Feb 28, 2017 | News
The ICJ condemns the arrest and detention of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release.
The ICJ believes that the charges brought against Senator De Lima are fabricated and thus considers her prosecution to be politically motivated and amounting to judicial persecution.
Senator De Lima is a staunch critic of President Rodrigo Duterte.
“This is clearly meant to silence for good a vocal critic of President Rodrigo Duterte,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
In August 2016, Senator De Lima led an investigation by the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights into hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings occurring after President Duterte assumed power.
On 19 September 2016, however, she was removed by her colleagues from her position as chairperson of the said committee due to their concerns towards her “continuous efforts to destroy the President”.
Weeks before her removal, on 25 August 2016, President Duterte had accused Senator De Lima of running a drug trafficking ring inside New Bilibid Prison during her stint as Justice Secretary.
Subsequently, on 20 September 2016, led by the President’s allies in the Congress, the House Committee on Justice began a probe into these allegations against De Lima and in turn, on 17 February 2017, the Department of Justice filed three charges against her under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act 9165): Section 5 specifically with “trading” in illegal drugs, Section 26(b), and Section 28. If found guilty, she may face the penalty or a prison sentence ranging between twelve years to life imprisonment.
Senator De Lima was then arrested on 23 February 2017.
“If the government really wants to defeat the illegal drug trade, there should be more prosecutions before domestic courts. We do not see this, however. We only see active persecution of those who are critical of the President’s ‘war on drugs’,” Zarifi added.
The ICJ also noted with profound concern the statements of officials from the Philippine government, including the Secretary of Justice, alluding to the Senator’s guilt which – apart from being inconsistent with the right to the presumption of innocence – constitute additional evidence that the charges against her are a blatant attempt not only to silence her for good but also to discredit her in the eyes of the public.
The right to presumption of innocence is an absolute right. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, public authorities and officials have a duty to restrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, by refraining from making public statements appearing to affirm the guilt of the accused.
The ICJ believes that public authorities and officials, including prosecutors, may inform the public about criminal investigations or charges but should not express a view as to the guilt of any defendant.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to immediately release Senator De Lima and immediately stop any further acts of harassment against her and other public critics of the government.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 2 619 8477 ext. 206 or +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Feb 7, 2017 | News
Cambodian authorities should immediately drop the politically motivated criminal investigation of human rights defenders Am Sam-at and Chan Puthisak, the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
Cambodian officials have accused Sam-at, a respected human rights monitor at the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) for nearly 20 years, and Puthisak, a land rights activist from Boeung Kak Lake and former prisoner of conscience, of instigating violence at a 10 October 2016 demonstration.
Para-police forces, who are regularly used to suppress demonstrations, violently dispersed what had been a peaceful protest in Phnom Penh.
When Puthisak attempted to prevent para-police from confiscating a drum that was being used by a demonstrator, four or five para-police attacked him, repeatedly beating him on the head with their fists, according to a video of the incident.
When Sam-at tried to stop the assault, the para-police attacked him, also beating him on the head. Both men sustained injuries that needed medical attention.
“The investigation of Sam-at and Puthisak by the Cambodian authorities is a typically absurd and undisguised case of judicial harassment,” said Champa Patel, Southeast Asia and Pacific Director at Amnesty International.
“As usual, unnecessary and excessive use of force by the para-police goes unpunished, and those who work to promote and protect human rights find themselves subject to criminal proceedings.”
On 4 November, two members of the para-police filed a complaint with the Phnom Penh Court of First Instance, alleging that they were injured during the dispersal of the demonstration.
The authorities are investigating Sam-at and Puthisak for instigating intentional violence, under Articles 27 and 217 of Cambodia’s Criminal Code, which carry penalties of up to three years in prison.
Both men are due for questioning on 8 February by Phnom Penh Court of First Instance Deputy Prosecutor Ngin Pich.
There has been no indication that complaints filed against para-police by Sam-at and Puthisak after the incident on 10 October 2016 are being investigated.
