Jun 22, 2021 | News, Publications
The Thai authorities should immediately reform laws, policies and practices that have led to increasing violations of human rights in the digital sphere, the ICJ said in a new report launched today.
The 75-page report, Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression and Information Online in Thailand, documents a range of laws that does not comply with international human rights law and standards. These laws contain vague and overbroad provisions, wrongly criminalize free expression or prescribe disproportionately harsh penalties, and are applied without independent oversight mechanisms.
These arbitrary restrictions have intensified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pro-democracy protests.
“The Thai authorities have continued their systematic abuse of existing and new deficient laws to curtail not only the right to freedom of expression, opinion and information online, but also the rights to peaceful assembly, health and other rights,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
The Thai authorities have also pressured and co-opted big technological companies to improperly restrict or block content on their platforms, through court-enforced demands and the filing of criminal complaints for failing to comply.
The report further documents how the Thai authorities have failed to adequately protect individuals against the human rights abuses of private actors, who include companies harassing its critics through legal processes and perpetrators of online speech inciting discrimination, hostility or violence.
The report provides specific recommendations to the Thai authorities and technological companies in the communications sector to safeguard in law and practice the rights to expression, opinion and information online as well as offline. These recommendations call for the authorities to, among other recommendations:
- Repeal or substantially amend criminal law provisions that criminalize or unduly restrict human rights online, and review existing laws or develop legislation to protect against SLAPP lawsuits and the incitement of discrimination, hostility or violence;
- Cease harassment and persecution of all individuals for merely exercising their human rights online;
- Refrain from future charges and drop all existing charges against individuals and social media companies facing prosecution for alleged violations of non-human rights compliant laws, and immediately release all held in pre-trial detention or imprisoned on conviction for such cases; and
- Refrain from restricting or blocking online content unless the decision to block has been undertaken following a full analysis applying international human rights law and standards, and authorized pursuant to an order by an independent and impartial judicial authority.
“The Thai authorities must act urgently to stem this deteriorating trend of human rights violations and abuses in the digital space, by repealing or substantially amending its laws, policies and practices in line with Thailand’s international legal obligations,” added Zarifi.
The report follows on from the ICJ’s December 2019 regional report entitled Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia assessing non-human rights compliant legal frameworks and case studies across Southeast Asia, including Thailand.
Report Launch
The report will be launched on 22 June 2021. The launch includes a panel discussion, which draws together human rights defenders, diplomats, journalists, lawyers and civil society to discuss the increasing attacks on freedom of expression and information online in Thailand through non-human rights compliant laws and practices.
The discussion will include as panelists:
- Sam Zarifi, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists;
- Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR); and
- Chavarong Limpattamapanee, Chairman, National Press Council, Thailand.
Download
The full report is available in English here and in Thai here. The executive summary of the report is available in English and Thai. (PDF)
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, e: asiapacific@icj.org, t: +66-62-702-6369
See also
ICJ, ‘Southeast Asia: ICJ launches report on increasing restrictions on online speech’, 11 December 2019
ICJ, ‘Vietnam: authorities must act to safeguard rights online and end harassment of those expressing themselves – ICJ new report’, 9 December 2020
Feb 17, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, together with ARTICLE 19, today addressed the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council on its work on “negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights”. They called on the Committee as it finalizes its report to resist attempts to deviate from the human rights focus at the core of its mandate.
The joint statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and ARTICLE 19 welcome the opportunity to engage in this discussion of the draft report on the negative effects of terrorism on human rights.
Given that we have not been able to review the current draft report, we must reiterate our call previously stated during the 24th session to consider the broader context into which this report will be delivered.
We ask the Committee to maintain its focus on the primary objectives of preventing and addressing human rights violations resulting from counter-terrorism measures, and promoting and ensuring protection of the human rights of victims of terrorism. This has been the longstanding focus of the Human Rights Council, despite the efforts of a few states to divert its attention away from core human rights concerns.
Any report addressing the “negative effects of terrorism” should maintain this focus, consolidating the extensive work already done in this regard by successive Special Rapporteurs and other UN and regional entities, as collected in the compilation published by the ICJ in 2019.
The report must not enable the diversion of precious attention and resources to more diffuse questions of impacts of a macro-economic or similar character, in respect of which a human rights-based approach has little to add in terms of concrete recommendations or guidance to States.
The ICJ and ARTICLE 19 share and endorse the positions set out in the recent report of the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council as they relate to the effects of terrorism on the promotion and protection of human rights (UN Doc. A/HRC/46/36).
We agree with the Special Rapporteur’s observation that “reflection on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights in the terrorism and counter-terrorism arenas has been understated” (para. 32).
