Mar 9, 2017 | News
Amnesty International and the ICJ regret the decision of Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to further delay the passage of essential legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations call on the Thai government to cease its stalling measures and instead prioritize the amendment of the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Draft Act) in order to bring it into line with international law. The government should then ensure its passage into law without undue delay.
On 28 February, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that it had been informed that the NLA would not enact the Draft Act. The following day, an NLA official speaking to BBC Thai confirmed that the draft would be “returned [to the Thai Cabinet] for more consultations… with Interior officials, police authorities, the national security sector, military authorities and prosecutors.”
The Draft Act is the result of years of effort by government authorities, including by Ministry of Justice officials who consulted with our organizations and took account of many of our recommendations in elaborating it. The draft was approved by Thailand’s Cabinet in May 2016.
The recent decision by the NLA has indefinitely delayed the enactment of this important piece of legislation, which would represent a significant step towards preventing torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
The slow-tracking of this law in the face of all the commitments Thailand has made over the years right up to last year is extremely disappointing, especially for the victims of torture and enforced disappearances who have struggled to obtain justice in the absence of a clear legal framework.
The most recent version of the Draft Act addresses many existing gaps in Thailand’s current legal framework and could support Thailand’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. However, further amendments are needed to address significant shortcomings in the Draft Act.
In particular, the Draft Act omits key elements from the definitions of torture and enforced disappearances, does not criminalize acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and fails to define enforced disappearance as a continuing crime. Additionally, the Draft Act does not extend criminal liability beyond the direct commission of the act and fails to unequivocally bar the use as evidence in court proceedings of statements obtained by torture.
Thailand should make it a top priority to address these and other concerns and to enact the law as soon as possible. The urgent need to amend and enact the Draft Act is underscored by recent reports alleging the use of torture and other ill-treatment by state security forces and the continued failure to hold accountable perpetrators of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations remain committed to providing any necessary assistance to the Thai government in amending the Draft Act or otherwise acting to prevent torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
Background
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and has signed, but not ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The expert UN bodies overseeing the implementation of these treaties have consistently called upon states parties to criminalise torture and enforced disappearance as specific crimes.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR.
In Thailand’s 15 November 2016 reply to the Committee’s List of Issues,[1] it noted that it was in the process of passing the Draft Law which would “provide clear definition and set up specific offence on torture to be in line with the terms set forth under CAT” and “serve as an implementing legislation for ICPPED.”
It also noted that the Draft Act “aims to strengthen the prevention, suppression, and prosecution mechanism and to ensure remedy for victims as well as address the problem of misuse, and abuses of power by government authorities with regard to torture and enforced disappearances.”
It concluded by noting that “[o]n 24 May 2016, the Cabinet approved the draft Act in principle. The draft has been reviewed by the Council of State and is currently waiting to be submitted to the legislative branch for consideration.”
[1] Human Rights Committee, “Replies of Thailand to the List of Issues,” U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/THA/Q/2/Add.1, para 51.
Thailand-Joint Statement-Torture Legislation-News-2017-ENG (Press release in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, Tel: +66 94 470 1345, E-mail: Kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Nov 29, 2016 | News
The Philippines House of Representatives must immediately cease efforts to rush through legislation restoring the death penalty, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
On 29 November 2016, the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reform, which is chaired by Congressman Marcelino “Ching” Veloso, hastened the passage of a bill restoring the death penalty in the Philippines.
According to reports received by the ICJ, ex-officio members of the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reform railroaded the proceedings and ignored important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for the legislation or its urgent passage. The Sub-Committee did not present any report, as is the normal practice, on the discussions and information presented in the previous hearings.
“Filipino lawmakers seem intent on embracing the barbaric practice of executions purely as a political measure, without any understanding or even proper discussion of the death penalty’s impact or what their actions would mean to the international obligations of the Philippines,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
A representative of the ICJ spoke at the hearing of the Sub-Committee on 22 November 2016, and brought to the lawmakers’ attention the country’s obligations under the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the general prohibition on reintroduction of capital punishment once abolished, which commit the country not to execute anyone within its jurisdiction.
“There are already thousands of alleged cases of extrajudicial killings in the country. This bill, if it becomes law, will unquestionably usher the Philippines into a dark period where respect for the right to life is comprehensively degraded,” Gil emphasized.
The ICJ has previously written to President Rodrigo Duterte underscoring that the evidence shows that death penalty is not effective at deterring crime at a greater rate than alternative forms of punishment. Investing in improved detection and investigation techniques and capacity, and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system, is more likely to achieve real results in reducing crime.
The ICJ categorically opposes the death penalty and considers its use to be a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions by overwhelming majorities, calling on all retentionist States to impose a moratorium with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser
Telephone: +66 840923575
Email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 28, 2016 | News
The ICJ, along with a number of other NGOs, issued a joint statement expressing solidarity for the families of executed prisoners in Singapore.
