Indonesia: ICJ condemns the execution of four individuals

Indonesia: ICJ condemns the execution of four individuals

The ICJ condemns the executions of four persons in Indonesia. The ICJ vigorously calls on the Government of Indonesia to impose an immediate moratorium and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in the country.

“The execution of these four persons is reprehensible. Indonesia should stop further executions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

“These executions damage Indonesia’s standing in the international community since they go against the growing international consensus around the world to abolish the death penalty,” he added.

The individuals executed shortly after midnight today were Freddy Budiman (Indonesia), Seck Osmane (Nigeria), Michael Titus Igweh (Nigeria), Humphrey Jefferson Ejike Eleweke (Nigeria).

Indonesia is a current member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, having been first elected in 2006.

The General Assembly resolution that created the Council specifically provides that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” (res 60/251, 2006, para 9).

According to the ICJ, one of the persons executed – Michael Igweh – was allegedly tortured by law enforcement authorities to extract his confession.

The Geneva-based organization, on several occasions, has called the Government of Indonesia’s attention to its violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. Any reliance on confessions extracted by torture would be a gross violation of the fairness of the trials.

“Because of the irreversible nature of the death penalty, trials in capital cases must scrupulously respect all international and regional standards protecting the right to a fair trial,” Zarifi further said.

The ICJ opposes capital punishment without exception and emphasizes the impact of the executions on the families of those who were executed.

The four persons executed were on a list of 14 people set to be executed soon. The other individuals are: Merri Utami (Indonesia), Zulfiqar Ali (Pakistan), Gurdip Singh (India), Frederick Luttar (Zimbabwe), Agus Hadi (Indonesia), Pujo Lestari (Indonesia), Eugene Ape (Nigeria), Okonkwo Nonso Kingsley (Nigeria), Ozias Sibanda (Nigeria) and Obinna Nwajagu (Nigeria).

The ICJ strongly urges the Government of Indonesia to stop any further executions, immediately impose a moratorium, and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty.

In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 69/189, affirming for the fifth time that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling for countries that still maintain capital punishment to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition.

Contact

Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of the ICJ, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

 

 

Maldives: commute Humam’s death sentence and repeal capital punishment

Maldives: commute Humam’s death sentence and repeal capital punishment

The Maldives must immediately commute the death sentence imposed on Hussain Humam Ahmed and reinstate the 60-year old moratorium on capital punishment with a view towards abolishing it in law, the ICJ said today.

The Maldives Supreme Court on 24 June 2016 upheld the death sentence of 22-year old Hussain Humam Ahmed, convicted in 2012 for the murder Afrasheem Ali, a Member of Parliament (MP).

The execution, which the Government has expressed its intention to carry out within thirty days of the ruling, would be the first in the country since 1953.

“The reintroduction of the death penalty after 60 years, even as an increasing majority of nations are moving towards its abolition, is a tremendous blow to the already weak human rights situation in the Maldives,” said Nikhil Narayan, the ICJ’s South Asia senior legal adviser.

“Maldivian authorities must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent executions and reinstate the moratorium as a first step towards getting rid of it outright,” he added.

On 7 July 2016, just two weeks after upholding Humam’s death sentence, the Supreme Court upheld a second death sentence, this one against Ahmed Murrath, a 32-year old convicted for the 2012 murder of Ahmed Najeeb, a prominent lawyer.

Hussain Humam was first arrested in October 2012 for the stabbing death of Afrasheem Ali, an MP for the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

The trial, conviction and Supreme Court decision come even as the prosecutor’s office has admitted that the investigation into the murder is still ongoing.

The Supreme Court ruling also ignored a last-minute request by the victim’s family to delay enforcement of the death sentence until the conclusion of the investigation.

Human rights groups and independent observers have highlighted a number of fair trial and due process irregularities in Humam’s investigation and trial.

Humam’s conviction was based solely on his “confession” at a May 2013 hearing, after initially pleading not guilty.

