Apr 5, 2016 | News
Thailand must immediately revoke National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 13/2016 which confers sweeping powers on the Royal Thai Armed Forces in contravention of human rights and the rule of law, said today the ICJ and other human rights groups.
On 29 March 2016, pursuant to Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Head of the NCPO, issued Order 13/2016 which provides appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons.
“The implementation of Order 13/2016 will almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and the rule of law and must be revoked immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“We have observed a steady erosion of human rights protections in Thailand since the military coup of 22 May 2014 and this Order signifies another, jarring, movement in the same direction,” he added.
The Order raises numerous human rights concerns say the ICJ, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), and Fortify Rights (FR). These concerns include:
1. Grants a form of immunity from prosecution to those acting under the Order, leading to impunity contrary to the principle of accountability required by the rule of law.
“Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic rule, the Thai junta has broadened its powers to do almost anything it wants, including committing abuses with total impunity,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Repression becomes a daily reality as Thailand descends further into military dictatorship.”
2. Actions taken under the Order are not subject to judicial review, contrary to the rights to effective remedy, to judicial control of deprivation of liberty, and to a fair trial, as for instance recognized under Articles 2, 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The Order is yet another example of the pernicious removal of powers from the judicial system to review the military’s actions, to the detriment of rights protection and the rule of law,” said Champa Patel, Interim Director, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Amnesty International.
3. Provides untrained military officials with broadly and ambiguously worded powers of law enforcement likely to lead to abuse, inconsistent with human rights standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
“The Order provides law enforcement powers to military officials who do not have law enforcement experience or protocols to summon, search, and arrest persons,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.
“This makes the absence of judicial oversight all the more concerning. The fact that this may lead to an abuse of power and the disproportionate use of force by military officials in violation of international laws and standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is very worrying. There is a real risk the Order may be used to restrict the legitimate rights of people such as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” she added.
4. Authorizes the deprivation of liberty of persons for up to seven days in unrecognized places of detention, without judicial oversight, which increases the risk of further human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearance.
“Despite its pretense to suppress criminal activities, this Order is likely to result in the commission of very serious crimes that are prohibited under human rights instruments that Thailand has either signed or ratified,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.
5. In practice, the Order is open to abuse to repress and silence those perceived as dissenters, including human rights defenders, in violation of international human rights law and standards.
“This Order stands to fuel the fire of retaliation against human rights defenders in Thailand,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Thailand has an obligation to protect human rights defenders, but this Order could easily be used to target and obstruct their legitimate work.”
Contact
Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +41 (0) 229793800 ; e: wilder.tayler(a)icj.org
Thailand-NCPO Order-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text, in PDF, Thai version)
Thailand-NCPO Order unof trsl-Advocacy-2016-ENG (unofficial translation of the Order, PDF)
Apr 2, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe held the End of Term Symposium for the judiciary of Zimbabwe at the Troutbeck Inn in Nyanga, 31 March – 2 April 2016.
Chief Justice Chidyausiku in his opening remarks at the End of Term Symposium, stated that the Symposia are important because they give judges an opportunity to meet and engage with each other on various issues of interest or concern.
Additionally the purpose of the Symposium is to improve the quality of service in terms of judgments and the speedy outcome of cases.
In attendance at the Symposium were 72 delegates including judges from the Supreme Court, High Court and Labour Court, as well as representatives from the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
The programme included a joint session with all the courts in attendance, to discuss topics of judicial ethics and case management.
Mar 30, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must immediately halt the politically motivated sedition investigation launched by the police against members of the Malaysian Bar who had called for the Attorney General’s resignation, the ICJ said today.
“The Malaysian authorities are using the archaic, colonial Sedition Act to harass and silence lawyers who are demanding that the country’s legal authorities observe international standards of propriety and independence,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“This latest misuse of the Sedition Act constitutes a brazen political attack on the independence of the country’s lawyers,” she added.
On 29 March 2016, lawyers Charles Hector, Francis Pereira, and Shanmugam Ramasamy, received letters from police authorities summoning them to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters on 31 March 2016 for the purpose of taking down their statements regarding a complaint filed against them under the Sedition Act (1948).
The three had proposed a motion during the Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Assembly, calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali. The motion was passed by a majority vote.
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, was also notified that her statement would likewise be taken but she was not summoned to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.
Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.
“In 2012, Prime Minister Razak had promised to repeal the Sedition Act, but since then his government has increasingly relied on the law’s impermissibly vague and broad language as a useful tool of repression,” Gil said.
International standards highlight that protecting the independence of lawyers and their professional associations is essential for upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, the ICJ says.
“This police investigation is clearly designed to challenge that independence,” Gil said.
“The Malaysian Bar has been one of the few institutions consistently defending the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia, and it is crucial to maintain the ability of its members to engage critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” she added.
The ICJ urges the Malaysian government to repeal the archaic Sedition Act 1948 and fulfill the commitment it made in 2012 to abolish it.
Unless repealed or considerably revised so that it will be consistent with international law, the Sedition Act 1948 will continue to unduly limit and repress the freedom of expression, not only of lawyers and human rights defenders, but of all Malaysians exercising their fundamental rights, the ICJ says.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Like other citizens, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. Lawyers have the right to take part in the public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights (Principle 23).
