Jun 9, 2016 | News
The Thai military must immediately withdraw its abusive criminal complaints against three leading human rights defenders for raising allegations of torture in Thailand’s restive deep South, said the ICJ today.
“It is simply astonishing that the Thai government is lodging these complaints at a time when Thailand has just promised to adopt important anti-torture legislation and has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to protect human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Regional Director.
“The military must immediately withdraw its complaints and instead ensure all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated in line with Thailand’s international legal obligations,” he added.
On 10 February 2016, three Thai organizations, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Duay Jai Group (Hearty Support Group), and the Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP), issued a report that documented 54 cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Thai authorities in the deep South since 2004.
On 17 May 2016, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4, responsible for national security operations in the Southern Border Provinces, responded to the report by filing complaints of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007) against the report’s three co-editors, Somchai Homlaor and Pornpen Khongkachonkiet of CrCF, and Anchana Heemmina of Hearty Support Group.
Criminal defamation carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (USD $5,600). Violation of article 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act, carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of up to 100,000 Baht (USD $2,800), or both.
It is the second time since 2014 that the Thai military has filed criminal defamation complaints against Pornpen Khongkachonkiet and Somchai Homlaor for raising allegations of torture in the deep South.
“The Thai military should also take heed of the recent decision of the Phuket Provincial Court in the Phuketwan case, which found that the Computer Crime Act was not intended to cover allegations of defamation,” said Zarifi.
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 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.
As affirmed in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others:… freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Background
On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 127 other states at the UN General Assembly in adopting a UN Resolution on human rights defenders. The Resolution calls upon states to refrain from intimidation or reprisals against human rights defenders.
Last month, Thailand informed the Human Rights Council during its Universal Periodic Review that the Cabinet was considering a draft Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance. It was reported that the Cabinet approved the draft law on 24 May 2016.
At the conclusion of the review, Thailand also adopted several recommendations to protect human rights defenders and investigate reported cases of intimidation, harassment and attacks against them.
The right to an effective remedy against torture and other ill-treatment and to have complaints promptly, fully and impartially investigated is guaranteed under international treaties to which Thailand is party, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the ICCPR.
Thailand has an obligation under both treaties to conduct such investigations where there are allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to bring to justice those responsible in fair criminal proceedings.
Thailand was criticized in May 2014 for its failure to address violations when the United Nations Committee Against Torture expressed its concern “at the numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders and their relatives, including verbal and physical attacks, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, as well as by the lack of information provided on any investigations into such allegations.”
The Committee recommended that Thailand “should take all the necessary measures to: (a) put an immediate halt to harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and community leaders; and (b) systematically investigate all reported instances of intimidation, harassment and attacks with a view to prosecuting and punishing perpetrators, and guarantee effective remedies to victims and their families.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, Asia Regional Director, t: +66 80 781 9002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Retaliation HRDs-News-web stories-2016-ENG (full story in Thai, PDF)
Jun 2, 2016 | News
The ICJ is alarmed by the intimidation and harassment experienced by bloggers in Singapore recently, perpetrated by police authorities.
In the last few days, the homes of four bloggers were raided and their phones and laptops confiscated, without the legal process or justification required by international standards.
The ICJ strongly urges the Government of Singapore to stop this harassment and ensure that bloggers are protected against such unjustified interference with or reprisals for the exercise of their right to freedom of expression.
“By resorting to this kind of harassment and intimidation of bloggers, Singapore is showing complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The Government of Singapore must stop intimidating citizens who express their political opinions openly. The actions taken by the Singaporean police against the four bloggers do not only constitute an attack on freedom of opinion and expression in the country, but also clearly violates their right to privacy,” he added.
On 27 May 2016, the Election Department of Singapore filed police reports alleging that bloggers Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung, and The Independent Singapore, an independent news website, violated the rules against election advertising ahead of polling day.
Under Singapore’s election rules, campaigning is prohibited 24-hours prior to polling day, which is called the “Cooling-Off Day”.
Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung were alleged to have written posts on their social media accounts expressing support for the opposition candidate, Mr. Chee Soon Juan.
The Independent Singapore, on the other hand, was alleged to have published articles that amount to election advertising.
The ICJ considers that provisions or interpretations of Singapore’s election laws that would impose a sweeping ban on all political expression in relation to particular candidates in a 24-hour period prior to polling day, including the expression of opinions by private individuals without remuneration, cannot constitute a demonstrably justified and proportionate restriction on freedom of opinion and expression under international standards.
Early this year, the delegation representing the Government of Singapore said as it went through the 2nd cycle of the Universal Periodic Review that “no one in Singapore is prosecuted for criticizing the government or its policies.”
The delegation emphasized that Singapore’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression.
The Government of Singapore also accepted recommendations made by other States at the Universal Periodic Review to “ensure the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression”.
It also accepted the recommendation to protect bloggers from persecution and harassment for the exercise of their human rights.
