|
NEWSLETTER VII
January 21, 2002
I CAMPAIGNS
I.1 MALAYSIA KARPAL SINGH
SEDITION
CHARGE WITHDRAWN
Richard
Gibbs Q.C. left January 10th for Kuala Lumpur to attend the January
14-18 2002 trial of lawyer Karpal Singh, charged with sedition based on words
he spoke in court while defending his client, former Deputy Prime Minister
Anwar Ibrahim on criminal charges. Mr.
Singh’s trial had previously been adjourned 3 times: July 2000, May 2001 and
October 2001. David Gibbons Q.C. and
Richard Fowler were to attend to hold a watching brief of Mr. Singh’s trial
both in July 2000 and May 2001.
On October 16, 2001 counsel representing the Bar Human
Rights Committee of England and Wales, (BHRC), the International Commission of
Jurists (ICJ) and the Western Australia Bar were already in Kuala Lumpur when
the adjournment occurred. Richard Gibbs
QC, who had planned to attend the second week of the October trial, had not yet
left B.C. when the adjournment was granted.
Counsel attending for the BHRC reported that after Mr. Singh made an
application to have the foreign lawyer-observers on record, counsel retired to
the judge’s chambers. Upon their return
to the courtroom it was announced that the trial had been adjourned by agreement
to January 14, 2002.
Richard
attended Mr. Singh’s trial as a representative of LRWC, the Law Society of BC
and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.
The Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Law Society of B.C.
each adopted in the fall of 2001, resolutions requesting Richard to report to
them on the independence of the Bar and the Judiciary in Malaysia and on the
fairness of the sedition trial of Karpal Singh.
On
January 14 2002, after much argument about the status of both Malaysian and
foreign observers, Malaysia’s new Attorney General Datuk Gani Patail
(previously the lead prosecutor in PP v. Anwar Ibrahim) announced that the
sedition charge was being withdrawn!
The Attorney General’s statement began by acknowledging that the office of
the Public Prosecutor had “received numerous representations from domestic and
international legal bodies…seeking a reconsideration of the pending charge…”The
Attorney General concluded by saying that after reconsidering the
representations, the public interest and ‘circumstances’ he was withdrawing the
charge against Mr. Singh.
To
our knowledge ‘representations from international legal bodies’ refers to two
legal analyses: Michael Birnbaum QC & James Laddie, “Re Karpal Singh, An
Opinion” (2000) written for BHRC and G. Davidson, T. Friesen & M. Jackson,
“Lawyers and the Rule of Law on Trial: Sedition in Malaysia” (2000) for LRWC.
The
continuing willingness of LRWC and other international lawyers groups to send
lawyers to monitor and report on the trial may well have been one of the
‘circumstances’ that resulted in the sedition charge being withdrawn.
Ø UPCOMING MALAYSIA
INITIATIVES
While
in Kuala Lumpur Richard met with the Canadian High Commissioner and Malaysian
lawyers. Proposals that lawyers in
Malaysia either form a group to work with LRWC on campaigns involving lawyers
under attack in ASEAN countries or form a Lawyers Rights Watch Malaysia were
met with interest. While Richard will
do some follow-up correspondence on this initiative, as the new President of
the Law Society, he will have no time to continue the follow-up that will be
necessary to develop the initiative.
Members interested in doing follow-up on this idea please indicate your interest
to lrwc@portal.ca.
I.2 MEXICO DIGNA OCHOA – MURDER
On
October 19, 2001, leading human rights lawyer 38 year old Digna Ochoa y Placido
was murdered. Ms Ochoa had won
international acclaim for her work with PRODH (“Centro de Derechos Humanos
‘Miguel Agustin de Juarez’”), an independent human rights organization which,
since 1995, had been the target of acts of harassment, violence and
intimidation. Ms Ochoa represented some
of the most difficult and politically charged human rights cases in Mexico,
many of them involving allegations of torture and murder by Mexico’s military
and security forces. Her killers left a
death threat warning other human rights defenders against continuing their
human rights work.
“If you continue, this will also happen to
another. You have been advised. This is not a trick.”
Digna
Ochoa, who worked with PRODH as a legal advisor, was the subject of abduction,
death threats and physical violence, all apparently in response to her
representation of individuals involved in the Zapatista insurgency and most
recently, her representation of two prominent peasant ecologists in conflict
with logging groups – Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel.
