Mar 10, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement on counter-terrorism legislation in these countries, in an interactive dialogue at the UN Human Rights Council with the the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
The text of the statement follows:
COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN EGYPT, TUNISIA AND PAKISTAN
10 March 2016
Mr President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the attention given by Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, to defective counter-terrorism legislation that facilitates violations of human rights, as reflected for example by communications on Egypt, Tunisia and Pakistan in the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/31/79).
Numerous counter terrorism laws promulgated or applied in these and other countries include overly broad or imprecise definitions of terrorism-related offences. These extend the laws’ reach beyond acts of a truly terrorist character. Such laws can be and are abused or misapplied to criminalize the legitimate and peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Further, these laws provide sweeping immunities that contribute to pervasive impunity for unlawful killings by security forces.
These laws also facilitate violations of the right to liberty and fair trial rights and insufficiently safeguard against abuses in detention. In Tunisia a person can be held in police custody without being brought before a judge for up to 15 days. In Pakistan, suspects can be held in preventive detention without charge, and without being brought before a judge, for up to 90 days.
Egypt and Pakistan continue to use military courts to conduct unfair trials of civilians in terrorism cases, contrary to international standards. At least eight civilians sentenced to death in secretive trials by military courts in Pakistan have been hanged since January 2015. “Expedited” procedures in terrorism circuit courts in the Egyptian civilian system also give rise to fair trial concerns.
The ICJ invites the Special Rapporteur to comment on measures or mechanisms that states, inter-governmental organisations, and civil society can take to help ensure that states such as Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan repeal or amend counter-terrorism legislation to bring it into line with their international human rights obligations and commitments.
Jan 20, 2016 | News
The Indonesian government’s efforts to counter and punish attacks such as the deadly assault in central Jakarta last week can only succeed if they strengthen respect for rights and rule of law, said the ICJ today.
Indonesia’s National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) and the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) claimed that they lacked sufficient authority under the country’s existing Anti-Terrorism Law to stop the attacks.
Eight people were killed in an attack by armed men in central Jakarta on 14 January.
“Plans discussed by Indonesian authorities to amend the 2003 Anti-Terrorism Law to make it ‘more effective’ in addressing terrorist threats mostly focus on weakening hard-won protections for suspects and the rule of law,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“In order to help the Indonesian government meet its obligation to protect its people from acts of terrorism, experience from around the world and Indonesia’s Suharto era shows that security can only be achieved through justice,” she added.
The head of the National Police, Gen. Badrodin Haiti, said that the Anti-Terrorism Law prevents police from prosecuting Indonesians returning home after allegedly serving as combatants in Syria.
One of the proposals is to give intelligence officers the authority to make arrests under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
“Giving intelligence officers the authority to make arrests will likely lead to an increase in violations of human rights,” said Gil.
“The roles of intelligence and of law enforcement are fundamentally different and need to remain separate,” she added.
The ICJ pointed out that there were not enough safeguards under Indonesia’s laws, specifically the State Intelligence Law, to ensure the accountability of the intelligence agency or its officers.
Another proposal is that authorities be given the power to arrest anyone they see as having a “strong indication” to be planning acts of terrorism.
The ICJ, however, observes that this proposal appears to allow Indonesian authorities to avoid judicial oversight so that it would be easier for them to arrest any person, irrespective of whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity or an intent to prosecute.
This proposal also appears to allow authorities to detain and interrogate persons suspected of involvement in terrorist acts with a view to gaining intelligence information without necessarily contemplating the filing of criminal charges.
As ICJ’s Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, and Human Rights has underscored, the practice of arrest and detention for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering may mean the arrest and detention of those “who are not necessarily criminal suspects, but who are also believed to have information that will ‘substantially’ assist the collection of intelligence relating to terrorism.” Detaining people for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering in the absence of evidence of criminal activities is a form of arbitrary detention.
