Mort en détention – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:38:47 +0000 fr-FR hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cropped-OB-eye-orange-32x32.png Mort en détention – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ 32 32 Thailand: Joint call to end judicial abuse and arbitrary detention, and to investigate Netiporn ’Bung’ Sanesangkhom’s death https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/thailand-joint-call-to-end-judicial-abuse-and-arbitrary-detention-and-to-investigate-netiporn-bung-sanesangkhoms-death/ Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:05:26 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=22112 International organisations, including FIDH and OMCT within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, call on the Thai government to end the abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists, and protesters. Additionally, they urge a thorough and independent investigation into the death in custody one month ago of Netiporn 'Bung' Sanesangkhom. AI Index Number: ASA 39/8157/2024 Tawee Sodsong Minister of Justice 404 Chaeng Watthana Rd, Thung Song Hong Sub-district, Lak Si District, Bangkok 10210 June 14, 2024 Dear Minister of Justice, RE: REQUEST to BRING AN END TO the abuse of the judicial process and Arbitrary Detention of HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, ACTIVISTS AND PROTESTERS, and TO investigate the death in custody of Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom We, the undersigned organisations, write this open letter to request you take urgent and immediate steps to end the ongoing abuse of the judicial process and apparent arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists and protesters in Thailand, solely because of their exercise of their right to peaceful protest. Our organisations remain concerned that, in contravention of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, the Thai authorities are initiating criminal proceedings against individuals solely because they have exercised their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, leading to their being convicted and often sentenced to imprisonment as a result. The ongoing abuse of the judicial process extends to systematically denying human rights defenders, activists and protesters temporary release on bail. We also request a prompt, thorough, transparent, independent, impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of the death in custody of activist Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom on May 14, 2024 (see below), while she was arbitrarily detained. We urge the government to provide redress as appropriate for the loss of her life. Bung carried out two lengthy hunger-strikes prior to her death to protest against the restrictive environment preventing pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders from exercising their rights, and against the abuse of the judicial process to target, silence and, detain activists, protesters and human rights defenders, including herself. [1] We call on the Thai government to take the opportunity provided by its candidature for membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council between 2025 and 2027 to demonstrate its commitment to upholding and protecting international human rights law. With respect to this, we further urge the government to take immediate steps to address the concerns outlined below and ensure Thailand’s compliance with its international human rights obligations to protect the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and other human rights, and create a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders to exercise and defend their own rights as well as those of others. Abuse of the judicial process Since mass protests calling for political and social reforms started in 2020, the Thai authorities have targeted human rights defenders, activists and protesters solely for their participation in peaceful protests or for expressing their opinions, often with protracted criminal proceedings that lead to criminal and civil sanctions. According to statistics gathered by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), between July 2020 and May 2024, the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against at least 1,954 individuals in 1,296 cases, including 286 young persons under 18 years old, for participating in peaceful protests or expressing their opinions online and offline. [2] At least 424 persons, including children, face charges under the Criminal Code for offences related to “security”, carrying lengthy prison terms upon conviction. In this connection, Thai authorities have initiated proceedings against at least 272 persons for lèse-majesté (Article 112) and 152 persons for sedition (Article 116). [3] In addition, at least 202 people were charged under the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) in connection with their online expressions. [4] At the time of writing, trials were still ongoing in at least 729 cases, and at least 717 individuals are facing potential sentences linked to their exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. [5] Courts have handed down prison sentences, with some individuals notably being sentenced to up to 50 years for lèse-majesté offences. [6] UN human rights bodies and independent experts have raised concerns about the use of criminal provisions to