Nov 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ and 26 other civil society organizations called today upon the Vietnamese government to comprehensively revise the draft Law on Religion to conform with the country’s obligations under international human rights law.
The groups are concerned that Vietnam’s draft Law on Belief and Religion is inconsistent with the right to freedom of religion or belief.
In its current form, the draft Law places limitations on freedom of religion or belief that extend beyond those permitted under international human rights law that is binding on Vietnam, they say.
Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a state party, requires the authorities to ensure that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
While the draft Law purports to acknowledge “the right to freedom of religion and belief” and proclaims that the “government respects and protects the freedom of religion and belief of everyone,” the provisions of the draft Law, if passed, would act as a powerful instrument of control placing sweeping, overly broad limitations on the practice of religion or belief within Vietnam, perpetuating the already repressive situation.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e-mail: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Vietnam-Draft Law on Religion-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Jul 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ strongly condemned the execution of Yakub Memon, who was hanged in Nagpur Central Jail, India this morning.
“Yakub Memon’s execution is a distressing and regressive move, keeping India in the minority of countries which continue to carry out executions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “While Yakub Memon was convicted of terrible crimes, executing him was not the solution. India should immediately put in place a moratorium on the death penalty.”
A court set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) convicted and sentenced Yakub Memon to death for a range of offences, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in connection with the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993.
These attacks killed more than 250 people and injured more than 700. The main accused in this case, including Yakub Memon’s brother Tiger Memon, have still not been apprehended or tried.
“In executing Yakub Memon, the Indian government has only fulfilled a desire for retribution and added to the disturbing trend of executions in the name of fighting terrorism in South Asia”, Zarifi added. “The death penalty has not been shown to have any deterrent effect on crime or terrorism anywhere in the world.”
The Indian Supreme Court had confirmed Yakub Memon’s conviction and sentence on appeal from the court set up under the TADA in March 2013.
The Indian government repealed the TADA in 1995, after sustained national and international criticism for its incompatibility with human rights law, particularly the right to fair trial.
Yakub Memon was tried under provisions of the TADA as it was the law in force in 1993, when the terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred.
The Indian president rejected a first mercy petition on his case in April 2014.
He subsequently filed a review petition challenging his sentence before the Indian Supreme Court, which was rejected on 9 April 2015.
On 21 July 2015, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed his curative petition for the commutation of his death sentence.
A court had authorized his execution before his curative petition was dismissed.
Yakub Memon then approached the Indian Supreme Court challenging, both, the manner in which his curative petition was heard and dismissed, and the validity of the order authorizing his execution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed both these arguments yesterday.
Over the past week, Yakub Memon filed fresh mercy petitions to commute his death sentence before the Governor of the State of Maharashtra and the President of India. Both were rejected yesterday.
Yakub Memon’s lawyers challenged the rejection of the mercy petition, and asked the Indian Supreme Court to stay the execution as per the guidelines issued in the 2014 case of Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India, for “safeguarding the interests of the death row convicts”.
These included ensuring a minimum period of 14 days “between the receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution”.
But the Court – in a hearing early this morning – rejected this final plea.
Background:
This is India’s third execution in the past five years. India resumed executions in 2012, after a gap of eight years. Since November 2012, two other people have been executed, Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru.
They also were both charged and convicted for their role in terrorist attacks.
The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims of the 1993 attack, and their families.
India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as well as the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory authority for the ICCPR, has emphasized: “In cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. The imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life.”
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition. Some 117 UN Member States, a wide majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. In line with the present international trend, the ICJ calls on India to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 22, 2015 | News
The Indian government should stay the imminent execution of Yakub Memon and commute his death sentence, said the ICJ today. The call comes after the Supreme Court dismissed his curative petition on 21 July.
Yakub Memon was convicted and sentenced to death for a range of offences, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in connection with the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993, which killed more than 250 people and injured more than 700.
A court has authorized his execution for 30 July 2015, although Memon has submitted another mercy petition, according to media reports.
