Oct 21, 2019 | News
The ICJ has condemned the arbitrary arrest of at least 186 individuals – 24 of whom are still detained solely for their opinions publicly expressed against the Turkish intervention in northern Syria. The ICJ calls for their immediate and unconditional release and for all charges against them to be dropped.
At least 186 individuals had been arrested by Turkish authorities by 16 October after publicly criticizing Turkey’s military intervention in northern Syria.
They are accused of “provoking the public to hatred and animosity”, “carrying out propaganda for a terrorist organization” and “openly degrading the State of the Republic of Turkey” as prohibited by Articles 216, 220, 301 and 314 of the Turkish Penal Code and Article 7/2 of Prevention of Terrorism Law. Further such arrests are reportedly continuing.
Moreover, an investigation was launched against Istanbul MP Sezgin Tanrıkulu, a member of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), due to his social media messages and statements. HDP co-chairs and MPs were also investigated over “terrorism links” for their statements on the Peace Spring Operation.
“The Turkish Penal Code and Prevention of Terrorism Law in particular with their overly broad definition of terrorism, place excessively restrictive limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression protected under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution and give law-enforcement bodies sweeping powers to proceed to arbitrary arrests,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The ICJ is concerned that these arrests have been undertaken in contravention of the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), treaties to which Turkey is party.
In particular, these restrictions do not appear to be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate, as required by international law.
Detention ordered in breach of these rights is also inherently arbitrary and therefore not in line with Turkey’s obligations to respect the right to liberty under Article 9 ICCPR and Article 5 ECHR.
“These prosecutions violate the Turkish Constitution and international law and should be immediately dropped”, said Massimo Frigo.
“As a priority identified in its Judicial Reform Strategy, Turkey must also quickly abrogate these criminal provisions that cause undue and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression,” he added.
The ICJ recalled that the Venice Commission, in its 2016 report, concluded that the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code under which they are charged “provide for excessive sanctions and have been applied too widely, penalizing conduct protected” under international human rights law.
Similar issues were identified last July by Turkey’s Constitutional Court regarding prosecution for terrorism propaganda, of signatories of a petition calling for peace (the “Academics for Peace” petition) in the southeastern part of the country.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the criminal proceedings violated the right to freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t +32 476 974263; e roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Sep 11, 2017 | News
The Government of Myanmar must do everything in its power to respect and protect human rights during military operations in northern Rakhine State, said the ICJ today.
These military operations have reportedly resulted in widespread unlawful killing and the displacement of more than 200,000 people in response to attacks attributed to ARSA.
The ICJ called on Myanmar’s government to act as swiftly as possible to address the root causes of violence, discrimination and under-development in Rakhine, as well as for enhanced engagement by the international community in efforts to effectively address the situation, and to take measures to ensure that security operations are conducted in accordance with international human rights standards.
The military operations follow attacks by ARSA on August 25 on police posts and a military base in which at least 12 police, military and government officials were killed, along with a large number of attackers (according to government figures).
In the wake of the attacks on 25 August, the military launched what it has termed as a “clearance operation,” and the government announced that parts of northern Rakhine State have been designated as a “military operations area.”
“The attacks attributed to ARSA constitute serious crimes for which individual perpetrators should be brought to account through fair trials conducted in accordance with international standards,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“But ‘clearance operations’ carried out by the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military) in an unlawful manner, and allegations of serious human rights violations, many amounting to crimes under international law, are on an entirely different scale and cannot be justified in the name of security or countering terrorism. These allegations must be promptly investigated in light of the Tatmadaw’s decades-long record of grave human rights violations and impunity throughout Myanmar,” he added.
“The Tatmadaw is responsible for the conduct of security operations in Rakhine as in other parts of the country, but the entire government remains responsible for upholding its international legal obligations to protect the rights of everyone living in Rakhine State – including the Rohingya Muslim communities that constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in the areas most affected by the violence,” Zarifi said.
“We also urge the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi to use her immense electoral popularity and moral stature to push for full respect for human rights for the Rohingya as well as all others in Rakhine State.”
