries like Việt Nam where the death penalty is imposed, must ensure, at a minimum, that it is only used in cases of “the most serious crimes” (i.e. intentional killing) following a trial that meets the highest level of compliance with international law and standards of fairness.
As the UN Human Rights Committee noted: “Violation of the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14 of the Covenant in proceedings resulting in the imposition of the death penalty would render the sentence arbitrary in nature, and in violation of article 6 of the [ICCPR]” (General Comment No. 36 – Article 6: right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para. 41). Mạnh’s trial was clearly neither fair nor compliant with international human rights law.
Furthermore, as a State party to the UNCAT and the ICCPR, Việt Nam has an obligation to respect the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment at all times.
Article 15 of the UNCAT obliges State parties to “ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings.” International law prescribes that State parties must conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations when complaints of torture or other ill-treatment are made (Articles 12 and 13, UNCAT; and Articles 7 and 2(3), ICCPR). In addition, State parties must provide prompt and effective access to effective remedies and full reparations for victims of torture and other ill-treatment (Article 14, UNCAT, and Article 7 in connection with Article 2(3), ICCPR).
Signatories
Amnesty International
International Commission of Jurists
Legal Initiatives for Vietnam
People in Need
Vietnamese Advocates for Change
Sep 26, 2023
The Indonesian authorities should ensure that women are effectively protected against online gender-based violence (OGBV) by implementing Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes (Law 12/2022) and by addressing its shortcomings in line with international human rights law, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) highlighted in a briefing paper published today.
In a thirty-page briefing paper analyzing Law 12/2022, the ICJ identified gaps in the recently adopted Law 12/2022 relating to OGBV, and addressed recommendations to the Indonesian authorities on how to enhance the country’s ability to fulfill its international human rights law obligations to prevent and punish acts of OGBV.
“While Law 12/2022 represents a step in the right direction with respect to preventing and punishing OGBV against women in Indonesia, much still needs to be done to effectively protect women against all forms of OGBV, and to ensure that victims/survivors are able to access justice and legal remedies,” said Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser.
Law 12/2022 entered into force in May 2022. The law criminalizes acts of sexual violence, including certain manifestations of OGBV. Among other things, the legislation also guarantees legal protection and remedies for victims/survivors of certain acts of sexual violence.
The ICJ’s briefing paper underscores that acts of OGBV violate the human rights of victims/survivors guaranteed under international human rights law. Indonesia has international human rights law obligations to prevent acts of OGBV, and to investigate, prosecute and punish them when they occur.
The briefing paper identifies certain shortcomings in Law 12/2022 requiring improvement so as to more effectively address OGBV, including the limited scope of OGBV acts covered by the legislation and the need to ensure its gender-sensitive implementation.
“The Governmental Regulations to implement Law 12/2022, which are currently being formulated with the aim of adopting them before the end of 2023, present a great opportunity for the Indonesian authorities to ensure that Law 12/2022 may better address acts of OGBV in line with the country’s legal obligations under international human rights law and standards,” added Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant.
The ICJ’s briefing paper also analyzes the human rights responsibilities of technological companies, such as Meta, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, to prevent and address acts of OGBV. These companies’ activities may risk enabling acts of OGBV against women, including through the algorithmic amplification of content amounting to or disclosing evidence of OGBV on their platforms.
The briefing paper provides concrete recommendations to the Indonesian authorities on how they can improve the provisions and implementation of Law 12/2022 in line with international human rights law to effectively protect women against OGBV. The briefing paper also provides recommendations to tech companies on how they can fulfil their responsibilities under international human rights standards to prevent acts of OGBV and effectively address them when they occur.
Briefing Paper Launch
The briefing paper was launched on 26 September 2023. The launch included a panel discussion, which drew together women’s rights organizations, journalists, lawyers and tech companies’ representatives to discuss the ongoing efforts in Indonesia to protect women against OGBV and ensure access to justice for victims/survivors.
The panelists at the launch were:
- Daron Tan, Associate International Legal Adviser, ICJ;
- Yogi Bratajaya, Legal Consultant, ICJ;
- Andy Yetriyani, Head of the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan);
- Uli Pangaribuan, Director of the Legal Aid Foundation of the Association of Women for Justice Jakarta (LBH APIK Jakarta);
- Endy Bayuni, Member of the Meta Oversight Board; and
- Nani Afrida, Editor in Chief, Independen.id
Download
The full briefing paper is available in English and Bahasa Indonesia (PDF). This press release is available in Bahasa Indonesia here.
Contact
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant, e: yogi.bratajaya@icj.org
Further reading
ICJ, “ICJ publishes guidance for laws to prevent and address online gender-based violence against women“, 19 May 2023