“The 1993 terrorist attacks in Mumbai were heinous criminal acts that devastated the lives of the victims and their families, and amounted to massive human rights abuses,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“But the death penalty is itself a denial of the right to life and the freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment. Executing Memon only adds to the sum total of inhumanity,” he added.
Yakub Memon was initially sentenced to death by a court set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 (TADA) in July 2007.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was the latest in a series of denials of relief.
The Indian Supreme Court confirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal in March 2013.
Memon then filed a mercy petition before the Indian president, who denied it in April 2014.
He subsequently filed a review petition challenging his sentence before the Indian Supreme Court, which rejected the petition on 9 April 2015.
A court set up under the TADA convicted Yakub Memon for his involvement in the terror attacks in Mumbai in 1993.
The Indian government repealed the TADA in 1995, after sustained national and international criticism for its compatibility with human rights law, particularly the right to fair trial.
Provisions of the TADA defined offences vaguely and broadly; reversed the presumption of innocence in certain instances; allowed for long periods of pre-charge detention; made certain “confessions” to specific police officials admissible as evidence; and limited the right to appeal by only allowing appeals to the Supreme Court.
Several provisions of the TADA were later included in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which was introduced in 2002 and repealed in 2004.
Subsequent amendments introduced some provisions of the POTA and TADA into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which remains in force.
Yakub Memon was tried under provisions of the TADA as it was the law in force in 1993, when the terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred.
India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as well as the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
“India, consistent with its international legal obligations, may not impose the death penalty in situations where important safeguards to ensure a fair trial have not been met,” Zarifi said.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory authority for the ICCPR, has emphasized: “In cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. The imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life.”
The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims of the 1993 attack, and their families.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In line with the present international trend, the ICJ calls on India impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
India resumed executions in 2012, after a gap of eight years. Since November 2012, two people have been executed, Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru. They were both charged and convicted for their role in terrorist attacks.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
Some 117 UN Member States, a wide majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 22, 2015 | News
Cambodian authorities must immediately quash the convictions for insurrection handed down to eleven opposition party activists on 21 July, the ICJ said today.
The Phnom Penh Municipal Court sentenced the National Rescue Party (CNRP) activists to between seven and 20 years in prison following an unfair trial.
“These men were grossly over-charged with insurrection in the first place,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser.
“The fact they have now been handed down disproportionately severe sentences following an unfair trial only serves to underscore that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place in violation of Cambodia’s international obligations,” he added.
The charges arose out of their participation in a demonstration on 15 July 2014 against the closure of Phnom Penh’s designated protest site, Freedom Park, that became violent after “public-order” para-police attempted to break up the protest and were attacked by some people in the crowd.
According to information provided to the ICJ, all but one of the accused’s nine lawyers either boycotted or were unable to attend Tuesday’s suddenly-scheduled hearing in protest against a decision by the Court on Monday to fast track the trial.
When the Court unexpectedly called for closing arguments, the accused requested their lawyers to be present, which was denied.
According to observers, no credible evidence was produced during the trial connecting the eleven to the violence and the verdicts were read out after only 15 minutes of deliberation.
“In the event that fresh charges are brought, they must be consummate with the seriousness of the alleged offending, based on reliable evidence, and be adjudicated upon at a trial that scrupulously respects international fair trial standards in accordance with Cambodia’s international obligations,” Abbott said.
Background
Three men – Meach Sovannara, Oeur Narith, and Khin Chamreun – were convicted of participating in and leading an insurrectionary movement and were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Eight men – Sum Puthy, Neang Sokhun, San Kimheng, Tep Narin, San Seihak, An Batham, Ouk Pich Samnang, and Ke Khim – were convicted of participating in an insurrectionary movement and were sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
Tuesday’s verdicts are inconsistent with international law and standards including article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State Party, which states that everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser, Asia & Pacific Programme, t: + 662 6198477, + 662 6198478 Ext. 203 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 14, 2015 | News
The Royal Government of Cambodia must immediately end the legal harassment of human rights defender, Ny Chakrya, Head of the Human Rights and Legal Aid Section of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), the ICJ said today.
