Feb 15, 2018 | News
Thailand should immediately cease misusing criminal and civil defamation laws to legally harass victims, human rights defenders and journalists who raise allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, the ICJ said today.
Yesterday, the Director of the Internal Operations Security Command (ISOC) Region 4, Lt. Gen. Piyawat Nakwanich, reportedly authorized Lt. Col. Seathtasit Kaewkumuang to lodge defamation complaints against Isma-ae Tae, a founder of Patani Human Rights Organization (HAP).
ISOC is responsible for security operations in Thailand’s deep South.
“It is astonishing that after all of the Government’s repeated commitments to address allegations of torture and protect victims and human rights defenders, ISOC is now misusing the justice system to legally harass an alleged victim of torture,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Thailand should immediately stop these defamation complaints against Isma-ae Tae and ensure an investigation that meets international law and standards is conducted into all allegations of torture or other ill-treatment without delay,” he added.
The accusations relate to a TV program entitled “Policy by People” that aired on the Thai PBS channel on 5 February 2018 in which Isma-ae Tae described being tortured and ill-treated by Thai soldiers when he was a student in Yala, located in Thailand’s restive deep South.
Criminal defamation in Thailand carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 Baht (USD $6,300).
The imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines under these laws has the effect of discouraging victims of torture or other ill-treatment from coming forward to seek the remedies and reparations to which they are entitled under international human rights law binding on Thailand, the ICJ said.
The complaints were made against the backdrop of a ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court on 19 October 2016, which ordered the Royal Thai Army and the Defence Ministry to pay 305,000 baht (USD $9,700) compensation to Isma-ae Tae, after it found he was “physically assaulted” during detention and had been illegally detained for nine days – exceeding the limit of seven days permitted under Martial Law Act B.E. 2457 (1914) (Martial Law).
“Even more astonishing is that a superior Thai court has already found that the military physically assaulted Isma-ae Tae and awarded him compensation, which only serves to highlight the injustice of these complaints”, added Abbott.
In 2008, Isma-ae Tae was arrested pursuant to Martial Law and allegedly tortured in order to purportedly extract a confession in relation to a national security case. To date, no perpetrators have been brought to justice.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org
Thailand-Isma-ae Tae defamation case-News-Press releases-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Thailand-Isma-ae Tae defamation case-News-Press releases-2018-THA (Thai version of full sory, in PDF)
Read also
Thailand: ICJ welcomes decision to end proceedings against human rights defenders who raised allegations of torture
Thailand: ICJ welcomes dropping of complaints against human rights defenders but calls for investigation into torture
Thailand: stop use of defamation charges against human rights defenders seeking accountability for torture
Thailand: immediately withdraw criminal complaints against human rights defenders
Further reading on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act
UN Committee against Torture: ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission on Thailand
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Thailand: ICJ commemorates international day in support of victims of enforced disappearances
Thailand: pass legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture without further delay
Feb 12, 2018 | News
The ICJ mourns the loss of its former Commissioner, Executive Committee Member and Honorary Member, Asma Jahangir, who was at the frontline of the struggle for the rule of law and human rights in Pakistan and around the world.
Ms. Jahangir died of cardiac arrest on Sunday, 11 February, in Lahore, Pakistan. She was 66.
“The ICJ benefited immeasurably from Asma Jahangir’s contribution and leadership. She was a giant of the human rights movement, dedicated to defending the rule of law and fighting for the rights of everyone – including her fiercest detractors,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
Asma Jahangir was elected to the ICJ in 1998, and went on to serve on the organization’s Executive Committee until the end of her term.
She continued to work closely with the ICJ as an Honorary Member.
Asma Jahangir started her journey as a human rights defender as a petitioner is a case challenging the military dictatorship of Yahya Khan. She was only 19 at the time.
She continued throughout her life to be an outspoken critic of military rule and abuses in Pakistan and at the forefront of the struggle for human rights and the rule of law in the country.
