Jan 16, 2018 | News
Tunisian authorities must respect and protect the right to freedom of assembly and of expression of everyone in Tunisia, the ICJ said today.
They also must regulate the use of force against protestors according to international law standards, and ensure that those who are arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, including as a result of the legitimate and peaceful exercise of these rights, are immediately released, the ICJ added.
Over the past week, protesters took to the streets challenging the government’s recentausterity measures, including a rise in prices and tax increases.
Sporadic cases of violence, looting and vandalism occurred, including incidents that targeted police stations.
Over 800 people were subsequently arrested. Further, one protestor died on Monday 8 January 2018 in Tebourba, 30km west of Tunis.
“The acts of sporadic violence committed by a few people do not justify the scale or character of interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly of others,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The Tunisian authorities must immediately release those arrested for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of assembly, and provide due process guarantees to those allegedly responsible for punishable acts,” he added.
In policing public assemblies, Tunisian authorities should comply with their obligations under international human rights law, including not only the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, but also those relating to the rights to life, to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person (and to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention).
To that end, security forces should use force in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and precaution, and in a manner that respects and ensures people’s lives and safety.
The ICJ expresses its concern that violations of human rights of this kind would take place now despite the many reform efforts during the seven years since the revolution.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +41 798783546, e-mail: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
PR Recent Events in Tunisia ARA (Arabic version in PDF)
Nov 21, 2016 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ and five other human rights groups are calling on the Malaysian authorities to drop all charges against the Bersih organizers and activists, return all items confiscated from their offices and stop making further arbitrary arrests in connection with these events.
Download the statement here:
malaysia-bersih-5-statement-advocacy-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Nov 8, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must act to stop and redress the ongoing harassment, and death threats against the organizers of the Bersih 5.0 protest rally, scheduled for 19 November 2016, said the ICJ today.
The ICJ is calling on the authorities to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation into unlawful acts of intimidation against the organizers with a view to identifying and bringing to account those responsible.
The Bersih (or Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil) is a coalition formed in 2006 by Malaysian non-governmental organizations to call for free, clean and fair elections.
“The Malaysian government has the obligation to respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “These rights are not only guaranteed under the Malaysian Constitution, but also under international human rights law.”
The ICJ recently received reports that Bersih leaders Maria Chin Abdullah, Mandeep Singh, and former Chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan received death threats from unknown individuals.
Family members of Maria Chin Abdullah also received similar threats.
On 29 October 2016, police arrested Maria Chin Abdullah for distributing flyers promoting the forthcoming public assembly.
She was investigated on suspicion of having violated Section 11 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which requires every publication printed or published within Malaysia to bear the name and address of the printer and publisher. Maria Chin Abdullah was subsequently released.
On 1 October 2016, men wearing the customary red shirts of ‘anti-Bersih’ groups and riding motorbikes tailed the convoy in Perak, kicked the cars and punched the vehicles’ side mirrors, while on 8 October 2016, unknown persons smashed the windows and slashed the tires of cars participating in a Bersih convoy in Sabah state.
Last week, police authorities launched investigations under Section 124C of the Penal Code against Bersih and other Malaysian NGOs that are alleged to have received foreign funding. Section 124C penalizes persons who are found to “attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.”
“Section 124C is impermissibly vague and ambiguous, and allows authorities to engage in arbitrary prosecution, conviction, and punishment of people who are exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly,” Zarifi said. “These claims against Bersih seem to be the latest effort by the Malaysian government, which is facing allegations of massive corruption, to repress political opposition.”
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
Over the years, Bersih has been organizing peaceful assemblies attended by thousands of Malaysians in Kuala Lumpur and other parts of the country.
Last year, monitors from the ICJ observed Bersih 4.0 and reported that it had been a peaceful assembly, in exercise of the right to freedom of assembly and that the organizers took careful measures to keep it orderly and free from violence. The ICJ will again be sending observers to this year’s Bersih rally in Kuala Lumpur.
Under Article 10(1)(b) of the Malaysian Constitution, “all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.” Furthermore, the right to peaceful assembly is also guaranteed under several international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In his 2012 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association emphasized that States “have a positive obligation to actively protect peaceful assemblies”. This State obligation includes “protection of participants of peaceful assemblies from individuals or groups of individuals, including agents provocateurs and counter-demonstrators who aim at disrupting or dispersing such assemblies.”
