Sep 27, 2019 | News
ICJ today denounced the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Actions (In Aid of Civil Power) Ordinance, 2019, by the Governor of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province on 5 August 2019.
The ICJ said that implementation of the Ordinance will lead to serious human rights violations and miscarriages of justice, contrary to the purported aims of the measures.
“The Ordinance is yet another example of Pakistan’s resort to ‘exceptional’ measures that are grossly incompatible with human rights protections, ostensibly to combat terrorism and other serious crime,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Pakistan must reject this dangerous, oppressive, and counter productive strategy and instead strengthen its judicial process and law enforcement in line with its domestic law and international human rights law obligations,” he added.
The Ordinance gives sweeping powers to members of the armed forces, including the power to detain people without charge or trial on a number of vaguely defined grounds where it appears that such “internment” would be expedient for peace. Individuals may be detained for an unspecified period without any right to be brought before a court of law or to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court.
In addition to the vague and overbroad detention provisions, the Ordinance provides that statements or depositions by members of the armed forces shall on their own be sufficient for convicting the detainees if they are tried for any offence.
The Ordinance also provides wide immunity for armed forces for any action done, taken, ordered to be taken, or conferred, assumed or exercised by, before or after the promulgation of the Ordinance.
The Ordinance is incompatible with “fundamental rights” guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, as well as Pakistan’s international legal obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ said.
Article 9(4) of the ICCPR, for example, guarantees the right of all detainees to take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, and to be released if the court finds such detention unlawful.
The President of Pakistan passed similar regulations, namely, the Actions (In Aid of Civil Power) Regulations in 2011, which were applicable in the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA). The Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulations were extensively used as a legal cover for arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances.
In their review of Pakistan’s implementation of the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture (CAT), the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee against Torture in 2017 expressed concern about the Regulations, and recommended that Pakistan “review the Actions (in aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011 with a view to repealing it or bringing it into conformity with international standards.”
“It is regrettable that not only did Pakistan flout these express recommendations of the UN Committees, but that it extended the scope of the regulations,” added Rawski.
“This step also calls into question Pakistan’s pledge for election to the UN Human Rights Council in 2017, where Pakistan ‘firmly resolved to uphold, promote and safeguard universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’,” Rawski said.
ICJ urges the Pakistan Government to immediately revoke the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Actions (In Aid of Civil Power) Ordinance, and to review all national security legislation to ensure it is fully compatible with international human rights law and standards.
Contact
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
–
Full statement, with additional information: Pakistan-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Actions Ordinance-Press releases-2019-ENG (PDF)
Feb 2, 2018 | News
Cambodia should halt efforts to radically limit the right to freedom of expression through adoption of lèse-majesté legislation which would criminalize the exercise of some expression, said the ICJ today.
The Spokesperson for the Cambodian Council of Ministers, Phay Siphan, reportedly announced on Facebook today that the Council of Ministers had approved an amendment to the Cambodian Criminal Code which would make it a crime to insult the Cambodian King, carrying a penalty of one to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of two million Riel (USD 500) to ten million Riel (USD 2,500).
“The Cabinet’s approval of a lèse-majesté law appears to be a further attempt by the Government to ‘weaponize’ the country’s legislation against its perceived opponents,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“The Government’s ongoing misuse of the law is particularly concerning given the lack of independent and impartial judges to provide appropriate checks and balances on its power,” he added.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns about abuses arising from the lèse-majesté law in neighboring Thailand to curb freedom of expression.
Exercises of expression which are critical to a democratic society under the rule of law, including commenting on public policy and political questions, are sometimes stifled and punished under these laws.
The right to freedom of expression is protected under international law and should never be subject to criminal penalties, let alone imprisonment, which is a manifestly disproportionate penalty for the exercise of the fundamental right to free expression, the ICJ said.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Background
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State party, protects the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the “freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”
In its General Comment No. 34 on article 19, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), the body that monitors compliance of State parties with the ICCPR, expressed concern about the use of lèse-majesté laws and asserted that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” for defamation.
The HRC further clarified that “all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition” and that “laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned”.
