n°2 newsletter asia desk - mouvement mondial des … of more than 7000 ha, which affect over 850...

n°2 NewsletterAsiA Desk

> Highlights of FIDH activities ................................................2> Focus: business and human rights in Asia ........................3 > International justice .............................................................7> International and regional human rights mechanisms .....10> Universal human rights and fundamental freedoms .........14> Human Rights Defenders ....................................................16> Calendar ................................................................................19

March 2012© F

IDH

, gar

men

t fac

tory

in B

angl

ades

h.

2 - FIDH - nEWSLETTER aSIa DESk 2 - MaRCH 2012

Highlights of FIDH activities

Overview of Asia Desk main objectives for 2012

Throughout 2012, FIDH Asia Desk will prioritize the strengthening of existing par-tnerships with its 18 member organizations in Asia, and consolidate its participation in various networks and NGO platforms, including in the ASEAN region. Several coun-tries are at critical crossroads: FIDH will continue its campaign for an end to impunity in Burma and for justice and accountability for serious crimes as the military-backed government is taking no substantive steps to investigate these crimes and ensure ac-cess to justice; in Afghanistan, FIDH will keep alerting the international community about the fragile human rights situation while the on-going reconciliation process may paradoxically lead to more violations; the situation in Iran is also deteriorating and FIDH will continue to support the mandate of the newly-established UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran. As part of the International Coali-tion to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK), FIDH will contribute to raising international attention on systematic and widespread human rights viola-tions in North Korea and to urge for reforms following the death of Kim Jong-il in December 2011. The focus section of this issue addresses the topic of ‘business and human rights’ which will be a thematic priority for FIDH Asia Desk in 2012.

FIDH 2011 cartoon

© F

IDH

© F

IDH

MaRCH 2012 - nEWSLETTER aSIa DESk 2 - FIDH - 3

Focus: business and human rights in AsiaGlobalisation may bring progress but it also exacerbates the vulnerability of marginalized populations and the deepening of inequalities. Faced with the liberalisation of trade and investment, FIDH fights to ensure that governments and economic actors, in particular companies, discharge their responsibilities wherever they operate and that economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) are fully recognised and respected

in law and in practice. 2010 and 2011 have been decisive years in this regard. In particular, many corporate responsibility instruments have been revised or adopted. The work of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, whose mandate came to an end in June 2011 with the adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by the UN Human Rights Council, helped to move the debate forward by providing a common framework of analysis for States, private actors and civil society.

FIDH has insisted that State’s obligation to protect human rights extra-territorially when corporations originating from their countries are involved in rights abuses should be made clear, and that access to justice for victims should be a priority. The challenge now lies in ensuring that these principles are implemented both in law and in practice and in conformity with international human rights standards. Meanwhile, affected communities and their representatives face difficulties in establishing the responsibility of the different actors involved, and even more so in seeking justice for those affected. The role of companies originating from emerging economies is also a big challenge for human rights defenders, as these businesses are often characterized by their aggressive competitiveness and their relative lack of sensitivity to public pressure.

The investigation and advocacy capabilities of FIDH member organisations, in Asia and other regions, remain uneven. FIDH therefore undertakes efforts to strengthen the capacity of its member organisations through joint investigations - especially human rights impact assessments of investment projects through case studies carried out by local teams over several months, and through joint advocacy. FIDH activity is also directed towards informing and training its member and partner organisations about the relevant international instruments and mechanisms and their potential scope of application.

FIDH continues to engage with Carrefour and multinational companies in the retail sector and members of the Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP) with the aim to enhance respect for labour rights in their supply chain. At the European level, through its involvement in a Coalition of European NGOs, the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ), FIDH continues to advocate the need for greater transparency, liability of corporations vis-à-vis the actions of their subsidiaries and suppliers, and access to justice for victims.


Through the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, FIDH responds to many cases of repression against those contesting economic projects, in particular those defending the right to a healthy environment, rights of indigenous peoples, etc.

A practical guide on business and human rights to support NGOs and victims in their fight against corporate impunity

Considering both the persistent gaps in access to justice for the victims and the difficulties FIDH member organisations and local NGOs generally face in identifying existing mechanisms through which to assert their rights in light of corporate-related human rights abuses,FIDH published a guide for victims and NGOs on recourse mechanisms. With the support of legal experts, FIDH worked for over 2 years on the drafting of this 600-page document which deals with international and regional intergovernmental mechanisms, mechanisms established by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, financial institution mechanisms and voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives that victims and their representatives may use to challenge the practices of multinationals. The guide also looks at extra-territorial criminal and civil liability of transnational corporations exploring possibilities for victims to access justice in home states of multinational corporations. The guide is based on the experience of civil society and lawyers. It was published in French, in English and Spanish in 2011. FIDH published an updated version of the guide in English and French in March 2012. The guide has been widely distributed throughout FIDH’s network and used as a basis for training civil society organisations representatives.

Freeport and human rights violations in West Papua

West Papua and Papua provinces in Indonesia have been increasingly militarized over the years as Indonesia continues to adopt a military-centered approach in response to indigenous movements for independence and autonomy. A recent report by the Indonesian NGO Imparsial – an FIDH partner - estimates that there are more than 14,000 military personnel deployed to Papua. The key features of such a military-centered approach by the central government include the continuous military operations in Papua without adequate parliamentary oversight, deployment of a large number of non-organic troops to Papua, and the addition of new territorial command structure in the region.

