Apr 3, 2018 | News
The secret military trials of civilians charged with terrorism-related offences are a continuing breach of Pakistan’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences on 7 January 2015 by the 21st amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
One year ago, on 31 March 2017, President Mamnoon Hussain signed into law the 23rd amendment to the Constitution to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians until 6 January 2019.
“The renewal of military trials for civilians accused of terrorism last year has only weakened the rule of law, and undermined the right to fair trial and equality before the law in Pakistan,” said Matt Pollard, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser.
“Pakistan should end the role of military courts in such cases, and instead strengthen the ability of ordinary courts and law enforcement to ensure investigations and trials that are both fair and effective, in line with its domestic law and international human rights obligations,” he added.
According to the military’s media office and information collected by the ICJ, military courts have convicted 346 people since January 2015, out of which 196 people have been sentenced to death and 150 people have been given prison sentences.
At least 56 people have been hanged. Only one person has been acquitted.
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.
Such use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international fair trial standards, and the imposition of the death penalty after such trials violates the right to life.
Families of more than a hundred people convicted by military courts have alleged the convicts were denied a right to a fair trial in petitions to the Supreme Court and various high courts in the country.
Despite acknowledging possible denial of fair trial, the ordinary courts have thus far refused to provide relief to the petitioners due to their lack of jurisdiction over military courts.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals through the amendments to the Constitution and the Pakistan Army Act were a part of the Pakistani government’s 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014.
The NAP contemplated military courts only as a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, on the basis that they would be operational only for a short period during which the Government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions.”
However, with less than a year left before the extension under the 23rd Constitutional Amendment is set to expire, no such reforms have taken place.
Contact
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative (Geneva); e: matt.pollard@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Background
The 23rd constitutional amendment allows military tribunals to try civilians who allegedly belong to “a terrorist group or organization misusing the name of religion or a sect” and are suspected of committing a number of offences, including: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury or death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
In July 2017, in its Concluding Observations after Pakistan’s first periodic review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it was concerned by the extension of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and allegations of fair trial violations in military courts’ proceedings.
The Human Rights Committee recommended that Pakistan “review the legislation relating to the military courts with a view to abrogating their jurisdiction over civilians and their authority to impose the death penalty” and “reform the military courts to bring their proceedings into full conformity with articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant in order to ensure a fair trial.”
Feb 23, 2018 | News
As the assault on the rule of law and human rights under the state of emergency in the Maldives continues, the ICJ expressed concerned about government reprisals taken against lawyers for performing their legitimate professional functions.
The ICJ urged the Maldivian authorities to stop obstructing the work of lawyers and respect the independence of the legal profession.
The ICJ called on the government to immediately lift the state of emergency, revoke the “suspension” of human rights protections, release judges of the Supreme Court and persons detained for political reasons, and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
On 22 February, the Department of Judicial Administration, the administrative arm of the Maldivian judiciary, suspended lawyer Hussain Shameem for an indefinite period of time, citing an ongoing investigation against him.
“No lawyer should be subject to persecution for carrying out their professional duties. Lawyers like Hussain Shameem are indispensable in ensuring human rights protection and upholding the rule of law in the Maldives, especially during a state of emergency,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
The decision to suspend Shameem came only days after the Maldivian police launched an investigation against him for “obstruction of justice” and “obstruction of the administration of law and other government function”.
Hussain Shameem is representing members of the political opposition who are in detention, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and parliamentarian Faris Maumoon.
Before his suspension, Hussain Shameem had made public statements asserting that the declaration emergency declared by the Government on 5 February 2018 was unconstitutional.
He had also highlighted the poor conditions of detention of his clients.
The ICJ has learned that the police confiscated the mobile phones of another two lawyers, Mahfooz Saeed and Moosa Siraj.
Like Shameem, they were representing individuals arrested and detained during the state of emergency, including Justice Ali Hameed, who was part of the Supreme Court bench that recently issued a judgment directing the release of members of the opposition.
The police have also informed lawyers taking up cases during the state of emergency that they can only meet their clients for 30 minutes, which is an arbitrary and unlawful restriction on the fair trial rights of accused persons.