In February 2017, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, urged Thailand to refrain from using the lèse-majesté law as a “political tool to stifle critical speech” and asserted that “(l)esè-majesté provisions have no place in a democratic country”.
The legislative amendments ratified by the Council of Ministers will now be sent to the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament of Cambodia, for approval.
Upon approval by Parliament, the amendments would come into force when signed by the King.
At the same time as approving a lèse-majesté law, the Council of Ministers reportedly approved other constitutional amendments which appear to impose impermissible restrictions on the rights to free association and freedom of assembly, also protected under the ICCPR.
These legislative amendments reportedly include provisions that (i) the right to vote or the right to stand as an election candidate can be restricted by domestic legislation, (ii) the right to form a political party would require “placing the nation’s interests first”, (iii) prohibit individuals from “undermining the interests of the nation” and (iv) allow Secretaries of the State to be appointed by Royal Decree rather than by Parliamentary vote.
Read also
ICJ’s October 2017 Report: Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia
Dec 8, 2017 | News
From 5 to 8 December 2017, the ICJ co-hosted two workshops – the first one for lawyers with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the second one for authorities in Thailand – on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance.
The first workshop’s attendees included 17 lawyers and academics from Thailand and eight lawyers from India.
Participants in the second workshop included 26 participants from Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, Department of Special Investigation (DSI), Royal Thai Police, Office of the Attorney-General, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior, Southern Border Province Administration Centre and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
The first event commenced with opening remarks by OHCHR Human Rights Officer and Thailand team coordinator, Imesh Pokharel, and Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Aem-on Siang-Yai, Director of the Office of Rights and Freedoms Protection from the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Justice made additional opening remarks in the second event.
In both workshops, Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia at the ICJ provided an introduction to the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017; ICJ Practitioners Guide No 9 – Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction (2015, in English, Spanish and Thai); and the international legal framework governing investigations into unlawful deaths, noting that Thailand has legal obligations including under its Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a State Party, to respect, protect and fulfil the right to life.
These obligations entail a duty to ensure investigations into potentially unlawful deaths are independent, impartial, effective, thorough and transparent.
Sean Buckley of OSACO Group, former New Zealand Police Detective and now an independent, international, investigative specialist with more than 20 years of investigations experience including more than seven years with the United Nations (including at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), provided in both events a technical training on a range of topics relevant to investigations using the revised Minnesota Protocol as a guide.
Kingsley Abbott was a member of the Forensics and Legal Working Groups which assisted with the revision of the Minnesota Protocol, while Sean Buckley was a member of the Advisory Panel.
The workshops focused on investigation techniques of potentially unlawful deaths, including controlling the crime scene, preserving the security of evidence and ensuring the safety of all parties involved in investigations, including witnesses, investigators and family members of victims.
The workshops also covered witness identification and interview techniques, collection of DNA evidence, drafting of investigation reports and crime file management.
Sean Buckley shared with participants different means of international assistance available for investigations of potentially unlawful deaths.
The Workshop also covered the collection and potential use of telecommunications evidence.
Sean Buckley and Imesh Pokharel presented on the interview and protection of witnesses.
Thailand and India are both state parties to the ICCPR.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Nov 27, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) to end the escalating repression of civil society in Cambodia and reverse the rapidly deteriorating rule of law and human rights crisis in the country.
Yesterday, it was reported that Prime Minister Hun Sen called for the shut down of one of Cambodia’s leading, independent NGOs, Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR), and directed the Ministry of Interior to investigate CCHR for its alleged engagement with “foreigners”.
The Prime Minister’s statement appeared to allude to alleged involvement of CCHR in a supposed foreign-backed “colour revolution” to overthrow the government.
“The Cambodian Center for Human Rights plays an essential, independent role in promoting and protecting human rights in Cambodia and must be able to continue its important work without fear of retaliation, reprisal or other unjustified interference,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Everyone has the right to form and participate in organizations established to work on human rights, and States have a corresponding duty to protect the ability of such organizations and their participants to carry out their work to promote and defend human rights,” he added.
This latest development comes amidst a severe clampdown by the RGC on perceived dissenting voices including civil society, activists, the independent media and political opposition including through the recent dissolution of the major opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), in what appeared to be a highly politicized Supreme Court proceeding, and the arrest and detention of its leader, Kem Sokha.