criminalise the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, including with respect to their use in Thailand, due to their incompatibility with international human rights law. [7] The UN Human Rights Committee, for example, has held that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” for defamation-related offences [8] and has expressed concern over criminal provisions, including sedition and lèse-majesté under the Criminal Code and the CCA. [9] The restrictive, overbroad, ambiguous or imprecise language of these criminal provisions fails to narrow down the scope of the punishable offences in question with a clear definition of the criminalised conduct, establishing its elements and the factors that distinguish it from conduct that is not criminally proscribed. As such, these criminal provisions fail to meet the requirements of international law with respect to the principle of legality; the limited and narrowly defined legitimate fundamental public interests allowed under international human rights law (namely, for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, national security, public safety, public order, public health or public morals); necessity; proportionality; non-arbitrariness and non-discrimination. [10] As a result, these criminal provisions give officials wide discretion to unduly limit the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the name of public security, order and health, and allow for the imposition of lengthy prison terms. Regardless of whether criminal proceedings lead to prosecution, imprisonment or fines, their use may have the effect of further undermining the enjoyment of defendants’ rights. Individuals are required to commit time and other resources to defend themselves against unwarranted charges. Children and young people are particularly impacted by abuse of the judicial process which may result in stigma and compromise their ability to fully enjoy their right to education. [11] Arbitrary detention According to TLHR, as of June 6, 2024, at least 43 individuals involved in protests were in detention, 19 of whom had been sentenced to imprisonment and 24 of whom were still in pre-trial detention. [12] Of the 24 people, 17 were charged with t lèse-majesté offences. [13] The Thai authorities repeatedly held prominent protesters in detention and denied them temporary release on bail. [14] Under international human rights law and standards guaranteeing the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, there is a presumption that people charged with a criminal offence will not be detained while awaiting trial. [15] The UN Human Rights Committee has held that a defendant may only be detained pending trial in exceptional circumstances where the authorities must demonstrate that their deprivation of liberty pending trial is both necessary and proportionate, for example, in cases where there is substantial reason to believe that if released, the individual would abscond or commit a serious offence or interfere with the investigation or obstruct the course of justice. [16] In addition, pre-trial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, nor should it be ordered for a period based on the potential sentence for the crime charged rather than on a determination of necessity. [17] Further, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) has repeatedly and consistently found Thailand’s detention of individuals solely as a result of their peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression, including under lèse-majesté provisions and article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act, to be arbitrary. [18] The UNWGAD has expressed grave concern at a pattern of arbitrary detention resulting in serious harm to society by causing a chilling effect and leading individuals to “[refrain] from debates on matters of public interest in order to avoid prosecution.” It has called on the Thai authorities to release individuals arbitrarily detained in violation of Thailand’s human rights obligations, including the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2, 9, 14 and 19 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Thailand is bound as a State party. [19] The United Nations Human Rights Committee [20] and UN Special Procedures, [21] as well as governments during the Universal Periodic Reviews [22] , have made further recommendations to the Thai government to stop arbitrarily detaining individuals and imposing excessive restrictions on the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Death in custody Netiporn ’Bung’ Sanesangkhom, a 28-year-old woman activist, was among those who were denied bail and was held in arbitrary detention twice due to her peaceful activism. Netiporn faced seven criminal charges because of her involvement in the protest movement, including one charge of lèse-majesté which stemmed from peacefully conducting a public opinion poll on February 8, 2022 about road traffic controls imposed during royal motorcades. [23] She was initially granted temporary release pending her trial, but on May 3, 2022, the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court revoked bail and remanded her in custody in the lèse-majesté case mentioned above because Netiporn had continued to take part in peaceful assemblies and had violated a bail condition requiring her to refrain from “joining a protest that causes public disorder”. [24] She