Oct 11, 2016 | News
Thailand should immediately end the use of Article 44 of the Interim Constitution which gives the Head of the military junta sweeping, unchecked powers contrary to the rule of law and human rights, said the ICJ today.
Despite widespread international condemnation of Article 44, its use has increased every year since the Interim Constitution was promulgated on 22 July 2014 following the coup d’état of 22 May 2014.
The Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), Prayut Chan-o-cha, has issued at least 107 Orders under Article 44 (available in the public domain): at least one in 2014; 44 in 2015; and 62 in 2016 to date – with 37 Orders being issued since June 2016 alone.
“The Head of the NCPO’s increasing willingness to use extraordinary powers to make ad hoc, arbitrary changes to existing laws and regulations without judicial oversight should be alarming to everyone, including the business sector,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ.
“Article 44 places law making power in the hands of one man, while Articles 47 and 48 of the Interim Constitution block judicial review or access to remedies and reparation. This is entirely inconsistent with the three fundamental pillars of the rule of law, equality, accountability and predictability, and should be revoked immediately,” he added.
The Article 44 orders range from those restricting the civil rights of all people in Thailand to those aimed at seemingly minor and ordinary bureaucratic processes.
To date, Article 44 has been used to introduce a raft of revisions into existing Thai law without observing proper process or practice, including providing for the acquisition of land for the establishment of Special Economic Zones bypassing the usual environmental and social checks and balances provided for in domestic legislation; granting military officers sweeping powers of investigation, arrest and detention; and prohibiting the gathering of five or more persons for political purposes.
“It is long past time for Thailand to revoke Article 44 and all others laws, orders and announcements issued since the military coup that are inconsistent with the rule of law and human rights,” Tayler said.
“The justifications the military presented for such measures were never valid or credible, and certainly not so after more than two years of direct military rule.”
All Orders issued under Article 44 – and all other NCPO Orders and Announcements – will continue to remain in force under the draft Constitution that was accepted at a public referendum on 7 August 2016, and may only be repealed or amended by an Act.
Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam announced that the NCPO was considering converting many of the hundreds of orders issued by the NCPO into legislation, including those issued under Article 44.
thailand-art-44-ncpo-news-press-releases-2016-eng (full text with background, in PDF)
thailand-head-of-ncpo-orders-advocacy-2016-eng (full list of all publicly available Head of NCPO Orders, in PDF)
thailand-art-44-ncpo-news-press-releases-2016-tha (full text in Thai, PDF)
Aug 29, 2016 | News
Pakistan’s Supreme Court’s rejection of petitions by families of 16 people sentenced to death who complained of unfair trials in the country’s military courts seriously set back respect for human rights and the rule of law, the ICJ said today.
“The Supreme Court failed to use an important opportunity to show that human rights protect all people, including those who are accused of terrorist acts or other heinous crimes,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Pakistan’s very serious problem with terrorism can only be addressed with more respect for human rights and the rule of law, not less, and certainly not through deeply flawed military tribunals that provide neither justice nor truth.”
Families of sixteen civilians sentenced to death by military courts in secret proceedings challenged their convictions and sentences in the Supreme Court on fair trial grounds. In its 182-page judgment, a five-member bench Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali held the petitioners had failed to prove the military violated their constitutional right to a fair trial. At convicts are now at imminent risk of execution.
The ICJ is calling on the government of Pakistan to desist from executing these or other convicts, and to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty it held from 2008 to 2014.
“Trial of civilian suspects in military courts is anathema to human rights and international standards are clear that military courts should only have jurisdiction over military officers for military offences,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan’s military tribunals in particular offer nothing like a fair trial and should be immediately dismantled.”
As highlighted by the ICJ in a briefing paper released in June, proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall well short of national and international standards requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts: judges are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied. In addition, the procedures of military courts, the selection of cases to be referred to them, the location and timing of trial, and details about the alleged offences are kept secret.
“The ICJ supports the pursuit of justice for all victims of terrorism in Pakistan,” added Zarifi. “However, justice will not be done by subverting the foundational pillar of justice: the right to a fair trial for all suspects –regardless of how serious the offence.”
Since January 2015, when Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, 11 military courts have been constituted to hear cases related to terrorism.
These 11 military courts have thus far concluded the trials of 128 people, finding the defendants guilty in 104 cases. A hundred people have been sentenced to death and four have been given life sentences. At least 12 people have been hanged after trials that are grossly unfair.
The ICJ has called on the Pakistan government to roll back the system of “military injustice”, and ensure that all terrorism suspects are guaranteed basic fair trial protections.
