Apr 16, 2015 | News
Thailand must strengthen its efforts to solve the apparent enforced disappearance of Karen human rights defender, Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, who “disappeared” one year ago this Friday, said the ICJ.
“Thailand must strengthen its efforts to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into Billy’s fate and whereabouts in a manner that complies with its international obligations,” said Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“As part of this process, it is essential that the authorities evaluate the investigation objectively to ensure it has been carried out independently and impartially, that the necessary resources have been allocated, and that all investigative opportunities have been pursued,” he added.
The ICJ reiterates its call for the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) to assume responsibility for the investigation because of the need for the DSI’s special expertise.
The DSI has the power to assume jurisdiction over special criminal cases including complex cases that require special inquiry, crimes committed by organized criminal groups, and cases where the principal is an influential person.
A six-day habeas corpus inquiry monitored by the ICJ and which concluded on 17 July 2014, and a subsequent appeal delivered on 26 February 2015, were unsuccessful in shedding any light on Billy’s fate or whereabouts.
Thailand, as a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is required to investigate, prosecute, punish and provide a remedy and reparation for the crime of enforced disappearance.
Background
Billy (photo) was last seen on 17 April 2014 in the custody of Kaeng Krachan National Park officials. The officials claimed they detained Billy for illegal possession of honey but released him later the same day.
Billy had been working with ethnic Karen villagers and activists on legal proceedings the villagers had filed against the National Park, the Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and the former Chief of Kaeng Krachan National Park concerning the alleged burning of villagers’ homes and property in the National Park in 2010 and 2011.
The Royal Thai Government has signaled its recognition of the gravity of the crime of enforced disappearance, and its commitment to combating it, by signing the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on 9 January 2012.
The Convention affirms the absolute right not to be subject to enforced disappearance and places an obligation on states to investigate acts of enforced disappearance and to make it a criminal offence punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its “extreme seriousness”, and to take the necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, t: +66 (0) 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Billy one year-News-PressRelease-2015-THA (full text in PDF)
Mar 16, 2015 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
The ICJ has made further submissions to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its elaboration of Draft Principles and Guidelines on habeas corpus.
In February 2015, the Working Group released for public input a revised set of ‘Draft Principles and Guidelines on remedies and procedures on the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty by arrest or detention to bring proceedings before a court without delay, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his or her detention and order his or her release if the detention is not lawful’.
The ICJ’s submission welcomes the elaboration by the Working Group of the revised Draft Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus and especially welcomes certain aspects of the document. It suggests means of further improving the revised Draft Principles and Guidelines, concerning:
- The temporary nature of any derogating measures impacting upon the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- The competence of courts to make orders for immediate release;
- The implementation of court orders for release;
- The public nature of judicial decisions following adjudication of habeas corpus petitions;
- Guarantees applicable to specialized tribunals;
- The right to legal aid and legal assistance;
- Confirming that the procedure must be available at all times and to all detained persons, including prisoners or war, as a remedy to protect non-derogable rights such as the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment; and
- The inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture.
The Working Group will present its final draft to the Human Rights Council’s 30th regular session in September 2015.
Attachments
ICJ-WGAD-RevisedDraftPrinciplesAndGuidelines-3rdLegalSubmission-2015-EN (The ICJ’s latest submission in PDF)
WGAD-Habeas-RevisedDraftPrinciplesAndGuidelines-2015-EN (PDF)
Additional links for reference
The ICJ’s first written submissions to the Working Group in November 2013
The ICJ’s second written submissions to the Working Group in April 2014
Panel presentations at the September 2014 Global Consultation by ICJ staff Matt Pollard and Alex Conte
Jan 29, 2015 | News
Three recent decisions by the Bangkok Military Tribunal affirming its jurisdiction over civilians violate international law and represent another serious setback for human rights in Thailand, the ICJ said today.
