Jan 25, 2017 | News
The decision by the Chuy Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan on 24 January 2017 to uphold the life sentence of human rights defender Azimzhan Askarov constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and has compounded the multiple violations of his human rights, the ICJ said today.
The Court ruling was made in defiance of a decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, which had affirmed these serious violations.
The ICJ calls on the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to respect its international human rights obligations in this case.
Azimzhan Askarov (photo) should have access to an immediate and effective appeal against the decision of the Chuy Regional Court.
Violations of his rights should be remedied and just compensation provided.
Azimzhan Askarov was convicted of participation in murder, organization of mass disturbances and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011, following an unfair trial, arbitrary detention and torture.
The re-hearing of the case before the Chuy Regional Court followed the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee that his arrest, detention and trial breached Kyrgyzstan’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, the prohibition on arbitrary detention, and the right to fair trial.
The ICJ has closely monitored the case. Representatives of the ICJ observed several court hearings, including during the re-examination.
The ICJ regrets that the re-examination of Azimzhan Askarov’s case did not remedy the violations of his human rights found by the Human Rights Committee.
The court failed to undertake a rigorous study of both defence and prosecution cases.
Rather, it appeared to take the prosecution case at face value, thus undermining the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality of arms.
Many motions of the defence remained unaddressed or were rejected without cause.
These included a motion asking that the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee be evaluated by the Court, as they were crucial for the re-opening the case by the Supreme Court.
The Chuy Regional Court not only failed to examine the findings of the Human Rights Committee, but summarily rejected the Committee’s findings that Azimzhan Askarov had been arbitrarily arrested, held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture.
The Court in its decision doubted the truth of Azimzhan Askarov’s statement that he had been repeatedly tortured, on the basis that three State psychiatrists concluded that he was “deceitful and subservient” and the defence had not produced witnesses or other evidence to rebut this point.
The Court heard several witnesses who stated that they had initially given false statements implicating Azimzhan Askarov because they were intimidated or subjected to ill-treatment.
The Court did not take any action to investigate these allegations.
During the re-examination of his case Azimzhan Askarov was kept in a metal cage and had no immediate opportunity to speak without hindrance with his lawyer.
Askarov, an Uzbek speaker, visibly struggled to speak in Kyrgyz, but no interpretation was provided for him.
Background
Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender, was convicted of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2011.
The central charges concerned allegations of his participation in a murder of Myktybek Sulayamanov, a police officer, during the 2010 ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan.
The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011.
Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.
In March 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision in regard to Askarov’s complaint and found violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Human Rights Committee, which in March 2016 heard a complaint brought by Askarov, called for his conviction to be quashed and if necessary a new trial to be held in line with the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards.
On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a further reconsideration of the case on appeal, which resulted in upholding Askarov’s verdict and sentence.
Following the decision of 24 January, the defence said they would appeal this decision of the Chuy Court in the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. Kyrgyzstan is a party to the ICCPR and as such is bound by this treaty to guarantee the rights it enshrines and to provide effective remedies when these rights are violated.
The decision of the Committee is an authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR which may serve as evidence in court and whose findings should not be ignored.
Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-failure to remedy-News-Web story-2017-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Dec 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) urge the Pakistani authorities to fully engage with the UN human rights body by answering its questions comprehensively.
The call follows the recent adoption by the United Nations Human Rights Committee of a document raising a multiplicity of concerns about Pakistan’s human rights record.
“It is encouraging to see Pakistan’s increased engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms in recent years”, said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“But it is important that the Government does not stop here and now takes the additional constructive step of answering all the Committee’s questions truthfully and honestly,” he added.
In November 2016, during its 118th session, the Human Rights Committee adopted a document known as a List of issues in relation to Pakistan’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in which the Committee asked multiple questions about the country’s human rights record, including:
- Fair trial concerns as a result of the expanded jurisdiction of military courts following the introduction/adoption of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, including the criteria for and the process of selecting cases to be tried by military courts, the qualifications of judges presiding over those courts and their proceedings;
- Reintroduction of the death penalty and the wide scope of its application, including the mandatory death sentence for “blasphemy”;
- Broad and vaguely defined “blasphemy offences”, their disproportionate use against individuals belonging to religious minorities; the large number of “blasphemy” cases instituted on the basis of false accusations; and the lack of mechanisms to protect judges who hear “blasphemy” cases and those accused of blasphemy from intimidation and threats;
- Rights of Ahmadis, including their “right to profess, practice and propagate” their religion without interference;
- Repatriation of Afghan refugees, including information on the adoption of a draft national refugee law and a comprehensive policy on the voluntary repatriation and management of Afghan nationals;
- Rights of women, including steps taken by the Government to prevent and punish persistent violence (sexual and otherwise) against women, including so-called honour killings;
- Torture and other ill-treatment, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances, including steps taken by the Government to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Muhabbat Shah case, which held military authorities responsible for the enforced disappearance of at least 28 people from a Malakand internment centre.
This is the first time Pakistan’s human rights record is being reviewed by the Human Rights Committee, the treaty body that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its State parties, since Pakistan ratified the Covenant in 2010.
The next step in the review process is for Pakistan to respond to the questions framed in the List of Issues.
The Human Rights Committee will undertake a comprehensive review Pakistan’s compliance with and implementation of the ICCPR and adopt concluding observations in July 2017.
“It is of the utmost importance to Pakistan to derive greater benefit from its engagement with the UN human rights mechanisms by making a sincere effort to answer the concerns of the Committee,” said I A Rehman, Secretary General of HRCP.
