Sep 12, 2013 | News, Uncategorized
Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC (photo), will be observing the hearing of the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim’s case from 17 to 18 September 2013 at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
Justice Evatt is 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.
Anwar Ibrahim is a Malaysian politician and is currently the leader of the opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, and the opposition alliance known as Pakatan Rakyat.
The appeal hearing that Justice Elizabeth Evatt will be observing emerged from the 2008 charges filed against Anwar Ibrahim immediately after the general elections held that year.
He was charged for allegedly committing sodomy, which is a crime under Section 377B of the Penal Code and carries the penalty of up to 20 years of imprisonment and whipping.
The High Court acquitted Anwar Ibrahim on 9 January 2012.
This is the second time that Anwar Ibrahim is facing sodomy charges after his dismissal from the Malaysian Cabinet in 1998.
In 2004, The ICJ also sent a representative to observe the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim, where the Federal Court overturned the High Court decision to convict him.
The ICJ called the Federal Court’s ruling “a step in the right direction in upholding the rule of law”.
Justice Evatt’s mandate as ICJ’s high-level observer to the appeal hearing includes monitoring the fairness of the proceedings against Anwar Ibrahim in the light of relevant international standards.
These standards include, among others the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, which set out standards on the independence and impartiality of judges, and the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, which set out standards on the independence of prosecutors.
Justice Evatt will also be evaluating whether the prosecution under Section 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.
“The right to observe trials stems from the general right to promote and secure the protection and realization of human rights. Trial observation is a key tool in monitoring the respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is an effective method to examine the level of independence and impartiality of a country’s criminal justice system,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia. “Trial monitoring also serves to promote better compliance with both domestic law and international standards that aim to ensure protection of human rights, including the rights to fair trial and due process.”
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for the ICJ Asia & Pacific Programme, t +662 6198477 ext. 206; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Aug 23, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Bangladesh authorities to immediately withdraw contempt of court charges against Human Rights Watch.
“Bangladesh must not impose contempt of court charges to restrict the important work carried out by human rights defenders, including international human rights groups,” said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes. “The contempt charges are inconsistent with Bangladesh’s obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to respect freedom of expression.”
On 20 August 2013, prosecutors for the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh charged Human Rights Watch with contempt of court for allegedly “scandalizing the judiciary” after the group had expressed concern that the trial of Ghulam Azam, former head of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami Azam’s trial was “deeply flawed” and did not meet international fair trial standards.
The group stated, based on credible media reports, that “judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution” and that there was “collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges”.
“It is paramount that those responsible for committing atrocities – notably unlawful killings and the widespread and systematic use of rape as a form of torture – during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, should be prosecuted before competent, independent and impartial courts in proceedings that meet international fair trial standards,” Conte added. “Muzzling voices that highlight the deficiencies of the ICT and prosecutions before it distract from that enormously important task.”
The ICJ, as well as several Bangladeshi and international observers, have expressed similar concerns that the International Crimes Tribunal does not adhere to international standards of a fair trial.
“The charges against Human Rights Watch are an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to attack a highly respected human rights group for pointing out serious and well-documented problems with the Bangladeshi International Crimes Tribunal. Attacking the messenger does not address nor resolve the very real concerns about the operations of the ICT,” said Conte.
Under international norms, judges and the judicial process are not immune from public criticism. The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct clarify that “since judicial independence does not render a judge free from public accountability, and legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability subject to law, a judge should generally avoid the use of the criminal law and contempt proceedings to restrict such criticism of the courts”.
Similarly, the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government also stress that “criminal law and contempt proceedings should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions”.
The charges against Human Rights Watch were preceded by the arrest on 10 August 2013, of Adilur Rahman, Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar for allegedly “distorting information” on a police operation on a Hefazat-e Islam rally in May this year. Odhikar reported that 61 people had been killed in the police crackdown on the rally. The Government disputed the number of casualties.