Humam later retracted the confession and claimed that the police had obtained it through coercion.

“Proceeding with Humam’s execution on the basis of a deeply flawed trial, particularly in a context in which the Maldivian Supreme Court and criminal justice system are already under considerable criticism for their lack of independence, impartiality and failure to adhere to international fair trial and due process standards, would amount to a further violation of his rights to life and human dignity,” said Narayan.

The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life.

“The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment, which cannot be reversed once carried out, and neither serves the interests of justice for victims nor as a deterrent against future crimes,” Narayan added.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, on 30 June, the Maldivian Government amended regulations to enforce the death sentence by lethal injection.

The new regulations require the president to order Humam’s execution within three days of endorsement of the death sentence by a committee comprising of the chief prosecutor, the commissioner of prisons, and the chief justice.

The execution must then be carried out within seven days of the president’s order. The president may then only halt the execution on a direct plea from the victim’s family.

President Yameen’s administration has maintained its resolve to implement the death sentence within thirty days of the 24 June Supreme Court ruling.

The Maldives must immediately halt Humam’s and others’ imminent execution, reinstitute the moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards its eventual abolition in law and practice, the ICJ says.

Background:

The ICJ has previously detailed the human rights crisis in the Maldives, and the deep politicization of the Maldivian judiciary and criminal justice system, in its August 2015 fact-finding report.

The Maldives is party to most of the principal human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges the Maldives to respect the rights to life, human dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to a fair trial.

In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing 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. A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.

Contact:

Nikhil Narayan, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-3187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org.

Pakistan: ICJ urges Government not to extend oppressive counter-terrorism law

Pakistan: ICJ urges Government not to extend oppressive counter-terrorism law

The Pakistani Government should not extend the oppressive and ineffective Protection of Pakistan Act (POPA), which is set to expire on 15 July 2016, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.

POPA was enacted in July 2014 for a period of two years to combat “waging of war or insurrection against Pakistan” and to provide “speedy trial” for offences “threatening the security of Pakistan”.

Earlier this week, the Ministry of Interior confirmed that it planned to renew POPA for another two years.

“In these two years, not one suspect has been convicted under POPA, so we can conclude that the law doesn’t really protect people in Pakistan from terrorism and other violent acts, but instead it undermines their basic human rights protections,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.

“The Government’s plan to renew this hastily drafted law is a classic case of supposedly ‘temporary’ departures from normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of ‘exceptional” circumstances’ becoming a permanent part of the legal system.”

In a statement issued shortly after the Protection of Pakistan Act was enacted, the ICJ warned that POPA gives military and law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to detain individuals in contravention of Pakistan’s international human rights law obligations.

The law allows prolonged preventive administrative detention without adequate safeguards; retrospectively authorizes otherwise arbitrary or unlawful arrests or detentions; authorizes secret and unacknowledged detention; and gives law enforcement agencies broad powers to “shoot at sight”.

In addition, the law creates “special courts” to try scheduled offences under the Act. Procedures for the operation of these “special courts” allow for secret hearings and do not meet international standards for fair and public criminal proceedings before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

According to Government officials, the Ministry of Interior has cleared “hundreds of cases of peace disrupting elements” for trial before the “special courts” constituted under POPA.

The five “special courts” remained non-functional for many months because of lack of staff and other facilities. The courts are now functional, but have so far not concluded a single trial.

“POPA is not only an oppressive law, it has also proven to be completely ineffective,” added Zarifi. “Instead of renewing the law, the Government should focus on strengthening the existing criminal justice system, which is suffering because of years of neglect.”

Political groups, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), have alleged that the unfettered powers given to civilian and military law enforcement agencies under POPA are being used to target their workers for political activity and association. They say the law has been used to arbitrarily detain dozens of their activists.

