Sep 10, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ condemned the mass convictions of some 739 defendants, 75 of whom were sentenced to death, by the Cairo Criminal Court, in connection with a sit-in protest at Raba’a Al Adaweyya square in August 2013.
The ICJ deplored that the convictions had followed a grossly unfair trial and called on the Egyptian authorities, including the prosecutorial authorities, to take immediate steps to quash them.
The ICJ said that as an immediate matter the death sentences, issued in contravention of Egypt’s international legal obligations, must be vacated.
In addition to the death sentences, another 658 individuals were sentenced either to life imprisonment or to five to 15 years’ imprisonment, including journalists and others monitoring the sit in, many of them in high security facilities.
The accused were convicted of offences including “killing police officers,” “taking part in an illegal assembly,” “joining an illegal group,” and “vandalism and other acts of violence” following dispersal of a sit-in protest at Raba’a square.
The convictions follow a grossly unfair trial in which rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to legal counsel, among others, were violated and many accused were arbitrarily detained.
“The trial, with its industrial-scale convictions and blatant disregard of basic fair trial guarantees, is yet another example of how Egypt’s judiciary is being used by the military and the executive to crush freedom of expression, assembly, and association; silence any and all critical voices, and intimidate witnesses of human rights violations,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The trial was marred by a litany of fair trial violations. A presumption in favour of pre-trial detention was routinely applied.
Of the 739 defendants tried, all 320 arrested were held in pre-trial detention for more than five years, protestors and protest monitors alike.
For example, photo journalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid, known as “Shawkan”, was arrested while covering the Raba’a dispersal and was in pre-trial detention throughout the trial.
The Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants without making individual findings of guilt or relying on credible evidence, violating the presumption of innocence.
Four hundred and nineteen defendants were tried in absentia—a number of whom may have been sentenced to death—without the opportunity to mount a meaningful defence.
Charges such as “joining an illegal group” were also blatantly unfounded insofar as they targeted journalists and others reporting on the sit in.
“The convictions are unreliable and ought to be quashed. Those convicted solely for the legitimate and peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly must be immediately and unconditionally released,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
It has previously called on Egypt to respect repeated Resolutions by the UN General Assembly for all retentionist States to impose an immediate moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ previously documented how the Egyptian Judiciary has consistently failed to conform to these standards, and has instead been using the administration of justice as a tool of repression.
The ICJ has underscored that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a party, protects the rights to liberty, to a fair trial, to life, to freedom of expression, to freedom of assembly, and to an effective remedy against violations of human rights.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that impunity continues to prevail over the gross human rights violations committed by armed and security forces in the course of the dispersal.
In this regard, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet noted the contrast between Saturday’s decision and Egypt’s adoption of Law 161(2018) in July, which effectively immunized security forces from prosecution for offences committed between 3 July 2013, the date of the military coup, and January 2016.
The High Commissioner further warned that “justice must apply to all” and that immunizing security personnel by such a law only “promotes impunity, and undermines the faith of the Egyptian people in the Government’s capacity to deliver justice for all.”
“It is a measure of the absolute subordination of the judiciary to the will of the military and executive that not a single person has been held accountable for the unlawful killings of hundreds of protesters, and that those arrested and prosecuted in the context of the dispersal are convicted and sentenced to death and cumulatively thousands of years’ of imprisonment,” Benarbia said.
Egypt-Rabaa Ruling-News-webstory-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Jul 13, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan Government should reconsider and reverse its decision to bring back the death penalty for drug related offences, the ICJ said today.
On 10 July, the Sri Lankan Cabinet unanimously approved an action plan to implement the death penalty for “drug smugglers”.
According to the spokesperson of the Cabinet, 19 people convicted for “large scale drug offences” who “are still involved in drug trafficking…from within prisons” would initially be those initially designated for execution.
Sri Lanka has had a moratorium on the death penalty for over four decades.
The last execution carried out in the country was in 1976.
“The resumption of executions of convicted drug offenders would constitute a violation of the right to life under international law,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
”And, based on experience around the globe, it will not in any way serve the purported objective of tackling the problems of drug-related crime in Sri Lanka,” he added.
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Sri Lanka acceded to in 1980, guarantees the right to life and requires that states that have not yet abolished the death penalty must restrict capital punishment to only the “most serious crimes”.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, considers that the death penalty may never be used for drug offences.
The extraordinarily retrograde measure of resuming executions following a 42-year moratorium would also constitute a violation of article 6, which contemplates at least progressive movement towards abolition.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions emphasizing that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition.
