Feb 9, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detention of lawyer Felix Agbor-Balla and Dr. Fontem Aforteka’a Neba. They have been charged with a number of offences involving terrorism; rebellion against the State; incitement of civil unrest and breach of the Constitution.
Felix Agbor-Balla (photo) and Fontem Aforteka’a Neba, respectively President and Secretary General of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC), were arrested on 17 January 2017, after the Minister of Territorial Administration banned all activities, meetings and demonstrations of the CACSC and the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC).
Since late October 2016, Cameroon has faced a number of demonstrations in several cities in the English-speaking regions of the country.
The protesters have been calling for an end of the use of the French language in courts and schools, among other demands, and the government has accused the two organizations, CACSC and SCNC, of supporting these activities.
The protests began after an indefinite strike by school teachers in the city of Bamenda, by youth protesting against alleged neglect of the Anglophone regions of Cameroon.
Felix Agbor-Balla and Fontem Aforteka’a Neba are currently detained incommunicado at the Yaounde Central Prison in Kondegui, which is far from where family members live. Their trial which had been set for 1 February 2017 was postponed without notice or due cause to 13 February 2017.
The charges they face require evidence establishing that they incited or carried out acts of violence or, that they were the instigators of the protests and demonstrations.
The two were arrested on the same day where they had signed a statement calling for protest activities to be carried out without violence.
If convicted of the charges, the two may face the death penalty.
The ICJ is concerned that the two men are being held incommunicado, in contravention of international standards, where they are vulnerable to ill-treatment.
The ICJ is also concerned at allegations that their charges stem from exercise of their internationally protected human rights, including rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
“Detaining the two incommunicado and prolonged detention without access to a judge violates their right to liberty and to a fair trial, which is protected under both international law and the law of Cameroon,” said Arnold Tsunga ICJ Africa Director.
The ICJ considers that Felix Agbor-Balla and Dr. Fontem Aforteka’a Neba should be immediately released.
If there should be reliable and admissible evidence to charge them with a cognizable crime for conduct not protected under human rights law, they should be immediately brought before a judicial authority to determine whether there is a lawful basis for trial and to determine whether they may be released.
In any event they should be removed from incommunicado detention and be granted full access to a lawyer, doctor if necessary, and family members.
Under no circumstances should they be subjected to the possibility of the death penalty.
ICJ further calls on the authorities in Cameroon to comply with their obligations under the treaties to which it is party, including as the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These treaties guarantee the rights to a fair trial, liberty and freedom of expression, association and assembly, among other rights.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, as a violation the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ calls on Cameroon to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolition, in line with repeated calls by the UN General Assembly.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716405926 or +263 777 283 249: e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Mary Pais Da Silva, Associate Legal Adviser, t: +268 7603 0078, e: mary.paisdasilva(a)icj.org
Feb 9, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today welcomed the indefinite suspension of the hearings on the death penalty bills by the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Committee’s Chairman, Senator Richard Gordon, indicated the suspension was needed until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
That instrument requires the Philippines to maintain its abolition.
“Abolitionist States may not return to the use of the death penalty generally under the ICCPR, and States that become party to the Second Optional Protocol assume very specific obligations to that effect,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “There really is no inconsistency between the Second Optional Protocol and the Philippine Constitution.”
“As a general rule, the Philippine Constitution prohibits the death penalty except for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. But in no way does it mandate that the death penalty be put into effect,” she added.
By ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippines has voluntarily chosen to be bound by an international obligation not to impose the death penalty – which it might otherwise have had the option to do under the Constitution.
As the ICJ explains in a memorandum on this issue, this is the very essence of treaty making.
“To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which Philippines is a party,” Gil said.
“This would contradict the most basic foundations of the international legal system and would lead other countries to view the Philippines as virtually incapable of making a reliable international legal agreement,” she added.
The ICJ emphasized that if the Philippines brings back the death penalty into its domestic laws, it would also be in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR, which effectively prohibits States from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
The Philippines cannot withdraw from Second Optional Protocol, which has no denunciation or withdrawal clause, the ICJ says.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted because once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Second Optional Protocol, they shall not be deprived of such protection.
Background
On 7 February 2017, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights held its first hearing on the proposed measure reintroducing the death penalty for illegal drugs and other crimes.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty is also currently being debated in plenary at the House of Representatives.
At the Senate hearing, senators opposing the proposed measure recalled that the Philippines is a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol, and thus, it is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.
Senator Richard Gordon, who chairs the Committee, thereafter, called for the indefinite suspension of the hearings on this matter until there could be clarity on the ramifications on the Philippines if it breaches its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Memo OP2 and Const-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
Dec 15, 2016 | News
The Pakistani Government must not extend legal provisions that empower military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, the ICJ said today.