“Pakistan faces a genuine threat from militant groups engaging in acts of terrorism, and the Pakistani Government has an obligation to protect all people from such attacks,” said Zarifi. “International law gives governments reasonable flexibility to combat terrorism, without contravening human rights obligations, and claims of ‘threats to national security’ can never be used as a justification for the practice of extrajudicial killings, secret detention, and enforced disappearance.”

The ICJ urges the Pakistani authorities not to extend POPA.

It further calls on the authorities to review all national security legislation to ensure it is fully compatible with international human rights law and standards.

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 (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org

Kyrgyzstan: the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Azimzhan Askarov should be implemented promptly

Kyrgyzstan: the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Azimzhan Askarov should be implemented promptly

The ICJ welcomed today’s decision of the UN Human Rights Committee in the case of Azimzhan Askarov, a Kyrgyz human rights activist, sentenced to life imprisonment in Kyrgyzstan.

The Committee found multiple violations of Azimzhan Askarov’s human rights related to his arrest, detention and trial, including 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.

Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender working in the South of Kyrgyzstan, was convicted in December 2015 of serious crimes, including the murder of a police officer, which took place during the violent ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan in June 2010.

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.

The report established multiple violations of human rights in the arrest and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.

The decision of the UN Committee is an important step in providing a legal framework to remedy the violations in the case.

The ICJ calls on the relevant authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to take urgent measures to implement the decision of the Human Rights Committee.

In particular, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, the Kyrgyz Republic must now immediately release Azimzhan Askarov; quash his conviction and provide him with adequate compensation.

Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-CCPR-Statement-2016-RUS (download the statement in Russian)

Conviction and sentencing of Angolan activists a travesty of justice

Conviction and sentencing of Angolan activists a travesty of justice

The ICJ expresses its grave concern at the 28 March 2016 conviction and sentencing of 17 Angolan activists to terms of imprisonment ranging from two years to more than eight years, for the peaceful exercise of their human rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression.

Following an unfair trial, they were found guilty of “preparatory actions of rebellion and association of evildoers” [malfeitores], based on having read and discussed reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship or being associated with others who did so.

The ICJ joins numerous civil society organizations in condemning the failure by the authorities in Angola to conduct the trial in a manner consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.

“Judicial persecution of opponents of the government in Angola must be stopped forthwith” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.

“A worrisome trend and pattern is emerging where the authorities in Angola are increasingly using the law and legal system as an instrument of repression targeting critics of the government as well as human rights defenders,” he added.

The ICJ calls on the Angolan authorities to invalidate the conviction and sentences, and to take concrete measures to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring the independence of the judiciary and legal profession as well as fully implementing international human rights standards in the national legal system.

Contact

Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +27731318411 or +263777283249 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org

Background

Fifteen of the Accused were arrested in June 2015 and later joined by another two accused.

They were initially charged with rebellion and a conspiracy to mount a coup against the President for studying and discussing reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship.

The prosecution later dropped the second charge but added a charge of “criminal association” or “association with evildoers”.

The defense maintains that the state did not manage to prove anything beyond the fact that the accused discussed politics, which is allowed under the Angolan constitution.

No independent observers were allowed to attend the trial, raising serious concerns about the right to fair trial.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties to which Angola is a party, recognize freedom of expression and freedom of association as human rights, and prohibit governments from arbitrarily or otherwise illegitimately interfering with them.

Domingos da Cruz was sentenced to 8 years and six months; Luaty Beirão to 5 years and 6 months; Nuno Dala, Sedrick de Carvalho, Nito Alves, Inocêncio de Brito, Laurinda Gouveia, Fernando António Tomás “Nicola”, Afonso Matias “Mbanza Hamza”, Osvaldo Caholo, Arante Kivuvu, Albano Evaristo Bingo -Bingo, Nelson Dibango, Hitler Jessy Chivonde e José Gomes Hata were all sentenced to 4 years and 6 months); while Rosa Conde e Jeremias Benedito got 2 years and 3 months in jail.

 

 

Translate »