On 13 July 2015, a Deputy Prosecutor at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court questioned Ny Chakrya for two hours in relation to statements he had made at two press conferences in May 2015.
The summons and questioning were, according to information provided to the ICJ, pursuant to a complaint by an Investigating Judge and another prosecutor.
The proceedings appear to be based on the fact that at the press conferences Ny Chakrya alleged that two clients of ADHOC had been arbitrarily arrested and detained in Siem Reap province and were facing an unfair trial.
“The legal harassment of Ny Chakrya for merely raising allegations of human rights violations is itself a clear violation of human rights,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser.
“Human rights defenders play a vital role in promoting and protecting human rights and the State has a duty to create the conditions for them to be able to carry out their work effectively and without fear of retaliation,” he added.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State Party, guarantees the right to freedom of expression; the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law; and the right to seek effective remedies for alleged violations of human rights.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by a consensus of States including Cambodia, affirms the right of everyone to peacefully oppose human rights violations.
It reaffirms the prohibition of retaliation, threats and other harassment against anyone who takes peaceful action against human rights violations, both within and beyond the exercise of their professional duties.
It also protects the right of persons to file formal complaints about alleged violations of rights.
The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors provide that prosecutors have the duty to uphold human rights and that states must ensure they have the power and discretion to fulfill this and other duties. Prosecutors should not proceed with a case they know to be unfounded.
“The complaint against Ny Chakrya was clearly without foundation and he should never have been summoned for questioning in the first place,” Abbott said. “To continue to proceed with this case would be a violation of Ny Chakrya’s rights as a human rights defender.”
The ICJ reiterates its call for the end of the legal harassment of Ny Chakrya and that his case should be closed definitively by whatever means or to whatever extent is available to the Deputy Prosecutor and other state officials.
Background:
According to information provided to the ICJ, on 22 June 2015 the Phnom Penh Municipal Court issued a summons for Ny Chakrya to appear before it for questioning pursuant to a complaint filed by the Investigating Judge and the Deputy Prosecutor of the Siem Reap Provincial Court alleging public defamation (Art. 305 of the Cambodian Criminal Code), acts of slanderous denunciation (Art. 311 of the Cambodian Criminal Code), and the publication of comments to put pressure on the jurisdiction (Art. 522 of the Cambodian Criminal Code).
On 13 July 2015 at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, the Deputy Prosecutor questioned Ny Chakrya about statements he made at two press conferences organized by ADHOC.
At a press conference on 12 May 2015 in Siem Reap, Ny Chakrya and a lawyer from ADHOC alleged that two clients of ADHOC had been arbitrary arrested and detained in the context of a high profile land dispute in Siem Reap province.
Ny Chakrya alleged that their arrest and detention was a violation of Cambodian law and international human rights law.
At a press conference on 20 May 2015 in Phnom Penh, Ny Chakrya sought to raise public awareness about a complaint that he had filed the same day to the President of the Disciplinary Council of the Supreme Council of Magistracy.
In the complaint, Ny Chakrya alleged that the Deputy Prosecutor and Investigating Judge of the Siem Reap Provincial Court lacked independence and that the two villagers would not receive a fair trial as a result.
On 17 June 2015, the Siem Reap Provincial Court found ADHOC’s clients guilty of inciting a group of villagers to trespass on, use and destroy the property of Community Takhmao Development Agricultural & Industrial, an agricultural development company.
They were sentenced respectively to six months’ and eight months’ imprisonment.
The criminal proceedings arose in the context of a dispute between Community Takhmao Development Agricultural & Industrial and villagers in Chup Romdeng Village in Siem Reap province regarding the alleged illegal clearing of land in Siem Reap province.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, t: +668 4092 3575 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
