Jul 9, 2020 | News
Today, in advance of the fourth anniversary of the killing of prominent political commentator and human rights defender Kem Ley, the ICJ and 29 other organizations called on Cambodian authorities to create an independent Commission of Inquiry to conduct an effective and impartial investigation that is long overdue into Kem Ley’s death.
The organizations further urged Cambodian authorities to cease intimidation and harassment of persons peacefully commemorating his passing.
On 10 July 2016, Kem Ley was shot and killed at a petrol station in central Phnom Penh. Without conducting a prompt, thorough, and independent investigation, and following a half-day trial which was widely criticized for failure to meet international fair trial standards, in March 2017, Oeuth Ang was found guilty of the murder of Kem Ley and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Since 2016, many international and domestic human rights organizations have consistently called on the Cambodian government to set up an independent Commission of Inquiry to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into this killing, with emphasis on examining the potential criminal responsibility of persons other than the direct perpetrator, in line with international standards set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions as well as the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death reinforce the duty of governments to investigate unlawful deaths and to establish an independent commission of inquiry when states, like Cambodia, lack effective procedures to conduct such an investigation in accordance with international standards.
The Cambodian government, has to date, failed to take any steps towards the establishment of such an independent and impartial investigative body. Given the government’s unwillingness to conduct an independent investigation into Kem Ley’s killing, and civil society’s highly warranted lack of trust and confidence in Cambodia’s justice system which lacks the requisite levels of independence to adjudicate cases involving public officials, this body should be established under the auspices of the United Nations and composed of independent experts.
Following the killing of Kem Ley, the Cambodian authorities have continually monitored, harassed, and ultimately disrupted and prohibited planned anniversary memorials of his death. These actions constitute arbitrary restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The organizations condemned such attempts to stifle free speech and reiterated their call to the Cambodian government to stop such harassment.
The joint statement is available here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: three years and still no effective investigation into Dr. Kem Ley’s killing’, 9 July 2019
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: Commission of Inquiry into killing of Kem Ley should be established without further delay’, 9 July 2018
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: request to create a commission of inquiry into the killing of Kem Ley’, 7 July 2017
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: Kem Ley’s killing demands immediate credible and impartial investigation’, 13 July 2016
Jun 18, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva today, the ICJ urged action on excessive use of force, including unlawful killings, disproportionately targeting people of African descent and other minorities, by police throughout the United States of America, as well as in other countries.
The statement, delivered during an urgent debate on “current racially inspired human rights violations, systemic racism, police brutality and the violence against peaceful protest” that was requested by African countries, read as follows:
“Black lives matter.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns widespread incidents of unlawful and unnecessary use of force, including lethal force, by police throughout the United States of America, disproportionately targeting people of African descent and other minorities.
Many jurisdictions in the United States disregard, in law and in practice, universal standards including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. These incorporate the requirements of proportionality and necessity and affirm that lethal force may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life. The ICJ is also concerned that doctrines of “qualified immunity” in practice result in impunity for extrajudicial killings and other serious human rights violations by police. The UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, among others, have already called on the US to address these deficiencies in meeting their international legal obligations.
The United States is not alone in such abusive and racially discriminatory practices, which plague countries on every continent. While the Council is rightly giving long overdue attention to the United States, this must not serve as an excuse for any other State to fail to acknowledge and address similar violations within their own jurisdictions.
The ICJ supports calls for an independent international mechanism to address systematic racism in law enforcement in the United States and elsewhere.”
Mar 20, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ submitted recommendations on strengthening Thailand’s Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) law to the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice is tasked to conduct a “study on the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP,” in accordance with Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022) (NAP).
Articles 161/1 and 165/2, which are intended to implement the NAP, entered into force on 20 February 2019 and 21 March 2019. They were introduced to end SLAPP lawsuits or similar forms of harassment through the legal process against any individuals, including human rights defenders. NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.
The use of SLAPPs and similar procedures frequently undermine human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly and the right to political participation. These are protected under Thailand’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.
In the letter, the ICJ expressed its concern that these laws were inadequate to prevent harassment through the legal process and SLAPP. The ICJ therefore called for the adoption of a comprehensive stand-alone law, or the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to protect human rights defenders and others from harassment through the legal process.
Background
In an effort to give effect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), on 29 October 2019, Thailand’s Cabinet approved and adopted the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, making Thailand the first country in Asia to adopt the stand-alone NAP.
The NAP sets out plans to be followed by public and private stakeholders to ensure that businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations – respect human rights, and that the government fulfils its duty to ensure remedy and reparation in cases of business-related human rights violations.
The Thai government has identified in the NAP its four key priority issues: (1) labour; (2) land, environment and natural resources; (3) human rights defenders; and (4) cross border investment and multi-national enterprises.
NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting human rights defenders, including:
- to study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent SLAPP;
- to push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of human rights defenders, for example with respect to witness protection laws;
- to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, and ensure their safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures;
- to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights, and preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders;
- to provide trainings and enhance capacity of lawyers;
- to urge businesses to ensure that human rights defenders will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected;
- to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system; and
- to increase access to justice of human rights defenders.
However, NAP’s effectiveness is yet to be assessed because it does not have the status of a law, and is merely a resolution by the executive branch of the Thai government. The NAP was adopted in the form of a Cabinet Resolution, which is considered a “by-law” in accordance with section 3 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).
Download the letter to the Ministry of Justice in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ and HRLA express concern about inadequate protections for human rights defenders in draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Thailand’s First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019 – 2022)
Mar 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other NGOs today highlighted the discriminatory character of India’s Citizenship Amendment Act, and called for accountability for violence and excessive use of force in relation to protests against it, today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The joint statement, delivered in a general debate, read as follows:
“India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) arbitrarily excludes certain groups at risk of persecution, such as Muslims, from accessing an expedited path to citizenship, based on their religious affiliation.
The CAA is inconsistent with rule of law principles and international law, including the right to equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination, protected under human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which India is a party.
The implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam risks making 1.9 million persons stateless. A nationwide NRC will put more people at risk.
Our organizations urge the Indian government to amend the CAA to ensure that any path to citizenship provides for equal protection for persecuted persons, and does not discriminate on grounds such as religion or national origin.
We also urge India to develop a comprehensive refugee law that addresses the plight of persecuted minorities in a non-discriminatory manner, and to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
We further call on India to respect the right to peaceful assembly, and to ensure accountability for those alleged to have instigated violence or used excessive force in relation to the nationwide protests against the CAA.”
The statement was delivered by ICJ on behalf also of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Minority Rights Group International, and World Organization against Torture (OMCT).
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: ICJ statement GD item 4 India (10-03-2020)
Mar 4, 2020 | News
Following the arrest on 28 February of at least three persons, the ICJ has called on the Hong Kong authorities to drop criminal charges of taking part in an “unauthorized assembly” against them and to reform the Public Order Ordinance in compliance with international human rights obligations.
On 28 February, Hong Kong police arrested publisher Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, which publishes the Apple Daily newspaper, and two pro-democracy activists, Lee Cheuk-yan, the vice-chairman of the Labour Party, and Yeung Sum, a former chairman of the Democracy Party, for taking part in a march banned by police on 31 August 2019. The Police prohibited the march on the stated grounds that the Civil Human Rights Front could not guarantee the march would be peaceful and orderly, shifting responsibility of maintaining order to the organizer.
“We are extremely concerned about the way in which the unauthorized assembly provisions of the Public Order Ordinance has been used to silence lawful expressions of political opinion since the Umbrella Movement of 2014,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director. “These most recent arrests, made for allegedly participating in a largely peaceful protest more than six months ago, are part of a troubling pattern of bringing legal action to harass activists involved in peaceful acts of protest.”
The arrests were made pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) Section 17A(3)(a). Under the ‘unauthorized assembly’ provisions of the law, every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly is guilty of an offence and can be sentenced up to five years imprisonment.
The authorities have wide discretion to prohibit public meetings, and prosecute those who are alleged take part in them. These overbroad provisions have been used to restrict the proper exercise of free assembly and association rights – including onerous requirements to obtain a “notice of no objection” from the government for even small gathering under a threat of a maximum five years imprisonment for violations.
“The ICJ calls upon the Hong Kong SAR government to take measures to protect the right to peaceful assembly and create an environment in which people can safely express diverse ideas and dissenting voices – consistent with international legal obligations,” said Rawski. “This includes ensuring that the law is not used to harass pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders.”
The ICJ underscores that any restrictions to the right of peaceful assembly must be narrowly drawn to be permissible under international law. Restrictions are not permissible unless they have been provided by law, and are necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose enumerated in article 21 of the ICCPR, such as public order. However, imposing criminal charge on people exercising their right of peaceful assembly who fail to comply with a procedural requirement, such as notification, unduly restricts freedom of peaceful assembly by adding unnecessary barriers to public gatherings. Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines of the Ordinance, which include the possibility of a peaceful participant of a public assembly being sentenced to five years in prison if the organizers fail to comply with the notification requirement, are extreme, disproportionate and open to abuse.
Hong Kong SAR, though not the rest of the PRC, is legally bound by the ICCPR. Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 27 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong both recognize and protect the right of peaceful assembly. The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body responsible for the ICCPR and other UN independent authorities, have repeatedly urged the authorities to ensure that the Public Order Ordinance is implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
To download the full statement with additional information, click here.
See also: Hong Kong: ensure police do not use excessive force against protesters
https://www.icj.org/hong-kong-ensure-police-do-not-use-excessive-force-against-protesters/
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