In the wake of the attacks on 25 August, the military launched what it has termed as a “clearance operation,” and the government announced that parts of northern Rakhine State have been designated as a “military operations area.”
These terms are not clearly prescribed in Myanmar’s laws, but in practice seem to be used to grant the military authority to ignore legal protections afforded under the country’s constitution and international standards.
“Whatever descriptive cover may be used to describe security operations, they must scrupulously respect international standards on the use of force.” Zarifi said.
“Myanmar’s government has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect all people in its jurisdiction from attacks by armed groups, but it must do so in conformity with international law. Experience from around the world has shown that greater respect for rule of law and human rights is the most effective response to terrorism,” he added.
This was unfortunately not the case following the arrests and detentions carried out during the military operations that followed attacks in October 2016.
Many of these arrests appear arbitrary and unlawful, as detainees were not given access to legal counsel, and deaths in custody have not been properly investigated.
Similar violations by the military have been documented recently in Shan and Kachin States.
Government authorities must ensure that arrest and detention in the context of the current operations in Rakhine State be conducted in accordance with national and international law, and respect the rights to liberty, freedom from arbitrary detention and a fair trial.
The most effective way for the government to respond to allegations of abuse by the security forces both in Rakhine and elsewhere in the country would be to take well-founded allegations seriously, and ensure that they are promptly, impartially and thoroughly investigated and those responsibility are brought to justice.
It is an unfortunate fact that investigations and prosecutions of human rights violations are rarely undertaken in regular courts, as national laws shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, often by using military or special police courts.
Zarifi further said: “Ending the military’s impunity would establish much needed confidence in the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.”
“One immediate way to illustrate this commitment would be to cooperate with the UN Fact Finding Mission, which the ICJ and other organizations called for earlier in the year, to investigate allegations of human rights violations and abuses in Myanmar.”
“There are paths forward for the government to both respond to allegations of rights violations, and to show its commitment to finding solutions to the unacceptable state of affairs in Rakhine State.”
Myanmar-RakhineStateCrisis-PressReleases-2017-ENG (full press release)
Aug 13, 2014 | News
Declaración de la CIJ al finalizar su reciente visita al municipio de Rabinal, departamento de Baja Verapaz, y sus reuniones con dirigentes comunitarios y defensores de derechos humanos.
La Comisión Internacional de Juristas visitó el municipio de Rabinal, Departamento de Baja Verapaz, del 6 al 8 del presente mes. En dicha visita los delegados de la CIJ tuvieron oportunidad de conversar con dirigentes comunitarios y defensores de derechos humanos y recabar información sobre la situación que se vive en el municipio.
Descargar la declaración: Guatemala-Inquietud en Rabinal-news-web story-2014-spa
May 5, 2013 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Benjamin Zawacki, Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia at the International Commission of Jurists.
Thailand’s government recently passed up an opportunity for a new approach to the deep South, by declining to replace the Emergency Decree, which violates international standards on human rights, with the somewhat less heavy-handed Internal Security Act (ISA).
Equally concerning is why the government has not looked beyond the South in reconsidering the use of its other extraordinary security legislation: no fewer than 31 of Thailand’s 77 provinces are at least partially under Martial Law.
International law is clear that the extraordinary powers under security laws like the Emergency Decree and Martial Law may only be invoked under a strict set of circumstances, none of which is even arguably applicable in Thailand outside of the southern insurgency (four of the 31 provinces).
Martial Law may be invoked in Thailand “when a situation arises that makes it necessary to maintain law and order and to defend against the danger of attack”, or “when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”. All of Thailand’s provinces that are situated on one of the country’s four international borders are under Martial Law in whole or in part (including the 27 not in the deep South). Among them is Phitsanulok, whose shared border with Laos is roughly only 50km.
This province featured in Thailand’s last war, a three-month affair with Laos that ended in 1988.