The ICJ urges the Government of Singapore to remain true to the commitments it made during the recent Universal Periodic Review and respect the right to freedom of expression of bloggers.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +668 4092 3575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Additional information
On 6 May 2016, The Independent Singapore published two articles: 5 Highlights of DPM Speech and Workers’ Party and the Bukit Batok by-election – what WP members said.
The first article reported about the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore at the rally of the ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), wherein he expressed support for the PAP candidate.
The second article reported statements made by the Workers’ Party (WP) members on key issues relating to the elections.
On 7 May 2016, it published the article Tan Cheng Bock Denies involvement in posting by irrational group of PAP fans, where it reported on how the former Member of Parliament, Dr. Tan, disavowed statements he allegedly made and that were posted on the Facebook group which favor the ruling party.
On 31 May 2016, Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung were interrogated for three hours by police. The two were interrogated separately. Teo Soh Lung was accompanied by her lawyer, while Roy Ngerng was not.
After the interrogation, the police accompanied the bloggers back to their respective homes. The police searched their homes without warrants or their consent, and confiscated their mobile phones, laptops, and hard disks. After the search, Roy Ngerng was taken back to the police station and interrogated for another few hours.
At the police station, law enforcement authorities intimidated Roy Ngerng into logging in and out of his social media accounts and his blog, The Heart Truths, in their full view and presence.
The publisher and editor of The Independent Singapore were likewise interrogated separately by the police, on 31 May 2016 and 1 June 2016. Their mobile phones and laptops were also confiscated by the police after their interrogation.
May 30, 2016 | News
The ongoing criminal trial in the Loei Provincial Court, where a verdict is awaited tomorrow, is an important test of Thailand’s commitment to hold those responsible for criminal offences against human rights defenders to account, the ICJ and Protection International said today.
On 31 May, the Loei Provincial Court will render its verdict following the trial of retired Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak, and his son, Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Col Poramin Pomnak, on criminal charges related to their alleged participation in a violent attack by a group of over 100 armed men against members of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group (KRBKG) in Nanonbong village in Loei and other villagers.
The victims were assaulted and held captive for over seven hours during the attack in the evening of 15 May 2014.
More than 20 people were injured, with seven requiring hospitalization for serious injuries.
KRBKG is a community-based group protesting what they allege is the damaging impact of mining operations on their health and their environment.
Most of KRBKG’s activities have focused on stopping the operations of the Phuthapfa gold mine operated by Thai company, Tungkum Ltd., situated in Loei Province.
“This case has become emblematic of the human rights abuses faced by human rights defenders trying to protect their communities in Thailand,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Many people are looking at this case to see whether the Thai government will follow through on its commitment to protect human rights defenders.”
The attack on Nanonbong village occurred after KRBKG and local residents barricaded the road to the gold mine, which passes through the village.
During the attack, the barricade was destroyed and at least 13 trucks were reportedly seen transporting materials from the mine site.
Partly based on the villagers’ testimony that Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were involved in the 15 May violence, the two were indicted on several charges, including offences of ‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’ and ‘false imprisonment’ (or illegal deprivation of liberty), under articles 295 and 309 of the Thai Criminal Code.
“Given credible reports that a group of over 100 armed men were involved, the ICJ is concerned that only two people have been indicted for the attack, and we are therefore calling on the Thai authorities to re-open investigations and ensure all those responsible are held to account and redress is provided for the victims concerned,” Zarifi added.
The case against Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak comes against a background of disputes between KRBKG and Tungkum Ltd.
The company filed at least 19 criminal and civil lawsuits against 33 members of KRBKG and other villagers in the past seven years.
One of those cases includes claims of criminal defamation against a 15-year old girl who allegedly made negative statements about the company’s activities on a television program.
Members of KRBKG have joined as plaintiffs in the criminal case and are demanding compensation from the two defendants.
Background
Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were formally indicted on the following charges of the Thai Penal Code: articles 295 (‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’) and 296 (sentencing for bodily harm), 309 (‘false imprisonment’ or ‘illegal confinement’) and 310 (sentencing for false imprisonment), 358 (‘offence of mischief’ or ‘damage to property’) 371 (‘offence of bearing arms’), 376 (‘offence of discharging a firearm’), 391 (sentencing for acts of violence not amounting to bodily harm) taken together with articles 32, 33, (‘forfeiture of property used in the commission of an offence’) 83, 84, (principals and accomplices, accessories or conspirators) 91, (articles 90 and 91 set out provisions for sentencing when an act constitutes multiple offences. Sentences can be awarded for each offence consecutively, but with a maximum time as prescribed by article 91); and articles 4, 7, 8bis, 72, 72bis of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act B.E.2490 (1947); article 3 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act (No.3) B.E.2501 (1958); No. 3, 6, 7 of the Order of the Announcement of the National Administrative Reform Council no.44 dated 21 October 1976.