The 10 October demonstration involved approximately 150 participants peacefully calling for respect for housing and land rights in Freedom Park, an area designated for demonstrations.
The protestors were marching on a street adjacent to the park when the incident took place.
Videos of the incident establish that the demonstration was peaceful and that Sam-at was wearing a blue human rights monitor vest when the para-police attacked him.
The case investigation of the two falls within a wider pattern of judicial intimidation in Cambodia.
There are currently as many as 26 human rights and political activists in prison on charges which have all the hallmarks of being politically motivated.
This includes 14 political activists who were jailed following a demonstration in July 2014, when para-police violently clashed with participants.
No efforts have been reported of the authorities’ efforts to bring to justice the para-police responsible for the unlawful use of force.
“The case against Sam-at and Puthisak is part of an extensive effort by the Cambodian authorities to discredit the legitimate work of human rights organisations and to make clear the threat of prison for everyone working to promote and protect rights in the country,” said, Phil Robertson, Asia Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch.
“This campaign of intimidation against rights advocates has to stop now.”
Para-police, often referred to as “district security guards,” are auxiliary security forces that are regularly used to violently suppress demonstrations in Cambodia.
No single legal document sets out the rules governing their functions and powers. Rather, their legal basis and the rules governing their activities are set out in a confusing combination of government statements and policies, and by instructions from the Ministry of Interior.
They work in tandem with police, under the authority of district governors.
“The Cambodian government should be commending people like Sam-at and Puthisak for their work to promote and protect human rights rather than trying to intimidate them,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Advisor at the ICJ.
“The case should be immediately and formally closed and a genuine investigation initiated into wrongful use of force by the para-police.”
Oct 25, 2016 | Advocacy
The ICJ, Amnesty International, FIDH, Fortify Rights and Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada urge Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to reject currently proposed amendments to the 2007 Computer-Related Crime Act (CCA).
The full text of their statement can be dowloaded here:
thailand-cca-amendments-advocacy-2016-eng (in PDF)
thailand-cca-amendments-advocacy-2016-tha (Thai, in PDF)
Oct 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ expressed disappointment in the adjournment of Asia bibi’s blasphemy appeal and urged the Supreme Court to set a new hearing date as soon as possible.
“Asia bibi has been on death row for six years under a bad law that has been improperly applied,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Supreme Court has previously held that people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan ‘suffer beyond proportion or repair’ – such delays in proceedings are one reason why.”
The hearing was adjourned because Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, one of the three judges to hear the case, recused himself from the bench on the day of the hearing, reportedly because of a “conflict of interest”.
“The date and bench for the hearing had been fixed nearly a week ago – it is difficult to understand why Justice Hameed-ur-Rahman’s decision to recuse himself was announced only at the hearing, with no alternative arrangements having been made,” added Zarifi.
Justice Hameed-ur-Rahman’s recusal is related to Salmaan Taseer’s murder case.
In 2011, Salmaan Taseer, the former Governor of Punjab, was killed by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri.
Qadri claimed he killed Taseer for questioning the merits of the blasphemy proceedings against Asia bibi and calling for reform of the blasphemy laws to prevent their misuse.
Mumtaz Qadri was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing in October 2011.
Qadri challenged the conviction and sentence before the Islamabad High Court, where Justice Hameed-ur-Rahman was one of the two judges who admitted his appeal for hearing.
Extremist Islamist groups have frequently held demonstrations calling for Asia bibi to be hanged.
A day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Asia bibi’s appeal, an Islamist group publicly threatened it would take to the streets if Asia bibi was acquitted.
Asia bibi’s lawyer, Saif-ul-Malook, has also stated he has received threats for pursuing her case.
Under Pakistani and international standards, judges have a right and a duty to decide cases before them according to the law, free from fear of reprisals.
Governments must also ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference from any person.
In a report published last year, the ICJ documented a pattern of threats and violence in blasphemy cases in Pakistan.
Judges who hear blasphemy cases are often harassed and threatened by those who demand that the suspect be convicted.
