Jun 8, 2015 | News
While the constitution of Pakistan’s first National Commission for Human Rights is welcome, the Commission risks being toothless unless its powers are extended to investigate human rights violations allegedly committed by the security agencies, the ICJ warned today.
The ICJ was informed that members of the National Commission for Human Rights were notified on 20 May 2015, three years after the National Commission for Human Rights Act was passed in June 2012.
“The establishment of a national human rights commission is a much-needed step for the promotion and protection of human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “But for the new Commission to be able to assist the people of Pakistan, who face tremendous violations of their rights in terms of civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, it must be able to address the conduct of the country’s powerful military and security agencies.”
Under the National Commission for Human Rights Act, the Commission’s powers include investigating human rights violations, suo motu or on petition; visiting detention centers to ascertain the legality of the detention of detainees and ensure detainees are treated according to law; reviewing and suggesting amendments to Pakistan’s constitutional and legal framework on human rights; making recommendations for the effective implementation of international human rights treaties; and developing a national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The law provides that while inquiring into complaints under the Act, the Commission shall have all powers of a civil court, including summoning and ensuring attendance of witnesses, receiving evidence on affidavits; and discovery and production of documents.
However, the Commission’s mandate is very limited where the armed forces or security agencies are accused of committing human rights violations, the ICJ says.
The law specifically states that “the functions of the Commission do not include inquiring into the act or practice of the intelligence agencies”.
Where the armed forces are accused of human rights violations, the Commission is only authorized to seek a report from the Government and make recommendations.
“The Commission’s restricted mandate over the armed forces, and especially the intelligence agencies, is of grave concern given that Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are accused of perpetrating gross human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture and ill-treatment,” Zarifi said. “A human rights commission that does not have jurisdiction over abuses by these actors risks being toothless and ineffective – and worst, a cover for continuing government inaction in response to these violations.”
“With these exceptions in place, it seems questionable that the Commission will get accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs, which is a requirement for a National Human Rights Institution to be recognized internationally,” he added. “The Pakistani government should ensure that the Commission complies with international standards so it can help protect and promote the rights of all people in Pakistan.”
Additional Information:
Justice (r) Ali Nawaz Chohan was appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission. Other members include one representative from each province; one representative each from the Islamabad Capital Territory and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; the Chairperson of the National Commission on the Status of Women; and a member belonging from a religious minority community.
The UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) provide the minimum standards required by national human rights institutions to be considered credible and effective, and get accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs. Section 3 (a) (ii) of the Paris Principles states that a NHRI should have the power to hear a matter without higher referral over “any situation of violation of human rights which it decides to take up”.
Section 4 of the National Commission on Human Rights Act, 2012, provides the following procedure for appointment of members of the Commission: the Federal Government invites nominations for commissioners through public notice; the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition scrutinize the nominations; and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition forward three names for each member of the commission to a parliamentary committee for confirmation. The law provides that the parliamentary committee would comprise of two members of the National Assembly (lower house) and two members of the Senate (upper house) –with two members each from the government and two from the opposition.
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 South Asia (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
May 24, 2015 | News
The ICJ signed a joint statement together with 35 other national and international NGOs calling for the immediate release of Vietnamese blogger Tran Huynh Duy Thuc.
Tran Huynh Duy Thuc was arrested on 24 May 2009 for “promoting anti-government propaganda” after posting a blog calling for political reform and respect for human rights.
On 20 January 2010, following a one day trial with three co-defendants, he was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment followed by five years house arrest.
On 29 August 2012, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Tran Huynh Duy Thuc and his three co-defendants’ detention violated the right to freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a State Party, as well as the right to liberty and security of person (Article 9) and the right to freedom of association (Article 21).
The Working Group concluded by requesting Vietnam to release Tran Huynh Duy Thuc and provide him with compensation in accordance with Article 9(5) of the ICCPR.