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
International standards also provide that lawyers shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
“The government’s actions against these lawyers, who are just doing their job of protecting their clients’ rights, has a chilling effect on other lawyers in the country as it sends a message that any exercise of their professional responsibilities perceived as contrary to wishes of the governments will not be tolerated,” added Rawski.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information: the state of emergency
On 5 February, the Government of the Maldives had declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections. The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.
On 20 February, the Parliament extended the state of emergency for another thirty days, citing the ongoing constitutional crisis. The extension appears to have been taken in violation of Maldivian law and the Constitution as the number of parliamentarians required for such an extension was not present during the vote.
The constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to privacy. Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures – including the criminal procedure code – have also been suspended.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, allows for States only to derogate from full protection of only a limited number of human rights during declared “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.” No rights can be entirely suspended. Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent strictly necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
Jan 25, 2018 | News
Myanmar’s publication in state media of lists with the names and accompanying photographs of more than 1,400 men, women and children under the heading “Members of ARSA Terrorist Group” constitutes an assault on human rights and contravenes key principles of the rule of law.
Authorities have not explained why or how listed persons were identified, if they are currently in detention, or if they are wanted for prosecution or for questioning pursuant to criminal investigations. Some or all persons listed appear to have been “accused” outside any formal judicial process.
Given the lack of publicly available information as to the basis of ascribing membership of a prescribed terrorist organization to the persons in the photos, and the manner in which their information has been publicized, the ICJ is concerned that the stated accusations may be arbitrary.
To the extent that there may be any credible basis for ascribing criminal conduct, the authorities have an obligation to administer justice through due process and fair trials, and not name calling and public shaming.
Authorities should cease publishing such material and take effective protective measures to ensure the safety and security of the people named in these publications and their families.
Serious crimes, including alleged acts of terrorism as well as human rights violations, necessitate investigations that are prompt, independent, impartial, effective and transparent in line with international standards.
As with other crimes, the investigation and prosecution of alleged acts of terrorism should conform to applicable national laws, including Myanmar’s Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent these do not violate applicable international standards.
If any of the listed individuals have been detained, they must be brought promptly before a judge and charged with a cognizable offense or else released.
Accused persons must be afforded legal protections, and if properly charged, they must be brought to justice through fair trials.
State authorities have a duty to respect and ensure the presumption of innocence.
Authorities must refrain from making public statements that are defamatory in nature, that violate fair trial rights by affirming or implying the guilt of persons accused of crimes, and that violate the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers, all of which are recognized in national and international law.
Particularly given the heightened tensions prevailing in northern Rakhine State, persons included in these lists and their families are at great risk of extra-judicial reprisals, which violates their right to security of the person.
In addition, the potentially defamatory publication of these photos by the government constitutes a violation of their right to privacy.
It also seriously undermines the government’s stated commitments to facilitating the safe return of refugees, and its responsibility to safeguard the physical security and integrity of all individuals from all communities in Myanmar.
Background
From 17 to 23 January 2018, Myanmar authorities published lists with the names, photos and identifying information of more than 1,400 men, women and children who they summarily accuse in the publications of involvement in or association with terrorism-related acts in Rakhine State.
These lists contain photos accompanied by captions with information variously including the name, age, village, alleged transgression, and other identifying information.
Most individuals are identified as “the terrorist” while others are characterized as a “family member of terrorists” or having “sympathized with the terrorist groups.”
The lists have run as supplements in the daily Burmese-language Myanmar Alinn newspaper and in the daily English-language Global New Light of Myanmar newspaper, published by the Ministry of Information.
Extracts have been published by the Office of the President of the Union, and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which on 16 January requested Bangladesh authorities to extradite “accused” persons to Myanmar.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that during and following security operations in Rakhine State, authorities have systematically failed to respect the rights of detainees in accordance with national and international law and standards.
Authorities have also so far failed to hold to account members of security forces, including soldiers and police, who appear to have perpetrated crimes against both Rohingya and Rakhine inhabitants of Rakhine State.
More than 650,000 inhabitants of northern Rakhine State, the vast majority of whom are Rohingya Muslims, have been displaced as a result of security operations commanded by Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on 25 August 2017.
