Feb 8, 2018 | News
A proposed new law regulating public assembly adopted by the Philippine House of Representatives would allow for unlawful restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, the ICJ said today.
On 5 February 2018, the House of Representatives passed on third reading House Bill 6834, which proposes to repeal the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
The law would prohibit persons below the age of 15 from organizing a public assembly and would subject participants or organizers to potential criminal liability for holding a peaceful assembly without the approval of local executives.
“This legislation deceives us into thinking that there is no more need to obtain prior permission to holding a public assembly,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“But in effect, organizers will still need to secure the approval of the local executive before holding a public assembly,” she added.
The proposed law states that any person or group intending to organize a public assembly will only need to serve notice to the city or municipal mayor at least three days prior to the assembly without having to secure a permit.
However, at the same time it prohibits the “holding of a public assembly at a time and place other than that approved by the city or municipal mayor.”
“The proposed law does not improve on the old one. It now increases the penalty for holding a public assembly without approval of local authorities to six (6) years,” Emerlynne Gil said.
“The law is also silent as to who may be penalized. Hence, the ICJ fears that organizers and participants alike could be held liable,” she added.
Under international standards, freedom of people to assemble should generally not require prior permission.
The law would also contravene the rights of children that are protected under the Philippines’ legal obligations.
“The provision incorporates into law the arcane and discredited attitude that ‘children should be seen but not be heard’,” said Emerlynne Gil.
“If children are prohibited from organizing a peaceful assembly, this prevents them from exercising their right to impart information freely,” she added.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children must be guaranteed the right to freedom of assembly.
The bill now goes to the Philippine Senate for its consideration.
The ICJ calls on lawmakers in the Philippines not to adopt the proposed law in its current form.
Any new legislation should conform to international standards, including on the right to freedom of assembly without prior permission and the rights of children to assemble freely, the ICJ adds.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Public assembly act 1985-News-Web stories-2018-ENG (Full story in PDF)
Dec 18, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Karabo Ozah and Charles Dinda talk about traditional justice systems in video interviews recorded at the 2017 ICJ Geneva Forum.
Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Lawyer and Professor at the Law Faculty of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, and founding member of the International Institute on Law and Society (IIDS), describes the survival and contemporary recognition of justice systems of indigenous peoples in the Americas, despite the history of colonial domination.
She argues that indigenous justice systems often already reflect many international human rights standards, and where there may be discrepancies change should be sought through respectful engagement and consultation rather than coercive imposition.
In contrast, Ms Karabo Ozah, Deputy Director of the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, argues that it is crucially important to ensure that customary and traditional courts respect domestic legislation and international standards on human rights.
Otherwise she warns, based on her experience, customary courts too frequently fail to protect the rights of marginalized groups, children, LGBTI, and women.
Charles Dinda, Senior Legal Adviser with the Danish Institute for Human Rights in Zambia, points out that while traditional and customary justice institutions are the most easily accessible and in many respects most credible institutions for some populations, their decisions are too often inconsistent or unfair.
To avoid this, he insists on the importance of understanding and studying the way these systems operate and on the need to engage with them to learn about their practices and to build their capacities so that they have better knowledge of international human rights standards and indeed of the national laws in the countries where they operate.
Watch the interview with Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo
Watch the interview with Karabo Ozah
Watch the interview with Charles Dinda
NOTE:
The views expressed by the participants do not necessarily reflect those of the ICJ.
For more information about the 2017 Geneva Forum on Customary and Traditional Justice Systems, click here or contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org .
Oct 18, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Cambodia is “weaponizing” the law and relying on judges and prosecutors who lack independence to silence dissent and dismantle democracy, says the ICJ in a report released today.
The release of the report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia follows Monday’s unanimous decision of the National Assembly, attended only by law-makers from the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), to amend four election laws which would redistribute parliamentary seats held by the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) to several minor parties in the event of the CNRP’s dissolution.
A Senior Cambodian CPP law-maker, Cheam Yeap, was reported as saying that the amendments were made “especially for the treasonous acts of the president of the CNRP, Kem Sokha, who committed treason in a red-handed crime.”
“These amendments are the latest in a long line of instances where the Government has shamelessly passed or amended laws with the specific purpose of legally harassing perceived opponents or weakening representative democracy within the country,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser at the ICJ’s regional office in Bangkok.
Also of concern is that the Government is increasingly defending its actions by claiming it is merely applying the rule of law.
In a statement released by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations in Geneva on Monday, the Government claimed that “Prosecuting and punishing offenders by legitimate authorities, for the interest of justice, should not be read as a menace to democracy and human rights, but rather as an enforcement of the rules of law…upholding the rules of law means holding perpetrators accountable for their conducts”.
“The ‘rule of law’ is not only about passing and implementing laws, but rather ensuring they are drafted and applied in accordance with international human rights law and without discrimination, including discrimination based on political or other opinion,” added Abbott.
The ICJ’s report, which is being released against the backdrop of a rapidly deteriorating human rights situation, records 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”.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Background
On 3 September 2017, the leader of the CNRP, Kem Sokha, was arrested in a raid at his home and taken away by more than 100 policemen.
On 5 September 2017, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court formally charged Kem Sokha under Article 443 of the Cambodian Penal Code for alleged ‘collusion’ with foreign actors to “cause chaos” in Cambodia, otherwise known as treason.