In this context of heavy militarization, persistent violence and lack of accountability, multinational corporations and other business enterprises operating in Papua are increasingly at risk of being complicit in human rights abuses. Grasberg, in West Papua, is the world’s largest gold mine and is exploited by PT Freeport Indonesia (PTFI), a branch of the US-based company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold. There is a close nexus between state security forces and Freeport. Since April 2011, there have been a string of shootings around the Freeport site, with more than 12 people dead.

In September 2011, thousands of workers went on strike at Grasberg to protest against low wages and working conditions. On October 10, the local police


indiscriminately shot at thousands of peaceful striking workers and local Papuans in Gorong-gorong bus station in Timika, which resulted in the death of two people and many other injuries. The workers ended their strike in late December following the company’s agreement to raise their salaries by 39 percent.

However, the root causes of violence and indigenous grievances against the Indonesian government go very deep, and are exacerbated by the perception that the exploitation of natural resources in Papua benefits mostly corporations and the central government, while poverty and under-development continue to affect Papuans.

FIDH supported KontraS – its other partner organization in Indonesia – in advocating for the immediate end of violence and for Indonesian authorities to find a sustainable response to the Freeport workers’ legitimate demands. A mission was organized in November 2011 to meet US authorities and discuss the general human rights situation in Papua and specific violations related to Grasberg mine.

Cambodia: Land Cleared for Rubber, Rights Bulldozed

In October 2011, FIDH released a report entitled “Land Cleared for Rubber, Rights Bulldozed”. This report is the result of an international fact-finding mission which documented the impact of industrial rubber plantations operated by the company Socfin-KCD on indigenous communities in Bousra, Mondulkiri province, in eastern Cambodia.

Socfin-KCD is a joint venture between KCD (which owns 20%), a prominent Cambodian construction company with close ties to governmental figures and Socfinasia (which owns 80%) a holding company registered in Luxembourg, owned and managed mainly by French industrial group Bolloré and Belgian families Fabri and de Ribes.

Socfin-KCD manages two concessions for a total of more than 7000 ha, which affect over 850 Bunong families who had to leave their agricultural land. The Bunong are an indigenous people of Cambodia practising shifting cultivation. In addition to irregularities in the approval process of the concessions, FIDH investigation found that the Bunong had suffered from various human rights violations: forced evictions, lack of adequate consultation and no implementation of their right to free, prior and informed consent on their traditional lands, destruction of spiritual and burial ground sites, and precarious working conditions as day labourers in the rubber plantations.

This report addresses several recommendations to various actors. A member of the Bunong community affected by the plantation gave testimonies in a


public forum on CSR in ASEAN (see below) in November 2011. Following the publication and upon request by NGOs in Cambodia, FIDH translated the full report into Khmer to ensure NGOs could use it in their advocacy work.

In November 2011, the company Socfin sent a letter to FIDH disputing our findings and threatening to take legal actions against FIDH. In a response to the Socfin letter, FIDH made it clear that it stands by its conclusions and recommendations.

Following the publication of the report, all 7 affected villages completed the first step towards the acquisition of collective land titling. Two members of the Parliament in Luxembourg called upon the Ministry of Economy to follow the recommendations comprised in FIDH’s report.

The report and exchanges with the company can be downloaded at: http://www.fidh.org/Land-cleared-for-Rubber-Rights

Public Hearing on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in ASEAN

In May 2011, the Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy (SAPA) and its various Task Forces organized the first Public Hearing on Corporate Social Responsibility in ASEAN, on the sideline of the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN People’s Forum (ACSC/APF) in Jakarta, just prior to the ASEAN Summit chaired by Indonesia. Ms. Debbie Stothard, Deputy Secretary-General of FIDH, presented FIDH’s Guide for Victims and NGOs on recourse mechanisms for corporate accountability. The hearing challenged the prevailing notions within ASEAN on «CSR» by providing a platform for victims to directly inform the public of the violations of their rights by corporations in mining, gas, oil, and plantation industries. The hearing was attended by more than 70 participants from various organizations and affected communities in the region, particularly from Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Timor Leste. The speakers and witnesses came from communities affected by the Xayabouri Dam on the Mekong River, the Shwe Gas Project in Burma, the Koh Kong Sugar Plantation and Factory in Cambodia, Rare Earth project in Kuantan and Asahi Kosei Factory in Kuala Lumpur. A teenager from Indonesia also testified on the Lapindo project and some local villagers testified as witnesses affected by the gold mining projects in Maluku and Sulawesi.

As a follow up to this unprecedented victim-centred event, a second Public Forum on CSR in ASEAN was organized in November 2011 on the sidelines of the meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The second forum was organized by SAPA together with its Task Forces on Extractive Industries and the Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact. Members of the affected communities were given the floor to fully illustrate the obstacles and violations they have suffered in additional cases of corporate abuses in Southeast Asian countries, including Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia.


International justice

Outlooks following the Bonn conference on Afghanistan

Following the Bonn Conference on 5 December 2011, and in perspective of three crucial years for Afghanistan and its people - FIDH and its partner organization Armanshahr Foundation/Open Asia have expressed their utmost concerns about the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in the country. While efforts are being made by the government of Afghanistan and the international community to put an end to the armed conflict in the country, the majority of the people clearly remain at the margins of the peace negotiations, which exclude not only certain ethnic and political groups (as well as institutions such as the elected Parliament) but also Afghan women and the supporters of a democratic, just, right-respecting and culturally diverse society.

