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
Feb 22, 2017 | News
The Pakistan Government must not bring back military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, the ICJ said today.
An earlier law giving military courts authority to try civilians lapsed after two years on 6 January 2017.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards, the ICJ recalled.
“Evidence from practice clearly shows that not only have military trials of civilians been blatantly unjust and in violation of the right to a fair trial, they have also been ineffective in reducing the very real threat of terrorism in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
According to media reports, the draft amendment, if adopted, would extend the “exceptional” use of military courts for another three years. The ICJ fears that repeated extensions risk making the practice effectively permanent.
It would also give military courts jurisdiction over any offence considered to be an act of terrorism, a broader mandate than 2015 constitutional amendment, which was applicable only to “terrorism motivated by religion or sectarianism” and where the accused were “members of proscribed organizations”.
“Bringing back military courts deflects attention from the real issue: the Government’s complete failure to enact necessary reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system in the two years military courts were in operation,” Zarifi said.
“The Government must account for its failure to deliver on the promise of delivering justice for the victims of terrorism and other abuses in Pakistan instead of once again extending the “exceptional” use of military courts for civilian trials,” he added.
The Government has scheduled a meeting with opposition parties on 23 February in an attempt to achieve consensus over a constitutional amendment to restore military courts.
Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of parliament to be enacted.
While the ruling party has the requisite majority in the National Assembly (lower house), it appears to lack the numbers in the Senate (upper house) to pass the amendment.
The Pakistan Parliament must stand up to the executive in defense of the rights of all people in Pakistan, instead of allowing the administration to bring back—and even expand—a discredited and abusive process, the ICJ says.
Pakistan passed the 21st amendment to the Constitution in January 2015, authorizing military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences for a period of two years. The 21st amendment lapsed on 6 January 2017.
Military courts have convicted 274 people in the two years since they have been used to try civilian terror suspects. . One hundred and sixty-one people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 12 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging.
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.
The ICJ unequivocally opposes the use of the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or 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
Jan 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ deplores comments made last night by the United States President Donald Trump, expressing approval for the practice of torture in counter-terrorism operations.
The ICJ is also alarmed at reports that the US administration is considering resurrecting the most abusive policies and practices during the early 2000s, including prolonged arbitrary detention in CIA-administered secret “black site” facilities, enforced disappearance, and rendition to other countries for torture and ill-treatment.
“These practices of torturing detainees and ‘disappearing’ them in black sites are serious crimes which must never be repeated,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Even President Bush, despite his administration’s appalling record, publicly denounced torture as being against the laws and values of the United States,” he added.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22 979 3837 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Background:
During an interview on US television last night, President Trump repeated his support for torture practices such as waterboarding (near-drowning) and declared that “torture works.”
A number of media reports have indicated that the Trump Administration may issue an Executive Order to review “whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States” and whether the CIA should be in charge of such a programme.
Counter-terrorism abuses during the Bush administration from 2001-08 involving torture, enforced disappearance, secret detention and rendition were widely condemned as unlawful, morally unacceptable, and ineffective, both internationally and in the US, leading to the abandonment of such practices.
A report by the Eminent Jurists Panel of the ICJ on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, issued in 2009 conducted after a four-year study concluded that “such practices are not a legitimate response to the threat of terrorism. Such practices are not only inconsistent with established principles of international law, and undermine the values on which free and democratic societies are based, but as the lessons of history show, they put the possibility of short term gains from illegal actions, above the more enduring long term harm that they cause.”
The Obama administration definitively abolished the practices of torture and secret detention upon taking office in 2009, although they had already been substantially wound down in the later years of the second Bush administration.
Jan 25, 2017 | News
The decision by the Chuy Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan on 24 January 2017 to uphold the life sentence of human rights defender Azimzhan Askarov constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and has compounded the multiple violations of his human rights, the ICJ said today.
The Court ruling was made in defiance of a decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, which had affirmed these serious violations.
The ICJ calls on the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to respect its international human rights obligations in this case.
Azimzhan Askarov (photo) should have access to an immediate and effective appeal against the decision of the Chuy Regional Court.
Violations of his rights should be remedied and just compensation provided.
Azimzhan Askarov was convicted of participation in murder, organization of mass disturbances and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011, following an unfair trial, arbitrary detention and torture.
The re-hearing of the case before the Chuy Regional Court followed the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee that his arrest, detention and trial breached Kyrgyzstan’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, the prohibition on arbitrary detention, and the right to fair trial.
