Jul 1, 2020 | News
On 30 June, the ICJ and five other organizations sent open letters to the Prime Minister of Vietnam and the European Union (EU) calling for the immediate and unconditional release of human rights defenders, Dr. Phạm Chí Dũng, Nguyễn Tường Thụy and Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn.
The ICJ, Boat People SOS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights in their address to the Prime Minister, urged the Vietnamese government to cease all harassment of other activists from the Independent Journalists Association of Vietnam (IJAVN).
In November 2019, Dr. Phạm Chí Dũng, founding member and Chairman of IJAVN, was arrested in Ho Chi Minh City for allegedly “making, storing, distributing or disseminating materials” that “oppose the State” in violation of article 117 of Vietnam’s Penal Code. He has since been held in incommunicado detention.
Following Phạm’s arrest, a number of persons were subjected to various forms of harassment up to and including arrest and prosecution in connection with their IJAVN membership. In May and June 2020, two IJAVN members, journalist Nguyễn Tường Thụy and law student Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn, were arrested in Hanoi and Quang Nam provinces on similar charges.
In their letters, the ICJ and other organizations raised concerns that Phạm had been targeted and arrested for his human rights advocacy. From 2013 till his arrest, Phạm wrote independently on key rights issues in Vietnam, including on freedom of expression, labour rights, detention of human rights defenders, and harassment of independent civil society. In July 2012, he was arbitrarily arrested under charges of “conducting propaganda against the State” and released in February 2013 after months in prison without trial. In 2014, he was prevented by Vietnamese authorities from travelling to Geneva to participate in a United Nations Human Rights Council side-event connected to the Universal Periodic Review of Vietnam, following which his passport was confiscated.
The organizations noted that the arrest and arbitrary detention of Phạm, Nguyễn Tường Thụy and Lê Hữu Minh Tuấn contravened article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, as they appeared to have been politically motivated to curtail the rights of the three individuals to freely express their opinions and share information relating to domestic affairs.
In a 2019 ICJ report on freedom of expression and information online across Southeast Asia, national security-related provisions in Vietnam’s Penal Code, including article 117, were shown to have often been abused to curtail free speech and access to information online.
The organizations further noted that the prolonged incommunicado detention of Phạm constituted a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment, the right to liberty and the right to be treated with dignity under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the ICCPR.
They further called on Vietnam to protect and facilitate the work of human rights defenders in line with the UN 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 Declaration).
The letter to the Prime Minister of Vietnam by the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network is available here.
The letter to the European Union by the ICJ, Boat People SOS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights is available here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, December 2019
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today urged the country’s authorities to take immediate measures to fully reconstitute the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) after its operations were effectively suspended following the expiry of the terms of office of four of its Commissioners on 7 May 2020.
One Commissioner had already resigned in 2018 meaning that the ZHRC no longer has the constitutionally required quorum for it to make certain decisions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe.
“The inability by the ZHRC to fully execute its constitutional mandate has serious implications on the ability of individuals -in particular victims of human rights violations -to access justice,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Programme.
“The role of ZHRC, as Zimbabwe’s national human rights institution is critical in providing an avenue for redress to victims of human rights violations and the general public,” he added.
Zimbabwe has been witnessing an escalation of human rights violations requiring investigation by a fully functioning and effective Commission.
This spate of human rights violations has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and economically vulnerable in the context of the Covid-19 lockdown measures.
There have been an increase in targeting of human rights defenders, civil society leaders and political opposition, which have included acts of enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment.
The ICJ underlined that while redress for such violations required strong and independent judiciary as a guarantor of human rights, the role of fully functional ZHRC was critical to complement that of the judiciary.
The ICJ called upon the authorities in Zimbabwe, and in particular the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, to act expeditiously to ensure that the vacant positions are filled without any further delay to enable the ZHRC effectively perform and discharge its constitutional mandate.
The ICJ said that failure by the responsible authorities to act expeditiously to fill the vacant positions violated the core values and principles the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in particular section 324 of the Constitution which provides that “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay”.
In addition, the President to fill in any vacant position within three months of death or resignation of a Commissioner. The position of Commissioner Khombe became vacant on the 30 October 2018, and has not been filled to date.