“International standards are clear – military tribunals are not competent to prosecute civilians,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General. “Military tribunals are not independent from the executive and the lack of an appeal removes any possibility of a remedy against the judgments of the Tribunal.”
The first case concerns a political activist, Sirapop Korn-arut, who was charged with violating an order of Thailand’s ruling military junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to report to the military for allegedly violating Thailand’s highly restrictive lese majeste law. The second case concerns the prosecution of an anti-military coup activist, Sombath Boonngam-anong, accused of violating NCPO orders and instigating rebellion in June 2014. In the third, a Thammasat University law lecturer, Worajet Pakeerat, is charged with violating a NCPO summons to report to the military.
All three had challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to prosecute civilians.
In three separate rulings, delivered on 22, 23 and 26 January 2015, the Tribunal rejected the defendants’ challenges to its jurisdiction.
“These decisions set a worrying precedent for all civilians currently facing prosecution before military tribunals in Thailand. All cases of civilians facing charges before military tribunals must be transferred to civilian courts immediately if Thailand is to comply with its international obligations,” said Tayler.
According to observers, at least 100 civilians have faced prosecution in military tribunals since the military coup. The Royal Thai Government has not yet released the official number.
While the ICJ observed Professor Worajet’s hearing on 26 January, written decisions have not yet been made publically available in these cases.
Background
Under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party, everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The imposition of Martial Law and the State’s suspension of some of its obligations under the ICCPR, including the right to appeal guaranteed by Article 14(5) for cases heard by military tribunals, does not affect the applicability of this provision.
Article 61 of the Thai Act for the Organization of the Military Court prevents any appeal from the decision of military tribunals so long as Thailand remains under Martial Law, which has been in force nationwide since 22 May 2014.
The Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals sets out principles that apply to state use of military tribunals.
Principle 5 states “Military courts should, in principle, have no jurisdiction to try civilians. In all circumstances, the State shall ensure that civilians accused of a criminal offence of any nature are tried by civilian courts.”
Further, Principle 2 clarifies that even in times of crisis military tribunals must “apply standards and procedures internationally recognized as guarantees of a fair trial.”
Jul 9, 2014 | News
The Nepal government should immediately fix crucial flaws in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Act, particularly those highlighted in a new United Nations evaluation, the ICJ and other rights groups said today.
Jun 25, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ made an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council, highlighting a severe lack of domestic judicial capacity, and the large needs for justice in relation to gross violations and international humanitarian law, as well as ordinary civil and criminal matters, in South Sudan.
The ICJ reported in 2013 that, notwithstanding substantial legal reforms, the justice system in South Sudan was so under-resourced that statutory courts were effectively unavailable to a large majority of the population. Further, judicial appointment procedures were insufficiently independent or transparent to satisfy international standards. Customary courts have a greater presence, but rightly do not have criminal jurisdiction, and further do not meet international standards as regards, for instance, institutional guarantees for independence and impartiality.
In addition to the difficulties most residents already faced in accessing justice, the conflict has resulted in gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. South Sudan must ensure effective remedy and reparation for victims of such violations, and that anyone reasonably suspected of responsibility is investigated and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted. At the same time, it must fulfill the fair and effective administration of ordinary civil and criminal justice.
Particularly given the scale and gravity of the violations, the South Sudanese justice system simply does not have the capacity to bear this burden, at least not alone. In addition to building the capacity of the domestic judiciary, it is clear that an international criminal tribunal, preferrably the International Criminal Court, will need to play a key role. Other states, too, will have to exercise all grounds of jurisdiction at their disposal, and deliver effective mutual legal cooperation.
The ICJ considers that the lack of an effective, independent and impartial court system in South Sudan may well have contributed to the rapid deterioration of the situation over the past months. Building an independent and impartial justice system in which all residents of South Sudan can have confidence is essential to preventing recurrence of the violations in the future.
HRC26-Oral statement on SouthSudan-Advocacy-non legal submission-2014 (full statement in PDF)