Vietnam-Statement on blogger Duy Thuc-News-webstory-2015-ENG (full text of statement in PDF)
Apr 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s adoption, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of the Working Group’s “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court”.
Under its resolution 20/16 (2012), the UN Human Rights Council requested the Working Group to prepare draft basic principles and guidelines on habeas corpus. The Working Group set out a first draft set of principles and guidelines ahead of its global consultation on the subject in September 2014. From 2 to 5 February 2015, the Working Group met to continue its elaboration of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, resulting in the adoption of a second draft. The Working Group adopted its final iteration of the document at the conclusion of its session on 29 April 2015. The Basic Principles and Guidelines will be presented to the Human Rights Council during the Council’s 30th regular session, to be held from 14 September to 2 October 2015.
The ICJ welcomes the Basic Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus. It especially welcomes certain aspects of the document, including:
- Paragraph 68, in which applicable qualifications are set out to any derogating measures to accommodate constraints on the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- Principle 6 and Guideline 4 which reaffirm that habeas corpus petitions must be heard by courts that bear all characteristics of competence, independence and impartiality (paras 27, 70 and 72(a)), that competence includes the power to order immediate release if detention is fund to be arbitrary or unlawful (para 27), that immediate implementation of such orders is required (para 71(c)) and that courts must give reasoned and particularized decisions (para 71(d));
- Guideline 7, in which it is provided that individuals are entitled to take proceedings multiple times (paras 81 and 82), that expediency is required, including in cases of subsequent challenges, and especially in cases alleging, among other things, torture or ill-treatment (para 83) and that authorities remain obliged to ensure regular review of the continuing need for detention (para 84);
- Principle 9 and Guideline 8 concerning legal representation and legal aid;
- The clarifications in Principle 10 and Guideline that persons able to bring proceedings include counsel, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee (paras 34 and 92) and that no restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s ability to contact such persons (para 35);
- The express recognition in Guideline 12 that information obtained by torture or other forms of ill-treatment may not be used in evidence;
- Guideline 13 concerning disclosure and limitations applicable to any non-disclosure of information on security or other grounds;
- Guideline 14, reflecting authorities’ obligation to justify the need and proportionality of detention;
- Principle 15 and Guideline 16 (on remedies), reflecting the overarching right to remedies and reparation (paras 43), the need for authorities to give immediate effect to an order for release (para 44) and the right to compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (paras 109-112); and
- Principle 16 concerning the application of Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) alongside international humanitarian law (paras 45 and 47), the application of Article 9(4) to civilians in an international armed conflict (para 47), the application of habeas principles to prisoners of war (para 48), and the question of administrative detention or internment in the context of a non-international armed conflict (para 49).
The ICJ has engaged in all stages of the Working Group’s elaboration and consultations. It made written submissions in November 2013, April 2014 and March 2015. Its staff, Matt Pollard and Alex Conte, gave panel presentations at the September 2014 global consultation.
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 31, 2015 | News
The present form of the recently tabled draft Prevention of Terrorism Act, also known as POTA, violates international standards and seeks to reintroduce detention without trial, said the ICJ.
The Malaysian government claims that the draft POTA, which was tabled yesterday in Parliament for its first reading, together with 7 other amendments, is aimed at curbing terrorist threats in the country.
“The draft law, as it is now, is susceptible to abuse,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “It is very disturbing that the POTA has very similar elements that were in the problematic and now repealed 1960 Internal Security Act that was previously used to silence government opposition and curtail freedom of expression in the 1980s.”
For example, the ICJ notes with concern that the draft law allows a “board” that is not a court to order and extend detention for up to four years.
Only one of the members of the board is required to have any legal training at all.
Detention orders issued by the “board” cannot be challenged in any court, except on procedural issues.
The ICJ urges members of Parliament in Malaysia to amend the existing draft law so that it will not reintroduce draconian preventive detention measures, as in the repealed Internal Security Act.
The Parliament of Malaysia should either reject the draft law or amend its provisions to respect human rights.
CONTACT:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org or m: +668 4092 3575