Additional Information
The ZHRC is established as an independent institution under Chapter 12 of the Zimbabwe constitution with the general objective to “support and entrench human rights and democracy; to promote constitutionalism; to promote transparency and accountability in public institutions; to secure the observance of democratic values and principles by the State and all institutions and agencies of government, and government-controlled entities; and to ensure that injustices are remedied.”
On 26 May the Chairperson of the ZHRC, Dr. E.H Mugwadi, wrote a letter notifying “partners and stakeholders” of the retirement of four Commissioners, namely Dr Ellen Sithole (former Deputy Chairperson), Dr Joseph Kurebwa, Kwanele M. Jirira and Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube with effect from 7 May. The Chairperson noted that the retirement had left the Commission lacking the quorum to fulfil its constitutional obligations, particularly with respect to make policy resolutions and the adoption of monitoring and investigation reports. The Commission had also been unable to adopt Commission reports its activities.
International standards for effective and credible National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are contained in the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles), which provide that NHRIs must be adequately resourced with sufficient institutional capacity to perform and discharge their responsibilities.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +263 777 283 249; e-mail: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Blessing Gorejena, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +263 772 151 989, e-mail: Blessing.Gorejena(a)icj.org
Jun 3, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers should issue a decision at its 4 June 2020 meeting directing Turkey to release the human rights defender Osman Kavala and drop all charges against him, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The three groups have submitted a detailed submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The groups outlined how Turkey continues to violate Kavala’s rights by flouting a landmark judgment, that became final on May 11 requiring his immediate release.
“The European Court ruled that Kavala’s detention is unlawful, and their binding judgment requires Turkey to release him immediately,” said Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey director at Human Rights Watch. “The Committee of Ministers, at its June 4 meeting, should press Turkey to comply and issue a clear message that no Council of Europe member state should be silencing human rights defenders.”
The judgment is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling against Turkey in which the court determined that in interfering with an individual’s rights Turkey acted in bad faith and out of political motivations, violating Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said that by detaining Kavala since November 2017 and prosecuting him, the Turkish authorities had “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender.”
The European Court judgment in Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) found violations of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), and the rarely used Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken together with Article 5(1). It required Turkey to release Kavala and said that any continuation of his detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights..
A court ordered Kavala’s detention on November 1, 2017 on bogus allegations that he used the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests as a pretext for an attempted coup, and that he was involved in the July 15, 2016 attempted military coup. On February 18, 2020, Kavala and his eight co-defendants were acquitted on charges of “attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence” in the Gezi Park trial .
But Kavala was not released, and a court detained him again immediately on the charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitution by force and violence” because of an ongoing 2016 coup-related investigation against him. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had publicly criticized his acquittal just before he was detained again. Weeks later a court ordered his detention a second time on another charge (“espionage”) but relying on the same evidence and investigation file.
“The sequence of court orders prolonging his detention and the lack of objective deliberation as to the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty indicates that decisions have been guided by political considerations and there has been a concerted official effort to prevent Kavala’s release,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme . “Since the European Court’s judgment, Turkey has continued to violate Kavala’s human rights.”
The targeted harassment in Turkey of rights defenders is part of a wider trend of arbitrary detentions and abusive prosecutions of journalists, elected politicians, lawyers, and other perceived government critics. This trend has been well-documented in many reports by the Council of Europe, the European Union, and human rights organizations.
“The campaign of persecution against Osman Kavala and the failure to release him and drop all charges have perpetuated a chilling environment for all human rights defenders in Turkey,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, Co-Director of the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
The three organizations made detailed recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, urging it to:
- Call on the government of Turkey to ensure the immediate release of Osman Kavala as required by the European Court’s judgment, stressing that the judgment clearly applies to his ongoing detention and persecution;
- Place the Kavala v. Turkey judgment under “enhanced procedures” and treat it as a leading case under Article 18 of the European Convention;
- Recognize that Kavala’s continuing detention violates Article 46 of the convention, concerning the binding nature of final judgments of the European Court, and that a failure to release Kavala may trigger an Article 46(4) procedure (infringement proceedings);
- Emphasize to the Government of Turkey that Kavala’s release is of added urgency in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which increases the risk to his health in detention;
- Ask the Government of Turkey to drop all charges under which Kavala has been investigated and detained to silence him, in conformity with the court’s findings that his rights have been violated and that his exercise of rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association was wrongfully used as evidence to incriminate him.
