Oct 2, 2013 | News
The ICJ said the conviction today of Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender in Vietnam, violated international standards governing the right to a fair trial.
Judge Le Thi Hop of the People’s Court of Hanoi convicted and sentenced Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment with time served since late December 2012 to be taken into account.
His company was ordered to pay the unpaid tax amount of 645 million VND (approximately USD 30,000) and fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD 60,000) for the offence of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code.
One of Le Quoc Quan’s accountants, Phuong, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment.
Edmund Bon, a prominent Malaysian attorney and the ICJ’s appointed trial observer, was denied entry into court.
Police barricaded the courthouse to keep out hundreds of demonstrators protesting the perceived harassment of Le Quoc Quan.
“The court did not dispel the widespread belief that this case is political in nature and intended to silence a government critic,” Edmund Bon said. “The verdict was delivered after a 30-minute deliberation and the judge took about an hour to read the written grounds of judgment.”
The hearing was originally scheduled for 9 July 2013, but was postponed at the very last minute due to the judge’s illness.
On 17 September 2013, the court issued a notification informing that the trial had been rescheduled to 2 October 2013 and that the trial would be a public one.
Nevertheless, on the day of trial, only a handful of foreign diplomats who had obtained an invitation and pass from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were allowed to enter a room to observe the proceedings through a television screen.
Le Quoc Quan’s wife was the only family member who was permitted to observe the trial.
No independent journalists were allowed to enter the courtroom except for a reporter with the police and government media personnel.
The trial before a judge and two jurors started at 8.00am and ended at 2.30pm with a 15-minute recess in between. Six witnesses gave evidence. Counsel for the prosecution and defence took approximately one hour to make legal submissions.
“Le Quoc Quan’s trial and verdict raise serious questions regarding Vietnam’s commitment to ensure fair criminal trials that are to be open to public scrutiny, as it required to do as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Edmund Bon.
The ICJ also notes that the court had breached Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial.
Section 194 of the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that, upon a postponement, courts that hear first-instance trials have to set a new hearing date within 30 days.
Here, the court took almost two months to do so.
“The court’s failure to reschedule the case within a timely manner is a clear violation of Le Quoc Quan’s rights to be tried within a reasonable time and without undue delay, as stipulated under articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR respectively,” Bon added.
Since his arrest on 27 December last year, Le Quoc Quan has already spent a total of more than nine months in prison, awaiting trial.
“Le Quoc Quan should have instead been granted bail when his wife had filed an application for his release as there was no reason to believe that he would have had absconded the country,” said Edmund Bon.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan are expected to appeal the court’s decision within 15 days.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, tel. no. +66 8078 19002 or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2013 | News
The ICJ denounces the death penalty handed down today by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the main opposition party.
If carried out, the sentence would violate Bangladesh’s international law obligations to protect the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, the ICJ states.
The International Crimes Tribunal convicted Chowdhury (photo) on nine of 23 charges, including murder and genocide, and sentenced him to death.
“The Bangladesh Tribunal is one of very few transitional justice mechanisms that have imposed the death penalty,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “It is unfortunate that Bangladesh seeks to punish human rights violations by committing rights violations itself.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty in all cases to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
This is the seventh verdict delivered by the International Crimes Tribunal. Death sentences have been handed out in all but one case.
”Bangladeshi law as well as international human rights standards require that death penalty cases receive a fair and thorough review, so it is crucial that appellate review of these cases proceed properly, without undue political pressure or a timeline established by impending elections in or before January 2014,” Zarifi said.
“Those responsible for the horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971 should be brought to justice in processes that are fair, and seen to be fair, instead of being subjected to vengeance,” he added.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sep 19, 2013 | News
The ongoing involvement of the lead prosecutor in the hearing on the appeal against the acquittal of opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, raises concerns about prosecutorial impartiality, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the failure of the lead prosecutor, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who was said to have some prior knowledge of the facts of the case, to remove himself from involvement in the proceedings and so maintain an appearance of prosecutorial integrity and impartiality.
“This case is a significant test of the integrity of the judicial system in Malaysia, which for so long has been the subject of concern to human rights proponents, bodies and organizations,” said Justice Elizabeth Evatt, a Commissioner of the ICJ who was observing the proceedings.
The hearing on the appeal was postponed to allow the preliminary objection raised on the first day, 17 September, by the lawyers of Anwar Ibrahim against Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s selection as a member of the three-person panel to hear the appeal.
The defense lawyers argued that there was a perception of bias due to Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s former ruling in a libel suit involving Anwar Ibrahim and the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2007.
Judge Tengku Maimum Tuan Mat thereafter recused herself from the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal therefore reconvened on the second day, 18 September, with a new judge, Dato’ Rohana Binti Yusuf, to hear the motion objecting to the appointment of Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as lead prosecutor in the case.
The motion was based partly on the fact that that Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was present at Deputy Prime Minister Najib’s home at the same time as the complainant two days before the incidents leading to the filing of charges against Anwar Ibrahim.