In 2016, an overwhelming majority of 117 UN Member States – including Sri Lanka – voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty in law or practice,” added Seiderman.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to be a violation to the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ urges Sri Lanka to reinstate its moratorium on executions and take steps towards taking all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director, email: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor, South Asia, email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jun 18, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the Human Rights Council takes place on Wednesday, 20 June, 16:00-17:00, room XXIII of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by the ICJ.
Speakers:
Apr 3, 2018 | News
The secret military trials of civilians charged with terrorism-related offences are a continuing breach of Pakistan’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences on 7 January 2015 by the 21st amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
One year ago, on 31 March 2017, President Mamnoon Hussain signed into law the 23rd amendment to the Constitution to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians until 6 January 2019.
“The renewal of military trials for civilians accused of terrorism last year has only weakened the rule of law, and undermined the right to fair trial and equality before the law in Pakistan,” said Matt Pollard, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser.
“Pakistan should end the role of military courts in such cases, and instead strengthen the ability of ordinary courts and law enforcement to ensure investigations and trials that are both fair and effective, in line with its domestic law and international human rights obligations,” he added.
According to the military’s media office and information collected by the ICJ, military courts have convicted 346 people since January 2015, out of which 196 people have been sentenced to death and 150 people have been given prison sentences.
At least 56 people have been hanged. Only one person has been acquitted.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Such use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international fair trial standards, and the imposition of the death penalty after such trials violates the right to life.
Families of more than a hundred people convicted by military courts have alleged the convicts were denied a right to a fair trial in petitions to the Supreme Court and various high courts in the country.
Despite acknowledging possible denial of fair trial, the ordinary courts have thus far refused to provide relief to the petitioners due to their lack of jurisdiction over military courts.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals through the amendments to the Constitution and the Pakistan Army Act were a part of the Pakistani government’s 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014.
The NAP contemplated military courts only as a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, on the basis that they would be operational only for a short period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
However, with less than a year left before the extension under the 23rd Constitutional Amendment is set to expire, no such reforms have taken place.
Contact
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative (Geneva); e: matt.pollard@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Background
The 23rd constitutional amendment allows military tribunals to try civilians who allegedly belong to “a terrorist group or organization misusing the name of religion or a sect” and are suspected of committing a number of offences, including: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury or death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
In July 2017, in its Concluding Observations after Pakistan’s first periodic review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it was concerned by the extension of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and allegations of fair trial violations in military courts’ proceedings.
The Human Rights Committee recommended that Pakistan “review the legislation relating to the military courts with a view to abrogating their jurisdiction over civilians and their authority to impose the death penalty” and “reform the military courts to bring their proceedings into full conformity with articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant in order to ensure a fair trial.”
Mar 15, 2018 | News
The ICJ called on the Government of Singapore to halt the impending execution of Hishamrudin bin Mohd, and take immediate steps to impose a moratorium on executions, with a view towards the abolition of the death penalty in the near future.
Hishamrudin bin Mohd, a Singaporean national, was sentenced to death in 2016, under mandatory sentencing laws, after being convicted of possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
His execution is scheduled to take place on 16 March 2018.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
“Singapore, as this year’s Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, must use this opportunity to lead the way in the region in recognizing that the death penalty is inherently incompatible with human dignity and a violation of human rights,” Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General said.
“Singapore should set an example to other ASEAN Member States in upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights,” he added.
Furthermore, the ICJ expressed serious concern that Singapore still applies the mandatory death penalty, including for drug offenses which, according to international standards does not the meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” to which the death penalty must be confined.
“States that have not yet abolished the death penalty should never apply them for drug offenses nor make them automatic,” Zarifi said.
The UN Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have stated that under no circumstances should death penalty be mandatory.
International human rights law is undermined when mandatory death penalty is imposed since sentencing must reflect assessment of the factors in each case to ensure that the defendant’s human rights and the narrow limits on the use of death penalty have been respected.
The ICJ notes that the UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions with the support of the overwhelming majority of States, most recently in December 2016 calling for an international moratorium on the use of death penalty with a view to abolition.
Presently, some 170 States around the world have either abolished the death penalty or put a moratorium to its use.
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres emphasized that “the death penalty has no place in the 21st century.”
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Hishamrudin bin Mohd, a Singaporean national, was found guilty of possessing 34.94 grams of diamorphine, allegedly for the purpose of trafficking. His appeal was rejected on 3 July 2017 and his execution was scheduled on 16 March 2018.
The ICJ received information that Hishamrudin bin Mohd filed a last-minute application for judicial review on 12 March 2018 and a closed-door hearing was set on 14 March 2018. However, on 15 March 2018, the Court of Appeal denied his appeal.