Such a practice can also lead to secret or unacknowledged detention, which under international law constitutes enforced disappearance and is absolutely prohibited, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“The obligation to protect human rights and keep people safe from acts of terrorism are not at opposing poles,” said Gil. “They are complimentary and mutually reinforcing duties of protection incumbent on the State.”
“In fact, protecting human rights can be an effective shield in defending societies from acts of terrorism,” she added.
All measures to counter terrorism must strictly comply with obligations Indonesia has under international law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
Indonesia’s Anti-Terrorism Law requires judicial approval to arrest a suspect in a terrorism case. Under the law, authorities may arrest any person “strongly suspected of committing a crime of terrorism on the basis of sufficient initial evidence.”
The Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a District Court determines whether sufficient initial evidence exists or has been obtained by authorities.
Under article 42 of Indonesia’s State Intelligence Law, the accountability of intelligence operations of the State Intelligence Agency is in principle ensured through a written report on these operations submitted to the President of Indonesia.
This provision has been criticized for failing to provide sufficient accountability, as the presidency is firmly within the Executive branch and lacks capacity to investigate and prosecute in the ordinary criminal justice system.
Furthermore, article 24 of the State Intelligence Law provides that the State has the obligation to give “protection” to all intelligence personnel when carrying out their intelligence duties and functions. Such protection is extended to their family members.
The law does not define “protection” and hence may be construed as the State being obliged to grant immunity to intelligence personnel and their family members from criminal prosecution or civil liability.
Nov 17, 2015 | News
Desde el año 2004, la CIJ ha señalado casos en los que el Estado de Guatemala dirige su poder punitivo en contra de defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos por su asociacion a actos pacíficos en defensa de los recursos naturales de distintas comunidades en el país.
Ante esta práctica, que socava el derecho a defender los derechos humanos, la CIJ expresa:
1. La criminalización de la protesta social se ha convertido en un fenómeno recurrente en Guatemala, en la que el Derecho Penal es utilizado como instrumento de represión y deslegitimación de la labor que las y los defensores de derechos humanos llevan a cabo en el país.
2. Especial preocupación causan las detenciones arbitrarias de las que son objeto defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos, que trabajan en áreas de alta conflictividad social y se vinculan a la protección de los recursos naturales, territorios o derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. En algunos casos, el Estado de Guatemala ha optado por la suspensión de las garantías constitucionales en esas regiones, decretando estados de prevención o de sitio.
3. Con el objeto de conocer el impacto de esta práctica, la eurodiputada Marina Albiol, visitó Guatemala del 2 al 5 de noviembre del presente año. En dicha ocasión, la CIJ acompañó a su delegación en una visita in situ a los departamentos de Huehuetenango y San Marcos, para entrevistarse con defensores y defensoras de Derechos Humanos, así como para sostener reuniones con funcionarios de gobierno y movimientos sociales.
4. La delegación constató que frecuentemente las y los líderes comunitarios y defensores de derechos humanos, son sometidos a procesos penales injustos, práctica que consituye una herramienta para el acoso a dichas personas.
5. La delegación pudo constatar el caso de las detenciones arbitrarias de Ermitaño Bernardo López , Rigoberto Juárez y Domingo Baltazar, Francisco Pedro (Chico Palas), Adalberto Villatoro (Don Tello), Arturo Pablo Juan,Saúl Méndez y Rogelio Velásquez, todos ellos del Departamento de Huehuetenango; en los dos últimos casos mencionados, se ha dictado sentencia absolutoria, pero ambos continúan detenidos. Todos han padecido su privación de libertad , en la cárcel de Huehuetenango o en la prisión de la zona 18 de Guatemala, bajo condiciones extremadamente difíciles. Los anteriores no son los únicos, ya que junto a ellos se encuentran detenidas arbitrariamente otras defensoras y defensores de derechos humanos del departamento de Huehuetenango y de otros departamentos.