“We are deeply concerned that the contempt of court charges against Human Rights Watch and the charges against Adilur Rahman, are expressly intended to silence dissent and discourage individuals and organizations from raising legitimate concerns about human rights violations and the rapid deterioration of the rule of law in Bangladesh,” Conte further said. “Rather than charging them with contempt, the authorities should investigate the allegations of rights violations made by Human Rights Watch and Adilur Rahman”.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.
The Declaration also highlights that human rights defenders have the right to “freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to hold opinions and draw public attention to the observance of human rights.
“We urge the Bangladesh authorities to immediately drop the charges against Human Rights Watch and Adilur Rahman, which are being used to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and allow human rights defenders to freely carry out their work,” said Conte.
Contact:
Alex Conte, Director, International Law & Protection Programmes (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Aug 22, 2013 | News
The ICJ called upon the Indian Government to halt the imminent execution of Professor Devinderpal Singh Bhullar.
In August 2001, Professor Bhullar was sentenced to death under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act following his conviction on charges related to the bombing of the All Indian Youth Congress in New Delhi in 1993.
“Those who commit acts of terrorism should be prosecuted before competent, independent and impartial courts that meet international due process standards”, said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director.
“However, while those responsible for such acts must be held to account, the ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, without exception as it is an inherently cruel and irreversible punishment that violates the right to life.”
“Furthermore, there are serious questions about whether Professor Bhullar’s trial was in accordance with the requirements of international law”, Schonveld added. “His conviction and death sentence are based solely upon an alleged confession he made in police custody, which he later retracted, claiming it was extracted under torture.”
The ICJ says that the execution of an individual in these circumstances would violate India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to respect the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the absolute prohibition of torture.
In May 2011, President Pranab Mukherjee rejected Professor Bhullar’s petition for clemency. The Supreme Court rejected his earlier plea on 12 April 2013 to commute the sentence to life imprisonment, and upheld its decision on 14 August 2013.
India ended an eight-year moratorium on the death penalty with the executions of Ajmal Kasab on 21 November 2012 and Mohammad Afzal Guru on 9 February 2013.
“The resumption of the death penalty by India is contrary to the global and regional movement towards the abolition of the death penalty”, said Schonveld.
The ICJ reminds that 150 countries worldwide, including 30 states in the Asia-Pacific region, have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.
The ICJ urges the Indian Government to immediately reinstate the moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty permanently and acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolition of the death penalty.
Over the years, the member states of the United Nations have adopted various instruments in support of the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution emphasizing that “that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity” and calling for the establishment of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty “with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.
The resolution was reaffirmed in 2008, 2010, and most recently in December 2012, when and overwhelming majority of 110 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: +977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Aug 21, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called on the government of the Kyrgyz Republic to take urgent measures to prevent repeated attacks on lawyers.
The call followed reliable reports of an assault on two lawyers in a court in the south of the country.
On 20 August 2013, lawyers Dinara Medetova and Kubanychbek Zhoroyev were physically attacked following a hearing in the Osh Regional Court.
This is the latest in a series of such attacks, which have threatened the lives and safety of lawyers, have hindered lawyers in defending the rights of their clients, and have undermined the fairness of trials.
The ICJ understands that the Ministry of Interior has denied that the attack on the lawyers took place. However this attack is confirmed by the accounts of reliable witnesses.
The ICJ is concerned that, in the face of repeated attacks of this kind, the government and law enforcement authorities have consistently failed to take effective measures to prevent them, or to ensure that they are effectively investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.
“Denying that these attacks take place can only perpetuate the problem,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Regional Programme. “What is needed is an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the incident.”
“The government must work with the law enforcement authorities to ensure that the safety of lawyers, witnesses and defendants in criminal trials is ensured throughout the country, and that the Krygyz Republic protects the right to a fair trial, as required by its international legal obligations,” she added.
The two lawyers were defending Makhamatkir Bizurukov, an ethnic Uzbek, in a trial related to the 2010 ethnic clashes in the south of the country.