Background
Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in June 2010. Following ratification/accession, every state party to the ICCPR is required to submit an initial “state report” containing information on the implementation of each provision of the treaty.
Pakistan submitted its initial state report to the Human Rights Committee in October 2015.
In light of the information provided in the State report, as well as information received from civil society, the Human Rights Committee then prepares a List of Issues containing particular issues of concern to the Committee, and asking whatever questions it sees fit in light of those concerns.
The answers provided by the State party to those questions, as well as other information submitted by civil society and others form the basis of the “review” of the State’s compliance with the treaty.
The State is not obligated to reply to the List of Issues in advance of the review session, but in practice most do.
The State replies are presented to the Committee at the beginning of the review and are the starting point for the interactive dialogue between the Committee and the State under review.
During the review, the Committee meets with State representatives who present answers to the List of Issues and respond to the Committee’s questions.
At the end of the session, the Committee adopts Concluding Observations, which highlight the Committee’s concerns and make recommendations to the State on improving the implementation of the ICCPR.
Pakistan’s ICCPR review is scheduled to take place in July 2017.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Pakistan-list-of-issues-advocacy-2016-eng (in PDF)
Oct 16, 2016 | News
On 15-16 October 2016, the ICJ held a Workshop for justice sector actors in Thailand’s deep South on “the Use of Telecommunication Evidence in Criminal Cases” for police, special investigators, prosecutors and lawyers.
The attendees included 30 public prosecutors, police and Department of Special Investigation (DSI) officials, 15 defense lawyers, and observers from the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ) and the Asia Foundation.
This is the sixth ICJ workshop related to strengthening the administration of justice in the deep South since 2011.
The objective of the workshop, held in Hat Yai, was to discuss how telecommunication information may be used as part of an effective criminal investigation, and the ways in which prosecutors, lawyers and judges should consider approaching the use of this kind of information as evidence at trial.
The Workshop observed a moment of silence for the passage of the late King Rama IX.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, opened by saying that the use of telecommunication evidence is one tool that can be used in an effective investigation of serious criminal and security related cases followed by fair trials.
However, it is important to ensure that the acquisition and use of this information as evidence fully respects the right to privacy guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR) to which Thailand is a State Party.
The ICJ firmly believes that respect for human rights and the rule of law must be the bedrock in countering terrorism and violent crime.
Speakers at the Workshop included Judge Wasupatchra Jongpermwattanapol, Chief Judge of the Office of the Chief Justice Region 9; Mr Sophon Tipbamrung, Executive Director of the Special Office of Criminal Litigation 3, Region 9; Lt. Col. Thatphichai Chanwaranon, Deputy Superintendent of the Investigation Bureau, Southern Border Provinces Police Operation Center and national expert on the use of telecommunication evidence; and Mr Nigel Povoas, a British Barrister with experience leading high profile international serious and organized crime cases and an expert in the use of telecommunication evidence.
Background
Previous ICJ workshops in the deep South have included:
- The Protection of Victims in Criminal Cases (2015)
- The Principle of Inadmissibility of Evidence Obtained by Unlawful Means and Hearsay Evidence: International Standards Compared to Thai Law (2014)
- Rule of Law and Strengthening the Administration of Justice in the Context of Habeas Corpus in the Southern Border Provinces (2012)
- Rule of Law and Strengthening the Administration of Justice in the Context of Bail in the Southern Border Provinces (2012)
- Rule of Law and Strengthening the Administration of Justice in the Context of the Application of Emergency Laws in the Southern Border Provinces (2011)
Jun 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the landmark decision issued today by the UN Human Rights Committee in the case of Amanda Mellet v. Ireland under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Committee found that, by forcing Amanda Mellet to choose either to carry her foetus to term, despite its fatal fœtal abnormality, or to travel abroad to seek an abortion, Ireland had subjected her to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and discrimination, in violation of its obligations under the Covenant.
The ICJ considers that in light of the Committee’s decision Ireland must provide reparation to Amanda Mellet and reform its laws to prevent future violations.
Otherwise, Ireland will be in breach of its legal obligation to provide Amanda Mellet with an effective remedy – including in the terms set out in the Committee’s decision – for the human rights violations she suffered.
Related readings:
Full text of Human Rights Committee’s decision (download in PDF)
Apr 18, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights provided a joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee for its consideration during the adoption of a list of issues for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
During its 117th Session, from 30 June to 25 July 2016, the Committee will prepare and adopt a List of Issues on Thailand.
These issues will be put to the Government of Thailand for formal response ahead of the Committee’s full examination of Thailand’s Second Periodic Report during the Committee’s 119th Session, the exact dates of which have yet to be confirmed but which is expected to take place in March 2017.
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ joint submission raises matters and suggests concrete questions to be put to the Government of Thailand concerning the following issues:
– Thailand’s derogation under Article 4 of the Covenant;
– Torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and custodial deaths in disputed circumstances; and
– Thailand’s new institutional and legal framework since the coup d’état, which severely restricts the exercise of Covenant rights within the country and in particular the recent introduction of the National Council for Peace and Order’s (NCPO) Head Order 13/2016, which grants members of the military wide-ranging law enforcement powers to ‘prevent and suppress’ 27 ‘crimes’, together with blanket immunity from prosecution.
THAILAND-JOINT ICJ TLHR HRC LOI SUBMISSION-Advocacy-non legal submission-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
