ICJ joins call for UN action on reprisals

ICJ joins call for UN action on reprisals

The ICJ has joined other NGOs in calling on the UN Human Rights Council and states to take more effective measures to prevent and respond to reprisals against human rights defenders and others who cooperate with the United Nations.

The full statement, which was delivered by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) during the Human Rights Council session in Geneva, may be downloaded in PDF format:

UN-HRC30-JointOralStatementReprisals-Advocacy-Nonlegal submissions-2015-ENG

United Arab Emirates: lift travel ban on 2015 finalist Ahmed Mansoor, urges Martin Ennals Award Jury

United Arab Emirates: lift travel ban on 2015 finalist Ahmed Mansoor, urges Martin Ennals Award Jury

Ten human rights groups, including the ICJ, represented in the Jury, today called on the United Arab Emirates authorities to lift the travel ban imposed on Ahmed Mansoor, one of the three human rights defenders nominated for the 2015 Award, and to issue him a passport.

Widely respected as one of the few voices within the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to provide a credible independent assessment of human rights developments in the country, Ahmed Mansoor regularly raises concerns regarding arbitrary detention, torture or degrading treatment, and failure to meet international standards of fair trial.

He also draws attention to other human rights abuses, including against migrant workers.

As a result, Ahmed Mansoor has faced repeated intimidation, harassment, and death threats from the UAE authorities or their supporters, including arrest and imprisonment in 2011 following an unfair trial.

He and four other activists who called for democratic rights in the UAE were jailed in 2011 on the charge of “insulting officials”.

Although pardoned and released later that year, Ahmed Mansoor has been banned from travel and had his passport confiscated.

As a result of his courageous work, Ahmed Mansoor was selected as one of the three finalists of the Martin Ennals Award who will be recognized at a ceremony hosted by the city of Geneva on October 6th.

The Award is usually handed out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

As matters stand, however, Ahmed Mansoor will be prevented from attending the ceremony because the UAE authorities have arbitrarily imposed a travel ban on him and have refused to return his passport.

Both the travel ban and the confiscation of his passport violate Ahmed Mansoor’s right under international human rights law to freedom of movement, as these measures were taken to punish him for his peaceful human rights activism.

The Martin Ennals Award Jury today noted with concern : “Ahmed Mansoor’s absence at the ceremony would mark a very disappointing position for the UAE, which is a country that prides itself as one of the hubs of international business and tourism in the Middle East, as well a safe haven in the region. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, which is running for a second term, we expect the UAE authorities to honour their obligations to uphold human rights and protect human rights defenders. The UAE government must match its rhetoric on the international stage with meaningful actions at home, starting with immediately lifting the travel ban on Ahmed Mansoor, to returning and renewing his passport, and allowing him to travel to Geneva for the ceremony.”

Ahmed Mansoor is a member of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, as well as the Advisory Board of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights.

The following organizations are represented in the Martin Ennals Award Jury: International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, FIDH, Human Rights First, HURIDOCS, International Service for Human Rights, EWDE Germany, Front Line Defenders, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture.

Contact:

Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t +41 79 474 8208 ; e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org

UAE-MEA Jury Joint Statement Ahmed Mansoor-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text of press release in ARABIC, pdf)

Malaysia: Federal Court decision allowing trial of human rights defender inconsistent with rule of law and human rights protection

Malaysia: Federal Court decision allowing trial of human rights defender inconsistent with rule of law and human rights protection

The ICJ expressed disappointment over the decision made today by the Malaysian Federal Court to refer human rights defender Lena Hendry for trial, after dismissing the constitutional challenge on section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002.

The ICJ said this provision is being applied in a manner inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and impart information of all kinds.

“The decision by the Federal Court is incompatible with the commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights which was expressed by Malaysia during its last Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

“Lena Hendry is clearly a human rights defender and Malaysia has the special duty not only to respect her right to freedom of expression, but to protect her exercise of this right through the exposure of human rights violations in Sri Lanka,” he added.

The constitutional challenge was brought by the lawyers of Lena Hendry who was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for screening the film “No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka” on 3 July 2013.

Authorities allege that she violated section 6(1)(b) of the law for showing a film that had not been approved by the Board of Censors.

The lawyers of Lena Hendry are now preparing for the trial before the Magistrate’s Court.

The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to drop all charges against Lena Hendry and to undertake steps to make its laws consistent with the country’s obligations and commitments under international law.

Background:

Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 states that “No person shall circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell, or hire any film or film publicity material, which has not been approved by the Board [of Censors].”

On 14 September 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia dismissed the constitutional challenge on Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002. The question posed to the Federal Court was: “Whether section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 read together with section 6(2)(a) violates Article 10 read together with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and therefore should be struck down and void for unconstitutionality.”

The Federal Court answered the question in the negative and ordered that the case be sent back to the High Court. The High Court, in turn, will transfer the matter back to the Magistrate’s court for trial. The Magistrate’s Court is where the matter initially originated.

If convicted, under section 6(2)(a) Lena Hendry could be fined up to RM30,000 (approximately US$6,900) and/or sentenced to up to three years imprisonment.

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia under Section 10(1)(a), which states that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders also affirm the duty of all states to respect and facilitate freedom of expression, particularly as regards information or opinions about human rights.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

 

ICJ written statement highlights the urgent need for Maldives to implement UN recommendations on human rights

ICJ written statement highlights the urgent need for Maldives to implement UN recommendations on human rights

In advance of the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption of the outcome of its review of the Maldives’ human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, the ICJ has submitted a written statement.

It highlights the Maldives’ failure to accept and implement a number of member states’ UPR recommendations.

In particular, the ICJ pointed out the urgent need for Maldives to accept and implement recommendations regarding the following issues, among others:

  • Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
  • Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judicial Service Commission;
  • Strengthening the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the Paris Principles;
  • Strengthening women’s representation in the judicial profession;
  • Immediately releasing former president Mohamed Nasheed and other political prisoners, and ensuring the fairness of any further legal proceedings in such cases; and
  • Safeguarding freedom of expression and media, association and peaceful assembly by investigating cases of human rights abuse and violations against journalists, civil society and human rights defenders, and taking effective measures to prevent further abuses

The Council will consider member states’ UPR recommendations for the Maldives during its 30th session on 24 September 2015, ahead of which the Maldives government will be expected to formally respond and indicate which of the recommendations it will commit to implement.

Translate »