May 15, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the conviction of six human rights defenders after an unfair trial lasting less than five minutes. The six were charged in connection with their participation in a peaceful demonstration against the fatal shooting of a protestor in Letpadaung.
They were sentenced to four years and four months in prison with hard labour.
“Under both international and Myanmar law, a fair trial means independent judges, the need for evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and due process. All of these requirements were ignored in the case of these accused, who must be immediately and unconditionally released,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Instead of prosecuting peaceful protestors, the Myanmar government must hold those responsible for the killing in Letpadaung accountable and provide justice,” he added.
The ICJ attended today’s hearing at the Yangon Dagon Township Court of Daw Naw Ohn Hla, Daw Sein Htwe, U Nay Myo Zin, Ko Tin Htut Paing, Daw Lay Lay @ Daw San San Win and U Than Swe, who were sentenced for violating Article 18 of the Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law, as well as a series of offences under the Penal Code.
These offences include assaulting or preventing a public servant from the discharge of his duty (Section 353); rioting (Section 147); publishing or circulating information which may cause public fear or alarm and may incite persons to commit offences “against the State or against the public tranquility” (Section 505(b)).
It is unclear whether an appeal will be filed, but the ICJ understands that the accused’s appeal in this case would be highly unlikely to succeed.
The ICJ has observed and documented the case’s pre-trial and trial phases and considers that they grossly violate international standards of fair trial.
Bail has been denied to all the accused after hearings that last less than five minutes. The accused have also complained to the ICJ about poor prison conditions, non-nutritious or edible food, dirty water and no access to radio or television.
These do not comply with international standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The ICJ urges the Myanmar authorities to drop all charges against the accused and take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
The ICJ calls upon the Myanmar authorities and the judiciary to take measures, in law and practice, to ensure that the judiciary is able to decide cases independently and impartially as a separate and co-equal branch of the government.
Background:
The accused were arrested and detained on 30 December 2014 for the lawful exercise of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
They protested in front of the Chinese embassy in Yangon calling on the Myanmar authorities to carry out an urgent and impartial investigation into the death of Daw Khin Win.
She was shot dead on 22 December 2014 while demonstrating against illegal land confiscations and forced evictions over the Letpadaung copper mine in Monywa.
There has been so far no arrest or prosecution for the use of incendiary weapons as a crowd-control agent in Letpadaung in 2012 or for the shooting of Daw Khin Win last year.
Contact:
In Bangkok: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Myanmar: Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser, t: +95 9250800301 ; e: vani.sathisan(a)icj.org
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 11, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman following an unfair trial. The ICJ repeated its call for the authorities in Bangladesh to institute an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in the country.
Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (photo), a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was hanged today in Dhaka Central jail.
He had been sentenced to death by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 for his role in the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh.
His conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal in 2014.
The government established the ICT in 2010, after amending the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973.
The ICT has jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, genocide, violations of the Geneva conventions and any other crimes under international law.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT do not comply with international standards for fair trials.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedural flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
“This execution constitutes a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The fact that this execution was based on a trial that was procedurally and substantively flawed is all the more regrettable and a perversion of justice.”
On 6 April 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Muhammad Kamaruzzaman’s petition for a review of his sentence.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has denounced the death sentence, noting that his review petition was summarily rejected without consideration on merits.
Government officials have reported that Muhammad Kamaruzzaman decided to not seek a presidential pardon for his sentence, following the rejection of his review petition.
After Abdul Qader Mollah in 2013, Kamaruzzaman is the second individual to be executed after being sentenced to death by the ICT.
“The ICJ supports the rights of all victims of the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh to truth and justice. But the death penalty is not the answer,” Zarifi added. “Bangladesh should impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing it outright.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, 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.
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, with only 37 opposed.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Apr 7, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should intervene to stay the imminent execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, said the ICJ today.
Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 after an unfair trial, the ICJ says.
On Monday, 6 April 2015, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected Kamaruzzaman’s last-ditch petition for independent review of the sentence – he was claiming discrepancies in prosecution witness testimony during the trial – paving the way for his imminent execution.
“The ICJ has long supported the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 war to gain Bangladesh’s independence, but the death penalty, especially after a trial with procedural and substantive flaws, perpetuates the cycle of violence and is a perversion of justice,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that the ICT does not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of his review petition, Kamaruzzaman must now decide whether to seek clemency from the President, as the last resort.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment,” Zarifi said. “Especially where the death penalty is concerned, the trial process has to meet the highest standards of fairness and due process, but this case falls far short of that.”
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
In May 2013, the ICT found Kamaruzzaman guilty of mass killing during the 1971 Liberation War and sentenced him to death.
In November 2014, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on appeal upholding Kamaruzzaman’s conviction and death sentence.
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 towards its abolition.
117 UN Member States, a clear majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The conviction of the Maldives’ former president, Mohamed Nasheed, on terrorism charges after a grossly unfair trial marks a significant deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the country’s judiciary, said the ICJ.
On 13 March, Mr. Nasheed (photo) was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the dismissal and alleged unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Mr. Abdullah Mohamed, in 2012, when Mr. Nasheed was president.
He was convicted of an “act…of kidnapping or abduction of person(s) or of taking hostage(s)” under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990.
“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”
The case’s pre-trial phase and trial were marked by gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
Two of the judges on the three-judge bench testified as witnesses against Mr. Nasheed in the 2012 investigation; these statements were submitted as evidence in the present trial.
Mr. Nasheed’s defense team was not allowed to be present on his behalf during the first proceeding, nor was he given the opportunity to seek bail.
The defense team was repeatedly denied full access to prosecution evidence and witnesses or to regularly consult with Mr. Nasheed during the course of the trial.
When Mr. Nasheed’s defense team recused itself in protest of the lack of fairness, the court proceeded with the trial without legal representation present for Mr. Nasheed rather than granting him the opportunity to obtain new counsel. The defense was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses.
Mr. Nasheed now has the right to appeal the conviction, but his right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.
In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe.
The ICJ has previously documented the politicization of the judiciary and the polarized political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterized by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past (See Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition (February 2011)).
“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicized along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” Zarifi said. “The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”
The ICJ urged Maldivian authorities to ensure Mr. Nasheed’s defense team full access and adequate opportunity to prepare an effective appeal, and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.
The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
Background information can be downloaded here:
Maldives-Background Brief Nasheed Trial-Advocacy-Anylysis brief-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