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity (Principle 24).
Governments should ensure that these professional associations are able to function without improper interference (Principle 25).
In its 2016 resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously affirmed that “the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the integrity of the judicial system and an independent legal profession are essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice, and should therefore be respected in all circumstances” (Resolution 30/7, 1 October 2015).
Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
Mar 29, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed serious concern at the apparent murder of lawyer Yury Grabovsky who was found dead on 25 March. The lawyer had been missing for two weeks and was reportedly found shot and buried near the Kiev-Odessa main route.
“The death of lawyer Yury Grabovsky must be investigated in a prompt, impartial and effective manner. Other lawyers who may be under threat should be urgently granted the necessary measures of protection”, said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Legal Adivser.
Yury Grabovsky was the managing partner of law firm “Garbovsky and Co”, as well as Deputy Chair of the High Qualification Disciplinary Commission.
He represented Aleksandr Aleksandrov, who along with Evgeniy Yerofeyev, was detained last May in the Lugansk Region in Eastern Ukraine and accused of terrorism and a number of other crimes.
The lawyer’s whereabouts had been unknown since 5 March after he had left for Odessa to stay at “Arkadiya” hotel.
He was apparently supposed to leave the hotel on 7 March but he never took his belongings from there.
On 9 March, a court hearing did not take place because the lawyer was missing.
Garbovsky’s colleagues reportedly doubted the authenticity of a post on his facebook account stated that he had left Ukraine.
On 10 March, the National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine informed the National Police that the lawyer had been missing.
The same day, the Odessa police opened a criminal case on “intentional murder”.
On 20 March, the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine, Anatoly Matios, stated that a suspect in the organization of the disappearance of Grabovsky had been apprehended.
On Friday, 25 March, Prosecutor Matios said that Grabovsky “was killed in a violent way and finished off with a firearm” which according to the Prosecutor was a “specially planned operation.”
The lawyer’s body was found shot and buried 138 km south of Kiev after one of the suspects had reportedly disclosed the place of burial.
The lawyer is said to have had an explosive bracelet on his leg, apparently intended to prevent him from escaping. The names of the suspects have not been made public.
It is the second killing of a lawyer in Ukraine this month, and the fourth such killing since January 2015, including, lawyers Alexandr Gruzkov, Yury Ignatenko, Viktor Loiko, and now Yuri Grabovskiy.
Temur Shakirov stressed that “in order to fulfil their function lawyers must be able to act without fear and free from fear of reprisals of any kind”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that“[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.”
The ICJ calls on the Government of Ukraine to investigate the case and bring those responsible to justice, including both anyone who directly carried out the killing and anyone who ordered the crime.
Urgent measures to guarantee the security of lawyers should be taken, which should include effective security measures against attempts on their lives and lives of their family members.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Mar 29, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its grave concern at the 28 March 2016 conviction and sentencing of 17 Angolan activists to terms of imprisonment ranging from two years to more than eight years, for the peaceful exercise of their human rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression.
Following an unfair trial, they were found guilty of “preparatory actions of rebellion and association of evildoers” [malfeitores], based on having read and discussed reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship or being associated with others who did so.
The ICJ joins numerous civil society organizations in condemning the failure by the authorities in Angola to conduct the trial in a manner consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.
“Judicial persecution of opponents of the government in Angola must be stopped forthwith” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
“A worrisome trend and pattern is emerging where the authorities in Angola are increasingly using the law and legal system as an instrument of repression targeting critics of the government as well as human rights defenders,” he added.
The ICJ calls on the Angolan authorities to invalidate the conviction and sentences, and to take concrete measures to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring the independence of the judiciary and legal profession as well as fully implementing international human rights standards in the national legal system.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +27731318411 or +263777283249 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Background
Fifteen of the Accused were arrested in June 2015 and later joined by another two accused.
They were initially charged with rebellion and a conspiracy to mount a coup against the President for studying and discussing reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship.
The prosecution later dropped the second charge but added a charge of “criminal association” or “association with evildoers”.
The defense maintains that the state did not manage to prove anything beyond the fact that the accused discussed politics, which is allowed under the Angolan constitution.
No independent observers were allowed to attend the trial, raising serious concerns about the right to fair trial.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties to which Angola is a party, recognize freedom of expression and freedom of association as human rights, and prohibit governments from arbitrarily or otherwise illegitimately interfering with them.
Domingos da Cruz was sentenced to 8 years and six months; Luaty Beirão to 5 years and 6 months; Nuno Dala, Sedrick de Carvalho, Nito Alves, Inocêncio de Brito, Laurinda Gouveia, Fernando António Tomás “Nicola”, Afonso Matias “Mbanza Hamza”, Osvaldo Caholo, Arante Kivuvu, Albano Evaristo Bingo -Bingo, Nelson Dibango, Hitler Jessy Chivonde e José Gomes Hata were all sentenced to 4 years and 6 months); while Rosa Conde e Jeremias Benedito got 2 years and 3 months in jail.