In late 2011, FIDH and Armanshahr Foundation/Open Asia formulated seven key criteria that must be met for sustainable peace in Afghanistan to be possible. These criteria are:

1: Do not endorse a return of Taliban to power2: Strengthen democratic institutions, in particular the justice system, and enforce a true separation of powers3: Protect women’s rights in law and in practice4: Establish transitional justice mechanisms and fight impunity5: Fully perform human rights obligations under the protection mandate of the international community6: Respect the economic, social and cultural rights of Afghan people, and foster a sustainable model of development7: Respect human rights while promoting regional security and fighting international terrorism

A report will be published at the occasion of the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council in March 2012.

The long road to the establishment of a hybrid tribunal to try Khmer Rouge leaders

Almost two decades after the collapse of the Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot, responsible for millions of deaths and the commission of countless grave human rights violations and crimes under international law, the Cambodian Co-Prime Ministers requested in June 1997 the assistance of the United Nations (UN) to organize the process for the

Khmer Rouge trials. In December of the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (A/RES/52/135) on the human rights situation in Cambodia, affirming the willingness of the international community to see the crimes of the Khmer Rouge investigated, qualifying them as crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.

FIDH round-table in Phnom Penh, © FIDH


In November 2011, FIDH and its member organizations in Cambodia, the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), and in the USA, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), took the opportunity of the opening of the trial in Case 002 of four senior Khmer Rouge leaders to highlight lessons learned from the previous trial and proceedings, especially as regards to Civil Parties participation and reparation. A conference entitled “Opening of the Trial in ECCC Case 002: Expectations of Victims from here and abroad” was organized in Phnom Penh on 21 November.

Jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)

- Temporal Jurisdiction: 17th April 1975 to 6th January 1979.- Territorial Jurisdiction: The territorial competence of the ECCC was not specified. It is thus up to the

Extraordinary Chambers to determine whether their jurisdiction is limited to the territory of Cambodia or if they could exercise their jurisdiction independently of the place where crimes were committed.

- Personal Jurisdiction: Senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who bear the greatest responsibility for the violations and crimes under the ECCC jurisdiction.

- Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Crimes under international law (genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, destruction of cultural property protected during an armed conflict pursuant to the 1954 Hague Convention for Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict) and Crimes under national law (murder, torture, persecution on religious grounds).

FIDH has worked for the recognition of victims’ rights in ECCC proceedings, in particular their right to participate as Civil Parties. Two French lawyers from the FIDH Litigation Action Group (LAG), Mr. Patrick Baudouin, also coordinator of the LAG and FIDH Honorary President, and Ms. Marie Guiraud, represent 10 Civil Parties in Case No. 002 before the ECCC. Case 002 concerns four former senior Khmer Rouge officials, Mr. Nuon Chea (a.k.a. “Brother Number Two”), chief ideologist and right-hand man of Pol Pot, Mr. Ieng Sary, former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, his wife Ms Ieng Thirith (a.k.a. Sister Phea), former Minister of Social Affairs, and Mr. Khieu Samphan, former head of State.

FIDH Civil Party - ROS Chuor-Si Y

In 1972, Ieng Sary, Minister of Foreign Affairs, publicly encouraged Cambodians – in particular intellectuals - to go back to Cambodia to contribute to the reconstruction of the country, guaranteeing

that there would be no risk for their security. After the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975, rumours circulated that people were mistreated; however Ros Chor-Si Y and her family, who were in France at that time, decided to go back and were prepared to work hard for their country. In August 1976, they succeeded in entering Cambodia via Beijing, but at their arrival at the Phnom Penh airport, senior members of the Communist party confiscated their passport and took them to a transit camp (Camp 15), where they stayed for less than a month. Very quickly, they were starving. Ms Ros, her husband and their three daughters were transferred to the camp of Taley,

where they were submitted to forced labour. They were then transferred to Boeung Trabek. In November 1976 Ms Ros’ husband was called by the Communist Party (Angkar) after participating in a “session of re-education”. She never heard back from him again. Several months later, her daughters and she were transferred to Dey Krahâm, before being taken again to Boeung Trabek at the end of 1978, where they stayed until January 1979. A rush and unorganised evacuation of the camp led them to travel in different directions, losing sight of each other, until they succeeded to go back to Phnom Penh, staying in the suburbs of the city. “Senior members of the Khmer Rouge asked more than 2000 people living abroad to go back to Cambodia for the reconstruction of their country. But they then accused them of being part of the KGB and CIA, tortured them and led them to death ”. Ms. Ros acts as Civil Party to demand truth and justice.

Ros

Chu

or-S

i Y, ©

FID

H


ICNK open letter to Kim Jong-un following the demise of Kim Jong-il

=On January 8, members of the International Coalition to Stop

Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK) sent an open letter to urge General Kim to reverse the decades-long pattern of human rights violations and abuses committed by the government in Pyongyang against the North Korean people. For more information on the Coalition’s activities: www. stopnkcrimes.org

Dear Supreme Commander Kim,

We write to recognize the passing of your father and acknowledge your leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and to raise a number of concerns and ideas which we believe would enhance your leadership, improve the standing of your country and benefit your people.[...]