The 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act, 1952, are scheduled to lapse on 6 January 2017, when their respective two-year sunset clauses expire.
“These military trials of civilians has been a disaster for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The conduct of these tribunals over the last two years has demonstrated that military trials are secret, opaque, violate even basic fair trials rights —and don’t do anything to protect people from acts of terrorism,” he added.
In a question-and-answer briefing paper released today, the ICJ provides answers to key questions regarding the conduct of military courts and the issues that have arisen in their operation.
The military has acknowledged the convictions of at least 144 people by military courts for their “involvement” in terrorism-related offences, 140 of whom have been sentenced to death.
Twelve out of the 140 people sentenced to death by military courts have been hanged.
The military has announced that least four people have been given life imprisonment sentences, but the actual number could be much higher.
Some 135 out of 144 people (94 per cent) convicted by military courts had allegedly “confessed” to the charges, raising serious questions about the possibility of torture or other coercive measures being used to secure these convictions.
The ICJ has documented how proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall short of national and international standards requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts:
- Judges are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command;
- The right to appeal to civilian courts is not available;
- The right to a public hearing is not guaranteed;
- A duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied;
- The procedures of military courts, the selection of cases to be referred to them, the location and timing of trial, and details about the alleged offences are kept secret; and
- The death penalty is implemented after unfair trials.
In addition to these concerns, the ICJ has also received reports that suspects tried by military courts have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in detention and their family members have been harassed and intimidated by military authorities.
Allegations of torture and ill-treatment are not effectively investigated and information alleged to have been obtained by means of torture or other ill-treatment is not excluded as evidence in trial, the ICJ says.
In at least two cases, the petitioners have also alleged that the convicts were children under the age of 18 at the time they were arrested by law enforcement agencies.
Military courts were empowered to try civilians pursuant to the National Action Plan against terrorism, in contravention of international standards.
The National Action Plan envisioned military courts to be a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions”.
With less than one month left before military courts cease to be in effect, there is little sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively handle terrorism-related cases, the ICJ adds.
“Pakistan has not used the period of using military courts to reform and strengthen the criminal justice system,” said Zarifi.
“On the contrary, military courts have only further undermined the legitimacy of the ordinary courts and weakened the rule of law in Pakistan.”
The ICJ urges the Pakistan Government to not extend the 21st Amendment and ensure that all counter-terrorism laws and procedures are in accordance with Pakistan’s human rights obligations.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
pakistan-military-courts-qa-advocacy-2016-eng (full Q& A on Military Courts, in PDF)
pakistan-list-of-convicted-advocacy-2016-eng (full list of convicted people, in PDF)
Dec 5, 2016 | News
A joint statement calls on members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines to stop further attempts to reintroduce the death penalty and to block any legislation that subverts human rights.
On 29 November 2016, the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms of the House Committee of Justice approved a bill restoring the death penalty in the Philippines by railroading the proceedings in the committee and ignoring important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for the legislation or its urgent passage.
The full statement can be downloaded here:
philippines-joint-statement-death-penalty-news-web-story-2016-eng (PDF)
Nov 29, 2016 | News
The Philippines House of Representatives must immediately cease efforts to rush through legislation restoring the death penalty, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
On 29 November 2016, the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reform, which is chaired by Congressman Marcelino “Ching” Veloso, hastened the passage of a bill restoring the death penalty in the Philippines.
According to reports received by the ICJ, ex-officio members of the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reform railroaded the proceedings and ignored important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for the legislation or its urgent passage. The Sub-Committee did not present any report, as is the normal practice, on the discussions and information presented in the previous hearings.
“Filipino lawmakers seem intent on embracing the barbaric practice of executions purely as a political measure, without any understanding or even proper discussion of the death penalty’s impact or what their actions would mean to the international obligations of the Philippines,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
A representative of the ICJ spoke at the hearing of the Sub-Committee on 22 November 2016, and brought to the lawmakers’ attention the country’s obligations under the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the general prohibition on reintroduction of capital punishment once abolished, which commit the country not to execute anyone within its jurisdiction.
“There are already thousands of alleged cases of extrajudicial killings in the country. This bill, if it becomes law, will unquestionably usher the Philippines into a dark period where respect for the right to life is comprehensively degraded,” Gil emphasized.
The ICJ has previously written to President Rodrigo Duterte underscoring that the evidence shows that death penalty is not effective at deterring crime at a greater rate than alternative forms of punishment. Investing in improved detection and investigation techniques and capacity, and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system, is more likely to achieve real results in reducing crime.
The ICJ categorically opposes the death penalty and considers its use to be a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions by overwhelming majorities, calling on all retentionist States to impose a moratorium with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser
Telephone: +66 840923575
Email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