The statement was issued following the execution of a Nigerian national, Chijioke Stephen Obioha, and a Malaysian national, Devendran a/l Supramaniam in Singapore on 18 November 2016.
The full statement can be downloaded here:
singapore-joint-ngo-statement-singapore-executions-news-web-story-2016-eng (PDF)
Nov 5, 2016 | News
Today the ICJ, in partnership with the National Collegium of Advocates of Kazakhstan, hosts a major regional conference in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on the role and independence of the legal profession in Central Asia.
Bringing together bar associations and lawyers from across Central Asia, as well as representatives of bar associations from European countries and international experts, the conference explores how associations of lawyers can strengthen the role of lawyers in the justice system.
Participants will discuss the organization and self-governance of the profession in each of the countries of Central Asia; will analyse the obstacles lawyers face in protecting the rights of their clients; and will debate standards and good practices in protecting the integrity of the profession through codes of ethics, disciplinary proceedings and professional training.
“Across Central Asia, every day, lawyers do vital work to protect the human rights of their clients. But they can only do this effectively when their independence is protected in law and in practice, and when high ethical and professional standards are enforced by self-governing associations of lawyers.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS programme
“At a time when the organization of the profession is being renewed in several countries of the region, this conference aims to ensure that lawyers work together to learn from each others’ experiences, and from international law and standards, to strengthen associations of lawyers in upholding the vital role of the profession,” she added.
Download the agenda in English and Russian here:
central-asia-agenda-conference-legal-prof-news-web-stories-2016-rus-eng (in PDF)
Nov 4, 2016 | News
The Myanmar government’s recently announced plan to enlist civilians as a ‘regional police force’ in Myanmar’s troubled northern Rakhine State is likely to aggravate an already dire human rights situation, warned the ICJ today.
“In a country where the regular police and military are notorious for grave human rights violations, it’s difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt to poorly trained civilians,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“Establishing an armed, untrained, unaccountable force drawn from only one community in the midst of serious ethnic tensions and violence is a recipe for disaster,” he added.
Over the last month the region has experienced increased tension and violence including attacks on border police and allegations of human rights violations by security forces, including attacks on Rohingya villages and sexual assaults.
Humanitarian assistance and independent monitors, including the media, remain severely restricted in the area.
The Rakhine State police are recruiting civilians for the force along ethnic and religious lines, officially excluding Rakhine state’s Muslims, most of whom belong to the area’s persecuted Rohingya community.
Recruits will reportedly be armed and paid by the border police after undergoing abbreviated training.
The ICJ considers that a civilian regional police force necessarily lacks the adequate training and oversight to perform policing functions in accordance with human rights and professional standards on policing.
Moreover, there does not appear to be an appropriate accountability mechanism in place to deal with instances of misconduct and human rights abuses, the ICJ says.
Such a ‘regional police force’ will be dangerously under qualified and prone to committing human rights violations, especially as they will answer to the military rather than civilian government, the Geneva-based organization adds.
According to the ICJ, if a new security authority is contemplated, it must be a professional police force, whose members are recruited and trained in accordance with principles of non-discrimination and respect for human rights.
Police must also be accountable to the law and subject to administrative and judicial oversight.
The ICJ calls on the governments to establish and enforce effective reporting and review procedures for all incidents involving the use of force.
The government and police must ensure the following accountability measures are in place:
- Police are not deployed without comprehensive training on duties including restrictions on use of force and human rights obligations;
- An effective process to review the use of force, conducted by independent administrative or prosecutorial authorities is available;
- Access to an independent judicial process for persons affected by the use of force (including dependents) or their legal representatives, which is capable of providing for effective remedy and reparation for any abuses;
- Superior officers must be held responsible if they know, or should have known, that law enforcement officials under their command are using force without taking all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use.
Accountability and oversight is essential to protect human rights and prevent escalation of conflict: a new force should not be raised without these guarantees, the ICJ says.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia & Pacific, t: +66807819002
Background
Under international law, any body authorized by the State to perform security functions and use force, including lethal force, must respect human rights in performing their functions.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms set standards on the qualifications and the training of Law Enforcement Officials.
These Principles also provide standards on the use of force consistent with protecting the right to life.
Under the Principles, all law enforcement officials must receive continuous and thorough professional training, subject to periodic review. They must be screened and selected to ensure they have appropriate moral, psychological and physical qualities for the effective exercise of their functions.
Training must include appropriate guidance on the use of force with special requirements to carry firearms.
It must focus on issues of police ethics and human rights, especially in the investigative process, to alternatives to the use of force and firearms, including the peaceful settlement of conflicts, with a view to limiting the use of force and firearms.
