Mar 7, 2014 | News, Publications, Reports
A new ICJ report criticizes the Thai Government’s failure to take the steps necessary to establish the fate and whereabouts of missing lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, saying it illustrates the challenges of achieving justice in cases of serious human violations in Thailand.
In the report, Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, the ICJ documents the tortuous legal history of the case.
It highlights several key problems, such as poor use of forensic evidence, failure to follow and develop leads, unduly restrictive interpretation of national and international law, and above all, a lack of political will to resolve a case that remains emblematic of the culture of impunity in Thailand.
“Over the past 10 years, this case has taken many unexpected turns, including the disappearance of a prime suspect, admissions of Somchai’s death from officials while the courts have rejected such a finding, and most recently, a statement from the Department of Special Investigations that it had lost, and then found, the case files,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The Royal Thai Government has not exhausted all potential areas of inquiry and it must continue this investigation. There is no statute of limitations on an enforced disappearance and Somchai’s case is not forgotten in Thailand or around the world.”
Somchai, a lawyer and human rights defender, was stopped at a Bangkok roadside on March 12, 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since.
At the time, Somchai was defending clients from Thailand’s restive southern provinces who were accused of attacking a military base as part of the ongoing insurgency in the region. Somchai had alleged police tortured the Muslim suspects.
Ten years later, Somchai’s wife, Angkhana Neelapaijit, and her family are no closer to knowing the truth about what happened to him.
“Somchai’s enforced disappearance, and the failure of the Royal Thai government to provide accountability or even basic information about his fate are emblematic of the challenges of achieving justice in cases of serious human rights violations in Thailand,” said Zarifi. “Enforced disappearance is not only a serious human rights violation but also a crime under international law.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012. Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the convention, which places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
The ICJ has followed Somchai’s case closely and worked with Angkhana Neelapaijit since 2004.
“The Royal Thai government’s failure to shed any more light on the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, despite providing compensation for his family and finding him to be ‘disappeared’, contradicts multiple past declarations of its commitment to seeking justice, or at least truth, including by several former Prime Ministers, Attorneys General, and officials,” the report says.
“It also contradicts official commitments before the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2008.”
The ICJ’s report calls on the Royal Thai government to prioritize and advance the investigation into Somchai’s disappearance in a manner that conforms to its international obligations. It also recommends that Thailand:
–Ratify the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance;
–Enact legislation that makes enforced disappearance a specific crime in Thai domestic law, together with penalties that recognize its extreme seriousness;
–Amend existing Thai law to conform to the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance, as well as the State’s obligations, including with respect to effective remedy and reparation, under the ICCPR and CAT;
–Provide Angkhana Neelapaijit and her family with effective remedy and full reparation, in particular knowledge and clarification of the facts leading to the enforced disappearance and the progress and results of the Department of Special Investigations, and;
–Address the recommendations the ICJ made to the DSI in its letter of February 4, 2014 with respect to its investigation.
CONTACT
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Download the full report in PDF:
Ten Years Without Truth- Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand – report – 2014
Thailand-Ten Years Without Truth-Publications-Reports-2014-THAI
Feb 28, 2014 | News
A statement by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah suggesting that critics of Brunei Darussalam’s new Penal Code may be criminally prosecuted for slander is clearly meant to curb freedom of expression and opinion in the country, the ICJ said.
The ICJ urged the Government of Brunei to ensure full respect for the right of freedom of opinion and expression.
In a speech marking Brunei’s 30th National Day on 23 February 2014, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said that social media had been used to express opposition to the implementation of the new Penal Code.
He said that those who use social media to express their opinions against the new Penal Code may be committing offences under the General Offences Chapter of the new law. He reportedly characterized some of this expression as amounting to slander, including of the King and of Ulamas, or Muslim scholars. The Sultan also warned that these critics “cannot continue to be allowed to inflict insults” and that they “can be brought to court.”
“Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah’s statement illustrates that human rights, particularly respect for freedom of opinion and expression, is widely disregarded by the authorities in Brunei,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ has criticized the new Penal Code for being an affront to human rights and at odds with international standards.
