Feb 13, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) have made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in view of its forthcoming review of the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Thailand.
In their submission, the ICJ and TLHR have brought to the Committee’s attention their concerns in relation to the following issues:
- Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented;
- States of emergency;
- Right to life and prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- Right to liberty and security of the person, treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, right to a fair trial and independence of judiciary; and
- Freedoms of expression and association and right to peaceful assembly.
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Jan 25, 2017 | News
The decision by the Chuy Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan on 24 January 2017 to uphold the life sentence of human rights defender Azimzhan Askarov constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and has compounded the multiple violations of his human rights, the ICJ said today.
The Court ruling was made in defiance of a decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, which had affirmed these serious violations.
The ICJ calls on the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to respect its international human rights obligations in this case.
Azimzhan Askarov (photo) should have access to an immediate and effective appeal against the decision of the Chuy Regional Court.
Violations of his rights should be remedied and just compensation provided.
Azimzhan Askarov was convicted of participation in murder, organization of mass disturbances and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011, following an unfair trial, arbitrary detention and torture.
The re-hearing of the case before the Chuy Regional Court followed the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee that his arrest, detention and trial breached Kyrgyzstan’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, the prohibition on arbitrary detention, and the right to fair trial.
The ICJ has closely monitored the case. Representatives of the ICJ observed several court hearings, including during the re-examination.
The ICJ regrets that the re-examination of Azimzhan Askarov’s case did not remedy the violations of his human rights found by the Human Rights Committee.
The court failed to undertake a rigorous study of both defence and prosecution cases.
Rather, it appeared to take the prosecution case at face value, thus undermining the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality of arms.
Many motions of the defence remained unaddressed or were rejected without cause.
These included a motion asking that the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee be evaluated by the Court, as they were crucial for the re-opening the case by the Supreme Court.
The Chuy Regional Court not only failed to examine the findings of the Human Rights Committee, but summarily rejected the Committee’s findings that Azimzhan Askarov had been arbitrarily arrested, held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture.
The Court in its decision doubted the truth of Azimzhan Askarov’s statement that he had been repeatedly tortured, on the basis that three State psychiatrists concluded that he was “deceitful and subservient” and the defence had not produced witnesses or other evidence to rebut this point.
The Court heard several witnesses who stated that they had initially given false statements implicating Azimzhan Askarov because they were intimidated or subjected to ill-treatment.
The Court did not take any action to investigate these allegations.
During the re-examination of his case Azimzhan Askarov was kept in a metal cage and had no immediate opportunity to speak without hindrance with his lawyer.
Askarov, an Uzbek speaker, visibly struggled to speak in Kyrgyz, but no interpretation was provided for him.
Background
Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender, was convicted of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2011.
The central charges concerned allegations of his participation in a murder of Myktybek Sulayamanov, a police officer, during the 2010 ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan.
The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011.
Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.
In March 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision in regard to Askarov’s complaint and found violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Human Rights Committee, which in March 2016 heard a complaint brought by Askarov, called for his conviction to be quashed and if necessary a new trial to be held in line with the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards.
On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a further reconsideration of the case on appeal, which resulted in upholding Askarov’s verdict and sentence.
Following the decision of 24 January, the defence said they would appeal this decision of the Chuy Court in the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. Kyrgyzstan is a party to the ICCPR and as such is bound by this treaty to guarantee the rights it enshrines and to provide effective remedies when these rights are violated.
The decision of the Committee is an authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR which may serve as evidence in court and whose findings should not be ignored.
Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-failure to remedy-News-Web story-2017-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Jan 6, 2017 | News
As Pakistani military courts once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must urgently reform the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks must be brought to justice pursuant to fair credible trials and in accordance with due process, the human rights organization added.
The 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act 1952 are scheduled to lapse today, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expire. So far, the Pakistani Government has not proposed any legislation to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians, the ICJ says.
The Geneva-based organization has published an updated list of people convicted by military courts, the charges against them, and their alleged organizational affiliations.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly, there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively handle terrorism-related cases,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The National Action Plan envisioned military courts as a short-term “exceptional” measure 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.”
“The Pakistani Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to human rights protections,” Zarifi added.
Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials and bringing perpetrators to account, the ICJ says.
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 274 people for their “involvement” in terrorism-related offences, 161 of whom have been sentenced to death.
Twelve out of the 161 people sentenced to death have been hanged, 113 people have been given prison sentences. Details of only seven people given life imprisonment have been made public. The names, charges, and duration of prison terms for the remaining 106 people have not been disclosed.
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
Read also
Pakistan: stop military trials for civilians
Pakistan: ICJ urges Government not to extend oppressive counter-terrorism law
Additional information
At least 159 out of 168 people (95 per cent) whose convictions have been publicly acknowledged by the military had allegedly “admitted” to the charges, raising serious questions about the possibility of torture or other coercive measures being used to secure these confessions.
The ICJ’ 2009 global study on state responses to security threats examined in detail the dangers of the “exceptionalism doctrine”, which justifies a departure from the normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of the “exceptional” character of the threat.
In time, many of these measures became permanently incorporated into ordinary law, blinding governments to the actual reasons behind the lack of accountability for terrorism and serious crime.
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 15, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (JCZ) have assisted senior prosecutors in their role in strengthening the rule of law and protection of human rights in the country.
The Zimbabwe National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) held a pilot training of trainers for senior prosecutors on fair trial standards and human rights from 15-16 December 2016.
The NPA received substantive legal and technical support for this training from the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (JCZ) and the ICJ.
In consultation with the ICJ, the JCZ designed the training curriculum.
The JCZ has a statutory mandate to provide continuous professional development to various justice sector actors including the prosecution.
The content of the curriculum includes prosecutorial conduct in upholding the rule of law, constitutional and legislative protection of the rights of accused persons, general powers of the prosecutor general and his/her nominees, and the relationship with the other justice actors, such as the police.
In addition, the training focused on aspects relating to warrants for further detention, bail, right to remain silent, admissibility of statements obtained through illegal or abusive means, discharge at close of state case, sentencing and the prosecutors code of ethics.
The framing of the various topics is informed by universal, regional and domestic law and standards on the role, duties and mandate of the NPA, and individual prosecutors.
Fifty (50) senior prosecutors from different provinces and districts were selected to attend this inaugural intensive human rights training, facilitated by Mr. Shana, the JCZ principal, and Mr. Andrew Chigovera, former Attorney-General, former Commissioner, African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