The ICJ has also urged that Pakistan reinstate a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in law and practice, reflecting the call of an overwhelming majority of States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions. The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a from of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Contact:
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 (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In January 2015, Pakistan empowered military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences as part of its 20-point “National Action Plan”, adopted by the Government following the horrific attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar.
The expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians was accomplished through the 21st Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution and amendments to the Army Act, 1952. These amendments allow military courts to try offences related to “terrorism” committed by those who claim to, or are known to, belong to a terrorist organization “using the name of religion or a sect”.
Both amendments are set to expire on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a “sunset clause”, after which they will cease to be in effect, although there is a risk that they could be renewed.
In August 2015, the Pakistani Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 21st amendment and the trial of civilians by military courts for terrorism-related offences.
Aug 10, 2016 | News
A law in Belize that disproportionately affects gay men was today ruled unconstitutional by the country’s Supreme Court after a three-year wait for the judgment.
Section 53 of Belize’s Criminal Code, an old British colonial law, banned ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ and thereby made consensual gay sex between adult men in private illegal in Belize. Today the legal provision has been ruled ‘unlawful’ to the extent that it can be applied to same-sex activity.
In handing down the judgment, Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin agreed that Section 53 amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, equality and non-discrimination on grounds of sex. He found that there was no justification in the form of ‘public morality’ and therefore the law must be modified. He awarded costs to the Claimaint, Caleb Orozco.
The case is the culmination of years of work by a Caribbean-led coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) activists, academics and legal experts. The individual claimant is Caleb Orozco, a Belizean gay man and prominent LGBT human rights advocate.
Today Orozco said: “This is the first day of my life in which it is legal for me to be me. This is a history-making judgment for Belize, the country which I am proud to call home. Our judicial system has been proven to be robust and unprejudiced. This judgment should give other oppressed minorities the confidence to speak up and stand up for themselves in situations of human rights abuse in the way I have. Our courts really are there to protect us all. In striking down Section 53, Belize has also rejected a poisonous remnant of colonial rule. We have reaffirmed ourselves as a society built on dignity and respect for all our people. This is a proud day.”
Simone Hill, President of the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) said before the judgment: “This is about our human rights. As citizens of this country our rights should be respected without fear or favour. Win or lose, we will continue the fight to ensure the victory of the protection of our rights.”
The case was heard in May 2013 and presided over by Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin. Today’s ruling – some three years and three months later – upholds Belize’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) community’s human rights to privacy, equality, dignity and non-discrimination, all of which are protected under the country’s constitution.
A group of churches, namely the Roman Catholic Church of Belize, the Belize Church of England Corporate Body, and the Belize Evangelical Association of Churches were admitted as ‘Interested Parties’ in the case opposing Mr Orozco’s claim and seeking to maintain the criminalisation of gay men in Belize.
Meanwhile, the International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Human Dignity Trust were joint ‘Interested Parties’ in support of Mr Orozco.
Téa Braun, Legal Director of the Human Dignity Trust, said:
“This is a great victory for human rights and the rule of law.
Intimacy in private between two adults of their own free will should not be a matter for the law. The only outcome of such laws is to blight the lives of members of the LGBT community by fostering a climate of oppression and state-sponsored discrimination. The bravery and resilience of colleagues across the Caribbean who have worked tirelessly on this case is an inspiration. Caleb Orozco is a hero and a trailblazer. The Human Dignity Trust is immensely proud to have worked alongside him and his legal team.”
Alex Ward, President of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which passed a resolution on the ‘Decriminalisation of Sexual Orientation’ in 2009, said: “This is a sound and just ruling which we whole heartedly welcome. It is the CLA’s mandate to uphold the rule of law across the Commonwealth and today marks a considerable success in maintaining the integrity of the Belizean Constitution and protecting its citizens’ fundamental rights.”
Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said: “The ICJ hails the courage, commitment and tenacity of the entire LGBT movement in Belize, and Caleb Orozco’s in particular, and salutes this decision as a critical contribution to upholding people’s human rights whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
While convictions under Section 53 in Belize were rare, the law carried a sentence of up ten years’ imprisonment effectively for consensual homosexual sex.
There are still 76 legal jurisdictions across the world that make same-sex intimacy between consenting adults a crime. Of these, 38 countries are, like Belize, members of the Commonwealth.
The Interested Parties that joined in support of the case were represented by Godfrey Smith SC and Debevoise & Plimpton led by Lord Goldsmith QC. Tim Otty QC, founder of the Human Dignity Trust, Tristan Jones, Jessica Gladstone, Nicola Leslie, Conway Blake, were key members of the victorious legal team.