As the Special Rapporteur has stated, however, “there is no legal basis to view the State as primary victim of terrorism through the economic costs that may be experienced from acts of terrorism”.
Two principles, in this respect, should be reinforced: individuals and peoples are the primary rights holders under human rights law, and States have to carry out the legal obligations prescribed by international human rights law. Any confusion or suggestions otherwise may serve to undermine human rights law.
We agree with the Special Rapporteur that the lack of precise definition in terrorism and counter-terrorism and the blurring of lines between counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law will have a pernicious effect and will seriously tarnish human rights protection.
As highlighted before, we also concur that any work on effects of terrorism must be centred on the human rights of victims of terrorism, on the duty under international human rights law of all States to prevent, protect, investigate and redress any abuse to human rights.
We urge the Advisory Committee to include a clear recommendation to the Council that the exclusive focus of the Council’s work remain on violations in countering terrorism and a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism.
We call on the Committee to recommend against the Council entering into more diffuse macroeconomic issues.
We urge you to affirm that the existing and longstanding normative and institutional framework on counter-terrorism and human rights is already sufficient to address relevant impacts of terrorism from a human rights perspective.
Thank you.”
For further information contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, massimo.frigo@icj.org – +41797499949
Anna Oosterlinck, Head of UN, ARTICLE 19, annaoosterlinck@article19.org
Sep 21, 2020 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Ruth Panjaitan, ICJ National Legal Adviser in Indonesia.
Amid the COVID-19 outbreak in Indonesia, the House Representatives and the Law and Human Rights Ministry have continued their deliberation of the controversial Criminal Code revision as a priority bill.
The International Commission of Jurists has previously expressed concern that a number of provisions in the bill are inconsistent with Indonesia’s obligations under international human rights law. These provisions relate to the right to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of association.
There are provisions in the draft that would have dire consequences for women’s rights in Indonesia. For instance, if implemented in its current form, the bill would explicitly criminalize cohabitation or the act of two consenting adults living together as heterosexual sexual partners outside of a legal marriage. Persons found guilty of cohabitation would risk up to six months of imprisonment or a fine of approximately Rp 10 million (US$633).
The act of cohabitation is currently not a criminal offence under the existing Criminal Code. However, Indonesian women who live with their partners outside of marriage are often stigmatized as women “of low honor”. In addition, there are some regions in Indonesia that have adopted local ordinances prohibiting cohabitation, such as in Batam and Aceh, as this practice is disfavored by the authorities because of harmful gender stereotypes and their interpretations of religious and cultural norms.
These local ordinances are being used by the local Public Order Agency (Satpol PP) and self-appointed “moral police” to publicly shame cohabiting couples, especially the women.
There have been numerous instances where the neighbors of a cohabiting couple have barged into private homes and publicly chastised the couple. In 2017, a couple’s house in Jakarta’s neighboring city of Tangerang was raided by men from the neighborhood who punched the couple, stripped them naked, paraded them around the community, and forced them to confess that they were living together “illegally”. The perpetrators recorded the incident on video, which unfortunately later went viral on social media.
Local vigilantes account for the biggest percentage of those who invade the privacy of those accused of cohabitation.
The National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) noted that gender-based violence of this nature often led women to experience excessive stress, depression, mental health disorder, sometimes even resulting in suicide attempts.
Under the bill, the prosecution of this offense can be initiated by a complaint filed by the spouse, parents and children. With written approval from family members, village heads may also file a complaint.
Consequently, this may serve to legitimize more arbitrary police and vigilante raids based on “mere suspicion” of any family member. This may also potentially empower abusive family members to accuse survivors of domestic violence, of a crime.
Since same-sex marriage is not legal in Indonesia, lesbian, bisexual and transgender women are at risk if they decide to cohabit as couples. Furthermore, this provision will also threaten women in remote areas who could only afford to have religious and/or adat (customary) marriage.
First, the criminalization of cohabitation constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful interference with people’s privacy. The right to privacy is protected under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by which Indonesia is bound.
The right to privacy is central to the protection of human dignity and forms the basis of any democratic society. It supports and reinforces other rights, including the right of women to freely choose when or if she will marry.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, has made clear that states have an obligation to adopt legislative measures to give effect to the prohibition against interferences with and attacks against the right to privacy – and to take measures to ensure the protection of this right.
Second, the criminalization of cohabitation violates other human rights guaranteed by the ICCPR, including the right to family life, a right that, as international human rights law acknowledges, may be exercised and enjoyed by two cohabiting partners without the need for them to be married to one another.
Third, the criminalization of cohabitation would constitute prohibited discrimination and a violation of the right to “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law without discrimination for all” under international human rights law binding on Indonesia.
The House must therefore reject this bill because of its gender discriminatory nature and arbitrary interference with the right to privacy.