The ICJ reiterates its concern that provisions in the new Penal Code are not in accord with the commitment made by Brunei Darussalam as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to promote and protect human rights in the region.
“Free, unhindered debates on issues like the enactment or implementation of a law are important cornerstones of a democratic society,” said Zarifi.
Freedom of opinion and expression is a right that is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to both of which Brunei Darussalam is a party. Under international law, any restrictions or limitations must be exceptional, in accordance with the principles of the proportionality and necessity.
The ICJ urged the Government of Brunei to allow free discussion, particular on matters of public importance such as State law and policies and to fully respect the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 7, 2014 | News
Bangladesh authorities must immediately cease their harassment of Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary of Odhikar, a prominent human rights organization and ICJ affiliate, and members of his family, the ICJ said today.
On 5 February 2014, Odhikar reported that two officers of the Special Branch of Police followed a member of Adilur Rahman Khan’s family from his home. When he realized he was being followed he decided to return home. The security officers continued to follow him, and parked their motorcycle next to his house.
Odhikar previously reported that security forces monitor its Dhaka offices as well as Adilur Rahman Khan, his family and other staff. In August 2013, security forces raided Odhikar’s office, confiscating computers containing potentially sensitive material such as the identities of witnesses.
“These actions are deliberate acts of intimidation against Odhikar, its staff and their families, designed to silence the legitimate actions of human rights defenders,” said Ben Schonveld, the ICJ’s Asia Director.
Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), clarifies that States must take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders from any violence, threat, retaliation, pressure, or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of rights, including the freedom of expression.
Background:
Adilur Rahman Khan and Nasiruddin Elan, Secretary and Director of Odhikar, have been charged under section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing a report on the Government crackdown on a Hefazat-e-Islam rally in May 2013. The report alleged that 61 people were killed in the protest; the Government disputes the number of casualties. Rahman and Khan were indicted on 8 January 2014 and are both currently on bail.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director (Kathmandu), t: +977 14432651; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jan 10, 2014 | News
The ICJ calls on the Bangladeshi authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop ‘cybercrime’ charges against Nasiruddin Elan and Adilur Rahman Khan, President and Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar.
“These charges are a flagrant attempt to silence critical voices, and the Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against the two human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
On 8 January 2014, a cyber crimes tribunal in Dhaka indicted Nasiruddin Elan (picture, on centre) and Adilur Rahman Khan under section 57 (1) and (2) of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing “fake, distorted and defamatory” information. Khan and Elan plead innocent to the charges.
The charges relate to a report by Odhikar that alleged that security forces had killed 61 people during a rally by the Islamist group Hefazat-e Islam in May 2013. The Government disputes the casualty numbers.
The trial is set to begin on 22 January 2014. Under the terms of the newly amended ACT the two human rights defenders face a minimum of seven and maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
“The ICJ has warned that the ICT Act can be used to attack freedom of expression in Bangladesh,” said Sam Zarifi. “As predicted, the Government is now using the newly amended law to silence political and public discourse through the threat of punitive sentences and deliberately vague and overbroad offences in clear violation of international law.”
In a briefing paper released on 20 November 2013, ICJ highlighted that provisions of the 2006 ICT Act (amended 2013), particularly section 57, violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified on 6 September 2000: the offences prescribed are poorly defined and overbroad; the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR; and the restrictions are not necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that States must take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders “against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of his or her rights.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, t: +61 422 561834; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Additional information
Adilur Rahman Khan was arrested his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.On August 11, a Magistrate’s Court refused his bail application and remanded him for five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order and directed that Adilur Rahman be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the jail.’
On 4 September 2013, the Detective Branch of Police filed a charge sheet against Adilur Rahman Khan and Odhikar’s Director, Nasiruddin Elan, under Section 57 of the International Communication and Technology Act 2006. On 30 October Adilur Rahman Khan was released on bail. On 6 November 2013, a Dhaka cyber crimes tribunal rejected Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application and ordered his detention in Dhaka Central Jail. Bail was granted on 24 November by the High Court. But the bail order was finally enforced after the appellate division’s order on 3 December 2013.