With regard to the use of Section 124C of the Penal Code to commence investigations against Bersih and other non-governmental organizations, the ICJ has emphasized that the ambiguity and vagueness of this provision makes it inconsistent with the principle of legality, a basic tenet of law. The principle of legality in the criminal law context requires that any offense must be established in law and defined precisely and unambiguously so as to enable individuals to know what acts will make them criminally liable.
Nov 4, 2015 | News
The government of Maldives must immediately revoke its suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency declared today and restore the rule of law to the country, said the ICJ.
The Maldivian government suspended a range of constitutional protections under a 30-day state of emergency declared on 4 November, citing a threat to national security based on the allegation that “some groups are planning to use … dangerous weapons and explosives,” according to a translated version of the emergency decree obtained by the ICJ.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency,” he added.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
“Maldivian authorities have not come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Narayan said.
According to the emergency decree, the constitutionally protected rights that have been suspended during the state of emergency are, among others:
- Article 19: “A citizen is free to engage in any conduct or activity that is not expressly prohibited by Islamic Shari’ah or by law. No control or restraint may be exercised against any person unless it is expressly authorised by law.”
- Article 24: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his private communications. Every person must respect these rights with respect to others.”
- Article 31: “Every person employed in the Maldives and all other workers have the freedom to stop work and to strike in order to protest.”
- Article 32: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly without prior permission of the state.”
- Article 41(a): “Every citizen has the freedom to enter, remain in and leave the Maldives, and to travel within the Maldives.”
- Article 45: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained, arrested or imprisoned except as provided by law enacted by the People’s Majlis in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.”
- Article 47(a) and (b): “(a) No person shall be subject to search or seizure unless there is reasonable cause. (b) Residential property shall be inviolable and shall not be entered without the consent of the resident, except to prevent immediate and serious harm to life or property, or under the express authorisation of an order of the Court.”
“The basic prohibition against arbitrary detention and imprisonment can never be derogated from,” Narayan said.
The declaration of the state of emergency also seems to target the country’s vice president, whom the president appears to regard as a political threat. The vice president is facing impeachment proceedings for his alleged role in the boat explosion which the government claims was caused by a bomb as part of a deliberate assassination attempt.
The emergency decree reduces the period provided under Article 100 of the Maldives Constitution for the vice president to respond to the impeachment charges from 14 days to 7 days.
“There seems to be a clear political motive in arbitrarily reducing the vice president’s procedural rights in the impeachment process,” added Narayan.
Additional information
The alleged threat cited by the Maldivian government refers to the announcement that Maldivian security forces had discovered weapons and explosives in two areas, and that some additional weapons were missing.
These allegations followed the purported discovery of an explosive device near the president’s palace on Monday that, following closely on last month’s explosion on a boat carrying the president and his wife, the government claims is part of an alleged assassination attempt on the president.
The government rejected the findings of an FBI investigation into the earlier boat explosion which ruled out the possibility that it was caused by a bomb.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Aug 17, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the promulgation of the Counter-Terrorism Law by the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as a new, repressive move that would erode the rule of law and brush aside fundamental legal and human rights guarantees.
Calls to revise the draft Counter-Terrorism Law by the ICJ and other international and national human rights organizations and stakeholders, including Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Human Rights Council, were disregarded.
“The promulgation of the Counter-Terrorism Law by President el-Sisi expands the list of repressive laws and decrees that aim to stifle dissent and the exercise of fundamental freedoms,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Egypt’s authorities must ensure the law is not used as a tool of repression and, to this end, comprehensively revise it so that it fully complies with international human rights law and standards,” he added.
In a position paper published on 9 July, the ICJ detailed how the law is inconsistent with, and in numerous ways violates, Egypt’s obligations under international law, including those relating to the right to life, the right to liberty and not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, the right to privacy, and fair trial rights.
Further, the law gives state officials broad immunity from criminal responsibility for the use of force in the course of their duties, including the use of lethal force when it is not strictly necessary to protect lives, grants sweeping surveillance and detention powers to prosecutors, entrenches terrorism circuits within the court system (which have in the past frequently involved fair trial violations), and grants the President far-reaching, discretionary powers to “take the necessary measures” to maintain public security, where there is a “danger of terrorist crimes.”
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834; e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Counter-Terrorism Law Promulgated-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in pdf, ARABIC)