In 1987 she co-founded the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, which remains one of the oldest and most preeminent human rights organizations in the region.
Asma Jahangir was a senior advocate of the Supreme Court with a legal career spanning nearly forty years.
In 1987, along with other women lawyers, she established the first legal aid cell in the country for free legal representation to women, children, bonded laborers and religious minorities.
She also made lasting contribution to the human rights globally, and served as a UN Special Rapporteur for three different mandates: Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (1998 to 2004); freedom of religion or belief (2004 to 2010); and the situation of human rights in Iran (2016 – 2018).
In the course of her work as a human rights activist, she was repeatedly threatened, put under house arrest and even imprisoned. However, these attacks did not deter her from her commitment to human rights.
“Asma Jahangir’s brave, powerful voice for human rights and dignity has fallen silent much too soon. We will miss her and strive to live up to her example,” said Zarifi.
Last year, Asma Jahangir participated in ICJ’s Women profiles video series:
Asma Jahangir profile
Jan 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).
The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
During its 63rd session, from 23 April to 18 May 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Thailand.
Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Thailand’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Second Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.
Thailand ratified the CAT in 2007. Following its review of Thailand’s initial report under CAT, the Committee adopted its Concluding Observations at its 52nd Session in May 2014.
The ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.
In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Thailand, including on the following pressing issues:
- The fact that, since the coup d’ état of 22 May 2014, the constitutional and legal framework in force in Thailand has increased opportunities for legally-sanctioned impunity;
- The failure to criminalize through the adoption of bespoke domestic legislation the crimes of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and enforced disappearance, consistent with the CAT and other relevant international law;
- The failure to conduct investigations of credible allegations of enforced disappearances, as well as into credible reports of the widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in a prompt, effective, independent and impartial manner in numerous cases; and
- Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org
Thailand-CAT Submission-Advocacy-non-legal submission-2017-ENG (Full submission in PDF)
THAILAND-CAT additional info-Advocacy-2018-ENG (additional information, updated in April 2018)
Jan 16, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Myanmar’s government must take concrete action to counteract decades of military impunity for human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report published today.
The report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar finds that gross human rights violations in Myanmar rarely go punished, particularly in conflict areas.
Justice remains elusive for victims and their families as a result of laws, institutions and investigative practices that protect members of security forces from prosecution, the ICJ says.
“Decades of denial of justice for victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and impunity for the perpetrators, particularly when involving the military, have severely eroded the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The Myanmar government must now take concrete steps to combat impunity, especially for the military,” he added.
The release of the ICJ’s report follows last week’s statement from the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, acknowledging that security forces had participated in the killing of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State’s Inn Dinn Village.
It is the Tatmadaw’s first admission of serious crimes perpetrated by security forces during its ‘clearance operations’, which have resulted in mass displacement and human rights violations, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on 25 August 2017.
Military and security personnel in Myanmar seldom face justice for human rights violations, because they are protected by legal provisions of the 2008 Constitution, the 1959 Defence Services Act and the 1995 Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law, which include immunities and special courts that shield soldiers, police and officials from public criminal prosecutions for serious crimes, the ICJ notes.
The ICJ’s report finds that investigations into allegations of rights violations rarely result in effective prosecutions or redress.
Eight case studies – from Kachin, Karen, Mon and Rakhine states – illustrate how victims and their families, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, lack access to justice and are even harassed for seeking it.
“Admission of culpability for this one incident is an important first step and must be followed by a full and proper investigation, and justice for the victims and their families,” said Zarifi.
“The dire human rights situation in northern Rakhine State, and in conflict areas such as in Shan and Kachin states, necessitates credible, independent and impartial investigations with a view to publicly prosecute those responsible for unlawful acts and their commissioning.”
“Options available to the parliament and to the executive include addressing barriers to accountability, by reforming laws that protect security forces involved in serious crimes, and by aligning investigative procedures with international standards,” he added.