At the very beginning of the case, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah filed an affidavit concerning this fact, although he was not called as a witness in the proceedings.
The Court later denied the motion objecting to his appointment as lead prosecutor in this appeal, saying that there was no conflict of interest or apparent unfairness.
Justice Evatt, however, expressed concern that Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had taken on the role of lead prosecutor in the appeal.
“We expect higher standards of prosecutorial conduct,” she said. “Considering the political overtones in this case, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah should be especially sensitive to any appearance that might lead to a perception of bias and partiality that might arise from his earlier knowledge of facts of the case.”
The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors provide that in the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their duties with impartiality.
The ICJ also acknowledged Judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s recusal as a sign that the Court of Appeal recognized the need to appear impartial. Under the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “judges shall always conduct themselves in a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, state that to ensure such impartiality “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.”
The Court did not indicate new dates on when the hearing on the appeal would take place. The ICJ will continue to monitor this case.
The ICJ has previously condemned Malaysia’s continuing use of colonial-era criminal charges of ‘sodomy’ to cover even consensual sexual relations between adults.
The ICJ believes that Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is inconsistent with respect for the right to privacy under international standards.
Justice Evatt, the first female judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court, a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and a commissioner of the ICJ, traveled to Malaysia to observe the appeal hearing from 17 to 18 September 2013, at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser, t +662 6198477 ext. 206 ; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Sep 17, 2013 | News
The ICJ said that the death sentence handed down today by Bangladesh’s Supreme Court against Abdul Quader Mollah is incompatible with international principles of fair trial.
If carried out, the sentence would violate his right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
On 17 September 2013, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh upheld the prosecution’s appeal to impose the death sentence on Abdul Quader Mollah (photo), the assistant Secretary-General of Jamaat-I-Islami.
Abdul Quader Mollah had received a life sentence on February 5, when the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) convicted him on five counts, including murder and rape.
“The prosecution’s appeal to impose the death sentence on Abdul Quader Mollah was based on a law that was not in force when he was first convicted, and applying that law retroactively, especially for the death penalty, violates international law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
On 17 February 2013, Parliament passed an amendment to the International Criminal (Tribunals) Act 1973 to enable prosecutors to appeal a life sentence and seek the death penalty.
Before this amendment, the prosecution was only allowed to appeal if the accused was acquitted.
The ICJ says the retrospective application of the amendment in Abdul Quader Mollah’s case is incompatible with Bangladesh’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including Article 15, which prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than provided for at the time the criminal offence was committed.
“Judgments such as these highlight the serious problems with the war crimes tribunal that undermine its legitimacy,” Zarifi further said. “The wounds of war can only be healed through a fair and transparent trial process that meets international standards of fair trial and due process of law.”
“It is essential that those responsible for committing atrocities during the Bangladeshi war of liberation are prosecuted and brought to justice,” Zarifi added. “But the death penalty perpetuates the cycle of violence and is a perversion of justice, and all the more so when it is imposed in violation of due process.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty in all cases to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to join the great majority of States around the world in rejecting the use of the death penalty.
To that end, Bangladesh should impose a moratorium on the practice and take steps towards its abolition, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
Contacts:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Sep 13, 2013 | News
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the Osh Regional Court to overturn an intermediate ruling to initiate disciplinary proceedings against two lawyers representing the interests of a victim of sexual assault.
The ICJ sent a mission to observe today’s hearing. The mission raised no issues of concern regarding the conduct of the proceedings observed.
On 3 July 2013, the Osh City Court issued an intermediate ruling to initiate disciplinary proceedings against two lawyers, Valerian Vakhitov, Khusanbai Saliyev, for taking procedural steps provided for under Kyrgyzstan law, including filing motions to the upper judicial instances or filing motions to recuse the judge during and not before the trial.
Today, the Osh Regional Court upheld lawyers’ appeal and overturned the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers.
The case concerns charges against a teacher in a religious institution for sexual acts with one of his students, a nine-year-old boy.
The representatives of the defendant alleged that he is not criminally responsible by reason of insanity – a proposition contested by the lawyers of the victim. The main trial is ongoing.
The trial was observed by an ICJ trial observation mission: Oleg Levytskyy (Ukraine) and Almaza Osmanova (Kyrgyz Republic).
The observers met with the court, the prosecutor, representatives of the victims and the defendant.
“We welcome the decision to overturn the ruling to initiate disciplinary proceedings against these lawyers,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Regional Programme. “In accordance with international standards, it is the lawyers’ duty to assist their clients in every appropriate way and take legal action to protect their interests. Therefore punishing lawyers for their diligent work would run contrary to the obligation of the state to guarantee that lawyers can carry out their functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.”
Contacts
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Kyrgyzstan-Osh_Lawyers_Trial Observation-news-web story-2013-rus (full text in pdf)
![Smoke rises after an Israeli air strike on the village of Taybeh in southern Lebanon [Source: Al Jazeera]](https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-20-at-15.56.24-300x200.png)
