May 8, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the decision on 5 May 2020 by the Philippines’ National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to issue an order to ABS CBN Corporation, one of the leading media outlets in the country, to cease its on-air operations.
The ICJ asserted that the action against ABS CBN violates the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the rights of the media to operate without censorship or restraint and the public’s right to access information. This right is guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Poliitical Rights (ICCPR). The Philippines is a State Party to the ICCPR.
“A free and unhindered media is essential in any society to ensure freedom of opinion and expression and other human rights. It is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
The NTC’s basis for issuing the order is that ABS CBN’s legislative franchise has expired on 4 May 2020 and action has yet to be taken on its renewal by the House of Representatives. The ICJ fears that the reasons for this delay may be politically motivated.
Given the stakes for freedom of expression, the ICJ urges NTC to follow its own precedents whereby it has allowed broadcast and telecommunications companies to operate beyond their franchise expiry dates, pending the renewal.
“Limitations imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression have to pass the general tests, including that of necessity and proportionality, which do not appear to have been met here,” Gil added.
The action taken against ABS CBN is part of a pattern of harassment of independent media by governmental authorities in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte has, in the past, expressed resentment towards ABS CBN for allegedly refusing to air his political ads when he ran for office in 2016. The network is also known to have aired views critical of his administration’s murderous ‘war on drugs’.
In December 2019, President Duterte said that he would make sure that ABS CBN’s franchise would not be renewed. This is not the first time that he has sought to silence a media outlet critical of his administration.
There are at least 11 bills seeking the renewal of the franchise currently pending at the House of Representatives, with the earliest filed in July 2019.
“It is taking the House of Representatives an inordinately long period of time to approve the renewal of ABS CBN’s franchise,” said Gil. “It appears that the allies of this administration in the House are holding the franchise renewal like a sword over ABS CBN’s head to chill it from airing critical views about the government.”
The UN Human Rights Committee, the ICCPR’s supervisory body, has said that States must avoid imposing onerous licensing conditions on broadcast media, and that the criteria for the application of these conditions should be reasonable, objective, clear, transparent, and non-discriminatory.
This action against ABS CBN comes in the middle of the state of public health emergency in the Philippines when access to information is vital in the country’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. The ICJ had earlier raised its concerns on abuses occurring during the lockdown in the Philippines.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to uphold and respect freedom of opinion and expression, and ensure that a free press can operate without censorship or restraint.
The ICJ also reminds the government that the public’s access to information is vital to ensure public health and safety during the COVID-19 crisis.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) or e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Apr 24, 2020 | News
On 24 April 2020, the ICJ, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) made a joint supplementary submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Thailand’s implementation of its human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In their submission, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF detailed their concerns in relation to Thailand’s failure to implement the Committee’s recommendations, including the ongoing human rights shortcomings of the country’s Constitutional and legal framework; the continued lack of domestic legislation criminalizing torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance; and reports of torture and other ill-treatment. In addition, the three human rights organizations expressed concern over the use of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, and measures imposed under the Decree that may constitute a blanket restriction on fundamental freedoms, including the rights to free expression, opinion, information, privacy and freedom of assembly and association, with no opportunity for the courts to review these extraordinary measures.
The organizations’ submission also describes human rights concerns with respect to the following:
Constitution and legal framework
- Head of the NCPO Order No. 22/2561; and
- Head of the NCPO Order No. 9/2562
Extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture
- continued lack of domestic legislation criminalizing torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance;
- reports of extrajudicial killings, torture, other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, and the progress and results of investigations;
- the application of security-related laws; and
- threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, ill–treatment and enforced disappearance.
Download
Thailand-UN-Human-Rights-Committee-Supplementary Submission-2020-ENG (English, PDF)
Thailand-UN-Human-Rights-Committee-Supplementary Submission-2020-THA (Thai, PDF)
Background
On 23 March 2017, during its 119th Session, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Concluding Observations on the second periodic report of Thailand under article 40 of the ICCPR.
Pursuant to its rules of procedure, the Committee requested Thailand to provide a follow up report on its implementation of the Committee’s prioritized recommendations made in paragraphs 8 (constitution and legal framework) 22 (extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture) and 34 (conditions of detention), within one year of the adoption of its Concluding Observations – i.e., by 23 March 2018.
On 18 July 2018, Thailand submitted its follow-up report to the Committee. The report was published on 9 August 2018.
On 27 March 2018, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF made a joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee. However, since then, there have been several developments that the three organizations wish to bring to the attention of the Committee through this supplementary submission.
The UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s implementation of the prioritized recommendations during its 129th Session, in June/July 2020.
Further reading
ICJ and TLHR, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017
ICJ, TLHR and CrCF, Joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018
Apr 18, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ joined other legal organizations in condemning the arrest of 15 pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong for organizing and taking part in ‘unauthorized assemblies’ in 2019. The arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and the right to assembly in Hong Kong.
The joint statement reads:
The international legal community is seriously concerned by the arrest of 15 veteran pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong on Saturday 18 April 2020. In what appears to be a further clampdown on civil liberties and democracy following the 2019 protests, which began over the introduction of a controversial extradition bill, those arrested today include senior figures in the pro-democracy movement. These include lawmakers, party leaders and lawyers such as the democratic politician and legislator, Martin Lee QC who was also involved in the drafting of the Basic Law, the media owner, Jimmy Lai, and the barrister, Dr Margaret Ng. In October of last year, Margaret Ng and Martin Lee were jointly awarded the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Award for their lifelong defence of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
The arrests are purported to be based on suspicion of organising and taking part in ‘unauthorised assemblies’ on 18 August, 1 October and 20 October 2019, pursuant to the Hong Kong SAR Public Order Ordinance. No explanation has been reported for the apparent delay between those protests and the timing of today’s arrests. The leaders of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement have long argued for their rights to peaceful assembly and protest to be exercised without the need for consent from the authorities.
The right to peaceful protest is protected under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. As part of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy, the Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees freedoms that are not available to those in mainland China until 2047. Hong Kong residents are guaranteed the rights to ‘freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration’. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised.” The Basic Law expressly preserves the ICCPR as applicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The State has a duty to protect and facilitate such protest, and the Public Order Ordinance must be implemented in conformity with Hong Kong’s obligations under the ICCPR.
Following growing concerns of eroding civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong, the 2019 protests have been unprecedented in their scale and reach and have led to physical violence by authorities, as well as a regrettable violent response by a minority of demonstrators. Excessive crowd dispersal techniques have been used by the authorities, including the dangerous use of tear gas, water cannons, firing of rubber pellets, pepper spray and baton charges by the police to disperse pro-democracy demonstrations, and there is reliable evidence of violence upon arrest. No proper investigation into excessive force has taken place and indeed calls from the international community, including the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, have been rejected.
Today’s arrests demonstrate the continued assault on the freedom of expression and right to assembly in Hong Kong. Indeed, we are gravely concerned that the arrests of senior lawyers and legislators who set out to protect human rights in a non-violent and proportionate manner, and pursuant to both rights granted in both domestic and international legal frameworks, represent an assault on the rule of law itself. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly expressed concern that charges of ‘unlawful assembly’ against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong risks violating human rights. The arrest of a prominent media owner also sends a chilling message to those whose journalism is vital to a free society.
It is critical that authorities do not use their powers to encroach on fundamental human rights, and it is vital that legal systems continue to protect citizens from any abuse of power which may otherwise be unseen during the COVID-9 crisis in which the international community is submerged..
We strongly urge the Hong Kong authorities to immediately release the 15 individuals arrested and drop all charges against them. Moreover, we call on the authorities to discontinue such politicised and targeted prosecutions immediately and urge the Hong Kong government instead to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of the pro-democracy movement to foster a climate in which their legitimate concerns over democracy and human rights can be met.
To download the statement with more information and list of organizations, click here.
Apr 10, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Myanmar government to ensure that everyone in the country, particularly those from communities affected by conflict, has access to critical information about COVID-19. This call includes putting an immediate end to restrictions on internet access in Rakhine and Chin States.
The ICJ said that there must not be undue restrictions on the right of people to seek and impart such information, in line with international law and standards protecting the right to freedom of expression and information.
“Access to information is absolutely essential for the protection of communities, especially their right to health during the COVID-19 outbreak,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Director for Asia and the Pacific. “This is especially true in areas of Myanmar affected by conflict. The wholesale blocking of internet access in Rakhine and Chin States, including access to websites of popular ethnic media outlets, has no justifiable basis in international law and will only serve to undermine efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus.”
On 26 March 2020, the Minister of Transport and Communications stated in a media interview that despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin States would not be lifted until hate speech, misinformation and the conflict with the Arakan Army are addressed. The Minister’s statement appears to defy the UN Secretary-General’s appeal for a global ceasefire as well as the respective statements of members of Myanmar’s diplomatic community and of several ethnic armed organizations, including the Arakan Army, to cease hostilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 9 April 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar called for the same.