The government’s Counter-Terrorism Central Committee has declared ARSA as a ‘terrorist organization’ and stated that its supporters would be held responsible for acts of terrorism, pursuant to the 2014 Counter-Terrorism Law.
Myanmar-Terrorist Lists-News-web story-2018-BUR (story in Burmese, PDF)
Jan 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the executions of 22 civilians during the past month, following death penalty cases before military courts in which fair trial guarantees appear to have been flagrantly violated.
The Egyptian authorities should establish an immediate moratorium and halt all pending executions with a view towards the total and permanent abolition of the death penalty, the ICJ added.
“The executions of these civilians constitute blatant, egregious violations of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Carrying them out based on military trials, which furthermore failed to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards, amounts to the arbitrary deprivation of life,” he added.
Based on information provided by the defendants’ lawyers and families, Egyptian NGOs have reported a litany of fair trial violations that marred these proceedings.
These included the case of a defendant who was convicted following one trial session, in the absence of his counsel.
It also included instances involving enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, some of which were documented in the prosecution reports.
In one case the defendants’ lawyers filed a motion to “review the case” under article 448 of the Code Criminal Procedure which should normally suspend the carrying out of any sentence of execution.
The executions were nevertheless carried out on 9 January, before the Military Court’s review, which was due on 28 February 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have brushed aside the most basic legal safeguards on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty,” Benarbia said.
“Because they cannot ensure respect of fair trial rights, they must impose an immediate moratorium on executions.”
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian judiciary fails to conform to these standards.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Executions-News-2018-ARA (Arabic translation in PDF)
Background
International standards recognize the particular concerns with judicial independence and impartiality that arise in relation to the trial of civilians by military courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to military personnel in cases of strictly military offences, i.e. alleged breaches of military discipline.
The above-mentioned cases involved civilians and allegations of ordinary offenses, including theft, rape, and murder (including murder of military officers).
Particularly in these circumstances, there could be no justification for these cases to have been adjudicated before military courts and the ICJ considers that this factor in itself renders the executions in violation of the right to life.
The ICJ furthermore opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation to the right to life and to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The cases in question were: Case No. 411/2013 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (15 executions in 26 December 2017), case No. 22/2015 before Tanta Criminal Military Court (4 executions in 2 January 2018) and case No. 93/2011 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (3 executions in 9 January 2018).
Nov 24, 2017 | News
As Zimbabwe prepares to swear in Emmerson Mnangagwa following the resignation of long time Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, the ICJ today called on the incoming authorities to immediately act to restore the rule of law and ensure the full observance of human rights in the country.
“As the events of the past few days propel Zimbabwe away from decades of authoritarian rule replete with human rights violations, the incoming administration must side with the people of Zimbabwe and seize this unique opportunity to ground its governance in the rule of law,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s African Regional Programme.
The ICJ indicated that it is particularly concerned at the intrusion of armed forces in the political process and governance, which is prohibited by the Zimbabwean Constitution and contravenes core rule of law principles concerning the respective functions of the military and civilian authorities.
Emphasizing that the rule of law and respect for the national Constitution remain paramount even as Zimbabweans decide on their future, the ICJ called on the Zimbabwean National Army (ZNA) to refrain from any further activity that intrudes into functions of governances that are within the proper purview of civilian authorities.
“It amounts to setting a dangerous precedent for Zimbabwe and the region to allow or excuse such incursions at the whim of armed forces,” Tsunga added.
Under the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance adopted by African Union Member States, Zimbabwe is required to “institutionalize constitutional civilian control over the armed and security forces to ensure the consolidation of democracy and constitutional order”.
The ICJ further expressed concern at emerging reports of usurpation of police duties by the ZNA, which has allegedly carried out a series of arbitrary arrests and detention of civilians.
“Due process guarantees and fair trial rights are particularly vulnerable when armed forces decide to assume police functions,” Tsunga said.
Recalling that international law does not allow or encourage impunity for serious human rights violations that constitute crimes, such as torture and extra-judicial killings, the ICJ stressed the importance of ensuring accountability for human rights violations as Zimbabwe transits to into a new era of governance.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ-Director Africa Regional Programme, t: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +234 8034927549 ; e: Solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org