The groups also identified the general measures that Turkey needs to take to carry out the judgment to end politically motivated detention and prosecution of human rights defenders and other perceived government critics. These measures focus on Turkey’s structural rule of law problems. They include executive control over Turkey’s judiciary and prosecutorial authorities, and the evidence of a clear pattern of direct political interference in court decisions through frequent public speeches by Turkey’s president and proxies. A pattern of criminalizing the exercise of convention-protected rights defines many of the cases against human rights defenders and other perceived government critics.
Turkey’s international partners, including the European Union, should make it clear that the full implementation of the court’s judgment in Osman Kavala’s case will be key in measuring the credibility of any government pledges for reform, the three groups said. Any justice reform and any human rights action plan would remain hollow until the reasons that unjustly led Kavala to prison are addressed and fixed.
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-eng (downaload the submission)
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-tur (download the submission in Turkish)
Türkiye: AİHM Kararı Sonrası Hak Savunucusu Serbest Bırakılsın
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanları Osman Kavala’nın tahliyesinde ısrar etmelidir
(Strazburg, 3 Haziran 2020) – İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesinin 4 Haziran 2020 tarihli toplantısında Türkiye’yi insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasına ve ona yönelik tüm suçlamaların düşürülmesine yöneltecek bir karar alması gerektiğini belirttiler.
Bu üç grup, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleyen Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne detaylı bir bildirim sundu. Gruplar, Türkiye’nin 11 Mayıs’ta kesinleşen ve Kavala’nın derhal tahliye edilmesini gerektiren bu önemli kararı göz ardı ederek, Kavala’nın haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini belirtti.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Türkiye Direktörü Emma Sinclair-Webb, “Avrupa Mahkemesi, Kavala’nın alıkonmasının hukuka aykırı olduğuna ve bağlayıcı kararının gereği olarak Türkiye’nin Kavala’yı derhal tahliye etmesi gerektiğine karar verdi” dedi. Emma Sinclair-Webb, “Bakanlar Komitesi, 4 Haziran toplantısında, hiçbir Avrupa Konseyi üyesi devletin insan hakları savunucularını susturmaması gerektiğine dair net bir mesaj vererek buna uyması için Türkiye’ye baskı yapmalıdır” dedi.
Bu karar, Türkiye’nin kötü niyetle ve siyasi amaçlarla bir bireyin haklarına müdahale ettiğini ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 18. maddesini ihlal ettiğini tespit eden Türkiye aleyhindeki ilk nihai karar olduğundan özel bir önem taşımakta. AİHM, Osman Kavala’yı Kasım 2017’den bu yana alıkoyup yargılayan Türk makamlarının “başvuranın bir insan hakları savunucusu olarak susturulmasını sağlamak için örtülü bir amaç taşıdığını” tespit etmişti.
Avrupa Mahkemesi, Kavala/Türkiye kararında (Başvuru no. 28749/18), madde 5/1 (özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı), madde 5/4 (alıkonmanın yasaya uygunluğuna ilişkin ivedi karar alma hakkı) ve nadiren kullanılan madde 18 (haklara getirilecek kısıtlamaların sınırlanması) ile birlikte madde 5/1’in ihlal edildiğine karar vermiştir. Karar, Türkiye’nin Kavala’yı tahliye etmesini zorunlu kılmış, tutukluluğunun devam etmesinin ihlalleri devam ettireceğini ve Sözleşmenin 46(1) maddesi uyarınca AİHM kararlarına uyma yükümlülüğünü ihlal edeceğini belirtmiştir.
Bir hakimlik 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını darbe girişimine bahane olarak kullandığı ve 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu iddiasıyla, Kavala’nın 1 Kasım 2017’de tutuklanmasına karar vermiştir. 18 Şubat 2020’de Kavala ve diğer sekiz sanık, Gezi Parkı davasında “cebir ve şiddet kullanarak hükümeti ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasından beraat etmiştir.