Instead, on 30 March 2020, pursuant to section 77 of the Telecommunications Law, the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MoTC) ordered major telecommunications networks to take down hundreds of websites on the dubious ground of containing misinformation. The MoTC did not disclose the full list of websites ordered to be blocked as well as the factual and legal basis that justified issuing the order. Under Section 77, the MoTC can direct a telecommunications provider to suspend services in the event of an “emergency situation.” It is not clear whether the misinformation relates to COVID-19 or if the pandemic is the pretext for the order.
As of 1 April 2020, media outlets of the Rakhine and Karen ethnic communities were among the websites to which access was blocked from major telecommunications providers. Access to Voice of Myanmar’s website, whose editor-in-chief had faced charges under Myanmar’s Counter-Terrorism Law until 9 April 2020 for publishing an interview with the Arakan Army, was also blocked.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern at the Myanmar Government’s use of the Telecommunications Act to justify an internet shutdown in the context of the conflict in Rakhine State. This practice does not comply with human rights law and standards. The Act itself is fundamentally flawed and must be amended. Among other defects, the Act does not define the scope of an “emergency situation.”
“Keeping these overbroad restrictions in place in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic puts the government in violation of international law. It is also counterproductive to the goal of stopping the spread of the virus and minimizing its impact on the country’s most vulnerable populations,” said Rawski.
Download the statement in Burmese here.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, e: Frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Related work:
Event: ICJ hosts workshop on fair trial rights for Myanmar’s ethnic media
Report: Curtailing the Right to Freedom of Expression and Information in Myanmar
Statement: States must respect and protect rights in fighting COVID-19 misinformation
Apr 2, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ joined more than 100 other organizations to urge States to ensure that any use of digital technologies to track and monitor individuals and populations as part of measures to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic is fully human rights compliant.
The organizations warned that efforts to contain the virus must not be used as a cover to impose greatly expanded systems of invasive digital surveillance that are likely to be abused, unless adequate safeguards are put in place to protect freedom of expression, the right to privacy and other rights.
Technology can and should play an important role in the midst of the current crisis to protect the rights to health, life and security.
Deploying non-consensual State digital surveillance powers however can risk violations of the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, information and association. If implemented in an arbitrary or discriminatory way, and without adequate oversight, these measures risk damaging public trust in state authorities and undermining the effectiveness of any public health response. Non-consensual digital surveillance measures may also disproportionately exacerbate discrimination against already marginalized communities.
The organizations called on all governments to ensure that increased digital surveillance measures meet the following conditions:
- Surveillance measures adopted to address the pandemic must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Governments must be transparent about the measures they are taking so that they can be scrutinized and, if appropriate, later modified, retracted, or overturned.
- Expansion of monitoring or surveillance measures must be time-bound, and only continue for as long as necessary to address the current pandemic.
- States must ensure that increased collection, retention, and aggregation of personal data, including health data, is only used for the purposes of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collected, retained, and aggregated to respond to the pandemic must be limited in scope, time-bound in relation to the pandemic and must not be used for commercial or any other purposes.
- Governments must take every effort to protect people’s data, including ensuring sufficient security of any personal data collected and of any devices, applications, networks, or services involved in collection, transmission, processing, and storage. Any claims that data is anonymous must be based on evidence and supported with sufficient information regarding how it has been anonymized.
- Any use of digital surveillance technologies in responding to COVID-19, including big data and artificial intelligence systems, must address the risk that these tools will facilitate discrimination and other rights abuses against racial minorities, people living in poverty, and other marginalized populations, whose needs and lived realities may be obscured or misrepresented in large datasets.
- If governments enter into data sharing agreements with other public or private sector entities, they must be based on law, and the existence of these agreements and information necessary to assess their impact on privacy and human rights must be publicly disclosed – in writing, with sunset clauses, public oversight and other safeguards by default. Businesses involved in efforts by governments to tackle COVID-19 must undertake due diligence to ensure they respect human rights, and ensure any intervention is firewalled from other business and commercial interests.
- Any response must incorporate accountability protections and safeguards against abuse. Increased surveillance efforts related to COVID-19 should not fall under the domain of security or intelligence agencies and must be subject to effective oversight by appropriate independent bodies. Individuals must be given the opportunity to know about and challenge any COVID-19 related measures to collect, aggregate, and retain, and use data.
- COVID-19 related responses that include data collection efforts should include means for free, active, and meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular experts in the public health sector and marginalized population groups.
Link to joint statement here.
See also
ICJ, ‘Southeast Asia: States must respect and protect rights in combating misinformation online relating to COVID-19’, 1 April 2020