On 6 October 2017, the Ministry of Interior filed a request to the Supreme Court to seek the dissolution of the CNRP pursuant to the Law on Political Parties, which was amended twice in 2017, and allows for the Supreme Court to dissolve political parties in certain circumstances including if one of the leadership is convicted of a crime.
The amendments to the four election laws would also mean that at the district and commune levels, in places where the CPP received the next highest number of votes, vacant seats would be redistributed to the CPP.
Download
Cambodia-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)
Live Media Event
Watch the media event on the Human rights and democracy crisis in Cambodia live from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand in Bangkok on FORUM-ASIA’s Facebook page
It starts at 10.00 Bangkok time (05:00 CET and 03:00 GMT).
Read also
Cambodia and the Rule of Law: UN Statement
Cambodia: UN Human Rights Council urged to address unfolding human rights crisis
Jul 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt and apply procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) that are clear and comply with international human rights law and standards.
The statement came following a high-level mission to Tunisia from 12 to 15 July 2017 in which the ICJ engaged with senior judicial officials, including the President of the Cassation Court, members of the High Judicial Council, SCC judges, and other stakeholders.
An ICJ analysis, Procedures of the Specialized Criminal Chambers in light of international standards, was published at the end of the mission.
“While the Specialized Criminal Chambers have the potential to contribute to addressing impunity and deliver justice for victims in Tunisia, ambiguity about the procedures to be followed by these Chambers risks undermining their effectiveness,” warned Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
As detailed in the ICJ analysis, the lack of clarity comes in part from the 2013 transitional justice Law, which is seen by many stakeholders as setting up a special regime, separate from the existing criminal justice system.
There is fear that the SCC may decide not to apply the existing ordinary criminal procedures, while at the same time no detailed procedures specific to the SCC have yet been adopted.
The creation of such a gap would risk serious breaches of international standards of fairness and justice.
For example, the 2013 Law seems to give the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité, IVD) exclusive power to refer cases to the SCC.
However, no procedures specific to the SCC implement the rights of an accused to examine witnesses interviewed by the IVD or to access all documents and evidence collected by the IVD in order to prepare his or her defence, as required by international standards and the ordinary code of criminal procedure.
The 2013 Law also fails to clarify the role of prosecutors and investigating judges in addressing such cases, including by making their own determination in relation to charges, standard of proof, and whether these cases should be brought before the SCC.
“Clarifying the procedures to be applied by the Specialized Criminal Chambers and ensuring their full compliance with international standards, including those relating to fair trial, are a prerequisite to fully establish the truth about human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that the proceedings are fair to the victims and accused,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ set out a list of recommendations with a view to assisting the Tunisian authorities in their efforts in achieving these objectives, including by:
- Amending article 42 of the 2013 Law and related provisions to clearly provide victims of gross human rights violations with direct access to the SCC, including when victims did not submit a file to the IVD;
- Amending provisions of the IVD Guides to ensure that the review process and the possibility to challenge IVD’s decisions will apply to decisions not to transfer a case to the SCC and that such review be based on objective criteria for considering gross human rights violations in line with international standards;
- Establishing specialized prosecution services, investigating judges, and judicial police in line with international standards and with adequate resources to work in coordination with the SCC;
- Clarifying the relationship between the SCC and other ordinary criminal chambers and civil and other courts;
- Amending the legal framework to clearly provide that cases investigated by the IVD are to be transferred to specialized prosecutors who are to carry out their functions as defined in the CCP and in line with international standards;
- Ensuring that the IVD’s investigative function complements the role of the specialized judicial institutions in charge of the investigation and prosecution; and
- Amending the CCP and ensuring that any related provision of any other procedures adopted for the SCC fully respect fair trial guarantees.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 642837354, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (full memo in English, PDF)
Tunisia-SCC procedures memo-News-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (full memo in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 14, 2017 | News
The ICJ urged the Pakistan government to withdraw its proposal to reinstate and widen the scope of military trials for civilians.
“Bringing back military courts is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue: the Government’s failure to enact reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system during the two years the 2015-2017 military courts were in operation,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Bills to amend the Constitution of Pakistan and the Army Act, 1952, to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to try a wide variety of terrorism-related offences, were introduced before the National Assembly (lower house of parliament) on Friday, 10 March.
The “terrorism-related” offences include, among others: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The new amendments are also applicable in all cases where the accused commit “grave and violent acts against the State”. The mandatory requirement to belong to a group that uses “the name of religion or sect”, as introduced by the 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act introduced in 2015, is no longer applicable.
“The expansion of military courts’ jurisdiction over all ‘grave and violent acts against the State’ creates the possibility that these courts could be used against a wide variety of people, including those who are legitimately exercising their rights to speech, association, and assembly,” added Zarifi.
According to the preambles of the bills, an “extraordinary situation” and a “grave and unprecedented threat to the integrity of Pakistan” still exist in the country, and military courts are being revived because they “yielded positive results in combatting terrorism” in the two years they were in operation.
“The military courts have not had any positive results in combating terrorism, given the country’s ongoing problem with acts of terrorism and armed insurgents,” said Zarifi. “Instead, military trials of civilians have further eroded the rule of law and weakened the government’s legitimacy in providing justice and defending the rights of people in Pakistan.”
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017. Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 17 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging. The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ recalled that the use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