Some judges have reported receiving letters and phone calls warning them of attacks against themselves and their families if defendants in blasphemy cases are acquitted.
Where hearings are public, courtrooms are often packed with hostile crowds, chanting slogans against the accused. Often, these crowds are linked to violent Islamist groups.
The Government should take notice of this pattern of threats and reprisals and ensure the judges and lawyers in Asia bibi’s case are given adequate security to perform their duties independently and impartially, said the ICJ.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional Information
Asia Noreen (Asia bibi) has been on death row since 2010, when a trial court convicted her of “defaming the Prophet Muhammad” and sentenced her to death. The Lahore High Court upheld her conviction and confirmed her death sentence in 2014.
In a briefing paper published on Wednesday, the ICJ assessed the fair trial violations in Asia bibi’s trial and appellate hearing.
The ICJ found glaring omissions both in the appraisal of evidence as well as the application of laws that brought her conviction into question.
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its disappointment with today’s verdict criminalizing the work of human rights defender, Andy Hall, and calls upon Thailand to decriminalize defamation and amend the Computer Crime Act in line with international standards protecting freedom of expression.
This morning, Thailand’s Southern Bangkok Criminal Court found Andy Hall guilty of defaming a Thai fruit processing company under Article 328 of the Thai Criminal Code and violation of Article 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act, and sentenced him to a fine of THB 200,000 (USD$ 5,700) reduced to THB 150,000 (USD $4,300); and four years imprisonment, reduced to three years and suspended for two years.
Andy Hall has said he will appeal the verdict.
“Human rights defenders such as Andy Hall have the right to exercise freedom of expression in advocating for the protection and realization of human rights – a right that Thailand has a duty to protect,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of criminal defamation and the Computer Crime Act being used against human rights defenders in Thailand, a practice that must end, including through a substantial reform of these laws,” he added.
The ICJ and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada submitted a joint amicus curiae brief in the proceedings, arguing that the imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines on a human rights defender risk having a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of freedom of expression, which Thailand is bound to protect pursuant to its international legal obligations.
The ICJ anticipates the arguments contained in the joint amicus will be considered on appeal.
“It is also disappointing that the Court did not appear to take into account the recent decision of the Phuket Provincial Court in the Phuketwan case, which found that the Computer Crime Act was not intended to be used in cases of alleged defamation,” said Abbott.
On 1 September 2015, the Phuket Provincial Court acquitted two journalists of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crime Act after the Royal Thai Navy complained the journalists defamed it when, on 17 July 2013, the journalists reproduced a paragraph from a Pulitzer prize-winning Reuters article that alleged “Thai naval forces” were complicit in human trafficking.
The criminal defamation proceedings brought against Andy Hall are among several that have been brought against human rights defenders in Thailand in recent years.
Others examples include the charges laid against activists Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Somchai Homloar and Anchana Heemina in July 2016 for raising allegations of torture in the deep South; and those brought against activists protesting various development projects in Thailand which are allegedly having an adverse impact on communities.
Background
Today’s case is one of four criminal and civil proceedings (two criminal and two civil) a Thai fruit processing company, Natural Fruit Company Ltd., has brought against Andy Hall in relation to the report of a Finnish NGO, Finnwatch, published in January 2013, called Cheap Has a High Price.
Andy Hall’s research was included in the report which alleged that labour rights violations were taking place at Natural Fruit Company Ltd., whose employees included migrant workers from Myanmar.
In September 2015, a Thai Appeal Court upheld the dismissal of the other criminal defamation proceeding Natural Fruit Company Ltd. brought against Andy Hall. That proceeding is currently before the Supreme Court. Two civil proceedings are also before the Thai courts but have been suspended pending resolution of the two criminal proceedings.
The use of criminal defamation laws, carrying penalties of imprisonment, against human rights defenders reporting on alleged human violations, constitutes a violation of Thailand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a state party.
thailand-verdict-andy-hall-case-news-press-release-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
thailand-verdict-andy-hall-case-news-press-release-2016-tha (full text in Thai, PDF)
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 9 4470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
