Durante los días 8 y 11 de Junio una misión de la CIJ ha visitado Uruguay para discutir con autoridades, víctimas y la sociedad civil el estado de la lucha contra la impunidad para las violaciones de los derechos humanos cometidas durante el periodo dictatorial.
Thailand must lift martial law and return the country to civilian rule, instead of invoking arbitrary powers under Article 44 of the country’s interim constitution, said the ICJ today.
Today, Prime Minister and head of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), General Prayut Chan-o-cha, announced that he had submitted a revocation of the Martial Law, imposed nationwide on 20 May 2014, to King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
Gen. Prayut stated that in place of Martial Law, he would invoke Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, which effectively gives him the authority to rule without any legal restrictions or accountability.
“Ending Martial Law is a necessary step, but replacing it with Article 44 does not address the serious violations of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law. Article 44 of the Interim Constitution is drafted so broadly that it could give the head of the junta even greater powers than Martial law,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ. “Article 44 would allow the head of the NCPO to issue any orders he wishes under the pretext of strengthening public unity and national security, and also deems any such order to be legal and constitutional, removing any possibility of judicial oversight.”
Article 44 of the interim Constitution gives the NCPO power to give any order deemed necessary for “…the benefit of reform in any field and to strengthen public unity and harmony, or for the prevention, disruption or suppression of any act which undermines public peace and order or national security, the Monarchy, national economics or administration of State affairs …,” and provides that any such order “…is deemed to be legal, constitutional and conclusive…”
“Article 44 violates the fundamental pillars of the rule of law and human rights, including equality, accountability, and predictability. Article 44 could potentially allow for arbitrary rule by the head of the NCPO, so using it would not be a real improvement over the Martial Law, which at least has been in existence since 1914, and has a degree of clarity to its scope and application,” said Tayler.
“The NCPO should revoke Martial Law and also explicitly commit itself to observing Thailand’s international obligations, which means avoiding any use of Article 44,” he added.
International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or restrict protection for human rights on grounds of emergency.
Such “derogations” are permissible under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party, only “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation”.
“The situation in Thailand does not meet the extremely high threshold required for derogating from international human rights law,” said Tayler. “Thai authorities have repeatedly promised a rapid return to the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country, but replacing Martial Law with rule by Article 44 doesn’t suggest an improvement for the rule of law or respect for human rights.”
Thailand-Martial Law-Article 44-News-Press release-2015-THA (Thai version, full text in PDF)
La Comisión Colombiana de Juristas afiliada a la Comisión Internacional de Juristas resaltan el valioso aporte de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado durante estos 18 años en Colombia.
25° período de sesiones, Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas
Tema 2 de la agenda, Informe anual de la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos sobre la situación de derechos humanos en Colombia (A/HRC/28/3/Add.3)
Situación de derechos humanos en Colombia
25 de marzo de 2015
Señor Presidente:
La Comisión Colombiana de Juristas afiliada a la Comisión Internacional de Juristas resaltan el valioso aporte de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado durante estos 18 años en Colombia: tiene oficinas en varias regiones y trabaja con comunidades afectadas por el conflicto armado; ha contribuido “a cambios positivos a través de su observación, incidencia, declaraciones públicas, buenos oficios y cooperación técnica”; “[h]a presentado informes periódicos a entidades gubernamentales; ha actuado como garante en conflictos (…); ha interactuado a diario con el Estado y la sociedad civil para encontrar soluciones a los desafíos de derechos humanos (…); y ha contribuido al fortalecimiento de las instituciones” (párrafo 2).
Pese a ciertos avances en derechos humanos, el Informe anual resalta los retos en materia de implementación, falta de voluntad política para aceptar la responsabilidad por violaciones del pasado1, desigualdades económicas y “un acceso asimétrico a los derechos y a los servicios públicos” (párrafo 14). Además, Colombia todavía actúa en contra de sus obligaciones internacionales, como sucede con el derecho a la consulta previa (párrafo 26) o la ampliación de la justicia militar (párrafo 60). Adicionalmente, Colombia no recibe procedimientos especiales desde 2010, aunque cuenta con una invitación permanente y seis mandatos han solicitado visita2.
Después de 18 años invertidos en el país, la Oficina sigue siendo los ojos de la comunidad internacional para derechos humanos, y el acompañante o asesor del Estado en el diseño de sus políticas (párrafos 16, 29, 34, 60).
Según el Informe, el Gobierno y las FARC-EP han logrado avances sin precedentes para poner fin al conflicto armado (párrafo 6). Si “[l]a perspectiva de una salida negociada al conflicto (…) y el crecimiento económico proporcionan una oportunidad única para ampliar la presencia del Estado, hacer frente a la desigualdad y mejorar la situación de los derechos humanos” (párrafo 19), indiscutiblemente la Oficina del Alto Comisionado en Colombia es una inversión clave, y no es de corto plazo.
Gracias señor Presidente.
1 El párrafo 58 dice: “El rechazo de responsabilidades por parte de las fuerzas armadas y de sus superiores políticos perpetúa la impunidad, socava la legitimidad institucional y erosiona el estado de derecho”.
2 Colombia cuenta con una invitación permanente a los procedimientos especiales de la ONU desde el 17 de marzo de 2003. Sin embargo, desde inicios de 2012 no ha aceptado ninguna visita, aunque los mandatos sobre extrema pobreza, personas internamente desplazadas, violencia contra la mujer, afrodescendientes, mercenarios y alimentación han solicitado visitar el país.
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Nepal.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group issues concerning:
Thailand must live up to its repeated promises to bring justice to the case of Somchai Neelapaijit, who was forcibly disappeared eleven years ago today, said the ICJ.
In multiple statements since Somchai Neelapaijit was abducted on a street in central Bangkok, the Royal Thai Government has pledged to resolve the case.
Before the United Nations Human Rights Council in May 2008, the Royal Thai Government pledged “to do its utmost and leave no stone unturned in order to bring to justice the case of Mr Somchai.”
In April 2014, Thailand gave assurances to the UN Committee that monitors the implementation of the Convention Against Torture in Geneva that the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) was continuing to investigate Somchai Neelapaijit’s case without any interference.
“Despite the passage of eleven years, Thai authorities have not carried out a comprehensive investigation or exhausted the possible sources of evidence,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “What is required is the DSI’s real and determined effort to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.”
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 among other things places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence, to thoroughly and impartially investigate cases, bring those responsible to justice and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
Promisingly, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting a Torture and Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Suppression Bill, which, in its current form, defines and criminalizes enforced disappearance and torture in Thailand.
“This new law must ensure there is no statute of limitations on enforced disappearance, which is not only a serious human rights violation but also a crime under international law,” added Zarifi. “Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unresolved, and his family continue to demand truth and justice from the authorities.”
To mark the 10-year anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s “disappearance”, the ICJ released a report Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, in which it documented the tortuous legal history of the case.
The report highlighted 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.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
The International Commission of Jurists Welcomes Our New Commissioners
Lebanon: Ensure draft media law upholds free expression
Nepal: Protesters Demand Integrity, Rights, Rule of Law
India: Joint statement urging Indian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release human rights defender and student activist Umar Khalid