As organizations that have worked on North Korea issues for many years, we are seriously concerned about what is happening to the people of your country. More than 200,000 men, women and children are still being held in a system of prisons and labor camps. Most are incarcerated for political reasons and are not guilty of any internationally recognized crimes. Many are held simply because they happen to be family members or associates of people arrested previously. Inmates must endure conditions that resemble the worst forms of slavery; many die from lack of food and medical care.[...]

The DPRK government now stands accused of crimes against humanity and grave violations of international law, which we believe should prompt establishment of an independent and impartial UN Commission of Inquiry.[...]

We strongly urge you to invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRK to visit the country, and to provide access for him and for the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international monitors to all areas of detention, including the kwan-li-so camps. Another important start for reforms should be the immediate release on humanitarian grounds of all family members imprisoned because of presumed ‘guilt by association or relation’ in the kwan-li-so. By doing so, you would be taking a significant first step towards addressing the suffering of your people. Equally important, you would improve and strengthen your reputation at the UN and in the international community.

We sincerely hope that you will seize this opportunity to build a different legacy for the DPRK that leads to full realization of the North Korean people’s human rights, their health and wellbeing, and their individual dignity. Only then will North Korea achieve the respect and security from the world community that it seeks.


International and regional human rights mechanisms

ASEAN Human Rights Declaration

On 19 December 2011, FIDH along with its member and partner organizations in Southeast Asia wrote a letter to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, urging it to conduct broad-based consultation with independent civil society groups at the local, national and regional level. FIDH also called on AICHR to ensure transparency in its work and publish key documents for public input in order to strengthen its capacity to promote and protect human

rights as mandated by the Terms of Reference upon which the Commission was established two years ago.

FIDH remains concerned that the ASEAN human rights declaration (AHRD) which AICHR is drafting has not been open to public input. Considering that the AHRD would be the first normative document of its kind in Asia, AICHR has the unprecedented opportunity and responsibility to make it a document for the people, by the people and of the people, and to ensure that it does not go below international human rights standards.

FIDH made the following general recommendations to AICHR on the AHRD:

• The declaration should unequivocally recognize all human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Bill of Rights, and other international human rights standards and declarations;

• The declaration should reaffirm ASEAN’s full and unqualified commitment to the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all rights;

• AICHR and its drafting team members should broadly, frequently and substantively consult with civil society at both national and regional levels throughout the drafting process, using the recommendations already submitted by civil society as basis for consultations;

• AICHR should publish the draft declaration, in English and in all national languages of the region, in the earliest instance and allow adequate time for broad-based consultations before adopting the final text;

• The declaration should explicitly recognize jus cogens or peremptory norms, from which no derogation is permitted under any circumstances. The final text should also include a commitment to ensure all national legislations are drafted, interpreted and implemented in full compliance with international human rights law and standards.

© AICHR website


Bangladesh must ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance!

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPED) has been signed by 91 States and ratified by 30 States since its enforcement on 23 December 2010. In Asia, the only country which has ratified the convention is Japan. Other countries have signed it, including India, Indonesia, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia and Thailand – the latter being the latest signatory on 9 January 2012.

In Bangladesh, FIDH actively supports the campaign of its member organisaton Odhikar for the ratification of the convention. The situation is of particular concern, due to the recent rise of cases of enforced disappearances in the country. In the single district of Munshigonj, eight bodies have been found in a period of one week in December 2011. Many families are claiming that their relatives were disappeared after members of the law enforcment agencies picked them up. Enforce disappearances in Bangladesh are not a new phenomenon. During the liberation war in 1971, many people were disappeared and in the last 40 years, disappearances have continued under various regimes. The recent spate of enforced disappearances is alarming and only adds to the many loopholes in the Bangladeshi criminal justice system today.

Enforced disappearance is defined in Article 2 of the Convention as:

«The arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents ofthe State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of libertyor by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law».

The Government of Bangladesh must take immediate initiatives to search for and recover all disappeared persons; take actions against the perpetrators; and cooperate with the human rights organizations which document disappearances and support groups of victims, including families of the disappeared. For that purpose, and to prevent any disappearance, it is crucial for Bangladesh to accede to the ICPED.

Bangladesh is a signatory to the major international conventions including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR,) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which protect the rights of the people from various crimes and injustices. Therefore, it must take appropriate steps to prevent cases of disappearances, which under certain circumstances may amount to crimes against humanity. By being elected for a second term at the UN Human Rights Council, Bangladesh has the duty to ensure the right to life and protection of the law. Regardless of who perpetrated the crime, it is the duty of the State to see that proper justice is done and that the families of the disappeared have access to the rights to truth and reparation.


Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures

IRAN: In October 2011, the Human Rights Committee examined the third periodic report of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the measures undertaken by that country to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. FIDH and its member organisation, the Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LDDHI), welcome the subsequent concluding observations issued by the monitoring body on the country’s failure to uphold its obligations under the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee noted grave shortcomings concerning Iran’s compliance with many provisions of the ICCPR, mirroring concerns raised by FIDH and LDDHI in their joint report submitted to the UN body prior to its October session. The Committee reserved particularly sharp comments for Iran in a number of areas related to the ICCPR, with womens’ rights, the death penalty and the freedoms of assembly, association and expression being just a few examples out of many.Download the Concluding Observations here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.IRN.CO.3.doc

MALAYSIA: On December 7, four UN Special Rapporteurs spoke out against the restrictive peaceful assembly bill passed by the Lower Parliament of Malaysia in late November. The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, criticized the restrictions imposed by the bill as “not justifiable under international law” and also lamented the lack of meaningful prior consultation with the national human rights commission and civil society. The Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, is “particularly alarmed” by the provision denying the right to assembly to citizens under 21 years of age. The Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, urged Malaysia to “seriously reconsider the adoption of the bill.” The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, expressed concerns about the provision of the draft law which prohibits non-citizens, including migrant workers, to organize or participate in a peaceful assembly. See full statement: http://bit.ly/w01OP2.