Otherwise, Thailand’s border challenges are well-known: trafficking in persons, drugs, and weapons; landmines; refugees and migrants; smuggling of logs, oil, and other contraband; demarcation disputes. While doubtless all of these call for robust law enforcement, only the dispute with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple even arguably involves defending against the danger of armed attack.
Several minor but deadly skirmishes with Cambodian forces, as well as considerable mutual saber-rattling, have occurred in several districts of Si Sa Ket province since 2009. It is not credible to claim that Thailand needs to impose Martial Law because of external threats.
A more likely explanation is that Martial Law’s expansive application in Thailand is due to what is common to most security legislation around the region, namely vague language that lends itself to broad interpretation and granting wide powers to the military.
The Martial Law term “law and order”, in addition to more typically applying to civilian law enforcement agencies than to the military, could apply to any situation in which a law is implicated – which is nearly all situations. “Order” and “unrest” are particularly ill-defined.
Moreover, “maintain” suggests law and order need only be threatened to invoke Martial Law, rather than be lost and in need of being restored.
What constitutes an “attack” and the likelihood of such required for Thailand to be in “danger” are also essentially judgment calls. And when is an attack (or a series of attacks) tantamount to an “outbreak of war”?
A second and related reason that Martial Law is so pervasive in Thailand is the large number of military personnel empowered to invoke the law, coupled with, inversely, the difficulty in revoking it later.
While order by royal decree is required for invoking Martial Law on the first set of grounds, even local military commanders can invoke Martial Law in the area under their control on the second set (“when there is an outbreak of war or unrest”), affording them enormous discretion and authority.
In contrast, any and all revocations of the law require order by royal decree, a level of involvement as centralized and bureaucratic as a district military commander’s invocation is local and simple.
Martial Law’s use in Thailand historically supports the analysis that imprecise grounds combined with bureaucratic inertia account for the wide geographical application of the law.
Twice in the past 22 years, orders by royal decree referencing “law and order” have imposed Martial Law on the whole of Thailand, both times via coups d’état in 1991 and 2006.
On only three occasions after the 1991 coup (twice later the same year and once in 1998) was Martial Law lifted in some but not all of Thailand’s provinces. On the eve of the 2006 coup, it was still in effect in all or part of 18 provinces.
Similarly, following the blanket invocation of Martial Law on the whole country in 2006, on only two occasions since (in January 2007 and 2008, respectively) has an order by royal decree revoked the law in 46 of Thailand’s 77 provinces. Why not everywhere?
International law requires that extraordinary security legislation be invoked only in response to an exceptional situation.
Powers granted to security forces and any derogation from human rights must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the situation, and must have a time limitation attached to them.
None of these elements is met in the case of Thailand’s application of Martial Law to its international borders.
Indeed, Martial Law in Thailand allows security forces to arrest people without a warrant, and to detain them for seven days prior to charging them.
Critically, it does not require that detainees be promptly brought before a judge, in flagrant violation of Thailand’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This leaves detainees particularly vulnerable to torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces, which Thailand has also agreed to prevent and punish as a party to the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture.
In cases under Martial Law of alleged misconduct by security forces, victims are unable to institute a criminal prosecution (though they may initiate a civil action) or to choose their own lawyer; only a military prosecutor is entitled to institute a criminal charge. No appeal can be lodged against judgments or orders of military courts during this period.
The Thai government should reconsider its decision to keep the Emergency Decree in place throughout most of the deep South.
At the same time, it should take the long overdue step of lifting an equally heavy-handed Martial Law everywhere else.
Jan 7, 2009 | News
The ICJ today called for an immediate end to the 12-day Israeli Military operations in Gaza that have claimed lives of more than 660 and wounded some 3.000 Palestinians.
Nine Israelis have also been killed during these operations. Many of the victims have been civilians.
“Palestinian civilians continue to pay the heaviest toll in operations that appear replete with violations of international humanitarian law”,” said the ICJ. “Many attacks have been indiscriminate or disproportionate, and Israel has failed in its legal obligation to take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects from attack.
Palestine-Israeli military operations in Gaza must stop; civilians must be protected-Press releases-2009 (full text, PDF)