Ancak Kavala cezaevinden tahliye edilmemiş ve bir hâkim kararıyla 2016 darbesiyle ilgili devam eden bir soruşturmayla ilişkili olarak “anayasal düzeni cebir, şiddet kullanarak ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasıyla tekrar tutuklanmıştır. Tekrar tutuklanmasından kısa bir süre önce Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan halka açık şekilde Kavala’nın beraatini eleştirmiştir. Kavala haftalar sonra, aynı delillere ve soruşturma dosyasına dayanan bir başka suçlama ile (casusluk) bir kez daha tutuklanmıştır.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Programı Direktörü, Róisín Pillay, “Tutukluluğun devamına ilişkin yargı kararlarının silsilesi ve tutuklamanın yasallığı konusunda nesnel bir değerlendirmenin olmaması, kararların siyasi beklentiler tarafından yönlendirildiğini ve Kavala’nın tahliyesini önlemek için düzenlenmiş bir siyasi çaba olduğunu göstermektedir.” dedi. Pillay, “Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin kararından bu yana Türkiye, Kavala’nın insan haklarını ihlal etmeye devam etti” tespitinde bulundu.
Türkiye’de insan hakları savunucularına yönelik taciz daha genel olarak gazetecilere, seçilmiş siyasetçilere, hukukçulara, hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere yönelik keyfi alıkoymalar ve yargısal tacizin bir parçası. Bu eğilim Avrupa Konseyi, Avrupa Birliği ve insan hakları örgütlerine ait birçok raporla belgelendirilmiştir.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi Ortak Direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir “Kavala’ya karşı yürütülen yıldırma kampanyası, onun tahliye edilmemesi ve hakkındaki suçlamaların düşürülmemesi, Türkiye’deki tüm insan hakları savunucuları için oluşan baskı ortamının sürmesine sebep olmuştur” dedi.
Üç örgüt, detaylı tavsiyelerde bulunarak Bakanlar Komitesi’ni:
- Avrupa Mahkemesinin kararı gereği Osman Kavala’nın derhal tahliyesinin sağlanması için Türkiye Hükümetine çağrıda bulunmaya, kararın açık şekilde devam eden tutukluluğa ve baskıları da kapsaması gerektiğini vurgulamaya,
- Kavala/Türkiye kararını nitelikli denetim prosedürü altında izlenmek üzere sınıflandırmaya ve Sözleşmenin 18. maddesi altında öncü dava olarak kabul etmeye,
- Kavala’nın devam eden tutukluluğunun kesinleşen AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcılığına ilişkin Sözleşmenin 46. maddesini ihlal ettiği tespit etmeye ve Kavala’nın tahliye edilmemesinin Madde 46/4 prosedürünü (ihlal işlemleri) başlatacağını tespit etmeye,
- Türkiye Hükümetine, Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasının Covid-19 salgını bağlamında ek bir aciliyete sahip olduğunu ve salgının alıkonma esnasında sağlığına yönelik mevcut tehlikeyi artırdığını vurgulamaya
- Mahkemenin, Kavala’nın haklarının ihlal edildiğine, toplantı, örgütlenme ve ifade özgürlüğünü kullanmasının hatalı şekilde kendisini suçlamak için delil olarak kullanıldığına ilişkin tespitleri doğrultusunda, Türkiye Hükümeti’nden Kavala’nın susturulmak amacıyla soruşturulduğu ve alıkonduğu tüm dosyalarda tüm suçlamaların düşürülmesini talep etmeye davet etmiştir.
Örgütler ayrıca, Türkiye’nin insan hakları savunucularının ve diğer hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlerin siyasi amaçlarla alıkonmalarına ve yargılanmalarına son verilmesine yönelik kararın uygulanması için alınması gereken genel tedbirleri belirlediler. Genel tedbirler, Türkiye’nin hukukun üstünlüğüne ilişkin yapısal sorunlarına odaklanmaktadır. Bu yapısal sorunlar arasında yürütmenin Türkiye’de yürütmenin yargısı ve savcılıkları üzerindeki kontrolü; Cumhurbaşkanı ve ona bağlı diğer yetkililer tarafından, sıklıkla yapılan halka açık konuşmalar aracılığıyla mahkeme kararlarına doğrudan siyasi müdahalede bulunmaya yönelik yaygın eğilime ilişkin açık deliller yer almaktadır. Sözleşme ile korunan hakların kullanılmasının suç haline getirilmesi, insan hakları savunucularına ve hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere karşı açılan birçok davanın ortak yönünü oluşturmaktadır.
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-tur (download the submission in Turkish)
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-eng (downaload the submission)
For more information, please contact:
Massimo Frigo (English) massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, +41229793800
Apr 8, 2020 | Feature articles, News
A Feature Article by Rocio Quintero, Legal Adviser, ICJ Latin American Programme, based in Bogota.