Jul 18, 2016 | News
At a critical moment for Turkish democracy, the ICJ today urged the government to uphold the rule of law and respect Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law.
The ICJ condemns what appears to be a wholesale attack on the judiciary, implemented within hours of the failed coup attempt of 15 and 16 July.
“At such moments of crisis, it is crucial that the independence and security of tenure of judges is respected, so that public confidence can be maintained in the fairness of the justice system,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General.
“Purging the judiciary now endangers the deepest foundations of the separation of powers and the rule of law. An independent judiciary will be critical to ensure a functioning administration of justice for all people in Turkey as the country emerges from the crisis,” he added.
Reports indicate that on 16 July 2,745 judges were suspended by the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). Arrest warrants were issued for more than a hundred judges.
Two judges of the Constitutional Court, and ten members the HSYK itself, are reportedly among those detained. The ICJ fears that many of these detentions may be arbitrary.
Allegations that the judges concerned were linked to the attempted coup have not been supported by evidence, and it defies credulity that such a high number of judicial authorities could have been involved in the planning or execution of the military coup d’etat.
According to the ICJ, the measures are arbitrary, and contrary to fundamental rule of law principles.
In June, an ICJ report, Turkey: the judicial system in peril, analysed the increasing government control of the Turkish judiciary, including the HSYK, and arrests and dismissals judges, in violation of international standards.
“This weekend’s mass suspensions and arrests of judges represent a dramatic escalation of an attack on judicial independence that was already underway,” said Tayler.
“Disciplinary proceedings against judges should not proceed until it is clear that they will be heard by a body that is fully independent of the executive, and in accordance with the right to a fair hearing,” he added.
The ICJ is also deeply concerned at suggestions by the government that the death penalty may be introduced for those involved in the failed coup.
Re-introduction of the death penalty would violate Turkey’s obligations under Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute in all circumstances a violation of the right to life and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Additional information:
Under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The ICJ recently published its Practitioners’ Guide N°13 on Judicial Accountability, a major study on international law and standards on the accountability of judges.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
Jun 30, 2016 | News
The Pakistani Government should not extend the oppressive and ineffective Protection of Pakistan Act (POPA), which is set to expire on 15 July 2016, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
POPA was enacted in July 2014 for a period of two years to combat “waging of war or insurrection against Pakistan” and to provide “speedy trial” for offences “threatening the security of Pakistan”.
Earlier this week, the Ministry of Interior confirmed that it planned to renew POPA for another two years.
“In these two years, not one suspect has been convicted under POPA, so we can conclude that the law doesn’t really protect people in Pakistan from terrorism and other violent acts, but instead it undermines their basic human rights protections,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“The Government’s plan to renew this hastily drafted law is a classic case of supposedly ‘temporary’ departures from normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of ‘exceptional” circumstances’ becoming a permanent part of the legal system.”
In a statement issued shortly after the Protection of Pakistan Act was enacted, the ICJ warned that POPA gives military and law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to detain individuals in contravention of Pakistan’s international human rights law obligations.
The law allows prolonged preventive administrative detention without adequate safeguards; retrospectively authorizes otherwise arbitrary or unlawful arrests or detentions; authorizes secret and unacknowledged detention; and gives law enforcement agencies broad powers to “shoot at sight”.
In addition, the law creates “special courts” to try scheduled offences under the Act. Procedures for the operation of these “special courts” allow for secret hearings and do not meet international standards for fair and public criminal proceedings before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
According to Government officials, the Ministry of Interior has cleared “hundreds of cases of peace disrupting elements” for trial before the “special courts” constituted under POPA.
The five “special courts” remained non-functional for many months because of lack of staff and other facilities. The courts are now functional, but have so far not concluded a single trial.
“POPA is not only an oppressive law, it has also proven to be completely ineffective,” added Zarifi. “Instead of renewing the law, the Government should focus on strengthening the existing criminal justice system, which is suffering because of years of neglect.”
Political groups, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), have alleged that the unfettered powers given to civilian and military law enforcement agencies under POPA are being used to target their workers for political activity and association. They say the law has been used to arbitrarily detain dozens of their activists.
“Pakistan faces a genuine threat from militant groups engaging in acts of terrorism, and the Pakistani Government has an obligation to protect all people from such attacks,” said Zarifi. “International law gives governments reasonable flexibility to combat terrorism, without contravening human rights obligations, and claims of ‘threats to national security’ can never be used as a justification for the practice of extrajudicial killings, secret detention, and enforced disappearance.”
The ICJ urges the Pakistani authorities not to extend POPA.
It further calls on the authorities to review all national security legislation to ensure it is fully compatible with international human rights law and standards.
Contact:
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: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