To download in Bahasa Indonesia , click here.
This article was first published in The Jakarta Post, available at: https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2020/09/05/consenting-adults-living-together-is-not-a-crime.html
Feb 13, 2020 | News
From 12-13 February, the ICJ, in collaboration with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Benin and the African Association of the Francophone Higher Jurisdictions, hosted regional judicial dialogue and training for effective implementation of human rights in francophone Africa in Cotonou.
The President of the Constitutional Court of Benin, Justice Joseph Duogbenou, the Vice President of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, Justice Ouattara Gberi Be and the President of the High Court of Benin, Lady Justice Marie Cecile de Dravo Zinzindohoue were among the participants.
Judges and other jurists representing the Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts of Benin, Burkina Faso Cameroon, DR Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo also participated.
President Patrice Talon, who was represented by the Minister of Justice and the Legislature, M. Maxime Ouenum, opening the ceremony, noted that ‘fundamental rights and freedoms are binding on legislative, executive and judicial authorities because of the Constitutional, Conventional and National protection they enjoy’. They therefore ‘create obligations on states and on those who act on behalf of states, they cannot be ignored, denied or discarded’.
President of the Supreme Court of Benin, M. Ousmane Batoko emphasized the need to strengthen the capacity of judges for a more effective application of international human rights law in domestic adjudication. According to Justice Batoko, ‘The judge is at the very heart of the day to day construction and perpetuation of international human rights law.
‘’The protection of human rights goes beyond international and national legislation, and requires active protection by judges in the court rooms across Africa‘‘ said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Regional Director. He expressed hope that the dialogue would help to ensure that African peoples enjoy their human rights in totality. “The architecture for the protection of human rights can only be effective when national judges are equipped to play the very vital role that they have as the first layer of protection available to victims of human rights violations,“ Tsunga added.
At the end of the two-day programme which included lectures and judicial conversations, participants adopted a communique in which they affirmed their continued commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa expressing a desire for such colloquia to be held more frequently in order to build the capacity of the judiciaries in West Africa.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716405926 or +263 777 283 249: e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Adviser (ARP), t: +234 803 492 7549, e: Solomon.ebobrah@icj.org
Oct 15, 2019 | News
Today, ICJ called on Turkey to comply with its obligations under the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and international human rights law, immediately end its military operations in Syria, and protect and ensure the protection of the Syrian civilian population.
The ICJ also reiterated its call on all parties to the Syrian conflict to respect and comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
On October 9, Turkey initiated operation “Peace Spring” in Rojava, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-held territory in north-east Syria, with the stated aim of securing Turkey’s border, “fighting terrorism” and facilitating the return of refugees to Syria. Turkey claimed to be acting pursuant to its right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter, as well as UN Security Council resolutions on the fight against terrorism.
The ICJ recalled that none of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of armed force in violation of international law, and that the UN Charter prohibits the use of armed force by States, save when authorized by the UN Security Council or in self-defence.
Use of force in self-defence is lawful only when necessary to repel an armed attack and when proportionate to such attack. Military operations failing to abide by such requirements are in breach of the UN Charter.
“Turkey’s military operations violate the UN Charter and exemplify how the banalization of the illegal use of armed force continues to erode and dismantle the very fabric of the international legal order,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ MENA Programme Director.
He added, “Instead of standing by while international law is being violated, the UN Security Council must take swift, appropriate measures to address the situation and to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
While UN Security Council member States have failed to find an agreement on even a statement on Turkey’s military operations in Syria, Turkish military operations continue to have a devastating impact on the general population, including multiple civilian casualties, attacks against civilian objects, including medical facilities and water supplies and infrastructure, and the displacement of more than 150,000 people, mainly civilians.
Turkish forces and the Turkish-backed armed groups have allegedly been responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Members of one of these groups, the Ahrar Al-Sharqiya, have been accused of the extrajudicial execution of at least nine civilians, among whom is Kurdish politician and women’s rights activist Harvin Khalaf; torture and other ill-treatment; kidnapping; and looting and seizure of private property.
Turkey’s Defence Ministry said 595 “terrorists” were “neutralized” since the start of “Peace Spring.”
Under international humanitarian law, parties to an armed conflict must respect and protect the civilian population, and refrain from any direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attack against civilians and civilian objects. International human rights law also continues to apply during the conflict.
“Turkish authorities must investigate and prosecute unlawful killings committed in the context of operation “Peace Spring,” including extrajudicial executions amounting to war crimes,” Benarbia said.
He added, “If no action is taken by these authorities, States must act, collectively and individually, to hold to account all those responsible for such crimes.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Syria-Turkey operations-News-Press releases-2019-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
Syria-Turkey operations-News-Press releases-2019-TUR (Turkish version, in PDF)