Throughout several decades, a large number of Colombians have been victims of serious crimes related to the ongoing armed conflict. In particular, human rights defenders have been targets of serious human rights violations and abuses, such as killings, death threats, and harassments.
Just this year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has received information of 56 possible cases of killings of human rights defenders. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 outbreak has not stopped the violence against human rights defenders.
In that regard, since the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the country on 6 March 2020, the Organization of American States (OAS) and International Amnesty has reported six killings. The perpetrators of those crimes have not been identified yet.
Human rights violations and abuses against local communities have not stopped either. Quite the opposite seems to be true.
In that regard, it is said that armed groups, including paramilitary groups and new groups made up of dissident FARC-EP members, are taking advantage of the outbreak to commit illegal actions with fewer constraints, mainly, in rural areas of the country.
Among these actions, it should be highlighted the enforced displacement of 250 people and the forced confinement of 770 families due to combats between a paramilitary group and a guerrilla group. Both actions took place in the pacific region of the country, an area where the conflict has intensified after the peace agreement. In addition, at least three ex-members of the FARC-EP have been murdered in March 2020.
Despite the seriousness of the situation described above, the Colombian government response to the COVID-19 crisis has focused on the creation and implementation of non-conflict-related measures.
In that regard, the Government has decreed various and vital regulations to mitigate the social and economic impact created by the virus. Among others, the president declared a state of emergency and a mandatory 19-day national quarantine that started on 25 March 2020.
The Government also established a program of economic and social aid for those who will be affected most by the quarantine.
None of the measures were designed bearing in mind the particular situation of human rights defenders. Consequently, their protection is not a central element of the Colombian pandemic policies.
Since the implementation of the peace agreement and victims’ rights are not top priorities of the current Government, the approach adopted is not entirely unexpected.
Although, to be fair, it should be recognized that the State programmes for the implementation of the peace agreement have continued operating during the pandemic.
It might be argued that the pandemic has the potential to affect predominantly human rights that have not been directly linked with the internal conflict.
Therefore, following this point of view, the prioritization of non-conflict-related measures is justified and required.
Although this position is based on a valid premise, which is that the COVID-19 pandemic creates several challenges that go beyond conflict-related human rights problems, it ignores a central element of Colombian reality: the existence of an ongoing armed conflict.
Currently, the conflict affects a considerable part of the Colombian population directly, including the majority of human rights defenders. In that regard, last year, it was reported illegal actions related to the internal armed conflict in at least 10 out of 32 departments of Colombia.
In this context, ignoring the importance of the conflict might lead to the implementation of ineffective pandemic measures. This is because, in conflict zones, the protection of human rights requires addressing the specific challenges that the pandemic has created in those territories.
For instance, the presence of illegal groups can prevent local communities from getting tested for COVID-19 and access to health services. Likewise, due to the quarantine, illegal groups might identify easier the location of human rights defenders and retaliate against them.
In relation to human rights defenders, it should also be highlighted the problems related to access to adequate protection measures. In that regard, Amnesty International has denounced that the protection measures for some human rights defenders have been reduced due to the pandemic.
In a similar way, a local NGO expressed concerns for the decision of the National Protection Unit to suspend indefinitely the sessions of the commission where protection measures are defined.
In light of the above, beyond political considerations and the general Government’s priorities, it is imperative that the Government adopts a more comprehensive approach to tackle the pandemic.
It should address the differential impact the pandemic might have on people who lead social and legal transformations in the conflict zones of the country.
In particular, it should implement or adapt protection measures to be effective during the COVID-19 crisis. Similarly, the right to an effective remedy and reparation should also be not only guaranteed, but realized, in compliance with international standards.
Additionally, it is also important that the national Government reinforce its efforts to obtain a humanitarian ceasefire by all illegal groups during the COVID-19 crisis.
A total ceasefire would contribute to (i) protecting the civilian population for violent actions, (ii) implementing the pandemic measures in conflict zones, and (iii) avoiding a proliferation of the virus in vulnerable communities.
This is a crucial measure that has already been requested by national civil organisations, the Head of the UN Verification Mission in Colombia, the OAS, and some parliamentarians.
As yet, only one illegal group has accepted a ceasefire: the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, ELN), the largest active guerrilla in Colombia, who declared a unilateral ceasefire during April.