Human Rights Organizations and the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights acknowledge that Digna Ochoa was murdered because of her human rights
work.
The history of efforts to ensure Digna Ochoa’s safety
indicate the terrible danger that still faces Mexican lawyers defending or
prosecuting politically sensitive cases.
·
November 11,
1999: After the persistent failure of
Mexican authorities to make any significant advances into the investigation of
prior threats and assaults on Digna Ochoa, or to take measures to protect the
staff of PRODH, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, (IACHR) asked
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the highest- level human rights body
of the Organization of the American States, to order the Mexican State (which
accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in December ,1998) to “adopt, without
delay, all measures necessary” to protect the life and safety of Digna Ochoa
and others with PRODH and to investigate the acts for the purpose of
discovering those responsible and punishing them. These steps were taken pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights and Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which provide that “ in cases of extreme
gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons
the court may, at the request of a party, or on its own motion, order whatever
provisional measures it deems appropriate.”
·
November 17,
1999: The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights made the order sought. The order
was based on evidence of the Aug. 9, 1999, kidnapping and physical assault of
Digna Ochoa. (This included several prior and subsequent written death and bomb
threats shown by the evidence to be connected to such kidnapping). While in her home, Digna was assaulted, held
captive and subjected to prolonged interrogation about the activities of PRODH. She was then left, tied to her
bed beside a gas valve which had been opened by her attackers in an attempt to
asphyxiate her. That same night, PRODH offices were broken into and ransacked.
·
August of 2000,
Digna Ochoa moved to Washington, in fear for her security. There she worked for
the Center for Justice and International Law.
Digna Ochoa returned to Mexico City in early May 2001 to continue her
defense work.
·
May 2001: The Federal Attorney General advised Ms
Ochoa that the investigation into her case had been suspended and the Mexican
government applied to the IACHR for leave to remove the protective measures on
the grounds that they were no longer needed as no threats had occurred during
the period of protection.
·
August
2001: This application, apparently
unopposed, was granted.
·
October 22,
2001: The IACHR petitioned the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights to direct the Mexican government to adopt
the measures necessary to protect the lives of Ms Ochoa’s colleagues Barbara
Zamora, Pilar Noriega and other members of PRODH and to investigate the facts
and punish those responsible for the threats and the murder. On November 16 2001 Jesus Ochoa, for the
family of Digna Ochoa and the original petitioners (Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights, Center for Justice and International Law and the National Human Rights
Network) proposed that the IACHR offer
technical cooperation to the Federal District’ Attorney General’s Office (PGJDF) to strengthen the investigation.
This proposal has been accepted by the government of Mexico and
implementation by the IACHR was pending as of November 23, 2001. PRODH reports that this agreement implies
the contracting of an international expert on criminal investigations of human
rights violations.
·
October 25 2001 The President of the Court issued a
resolution that Mexico is bound by the American Convention on Human Rights, (ACHR) Article 1.1 to respect the rights and liberties recognized in the IACHR
and to guarantee their application. The
Court ordered Mexico to immediately implement all measures necessary to protect
the life and personal integrity of PRODH members and the named lawyers and to
conduct full investigations leading to the prosecution and punishment of those
responsible.
·
November 30,
2001: The Court issued a resolution
confirming the one issued by the President on October 25, 2001 and extending
the protections to members of Digna’s immediate family.
LRWC
response to date:
·
Research
and preparation of a summary of the facts and legal proceeding relevant to Ms.
Ochoa’s murder and a backgrounder.
·
Letters
in English and Spanish to Mexican government officials and departments,
·
Correspondence
with PRODH and with human rights organizations involved in supporting PRODH.
·
Preparation
and distribution of English and Spanish language press releases. (Spanish language translation of press
release thanks to Joyce Statton)
·
Newspaper
article published in The Lawyers Weekly (Stephen Jacob, “World Responds to
Murder of Civil Rights Lawyer” The Lawyers Weekly Vol. 21, No. 30, December 7,
2001.)