NORTH KOREA: On January 20, 2012, following his visit to Japan, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea, Mr. Marzuki Darusman, urged the new leadership in North Korea to address pressing human rights concerns and resolve long-standing issues, including the abduction of Japanese and other foreign nationals, and to engage with the international community in order to ‘secure global confidence.’ The Rapporteur met with a wide range of actors, including defectors, and gathered information that “strengthens numerous reports of a dire humanitarian situation, in particular the serious shortage of food, and the critical human rights situation in DPRK.” See full statement here: http://bit.ly/xtnz13.

SRI LANKA: In November 2011, the Committee against Torture considered the combined third and fourth periodic reports submitted by Sri Lanka on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In its concluding observations, the Committee said it “remains seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings. The Committee is further concerned at reports that suggest that torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State actors, both the military and the police, have continued in many parts of the country after the conflict ended in May 2009 and is still occurring in 2011.”Download the concluding observations here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/co/CAT.C.LKA.CO.3-4_en.pdf


Special Rapporteur urges for substantive reforms, justice and accountability in Burma

The following are excerpts from the statement on February 5, 2012 by the UN Special Rapporteur on thehuman rights situation in Burma, following his latest mission to the country from January 31 to February4, 2012 (For the full statement, please visit: http://unic.un.org/imucms/yangon/80/110/home.aspx):

On political prisoners:“While I was informed that prison conditions had generally improved, I also received allegations of continuing ill-treatment by prison officials and the continuing transfers of prisoners to prisons in remote areas...the Government should release all remaining prisoners of conscience without conditions and without delay.... A comprehensive and thorough investigation is needed to clarify records and determine accurate numbers. I therefore encourage the Government to consider this issue urgently, including with the assistance of the international community as necessary.”

On newly-passed laws:“I note concerns regarding some of the provisions in the newly-adopted legislation, particularly the Peaceful Demonstration and Gathering Law, and in draft laws, particularly the Printing Press and Publications Law...I also note concerns regarding the lack of adequate consultation with relevant stakeholders, including civil society, on some of the draft laws being prepared. Another concern is the insufficient attention being paid to ensure the effective implementation of the newly-promulgated and reformed laws.”

On repressive laws:“There is also a lack of clarity and progress on reviewing and reforming the laws that I have previously identified as not in full compliance with international human rights standards, such as the State Protection Law, the Electronic Transactions Law and the Unlawful Associations Act. These laws impinge upon a broad range of human rights and have been used to convict prisoners of conscience. During my mission, I addressed this issue with the Attorney General. While I welcome the assurances given that the Government is taking serious and gradual steps to reform these laws, I reiterate that this process should be accelerated.”

On an independent judiciary:“I remain concerned with [the judiciary’s] lack of independence and impartiality. In my meeting with the Chief Justice and other justices of the Supreme Court, there was little acknowledgement of any challenges and gaps, and a lack of willingness to address my previous recommendations. I therefore strongly call on the judiciary to take a proactive approach to apply laws in a way that would safeguard and guarantee fundamental freedoms and human rights in line with the Constitution and with international human rights standards.”

On the national human rights commission:“I am concerned that there are no indications as yet that the Commission is fully independent and effective in compliance with the Paris Principles. At present, it seems that the Commission cannot fully guarantee human rights protection for all in Myanmar.”

On serious human rights violations in conflict areas:“I received continuing allegations of serious human rights violations committed during conflict, including attacks against civilian populations, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, internal displacement, land confiscations, the use of human shields, the recruitment of child soldiers, as well as forced labour and portering. [I]t is important that the United Nations and its humanitarian partners have regular, independent and predictable access to all individuals, in particular IDPs, in need of humanitarian assistance, regardless of whether they are in Government or non-Government controlled areas.”

On justice and accountability for past crimes:“I remain of the firm conviction that justice and accountability measures, as well as measures to ensure access to the truth, are fundamental for Myanmar to move forward towards national reconciliation. I heard from many interlocutors about the importance of moving forward. But I must stress that moving forward cannot ignore or whitewash what happened in the past. Thus, facing Myanmar’s own recent history and acknowledging the violations that people have suffered, will be necessary to ensure national reconciliation and to prevent future violations from occurring.”


Universal human rights and fundamental freedoms

Cambodia’s chairmanship of ASEAN in 2012

Cambodia assumed the chairmanship of ASEAN for 2012 under the slogan “One Community, One Destiny.” Cambodia has also announced its intention to run for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, the Cambodian government’s own version of that ‘destiny’, as reflected in its own approach to economic development and governance, is increasingly at odds with its international human rights obligations as well as the human rights principles enshrined in the ASEAN Charter and the UN Charter.

Development-related land conflict is becoming the leading cause of human rights abuses in Cambodia. According to the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LICADHO), in Phnom Penh and the 12 provinces in which LICADHO works – roughly half the country – over 400,000 people have been affected by land-grabbing and evictions since 2003. In the first half of 2011, LICADHO documented nearly 9,000 additional cases of Cambodian families who were affected by land conflicts. According to data collected by the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), there were at least 202 recorded cases of land dispute that have affected 25,796 families all over Cambodia in 2010. Peaceful protests against land-grabbing and forced evictions are often met with the excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest and detention, and legal prosecution by the authorities.