6. Asímismo preocupa la detención de Mauro Vay, dirigente y defensor de derechos humanos de la organización CODECA, quien se encuentra bajo medida sustitutiva, pero con restricciones que han afectado su derecho al trabajo y libertad de movimiento, durante todo el año 2015 en el departamento de Suchitepéquez.
7. La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ha expresado que la protesta social pacífica, es una herramienta fundamental para la labor de defensa de los derechos humanos, esencial para la crítica política y social de los gobiernos. En tal sentido, los Estados están obligados a asegurar que ningún defensor o defensora de los derechos humanos sea impedido de reunirse y manifestarse públicamente en forma pacífica.
Ante estos hechos, Wilder Tayler, Secretario General de la CIJ expresó: “Urgimos a las autoridades del Estado de Guatemala a detener la criminalización de la protesta social y las detenciones arbitrarias que este fenómeno conlleva. Amendrentar y obstaculizar la labor de defensoras y defensores de derechos humanos constituye de por sí, una violación del derecho de las garantías individuales”.
Nov 4, 2015 | News
The government of Maldives must immediately revoke its suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency declared today and restore the rule of law to the country, said the ICJ.
The Maldivian government suspended a range of constitutional protections under a 30-day state of emergency declared on 4 November, citing a threat to national security based on the allegation that “some groups are planning to use … dangerous weapons and explosives,” according to a translated version of the emergency decree obtained by the ICJ.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency,” he added.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
“Maldivian authorities have not come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Narayan said.
According to the emergency decree, the constitutionally protected rights that have been suspended during the state of emergency are, among others:
- Article 19: “A citizen is free to engage in any conduct or activity that is not expressly prohibited by Islamic Shari’ah or by law. No control or restraint may be exercised against any person unless it is expressly authorised by law.”
- Article 24: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his private communications. Every person must respect these rights with respect to others.”
- Article 31: “Every person employed in the Maldives and all other workers have the freedom to stop work and to strike in order to protest.”
- Article 32: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly without prior permission of the state.”
- Article 41(a): “Every citizen has the freedom to enter, remain in and leave the Maldives, and to travel within the Maldives.”
- Article 45: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained, arrested or imprisoned except as provided by law enacted by the People’s Majlis in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.”
- Article 47(a) and (b): “(a) No person shall be subject to search or seizure unless there is reasonable cause. (b) Residential property shall be inviolable and shall not be entered without the consent of the resident, except to prevent immediate and serious harm to life or property, or under the express authorisation of an order of the Court.”
“The basic prohibition against arbitrary detention and imprisonment can never be derogated from,” Narayan said.
The declaration of the state of emergency also seems to target the country’s vice president, whom the president appears to regard as a political threat. The vice president is facing impeachment proceedings for his alleged role in the boat explosion which the government claims was caused by a bomb as part of a deliberate assassination attempt.
The emergency decree reduces the period provided under Article 100 of the Maldives Constitution for the vice president to respond to the impeachment charges from 14 days to 7 days.
“There seems to be a clear political motive in arbitrarily reducing the vice president’s procedural rights in the impeachment process,” added Narayan.
Additional information
The alleged threat cited by the Maldivian government refers to the announcement that Maldivian security forces had discovered weapons and explosives in two areas, and that some additional weapons were missing.
These allegations followed the purported discovery of an explosive device near the president’s palace on Monday that, following closely on last month’s explosion on a boat carrying the president and his wife, the government claims is part of an alleged assassination attempt on the president.
The government rejected the findings of an FBI investigation into the earlier boat explosion which ruled out the possibility that it was caused by a bomb.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Sep 24, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ made an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva today, calling on the Maldives to accept and implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
The statement, which was also supported by the NGO South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), may be downloaded in PDF format here: Maldives-UN-HRC30OralStatement-Advocacy-non legal statement-2015-ENG
The report of a joint ICJ-SAHR fact-finding mission to the Maldives, conducted earlier this year, is available here.