·
Attempted
to facilitate letter writing by other organizations by BHRC and the
International Law subsection of the Canadian Bar Association by providing these
two groups with the materials and contact lists prepared by LRWC. (In
furtherance of LRWC’s goal of resource sharing and working in cooperation with
other human rights groups)
I.3 SINGAPORE – J.B. JEYARETNAM
- UPDATE
The Singapore High Court in a judgement delivered Friday
January 18/01 barred internationally known trial lawyer Stuart Littlemore
Q.C.from defending a defamation suit against opposition leader Chee Soon Juan
saying Mr. Littlemore "lacks decency" and is "not a suitable
person"! The plaintiffs Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, suit against Chee,
Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party, is based on remarks Chee
is alleged to have made before the November 2001 general elections. In l997, Mr. Littlemore monitored the trial
of a defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Goh and other officials against
another leading opposition Member of Parliament and lawyer, J. B. Jeyaretnam
for the International Commission of Jurists. Littlemore’s report criticized the
Singapore judiciary of lacking independence from the ruling People's Action
Party (PAP). LRWC member/director
Howard Rubin, as a joint representative of LRWC and Amnesty International,
attended Jeyaretnam’s final defamation appeals July 2001. The dismissal of these two appeals resulted
in Mr. Jeyaretnam being barred from sitting as a Member of Parliament and from
practicing law. Howard reported that
because lawyers in Singapore don't want to take on the defense of defamation
suits brought by members of the ruling party, it is next to impossible for an
opposition party defendant to be properly defended.
LRWC member/director Paul Copeland has responded and says he would welcome the
opportunity to be next in line to be declared ‘lacking in decency’ to represent
Mr. Chee.
I.4 LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGNS
IRAN
Ø Nasser
Zarafchan. Lawyer
Mr.
Zzarafchan was arrested in December 2000 following publication of an article he
wrote in the journal Jomhouri Eslami, and following his public
expressions of concern about the December 2000 trial of the assassins of
Iranian intellectuals including writer Mohammed Djafar Pouhandeh in December
1998. His trial set to proceed before a
military tribunal on November 3 was postponed.
LRWC (Catherine Morris of Vancouver) wrote expressing the concern that
Mr. Zarafchan appeared to have been targeted for speaking out in favour of
internationally recognized human rights.
Catherine’s letter also urged the government of Iran to ensure that the
trial of Mr. Zarafchan is fair, impartial and in accordance with the
international standards to which Iran subscribes.
MEXICO
Ø Digna Ochoa
LRWC
(Brenda Wemp of Vancouver) wrote letters to Mexican government officials
stating that the failure to protect and investigate violations of the rights of
Ms Ochao and other lawyers constituted the most egregious breaches of Mexico’s
duties under binding international laws and principles. LRWC also urged compliance with the orders
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and with Mexico’s international
obligations to provide adequate security to lawyers and other human rights
defenders and to conduct adequate investigations and prosecutions of Ms.
Ochoa’s murder.
Ø Pilar Noriega and Barbara
Zamora
Pilar
Noriega and Barbara Zamora, colleagues of Digna Ochoa had received threats in
addition to the note left at the scene of Digna Ochoa’s murder.
LRWC wrote letters outlining Mexico’s national,
international and OAS obligations to immediately put in place permanent measures
to protect the independence and security of Pilar and Barbara and all other
threatened legal worker including other PRODH staff and to effectively
investigate and prosecute violations.
SUDAN
Ø
Mohamed al Hassan Ibrahim, Omar
Sidahmed, Bakri Gibreil,
Jalal Mohamed al Said, Nasr Aldeen Yousef, Haydar (released November 2) Adil Mohamed. (released
November 17) Yousef Hussein, Abbas Mohamed al Tahir, (still in custody
December 7)
Nine lawyers were arrested and held in custody without
charge and there were some reports of torture during their detention. Seven were release subject to onerous daily
reporting and then were subjected to harassment. The whereabouts of the remaining two lawyers was unknown. LRWC (Catherine Morris of Vancouver) wrote
letters to the Sudan government requesting the government of Sudan to ensure no
further ill-treatment of the lawyers and to take immediate steps to investigate
the allegations of torture. A reply
from the office of the Sudan Ambassador to Canada did not appear to address any
of the issues raised.
SYRIA
Ø Riad al-Turk
Lawyer Riad al-Turk, a leading activist/lawyer was
arrested without charge on September 1, 2001.
He had previously been detained from 1980 to 1998 and was during that detention, declared a prisoner of
conscience by Amnesty International as being detained solely for his peaceful
opposition activities. LRWC (Constance
Marlatt of Toronto) wrote asking Syria to guarantee the physical and psychological
integrity of Riad al-Turk and to allow him immediate access to a lawyer, proper
medical attention and his family.
|