As the chair of ASEAN, Cambodia is also the chair of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2012 and it has publicly stated that the adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) would be its priority this year. However, the drafting process has been largely secretive and AICHR as a whole has so far failed to consult broadly at the regional and national levels to ensure that people’s concerns and aspirations are integrated into the text. There have also been concerns that arguments of ‘national, regional, and cultural particularities’ would be written into the text with the aim of diluting or undermining universal human rights standards.

Cambodia’s representative to AICHR, Mr Om Yentieng, who is also the President of the Cambodian Human Rights Committee, has been subject to criticism regarding his human rights credentials. In May 2011, in response to criticisms of the excessive use of force by the police to stop a peaceful protest against forced evictions, Mr Om said he did not view it as a human rights violation and asked: “Which article [under Cambodian law] says that the actions of authorities were wrong?” In another display of contempt for fundamental freedoms, at the end of a press conference in January 2011, Mr Om ordered his staff to confiscate the journalists’ voice recorders..

As the chair of ASEAN and AICHR, Cambodia has a unique opportunity to improve its own human rights record and the image of ASEAN by taking steps domestically and regionally to promote and protect human rights. Prime Minister Hun Sen, at the end of 2011, promised to consult with civil society to improve the much-criticized draft Law on Associations and NGOs. Cambodia should also extend this willingness to consult to the process of drafting the AHRD and more generally to the work of AICHR.

Human Rights in Laos

On 5-6 November 2012, Laos will play host to the 9th Asia-Europe Summit (ASEM) which brings together the 27 EU Member States and the European Commission with 19 Asian countries and the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEM Summit will be a rare opportunity to place


the human rights record of Laos under scrutiny and also give the international community a platform to engage with the Laotian authorities on the lack of respect for fundamental freedoms in the country. FIDH and its member organization, the Lao Movement for Human Rights, note that the Laotian government has ratified some international conventions on human rights these past years and become more familiar with the processes and expectations of international institutions, however it has failed to implement these conventions or respect the rights protected by them.

Freedom of expression is heavily restricted, despite constitutional guarantee. The Penal Code forbids criticisms of the “government, the State and the policy of the ruling party or to engage in acts of propaganda with the aim of weakening the State.” Journalists are public servants of the Ministry of Information and Culture. A media law adopted in July 2010 requires journalists to “inform, make propaganda, defend the line and the Policy of the Party, the laws of the State” and stand in solidarity of their profession to “serve the Policy of the Party’’ and forbids journalists to ‘’criticize and attack the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’’. Hundreds of protesters were arrested in October 1999 for staging a peaceful protest in Vientiane to call for respect for human rights, democratic reforms, social justice and a multiparty system. Four leaders of the protest were sentenced to 10 years in prison, but were still not released following the end of their prison terms. The Laotian government told a visiting European Parliament delegation in 2007 that they were released in 2006, but refused to allow the delegation to visit these political prisoners. Similarly, a number of individuals from various parts of the countries were arrested in November 2009 while on their way to Vientiane to participate in a peaceful protest to call for justice and respect for human rights. The Lao Movement is able to confirm the continued detention of at least nine activists, whose arrest the Laotian government continues to deny.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by Article 43 of the 2003 Constitution. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief conducted a country visit in November 2009 and expressed concerns “with individual cases as well as with certain practices and policies that clearly violate freedom of religion or belief and are contrary to international norms, as well as guarantees provided under the Constitution” (A/HRC/13/40/Add.4). In May 2010, Laos’ human rights record was examined under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the government accepted recommendations to protect freedom of religion and the right to practice religion freely without discrimination. Despite constitutional guarantees and commitments made internationally, instances of violations of religious freedom continue to be documented and decrees and regulations inconsistent with international standards remain on the book. Intimidations, restrictions and threats against Christians include the cutting off of running water, refusal of social rights, poisoning of cattle, and the throwing of stone or fire at houses of Christians. Christians who are arrested and then released after having signed a renunciation of their religion remain under surveillance by the local authorities..

The physical integrity of the Lao-Hmongs who were forcibly sent back to Laos by Thailand in late 2009 remains a serious concern as international humanitarian actors and other monitors have not been allowed unfettered access to independently verify their situation and treatment. About 154 of these Hmongs have reportedly been granted refugee status by the UNHCR. In the section on Laos in the 2011 EU Annual Report on human rights and democracy in the world, it was stated that the issue of the 154 Hmong refugees “has in the course of the year been resolved by their discreet departure to receiving countries.” However, there seems to be no reports that could substantiate this claim by the European Union. In fact, one of the 154 refugees, Mr Ka Yang, fled back into Thailand and was again sent back into Laos along with his family by Thai authorities on December 17, 2011. There has only been one government-organized visit by diplomats and journalists to the camps where the repatriated Hmongs from Thailand are being held.

Arrested leaders of the student movement of 26 October 1999. ©MLDH


Human rights defenders

Launch of OBS annual report in Asian countries

In 2011, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders published its 14th annual report. Based in particular, but not solely, on 509 urgent interventions published by the Observatory between January 2010 and April 2011, the 600-page report - available in English, Arabic, Spanish, French and Russian - is a clear proof of the urgent need to provide better support for the work of human rights defenders worldwide.