then went on her first hunger strike until she was temporarily released on August 4, 2022. [25] More recently, in a separate case, on January 26, 2024, Netiporn was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for contempt of court. [26] In late February 2024, her detention was then extended, as the Bangkok Criminal Court t revoked bail and remanded her in custody for the same aforementioned lèse-majesté case against her, which was still pending. [27] Starting on January 27, 2024, she went on her second hunger strike, this time for more than 65 days, to protest her detention and the detention of other activists. [28] Eventually, she reportedly suffered a cardiac arrest on May 14, 2024 and passed away, while in the Central Women’s Correctional Institute Hospital. [29] Under international human rights law and standards, the Thai authorities must respect, protect, and fulfill the right to life of everyone under their jurisdiction, including people in detention. There is a presumption of State liability for arbitrary deprivation of life that arises in connection with custodial deaths. Such presumption may be rebutted only when the State is exonerated of any liability through a prompt, thorough, effective, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances and causes of such a death, which is an essential requirement to uphold the right to life. [30] Thailand is further obligated under international human rights law to provide medical care for everyone deprived of their liberty. Thailand is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that governments must respect the right to health by ensuring equal access to health services for all persons, including prisoners. [31] The 1990 UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulate that prisoners should have access to the same health services as the general population in a country without discrimination. [32] Additionally, the revised 2015 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) restate that right and mandate prompt access to medical attention in urgent cases and the transfer of prisoners requiring specialised treatment or surgery to appropriate facilities, which can also be civil hospitals if needed. [33] Recommendations The abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists and protesters constitute violations of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law, as would any failure to effectively investigate the custodial death of Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom. The Thai government must act to uphold its commitments to protect human rights and ensure the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, liberty and security of person, due process guarantee, and the right to life, among other rights, are respected. The Thai authorities need to take immediate steps outlined below to address the concerns raised in this letter and to demonstrate their adherence to their international human rights obligations, with a view to fostering an environment where human rights are fully respected and protected. These actions are essential to comply with the ICCPR and other international standards. To end the abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and activists, we call on the Thai authorities to: • Respect, protect and fulfil the rights of everyone, including of children and other young people, to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly; • Conduct a thorough review of the bail process to align it with international human rights law and standards, ensuring that detention in connection with the legitimate exercise of human rights is arbitrary and unlawful, and pre-trial detention be the exception rather than the rule; • Immediately and unconditionally release individuals from arbitrary detention, drop criminal investigations and prosecutions and quash convictions related solely to their exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; • Repeal or amend laws used to stifle peaceful dissent, including by bringing the lèse-majesté (Article 112) and sedition (Article 116) provisions and the CCA in line with international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression, as recommended by the Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures and the UN Human Rights Committee; and • Establish regular, structured dialogue with civil society organisations to address concerns referred to in this letter and involve them in relevant policy-making processes. To address the concerns around the death in custody of Netiporn, take the following actions: • Conduct a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances and cause of Netiporn’s death, in line with international human rights law and standards, including in the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), to establish accountability and prevent future occurrences; • Provide appropriate forms of remedy, including compensation and other forms of reparations, as warranted in line with international law; and • Ensure the right to health for all detainees, as a minimum as mandated by the Nelson Mandela Rules, including by providing prompt access to medical attention and necessary specialised treatment or surgery as needed. The undersigned organisations remain committed to working with relevant government agencies to provide any additional information you may need in order to fulfill these recommendations.    