“This new, targeted focus on the Cambodian Center for Human Rights by the Government should make it clear that the human rights and rule of law crisis gripping Cambodia is not showing any signs of abating and requires the urgent attention of the international community,” said Abbott.
“All legal, political and economic options should be on the table,” he added.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Background
CCHR was founded by Kem Sokha in 2002 before he left the organization in 2007 to pursue a career in politics.
Yesterday, CCHR released a statement “reaffirming its absolute non-partisanship and independence from all political parties” and emphasizing “strict independence” as a core value of its organization. CCHR also asserted in its statement that an “independent and impartial investigation would find no wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of the organization” and called for “meaningful dialogue” with the RGC.
Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State Party, guarantees the rights of all persons to freedom of expression and opinion and to freedom of association with others.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by a consensus of States at the UN General Assembly, including Cambodia, affirms the right of everyone to form and participate in NGOs to promote and protect human rights. The Declaration further dictates that states should take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders from retaliation and other forms of arbitrary action as a consequence of their legitimate work.
On 18 October 2017, the ICJ released a report which found that the RGC was increasingly “weaponizing” the law to restrict dissent and attack democracy. The report recorded that the “single largest problem facing the Cambodian justice system is the lack of independent and impartial judges and prosecutors,” which includes “an endemic system of political interference in high-profile cases and an equally entrenched system of corruption in all others”.
On 23 October 2017, the 26th anniversary of the 1991 Paris Peace Conference on Cambodia, the ICJ, together with 54 other organizations, issued an open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General and the Conference’s co-chairs calling for the reconvening of the members of the Conference and other concerned stakeholders for an emergency summit to address the human rights crisis in the country.
Jul 30, 2017 | News
Indian authorities must ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s historic judgment directing independent investigations into alleged extrajudicial killings by the police and security forces in Manipur from 1979 to 2012, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is calling for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all cases, in line with international standards.
It is further calling on Indian authorities to ensure all accused are brought to justice in fair trials in ordinary civilian courts, and that the families of victims are accorded access to an effective remedy and reparation for any human rights violations.
“Through this judgment, the Indian Supreme Court has given fresh hopes to the victims of human rights violations in India who seek justice,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Programme Director.
“This bold and principled decision should finally end the cynical attempts by Indian security forces and law enforcement agencies to shield themselves from criminal accountability,” he added.
On 14 July 2017, the Supreme Court ordered the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within two weeks to go through the records of at least 85 cases of alleged extrajudicial killings that took place in Manipur between 1979 and 2012, lodge First Information Reports (FIRs), and complete investigations where required.
The Court also directed that the investigations must be completed by 31 December 2017.
The Court noted that the Manipur Police had not registered any FIR at the instance of the family members of the deceased.
It also held that the Manipur Police could not be expected to carry out impartial investigations as some of its own personnel were said to be involved in the “fake encounters”.
India has a legal obligation under Articles 2(3) and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is party, to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
On 27 July 2017, the CBI constituted a five-member Special Investigating Team in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
“The CBI’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions through the prompt constitution of an investigation team is a welcome step,” added Rawski. “It must now ensure that investigations are thorough, independent, impartial and in line with international standards, including the ICCPR.”
The ICJ urged the State of Manipur and the Union of India to extend full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigating Team to complete the investigations without any hurdles or delays.
Other allegations of human rights violations in the petition must also be investigated in line with international standards, the ICJ said.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) and Human Rights Alert filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India in 2012, alleging that from 1979 to 2012 over 1,528 cases of fake “encounter killings” had taken place in Manipur.
They further alleged that the State government had not conducted proper investigations into the allegations of excessive use of force by the security forces and the police and requested the Court to constitute a special investigation team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to conduct a probe into the alleged unlawful killings.
In July 2016, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, including under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and directed the petitioners to present detailed documentation in support of their allegations.
In April 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the Central Government’s curative petition requesting the Court to reconsider its July 2016 judgment on the ground that it hampered the security force’s ability to respond to insurgent and terrorist situations.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under AFSPA. Once an area is declared “disturbed”, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use lethal force.
AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational.
Human rights organizations, including the ICJ, and several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended.