The ICJ has closely monitored the case. Representatives of the ICJ observed several court hearings, including during the re-examination.
The ICJ regrets that the re-examination of Azimzhan Askarov’s case did not remedy the violations of his human rights found by the Human Rights Committee.
The court failed to undertake a rigorous study of both defence and prosecution cases.
Rather, it appeared to take the prosecution case at face value, thus undermining the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality of arms.
Many motions of the defence remained unaddressed or were rejected without cause.
These included a motion asking that the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee be evaluated by the Court, as they were crucial for the re-opening the case by the Supreme Court.
The Chuy Regional Court not only failed to examine the findings of the Human Rights Committee, but summarily rejected the Committee’s findings that Azimzhan Askarov had been arbitrarily arrested, held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture.
The Court in its decision doubted the truth of Azimzhan Askarov’s statement that he had been repeatedly tortured, on the basis that three State psychiatrists concluded that he was “deceitful and subservient” and the defence had not produced witnesses or other evidence to rebut this point.
The Court heard several witnesses who stated that they had initially given false statements implicating Azimzhan Askarov because they were intimidated or subjected to ill-treatment.
The Court did not take any action to investigate these allegations.
During the re-examination of his case Azimzhan Askarov was kept in a metal cage and had no immediate opportunity to speak without hindrance with his lawyer.
Askarov, an Uzbek speaker, visibly struggled to speak in Kyrgyz, but no interpretation was provided for him.
Background
Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender, was convicted of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2011.
The central charges concerned allegations of his participation in a murder of Myktybek Sulayamanov, a police officer, during the 2010 ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan.
The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011.
Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.
In March 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision in regard to Askarov’s complaint and found violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Human Rights Committee, which in March 2016 heard a complaint brought by Askarov, called for his conviction to be quashed and if necessary a new trial to be held in line with the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards.
On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a further reconsideration of the case on appeal, which resulted in upholding Askarov’s verdict and sentence.
Following the decision of 24 January, the defence said they would appeal this decision of the Chuy Court in the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. Kyrgyzstan is a party to the ICCPR and as such is bound by this treaty to guarantee the rights it enshrines and to provide effective remedies when these rights are violated.
The decision of the Committee is an authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR which may serve as evidence in court and whose findings should not be ignored.
Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-failure to remedy-News-Web story-2017-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Jan 17, 2017 | News
Leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, have hailed a landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court to hold the UK Government accountable for its role in human rights abuses overseas.
The country’s highest court issued today a long-awaited judgment in the two joined appeals in Belhaj and Others v. Jack Straw & Others and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence and Another.
The Court ruled that the UK Government could not rely on the legal doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state to escape claims in the two cases alleging UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
The first case, brought by the former Libyan opposition leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj (photo) and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, alleges that UK Government officials were complicit in the couple’s kidnap and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured.
The second case was brought by Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained by UK forces in Iraq before being handed over to US forces and allegedly tortured and imprisoned without charge for over ten years.
The Government argued before the Supreme Court that the claimants’ cases should be dismissed because, under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state, the UK courts were not permitted to rule on the legality of acts by foreign governments.
The claimants argued in response that the doctrines only applied in certain limited situations, and that they did not extend to the circumstances in Belhaj and Rahmatullah.
The claimants’ position in Belhaj was supported by several prominent human rights organizations – the ICJ, Amnesty International, JUSTICE and REDRESS – who intervened in the case.
The intervening organizations submitted that dismissing the claims would effectively grant impunity for torture to UK officials, violating international human rights law and weakening international commitments to an effective remedy for torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights breaches.
The Supreme Court found unanimously in favour of the claimants and dismissed the Government’s appeal.
It ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply because the foreign governments were not parties to the cases and their legal interests were not affected by the claims put forward.
In respect of foreign act of state, while the judges differed in their reasoning, they agreed that the doctrine could not be invoked for such serious violations of law as torture, unlawful detention and enforced disappearance.
The Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases will now proceed to full trials, where the courts will examine the facts of the claims and determine whether the UK Government and its officials were complicit in the claimants’ torture and other human rights abuses.
“The UK Supreme Court has spoken forcefully in affirming that the public interest in ensuring access to justice for victims of serious human rights abuses is paramount,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Human rights are universal and their effective enforcement must not be blocked by misapplied juridical doctrine that contrives to deny victims a remedy,” he added.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22979 3800 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
UK-Belhaj case-News-press releases-2017-ENG (full version of press release, in PDF)