The international launch took place on 24 October 2011 at the United Nations’ headquarters in New York City. In Asia, two regional events were organized, in Pakistan and in the Philippines (on the latest, see http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-748880).

Launch of OBS report in Pakistan

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) organized a press conference in Lahore on 8 December 2011. The event was well attended and journalists took keen interest in the OBS report, particularly the national and regional environment in which human rights defenders work. Many of them were pleasantly surprised to learn that many among them were human rights defenders on account of their work. The HRCP pointed out that in Pakistan, perpetrators of violence are

rarely brought to justice. In 2010-11, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances remained rampant, particularly in Baluchistan, creating an extremely high-risk environment for human rights defenders. Reportedly, 20 journalists and media workers were killed in 2010, making Pakistan one of the deadliest countries for journalists in the world. Judicial processes in courts are unnecessarily lengthy and a large number of cases of enforced disappearances remain unresolved. In an attempt to address the situation, the government set up in March 2010 a three-member Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances which submitted its first report at the end of the year. Yet, as of April 2011, its findings had not been made public with the commission saying it had not been able to make any substantial progress in finding the missing persons. Torture remained widespread but security and law-enforcement agencies faced little accountability. Acts of torture committed in places of detention under military and intelligence agencies’ control were endemic. The press conference took place hours after the news came of the killing of Mr. Zarteef Afridi, a HRCP staff in the tribal areas. HRCP said that Mr. Afridi had received several threats by terrorist groups but continued his work to promote human rights in the conflict-ridden region. HRCP called upon the government to realize its duty to do everything within its power to apprehend Mr Afridi’s killers and show through its actions its commitment to protect and support human rights defenders.

© H

RC

P


Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and personalities launch Liu Xiaobo Support Committee

Two days before the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, five Nobel Peace Prize Winners and human rights personalities launched an International Committee of Support for Liu Xiaobo, prominent intellectual honoured in 2010 by the Nobel Committee “for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.” The international community seems to have forgotten that a year after the award ceremony, Liu Xiaobo remains in prison in China and is today the only Nobel laureate in prison.

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Shirin Ebadi, Jody Williams, Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams and Archbishop Desmond Tutu agreed to join the efforts of this independent committee to demand the immediate and unconditional release of Liu Xiaobo. The Nobel Winners are also mindful of the fate of his family, including his wife Liu Xia who is under house arrest for over a year in Beijing, without trial or administrative decision.

After orchestrating an international wave of intimidation, the Beijing authorities now focus their pressure on the family and friends of Liu Xiaobo in order to reduce them to silence. Unfortunately, the sentencing to eleven years in prison seems to be forgotten slowly but steadily outside China.

The International Support Committee, composed of intellectuals, artists, experts on China and human rights activists, including FIDH, is aiming to inform, defend and advocate for the release of the first Chinese winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Its actions are addressed at governments, international organizations and the world’s public opinion. The Committee calls on all those committed to freedom of thought and opinion to join the Committee in its efforts to obtain the release of Liu Xiaobo.

Voice of defenders: Chiranuch Premchaiporn

Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn is the Executive Director of Prachatai, a Thai online news website. She is currently on trial facing ten counts of charges of violations of the Computer Crime Act for allegedly not removing quickly enough anonymous anti-monarchy posts on a public forum of which she is a webmaster. She is a recipient of the Hellman/Hammett grant in 2011, which is given annually to recognize those with commitment to free expression and their courage in the face of persecution (see page 18).

Chiranuch Premchaiporn at a candle vigil inKuala Lumpur to call for the release of activists of the Bersih movement.


«How is censorship growing in Thailand», by Chiranuch Premchaiporn

Insulting the monarchy is the major cause of censorship in Thailand. Isn’t it?This was a line of reasoning that I often hear from media colleagues and human rights activists when they want to legitimise censorship in Thailand.A taboo on criticism of the monarchy might be seen as a unique prohibition and be considered as a restriction on freedom of expression that is unique to Thailand. If you follow news coverage, both domestically and internationally, a number of incidents reveal the insanity of the restrictions on free speech in response to criticisms of the monarchy.

Reporters without Borders (RSF) and Freedom House have reacted similarly regarding press freedom in Thailand in 2010. Both have downgraded the status of Thailand’s freedom of the press. RSF reduced the rank of Thailand to 153rd among 178 countries. It was also the first time that Freedom House rated Thailand in a “Not Free” category. One of the foremost reasons contributing to Thailand’s decline was the draconian law relating to Monarchy defamation, Article 112 in the Penal Code, aka lèse majesté, allied with another recent law, the Computer-Related Offences Crimes Act. Together they are used to massively regulate internet content on vague claims that national security is being jeopardized. Never-ending arbitrary abuse of fundamental rights to freedom and civil liberty has become a familiar phenomenon. There are many cases involving charges of lèse majesté. Those charged are repeatedly denied bail and the judicial system is lacking in impartiality, revealing the ideology of the judges, who tend to favor authority. Lèse majesté has become an umbrella for accusations of disloyalty, supported by protective rhetoric such as “we love the king”, or “we are protecting the king”, as hats of anti-monarchy are fitted on the heads of others identified as antagonists. Finally, as consequence of these actions, there is a pervading atmosphere of fear and hate where overreaction incites both state and non-state actors to restrict free speech and suppress efforts to amend Article 112.