Thailand has a legal obligation to protect all human rights defenders from retaliation for the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights. On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 126 other States at the UN General Assembly in adopting one of the latest UN resolutions on human rights defenders. General Assembly resolution 70/161 recognizes the importance of States’ protection of human rights defenders, in particular from being prosecuted for peaceful activities and against other threats, harassment and intimidation; and encourages States to investigate allegations of intimidation and reprisals, and to bring perpetrators to justice.
Thailand-Loei case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
May 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported resignations of federal judges in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation following apparent pressure by the acting Head of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who had suggested that resignation would be the “most correct decision of their lives”.
The ICJ considers these statements, which appear to have led directly to the resignations of federal judges, to be inappropriate interference with the functioning and independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ calls on the Russian Federation judicial authorities to take all measures within their power to ensure that all judges’ security of tenure is preserved and that any allegations of misconduct are addressed through appropriate disciplinary proceedings that respect the right to a fair hearing.
The ICJ further calls on the executive authorities to refrain from any comments which may undermine the independence of the judiciary.
On 5 May, Ramzan Kadyrov, currently acting Head of the Chechen Republic, recommended that several named judges should step down.
In his post on social media, Kadyrov identified as problems unfair decisions of courts, procrastination in criminal cases, decisions regarding housing and inconsistent decisions.
He mentioned that although examples of such decisions were sporadic, they did not help build trust in the judiciary.
He then recommended that the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, Magomed Karatayev (photo) and three other judges, Takhir Murdalov, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, should resign “if they had a notion of honour and professional ethics”.
It was reported that two judges of the Urus-Martan City Court and Grozny District Court, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, submitted their resignations on the same day.
The President of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, Magomed Karatayev, and his deputy Takhir Murdalov, are reported to have already filed a request for resignation.
The resignations, apparently in direct response to criticism by the executive, undermine the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation.
Under international law, including the right to a fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.
The UN Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary enshrines “the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary” and provides the judiciary shall not be subject to “any restrictions, improper influences…pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason.”
While judges have an obligation to adhere to judicial ethics and should be held accountable for professional misconduct, the representatives of the executive must refrain from statements which jeopardize the independence of the judiciary.
The Council of Europe’s Recommendation on judges specifies that “the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary.”
Public pressure from the executive on judges to resign can nullify the security of tenure of judges protected under national and international law and standards.
According to Principle 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.”
Under international standards, allegations of misconduct against judges should be dealt with by the self-governing institutions of the judiciary, through fair disciplinary procedures.
Under the Basic Principles, the only basis for removal of judges is “incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The comments by Ramzan Kadyrov also run contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, which spells out in detail the procedure for disciplinary measures against judges in case of alleged professional misconduct.
RUSSIA-Chechen judges statement-News-web story-2016-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release human rights lawyer Malek Adly and to drop all charges against him. He was arrested on Thursday 5 May 2016, pursuant to an arrest warrant.
Malek Adly has been charged with a number of offences, including “attempting to overthrow the regime,” “spreading false rumors,” and “using force against a public servant.”
The Prosecuting authorities have not provided information on specific behaviour that would constitute criminal conduct.
The ICJ is concerned that the charges may be in retaliation for Malek Adly’s work as a lawyer and human rights defender, and are aimed to chill him and others from engaging in work perceived as threatening to or disfavoured by Egyptian authorities.
They came at the backdrop of his work as a human rights lawyer, his critical views on the rule of law situation in Egypt, and his legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and assembly in opposing transferring the sovereignty of Tiran and Sanafir islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the ICJ says.
“Malek Adly’s arrest, detention and prosecution for carrying out his work as a lawyer and human rights defender and for peacefully expressing his views is yet another attempt by the Egyptian regime to muzzle lawyers, the last line of defence for victims of human rights violations in Egypt,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The regime’s crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms has been worryingly extended to the very lawyers whose role is to challenge and protect against such crackdown,” he added.
Over the last three years, the ICJ has documented numerous cases of lawyers who have been subjected to human rights violations and reprisals in relation to the representation of their clients.
These include the cases lawyers Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi who were allegedly subjected to torture and subsequently died while in police custody.
International standards aiming to safeguard the role of lawyers provide that States have a duty to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their functions “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that lawyers must not be subject to prosecution or other sanction for carrying out their professional responsibilities, the Geneva-based organization reminds.
International standards on human rights defenders require States protect human rights defenders from attacks, threats, retaliation and arbitrary action.
The Egypt 2014 Constitution guarantees the “independence of the lawyer’s profession and the protection of its interests as a guarantee to protecting the right to defence”. In addition, it prohibits the arrest of a lawyer while he or she is exercising the right to defence, except in flagrante delicto crimes.
“The Egyptian authorities must live up to their obligations under the Constitution and international law and put an immediate end to their attacks against lawyers,” concluded Benarbia.
Contact
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-HR Lawyer MalekAdly-News-Press Releases-2016-ARA (full text in Arabic, PDF)
