Apr 9, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the passing of the amendments to the archaic 1948 Sedition Act by Parliament’s House of Representatives.
The amendments broaden and deepen even further the scope for this law to be abused by authorities in order to violate human rights.
The amendments were passed after a final vote that saw 108 MPs in favour and 79 MPs against the proposal.
“The passed amendments were part of a series of bills that were rushed through Parliament this week, including the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act”, said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser. “It is unfortunate that Prime Minister Najib Razak has chosen to renege on his promise to abolish the Sedition Act and instead went ahead to make the law worse than it already is.”
“It is undeniable that these amendments would send a further chilling effect on the freedom of expression in Malaysia that is already restricted,” Gil added.
The amendments will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, receive assent of the Malaysian King before it becomes law.
CONTACT:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org or mobile: +66 84 092 3575
Apr 7, 2015 | News
The Malaysian government must cease efforts to strengthen the country’s draconian Sedition Act 1948, which has been used with increasing frequency and severity to suppress and punish criticism of the government, said the ICJ today.
An amendment to Malaysia’s Sedition Act tabled at parliament today would make sedition a non-bailable offence, aggravating the Sedition Act’s incompatibility with international human rights standards.
“The Sedition Act has been used against the government’s political opposition much more frequently than in previous years,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia. “Since January 2015, ICJ has recorded at least 36 academicians, lawyers, politicians, students, and activists have been investigated, arrested, or charged under the Sedition Act.”
According to the ICJ, this is a significant spike when compared to the total number of reported sedition cases recorded by Malaysian civil society in previous years: 2010 (5 cases); 2011 (3 cases); 2012 (7 cases); 2013 (19 cases); 2014 (42 cases).
“Instead of repealing or restricting the Sedition Act, the new amendment actually makes it worse by limiting the ability of courts to grant bail to people accused under the Sedition Act,” Gil added.
The amendment specifically states that if the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing that it would not be “in the public interest” to grant bail to the person charged with sedition, the person shall therefore not be released on bail, a matter otherwise normally determined by the courts in each case.
Denying bail based on a mere certificate by the Public Prosecutor removes any requirement that the court be presented with evidence to remand a person in custody and it may also preclude effective inquiry by the court into the lawfulness of the arrest and detention.
“The proposed amendment removes the court’s discretion to determine whether to grant bail or not when presented with a certification from the Public Prosecutor,” Gil said. “It appears therefore that the court has no power to require evidence or even articulation of the reasons to evaluate whether it is reasonable and necessary to remand the person charged with the offence in custody.”
Under international law, the right to seek provisional release before final conviction, for instance through posting bail, is closely linked to the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention.
Under international standards, a detention that complies with national law can nevertheless be considered arbitrary based on elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability.
In principle, anyone arrested on criminal allegations should have the right to seek release pending trial, including through bail proceedings before a court of law.
National laws should only allow bail to be denied where the facts of the individual case give rise to some specific reasonable ground for continued detention, such as preventing flight, or interference with evidence, or the commission of further violent offences.
Further, where the charges are incompatible with human rights – for instance when it is based entirely on protected freedom of expression – then there can be no basis whatsoever for pre-trial detention. Thus, any detention under the Sedition Act, a vague and ambiguously defined law, would be an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the ICJ recognizes that there have been instances when those arrested under the Sedition Act have allegedly committed acts that are recognizably criminal in character.
In these instances, other criminal laws in Malaysia could provide a proper basis for any investigation and detention.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia: emerlynne.gil@icj.org or +66840923575.
NOTE:
The figures above and the information contained in the chart and graph below are based on ICJ’s documentation in 2015 in comparison with the documentation of reported sedition cases for the past five years done by one of Malaysia’s leading organizations, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM).
Malaysia-Graph Sedition Cases 2010to2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full graph in PDF)
Malasia-Sedition table 2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full ICJ table in PDF)
Malaysia-SUARAM document Overview – Sedition cases 2010to2014-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full SUARAM table, in PDF)
Mar 3, 2015 | Advocacy
In advance of the Brussels Conference on implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared responsibility, the ICJ and nine other NGOs issued a statement on the Conference’s draft Declaration.
The statement welcomes a number of aspects of the draft Declaration, which addresses the need for more effective implementation of the Convention and the full, rapid execution of European Court of Human Rights judgments.
It raises concerns at several elements of the draft Declaration, including recommendations to the Court which could undermine its independence, and the lack of recognition of the role of civil society in the effective execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (photo).