According to information available to the ICJ, the lawyers were repeatedly interrupted, insulted and threatened by members of the public in the course of the hearing, creating an atmosphere of intimidation which prevented the lawyers from effectively defending their client.
During the hearing, the lawyers also received death threats to which the judge did not respond.
After the hearing, reports indicate that around ten women, supporters of the victims in the case, physically attacked the lawyers.
“If it hadn’t been for my colleague who helped me to escape, I could have been very seriously injured or even dead”, lawyer Medetova told the ICJ. The lawyer later returned to Bishkek due to her fear of further attacks.
This attack took place despite an earlier written request by the defence lawyers in the case submitted to the local Police Department, President of the Court and the Osh Regional Prosecutor that security measures be taken during the hearing, in light of attacks on the accused, witnesses and lawyers at a previous hearing in the same case.
The ICJ understands that the head of the Police Department and the Prosecutor had assured lawyer Medetova that measures would be taken to guarantee the safety of the lawyers.
In the event however, the police took no action to prevent or halt the attacks on the lawyers in the courtroom.
Following the attack, the police reportedly told the lawyers that they could not protect them, as the supporters of the victim would consider such protection as bias in favour of the accused.
The ICJ recalls that international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, require that “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities”.
The ICJ urges the government to unequivocally and publicly condemn these attacks and to ensure that effective measures are taken to investigate them and bring those responsible to justice.
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-Attack on lawyers-news-press release-2013-ENG (full text in pdf)
Kyrgyzstan-Attack on lawyers-news-press release-2013-RUS (full text in pdf)
Jul 9, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called for the immediate release of Le Quoc Quan, after the People’s Court of Hanoi announced on 8 July 2013 the postponement of his trial, without setting any new dates for the case. The reason given for the hastily informed adjournment was that the judge had suddenly taken ill.
The ICJ considers that Le Quoc Quan’s continued detention is in violation of Vietnam’s penal law and the State’s international legal obligations.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender, was arrested on 27 December 2012 and charged for tax evasion under article 161 of Vietnam’s 1999 Penal Code.
The postponement of the trial appears to signal that Le Quoc Quan will continue to remain in jail. Since his arrest last year, he has already been detained for more than six months.
“The continued detention of Le Quoc Quan is akin to him being punished even before the trial has commenced. This is a clear violation of his right to being presumed innocent,” said Andrew Khoo from the Malaysian Bar Council, an expert appointed by the ICJ, who had traveled to Hanoi to observe Le Quoc Quan’s trial.
On 29 December, two days after Le Quoc Quan’s arrest, his wife filed an application for bail to the police and procurator. She had also applied for release on his own recognizance. There are no specific detailed procedures spelled out in law governing bail procedures. Under article 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only family members are permitted to act as guarantors. To date, neither the police nor the procurator have replied to her applications.
Under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a party, it should not be the general rule that persons are detained while awaiting trial, and release pending trial may only be subject to conditions to ensure appearance at the trial.
“There is no reason to believe that if released Le Quoc Quan would not appear for trial, and in any event his family has made representations to act as guarantors”, said Emerlynne Gil, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia, who was also in Hanoi to observe the trial. “The People’s Court of Hanoi must order Le Quoc Quan’s release either on bail or his own recognizance.”
The ICJ notes that the postponement also violates Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial. Under international law, including ICCPR article 14, an accused has the right to be tried without undue delay and within a reasonable period of time. This prevents any unnecessary continuing deprivation of liberty and ensures that the interest of justice is properly served.
“We would expect that the People’s Court of Hanoi will notify promptly the public of the next date of Le Quac Quan’s trial and ensure that his right to a fair and public trial is upheld,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ looks forward to returning to Vietnam to continue monitoring this case and ensuring that the rights of Le Quoc Quan, including his right to liberty and to a fair trial, are fully respected and protected.
CONTACT:
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 6198477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
![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)