To conclude, acknowledging the importance of the conflict is essential to tackle the human rights implications of the COVID-19 crisis.
This is not only necessary to have comprehensive pandemic policies, but also to make sure that the problems and needs in the conflict zones are not neglected and aggravated during the pandemic.
On this point, as recently stated by UN Secretary-General, people who are most vulnerable during a conflict are also “most at risk of suffering “devastating losses” from the disease.”
Mar 26, 2020 | News
The ICJ, Amnesty International, ARTICLE 19, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, CIVICUS and Human Rights Watch today called on Singapore authorities to drop investigations of human rights lawyer M Ravi and two other individuals under Singapore’s contempt of court law and cease their harassment of human rights defenders.
On 13 March, police raided the office of human rights lawyer M Ravi, editor of an independent news website, Terry Xu, seizing his phone, passport and firm’s laptop.
He is apparently under investigation for contempt of court under the Administration of Justice Act (AJPA).
The investigation followed the publication of articles on independent media website ‘The Online Citizen’ (TOC) relating to his client, Mohan Rajangam, a Singaporean who challenged the legality of his extradition from Malaysia in 2015.
The same day, police raided the home of Terry Xu, TOC’s editor, and confiscated his electronic equipment. He is also being investigated for contempt of court under the AJPA, after he published articles on Rajangam’s case. Two other individuals are also being subject to investigation, including Rajangam himself and a writer for the TOC.
Even as the police have stated that the publication online on TOC of parts of Rajangam’s affidavit breached contempt of court regulations, it is unclear what exact content poses a risk of prejudice to the court proceedings.
“The contempt of court doctrine under common law was, for years, used by authorities to curtail speech surrounding politically sensitive topics and cases,” noted Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“After the coming into force of the AJPA, the contempt regime is even more vulnerable for misuse – these current raids and investigations only evidence that how the law can be abused to violate the rights of individuals.”
Investigations of the four individuals for contempt of court continue. The ICJ has been informed that as of 15 March, M Ravi had put the police on notice that the contents of his mobile phone and laptop are subject to legal professional privilege and should remain confidential until a formal ruling is made by a court of law on the matter.
Terry Xu and M Ravi have been targeted and harassed constantly by authorities for information they have released in their professional capacities as an independent journalist and human rights lawyer respectively – notably through abuse of legal mechanisms. Terry Xu is currently fighting pending cases in court relating to alleged defamation of political officials and Singapore’s problematic Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). M Ravi has similarly faced action by the Attorney-General’s Chambers for his advocacy against the death penalty.
“In the lead-up to elections, it is even more crucial that the Singapore government ensure that freedom of expression, opinion and information are protected and that independent media is allowed to operate to ensure communication of a diversity of opinions and ideas and inform public opinion,” said Rawski.
“For these reasons we urge the authorities to cease harassment of the four individuals and call on them to drop investigations against them”.
Read the joint statement here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
In its 2019 regional report, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, the ICJ found that in Singapore contempt of court proceedings have been used to curtail freedom of expression and information under the guise of “maintaining orderly proceedings” and “protecting public confidence in the judiciary”, particularly in cases of online criticism touching on politically sensitive matters.
In October 2017, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 came into force, despite well founded concerns that its vague provisions could result in abusive interpretation and implementation, given existing trends of use of contempt of court under common law to limit freedom of expression.
The AJPA lowered the threshold for contempt in what is referred to as “scandalizing the Court”, expanding judicial powers to punish such contempt with increased and onerous penalties. Section 3(1) criminalizes the “scandalizing of court” through (i) “impugning the integrity, propriety or impartiality” of judges by “intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that… poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined” (section 3(1)(a)); and (ii) “intentional” publishing of any material which interferes with pending court proceedings, or sub judice contempt (section 3(1)(b)). Section 3(1)(a) reduced the threshold for “scandalizing” contempt to a mere “risk” of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, where the common law test established in the landmark case of Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan was to establish a “real risk” of such undermining of confidence. This exacerbated a standard that was already deeply problematic.
Section 12(1) of the AJPA increased the maximum penalty for “scandalizing” contempt to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of S$100,000 (approx. USD 72,051) or both, when under common law, a six-week imprisonment sentence and S$20,000 (approx. USD 14,410) fine had been deemed appropriate.