Such practices should be undoubted evidence that charges of lèse majesté are an immense factor in the decline of freedom in Thailand. But it is not so easy. We cannot accuse only lèse majesté as a single villain undermining freedom of expression and obligating censorship.

There is also lacking a critique of economic forces. Self-censorship aggressively dominates the mainstream media to the extent that one rarely finds investigative reports criticising the activities of corporations. We might see ‘lèse majesté’’ as the unique problem. Following this logic, we might expect to be freed from all kinds of restriction if the Article 112 problem were solved. But it is not so. In my opinion, lèse majesté is one iceberg in a cold world. In fact, there are two root causes which ground and nurture the fierce 112 iceberg to persecute and silence civilians. Lèse majesté is operating in a system of immature democracy where there is weak belief in the equality of human beings, allied to little respect or tolerance for difference in the everyday life of being Thai. Nor is there strong political will from politicians. Combined with a full acceptance of censorship, the soil is fertile for the implementation of such censorship.

In a time of political unrest, lèse majesté charges are increasingly used to prosecute and persecute. We obviously experience these suffocating factors, but if we haven’t overlooked some other conditions that prevail even in a normal situation, we might realize that there are many other unspeakable and obscene aspects. An acceptance of censorship is politically, socially, and culturally embedded in our society. Although we can clean up one iceberg by reforming, as we should, Article 112 in the Penal Code, we will still continually face censorship in other guises unless we transform censorship itself into freedom as a core value, which MUST be protected and preserved for the benefit of all.


Calendar

27 February - 23 March 2012: 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva

March 8: 8th Meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and meeting on the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), Jakarta, Indonesia

April 3-4: 20th ASEAN Summit, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

April 9-11: Meeting on the AHRD, Indonesia

May 7-11: 9th Meeting of the AICHR on AHRD, Philippines

June: 2nd cycle of UPR for Indonesia, India, Philippines

June 3-5: Meeting on AHRD, Burma

July 9: ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting with AICHR (to be confirmed)

July 9-13: 45th AMM/PMCs/19th Asian Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN+3 Foreign Ministers Meeting and East Asia Summit (EAS) Foreign Ministers Meeting

August 24-26: Meeting on the AHRD, Brunei

September 21-24: 10th Meeting of AICHR + Meeting on the AHRD, Cambodia

October: 2nd cycle of UPR for South Korea, Pakistan, Japan and Sri Lanka

November 5-6: 9th ASEM Summit, Vientiane, Laos

November 18-20: 21st ASEAN Summit

Afghanistan: armanshahr/OPEn aSIa

Executive Director: Ms. Guissou Jahangiri

http://armanshahr-openasia.blogspot.com/

Bangladesh: Odhikar

Secretary: Mr. adilur Rahman khan

http://www.odhikar.org/

Burma: aLTSEan-Burma

Coordinator : Ms. Debbie Stothard

http://www.altsean.org

Cambodia: Cambodian Human Rights and Development association (aDHOC)

President: Mr. Thun Saray

http://adhoc-cambodia.org/

Cambodia: Ligue Cambodienne de

Defense Des Droits de l’Homme (LICaDHO)

President : Dr. Chhiv kek Pung

http://www.licadho-cambodia.org/

China: Human Rights in China (HRIC)

Executive Director, Ms. Sharon Hom

http://www.hrichina.org/

India: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative-CHRI

Director: Ms. Maja Daruwalla

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org

Iran: Defenders of Human Rights Center (DHRC)

President : Dr. Shirin Ebadi

http://www.humanrights-ir.org

Iran: Ligue Iranienne de Defense des Droits de l’Homme (LDDHI)

President : Mr. abdol karim Lahidji

http://twitter.com/humanrightsiran

Japan: Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR)

Secretary General: Ms. Maiko Tagusari

http://cpr.jca.apc.org/

Laos: Mouvement Laotien Pour les Droits de l’Homme (MLDH)

President : Ms. Vanida S Thephsouvanh

http://www.mldh-lao.org

Malaysia: Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUaRaM)

Executive Director : Ms. nalini Elumalai

http://www.suaram.net

Pakistan: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)

Chairperson: Ms. Zohra Yusuf

http://www.hrcp-web.org/

Philippines: Philippine alliance of Human Rights advocates (PaHRa)

Chairperson: Mr. Max De Mesa

http://www.philippinehumanrights.org

Taiwan: Taiwan association for Human Rights (TaHR)

Chairperson : Mr. Chia Fan Lin

http://www.tahr.org.tw

Thailand: Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)

Chairperson: Mr. Danthong Breen

http://deathpenaltythailand.blogspot.com

Tibet: International Campaign for Tibet (ICT)

President: Ms. Mary-Beth Markey

http://www.savetibet.org/

Vietnam: Vietnam Committee on Human Rights & Que Me: action for Democracy in Vietnam

President : Mr. Vo Van ai

http://www.queme.net

FIDH Asia Desk> Mr. David Knaute, Head of Asia Desk, Paris

Email: [email protected] Tel. + 33 1 43 55 25 18

> Mr. Shiwei Ye, Permanent Representative at the ASEAN, Bangkok

Email: [email protected]

FIDH Member Organisations in Asia

www.fidh.org

article 1: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. article 4: no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in

all their forms. article 5: no

n°2 newsletter asia desk - mouvement mondial des … of more than 7000 ha, which affect over 850...

Documents