Contact
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Accountability Coordinator (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 6 4478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Special inquiries commissioned by the Government of Myanmar into allegations of human rights violations generally fail the test of independence and impartiality, or are severely undermined by inadequate resources and or restricted mandates.
These inquiries rarely result in effective prosecutions or access to remedies and reparation.
Members of security forces, when prosecuted, usually appear in military or special police courts, which generally impose low or meaningless sanctions that are wholly inconsistent with penalties applicable in Myanmar’s Penal Code.
Laws governing military and police acts are inadequate for the victims of human rights violations because they do not contemplate the provision of remedies and reparation.
There is very limited precedent or established practice for the provision of effective remedies or reparation for victims of criminal acts in Myanmar, particularly when such crimes involve human rights violations by State actors.
Wittingly or unwittingly, relevant authorities routinely violate national laws that prescribe procedures for the conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations.
Violations of basic fair trial rights, included in national laws, are commonplace.
State authorities continue to exert improper influence on politically-sensitive court cases including those involving allegations of gross human rights violations.
Courts tend to not intervene where human rights violations are occurring nor do they guarantee non-repetition where they have occurred.
Prosecutors rarely, if ever, accept petitions from victims of gross human rights violations to initiate criminal proceedings.
The judicial harassment of victims of human rights violations is commonplace in Myanmar when victims, their families or lawyers seek remedies or reparation through the courts or other mechanisms.
Defamation and unlawful association are among the criminal charges commonly instituted by authorities, including against journalists investigating human rights violations or working in conflict areas.
Overall, Myanmar’s prosecutors lack the independence to effectively prosecute acts involving human rights violations.
Interference with and intimidation of lawyers, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations, undermines their to effectively represent clients and to pursue effective remedies and reparations.
Download
Myanmar-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-GRA-Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic-reports-2018-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Accountability Baseline report-News-Press releases-2018-BUR (Burmese translation)
Read also
Questions & Answers on Human Rights Law in Rakhine State
Reuters journalists detained in Myanmar: respect their rights, end their incommunicado detention
Jan 15, 2018 | News
The ICJ is concerned at allegations that the recent arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, the head of the Chechen branch of the Russian human rights organisation Memorial, were carried out as retaliation for his human rights activity.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the more recent reports that family members of Oyub Titiev have had to leave Chechnya for security reasons following threats.
The ICJ calls on the Russian federal and local authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and independent investigation into allegations that criminal charges against Oyub Titiev have been fabricated by police.
Oyub Titiev should be immediately released pending the outcome of this investigation, and measures should be taken to protect his security and that of his family.
On 9 January 2018, at 10.30, according to an official statement of the Ministry of Interior of Chechnya, Oyub Titiev’s car was stopped near Kurchaloy town to check his documents.
During a search of his car, a plastic bag with approximately 180 grams of a substance identified as marijuana was allegedly found.
Titiyev was charged with possession of a large quantity of narcotics under article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, he has stated that the narcotics were planted and has filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate an investigation into these allegations.
Oyub Titiev, the head of Memorial in Chechnya, is one of very few human rights defenders who continue their work in Chechnya despite significant obstacles and threats.
He took over this position following the murder of the former head of Memorial in Chechnya, Natalya Estemirova in 2009.
In accordance with Article 2(a) of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), human rights defenders have a right to conduct human rights work individually and in association with others.
Under the same Declaration, States have a duty to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of everyone against any violence, threats, retaliation, adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate activities as a human rights defender.
Threats of violence and the falsification of evidence by public officials constitute crimes under the Russian Criminal Code. Reliance in criminal proceedings on evidence falsely planted by the police or other State actors would violate international human rights law including fair trial guarantees under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.
Attacks on human rights defenders working in an extremely difficult human rights environment such as that of Chechnya, or attacks on their family members, have a chilling effect on work to defend human rights there. If further such attacks are to be prevented, individuals responsible for them must be brought to justice through a fair procedure, the ICJ stressed.