Nov 14, 2013 | News
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the ICJ urge the Commonwealth Heads of States meeting in Colombo this week to make Sri Lanka accountable to Commonwealth values.
The IBAHRI and the ICJ recall that the Commonwealth Charter, passed in March 2012, sets out 16 core values, which include safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, protecting the rule of law, respecting the separation of powers and promoting democratic rule.
But the two organizations point out numerous examples where these values have not been respected by the Government of Sri Lanka.
The IBAHRI and the ICJ were holding a press conference in Bangkok Thailand today after a high-level IBAHRI delegation was blocked from entering Sri Lanka late last week to attend a conference on the rule of law and independence of the legal profession hosted by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Giving a statement remotely, Gabriela Knaul, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, expressed “serious concerns about acts of reprisals against judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other actors of the judicial system who cooperate, or seek to cooperate, with UN and regional human rights mechanisms.”
“Reprisals against judicial actors and legal professionals are a kind of attack to their institutional and functional independence,” she added.
Earlier this year, the IBAHRI conducted a remote fact-finding mission on the politically motivated impeachment of Chief Justice Banadranayake in January 2013, after being denied entry into Sri Lanka.
The IBAHRI Mission concluded that the Chief Justice’s removal was unlawful, undermined public confidence in the rule of law and threatened to eviscerate the country’s judiciary as an independent guarantor of constitutional rights.
In an open letter signed by 56 eminent jurists and senior judges from around the world, the ICJ also expressed its grave concern over the disregard for international standards on the independence of the judiciary and the removal of judges.
“This weakening of rule of law and independence of the judiciary is accompanied by an equally deteriorating human rights situation,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Adviser for South Asia.
The United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in her recent visit to Sri Lanka expressed concern over the curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights, the persistent impunity and the failure of rule of law.
“The state of affairs in Sri Lanka sits uneasily with the aspirations set out in the Commonwealth Charter,” said Human Rights Barrister and IBAHRI Sri Lanka Mission Rapporteur, Sadakat Kadri. “The Government of Sri Lanka has spent years undermining the values and principles of the Commonwealth.”
“If the Commonwealth is to remain a relevant and effective international organization, it is paramount that those heads of State who have chosen to attend this week’s summit take measures to make Sri Lanka accountable to the core values and principles of the Commonwealth,” said IBAHRI Senior Programme Lawyer Alex Wilks.
Contact:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Notes:
- The IBAHRI delegation blocked from entering Sri Lanka included UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Ms Gabriela Knaul, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and ICJ Commissioner Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, and IBAHRI senior programme lawyer Alex Wilks, had intended to travel to Colombo to attend a conference on the rule of law and independence of the legal profession hosted by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. IBAHRI Mission Rapporteur Sadakat Kadri was also unable to enter Sri Lanka as he was denied a visa.
- The Bar Association of Sri Lanka with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute had planned a conference for 13 November 2013 on ‘Making Commonwealth values a reality: the rule of law and independence of the legal profession’. The 13 November 2013 conference was cancelled when the Government of Sri Lanka revoked visas for the UN Special Rapporteur and the IBAHRI delegation on 7 November 2013.
- In March 2013, a delegation of the IBAHRI undertook a remote fact-finding mission to investigate the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Bandaranayake, the independence of the legal profession and rule of law in Sri Lanka. The mission was conducted remotely following the cancellation of visas by the Government of Sri Lanka for the IBAHRI delegation. A report was released in April 2013 A Crisis of Legitimacy: The Impeachment of Chief Justice Bandaranayake and the Erosion of the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka.
- The ICJ released a report, Authority without Accountability: The crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka in November 2012 documenting the systemic erosion of rule of law and accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka. The ICJ report described how decades of Emergency rule and legal immunities granted to the President and other government officials weakened the checks and balances in the Sri Lankan government, while political interference has increasingly led to attacks on the independence of the judiciary and rule of law.