Europe-NGO Statement on Brussels Draft Declaration-Advocay-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Feb 9, 2015 | News
Myanmar should continue working with all stakeholders, including affected communities and civil society, to promote a legal framework that balances investors’ needs with human rights, said the ICJ today.
The call comes as the government enters a critical phase of establishing its new law governing investments in the resource-rich country.
“This is a critical moment for the economic development of Myanmar. The laws it implements now will shape investment, economic development and, in turn, human rights for the foreseeable future,” said Daniel Aguirre, ICJ International Legal Advisor. “It is imperative that drafting is not rushed and that laws take into account international human rights laws and standards.”
ICJ has been working directly with Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA), as well as with Myanmar civil society, on investment law and their potential impact on the human rights of all people in Myanmar.
The International Finance Corporation, in support of DICA, has produced a Draft Investment Law designed to consolidate the Foreign Investment Law (2012) and the Myanmar Citizen Investment Law (2013) to create a level playing field for both local and foreign investors. DICA has now opened the process to civil society consultation.
ICJ conducted a workshop with DICA on bilateral investment treaties in July of 2014. In November, the ICJ submitted feedback on the Draft Investment Law providing expert analysis and flagging issues of concern.
An initial consultation on the Draft Investment Law took place on 29 January 2015. The ICJ along with other civil society organizations met with the IFC and DICA.
“The ICJ is encouraged by DICA’s willingness to consult civil society, including international non-governmental organizations, and hear concerns about investment laws and their potential to curtail important regulations designed to protect, promote and fulfill human rights,” said Aguirre. “The ICJ looks forward to formal engagement in a consultation process that will include both national and international civil society.”
The ICJ remains concerned that the Draft Investment Law establishes significant rights for investors without protecting the rights of those affected by business activity.
The Draft Investment Law would require investors to follow national laws without acknowledging that the existing national legal framework does not adequately protect human rights or provide remedies for those whose rights have been violated.
Furthermore, the Draft Investment Law does not establish or protect Myanmar’s ‘right to regulate’ to protect human rights or other social or environmental needs.
Investment law should indicate Myanmar’s obligation to enact necessary regulations for the protection of human rights, including economic and social rights such as the right to health, in the future in order to avoid legal disputes when adopting these regulations.
“The Draft Investment Law’s proposed legal framework would provide all investors the right to be consulted and challenge any new national law or regulation that may impact their profits,” said Aguirre. “This framework would allow businesses to challenge government policies aimed at addressing legitimate needs within the country, and it could create a regulatory chilling effect in which Myanmar’s government would find itself in the troubling position of evaluating whether the passage of new social policies would lead to costly lawsuits from investors.”
“The draft Law as currently formulated runs the risk of hindering progressive regulation to protect human rights in Myanmar,” said Aguirre. “The ICJ is encouraged that DICA has begun meeting with non-governmental groups and believes that an effective and meaningful consultation will help address key concerns about the Draft Investment Law. The ICJ looks forward to working with the Myanmar Government, with the IFC, and with all other concerned groups in order to promote a law that balances investors’ needs with human rights.”
Sep 26, 2014 | News
As the UN Human Rights Council approached the conclusion of its 27th regular session tonight, it adopted resolutions including on the topics of violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and the protection of civil society space.
The resolutions on civil society space, and on non-violence and non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, were adopted after a series of hostile amendments were defeated.
The resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, recognizes the worldwide problem of violence and discrimination, and builds on a resolution on the same subject from 2011. It calls for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to update the report produced under the 2011 resolution.
The States that supported the resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a series of amendments brought by Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Uganda, and United Arab Emirates. The amendments would have among other things deleted all references to sexual orientation and gender identity from the resolution text, fundamentally changing its purpose, and perpetuating a complete denial of the very real violence and discrimination inflicted on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and intersex people in all regions of the world.
The civil society space resolution, which was led by Chile, Ireland, Japan, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, draws on discussions at a Panel convened by the Council earlier in the year. It affirms the valuable contribution made by civil society in countries around the world, expresses concern about the threats and challenges faced by civil society, and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to produce practical recommendations for addressing these threats and concerns.
The texts of the resolutions (in the final draft form on which they were adopted – the official final versions are not yet available) are available here: Civil Society Resolution Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Resolution
A joint NGO press release on the resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity is available here.
The ICJ maintains databases of jurisprudence, legislation and UN action on the topic of sexual orientation and gender identity.