Footnotes

[1] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้, 14 May 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/66964 [2] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี, 5 June 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/67575 [3] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี (previously cited). [4] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี (previously cited). [5] Information documented by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights [6] See Amnesty International, “Thailand: 87-year prison sentence handed in harshest lèse-majesté conviction,” 19 January 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/01/thailand-87-prison-sentence-lese-majeste and Guardian, “Man jailed for record 50 years for criticising Thai monarchy” 18 January 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/man-jailed-for-record-50-years-for-criticising-thai-monarchy#: :text=A%20Thai%20man%20has%20been,a%20 legal%20rights%20group%20said. [7] UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand, 25 April 2017, UN Doc. CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paras 35-38, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/ccprcthaco2-concluding-observations-second-periodic-report (‘2017 Concluding Observations’) [8] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, 12 September 2011, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, paras 30, 38 and 47, https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf. [9] UN Human Rights Committee, 2017 Concluding Observations (previously cited). [10] For further analysis of the laws against international human rights law and standards, see: ICJ, Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Thailand, April 2021, Part III, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Thailand-Dictating-the-Internet-FoE-Publication-2021-ENG.pdf [11] Amnesty International Thailand, ‘แอมเนสตี้-ศูนย์ทนาย’ ดำเนินคดีของเด็กและเยาวชน 3 ปี สร้าง 7 ผลกระทบ แนะ 6 ข้อ ก. ยุติธรรม, 21 พฤศจิกายน 2566, https://www.amnesty.or.th/latest/news/1190 [12] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, รายชื่อผู้ต้องขังทางการเมือง 2567, 6 June 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/63015 [13] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, รายชื่อผู้ต้องขังทางการเมือง 2567 (previously cited). [14] This pattern of arbitrary detention through the denial of bail has been ongoing since 2021. See, for example, Amnesty International, Urgent Action: Peaceful protestors may face 100+ years in prison, 24 March 2021, Index: ASA 39/3891/2021, https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ASA3938912021ENGLISH.pdf; and Amnesty International, Thailand: Immediately drop unjustified charges against protest leader, 24 September 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/09/amnesty-thailand-protest-leader-arrest/; Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, The expanding universe of legal persecutions: Examining various developments following the #19Sept protest (Part 2), 29 June 2021, https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/31397 [15] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person, 16 December 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/general-comment-no-35-article-9-liberty-and-security-person, para 38. [16] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person (previously cited). [17] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person (previously cited). [18] See the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-seventh session, 28 August–1 September 2023, 23 October 2023, UN Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/49, para 61(a). The UNWGAD also referred to its opinions No. 35/2012, No. 41/2014, No. 43/2015, No. 44/2016 and No. 51/2017, which made the same assessment. [19] UNWGAD, Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-seventh session, 28 August–1 September 2023, para 71-72 (previously cited). [20] UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand, 25 April 2017, UN Doc. CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g17/099/90/pdf/g1709990.pdf?token=co1x9EVLWuVMLTDQbb&fe=true, para 25-26. [21] See recent examples of such communications from UN Special Rapporteurs at UN Special Procedures, Joint allegation letter, 13 March 2024, UN Doc. AL THA 3/2024, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28802; and UN Special Procedures, Joint allegation letter, 5 May 2023, UN Doc. AL THA 2/2023, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28064 [22] Thailand received at least four recommendations on arbitrary arrest and detention of activists during the Universal Periodic Review in 2021. See United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Univesal Periodic Review: Thailand, 21 December 2021, UN Doc. A/HRC/49/17, recommendation 52.47 by Mexico (“Decriminalize freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and avoid the detention of minors for exercising these rights”), recommendation 52.52 by Austria (“Guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and stop targeting civilians engaging in peaceful protests under criminal charges entailing punishment with exorbitant prison terms”), recommendation 52.60 by Sweden (“Amend article 112 of the criminal code on royal defamation to bring it into line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, as an intermediate step, remove mandatory minimum prison terms for violations of that provision”) and recommendation 52.83 by Ireland (“End arbitrary detentions, arrests and any acts of harassment against political actors and civil society, including human rights defenders”). [23] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [24] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, ศาลสั่งถอนประกัน “ใบปอ – เนติพร” ผู้ต้องหา ม.112 คดีทำโพลขบวนเสด็จ ชี้สร้างความวุ่นวายกับกลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมอื่น ผิดเงื่อนไขประกัน, 5 May 2022, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/43235 [25] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [26] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [27] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [28] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited) [29] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited) [30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6(1); the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), and its companion document, the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016). See also: Amnesty International, Thailand: Tragic death of detained activist must be ‘wake-up call’, 14 May 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/thailand-tragic-death-of-detained-activist-must-be-wake-up-call/ [31] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), Article 12. See also CESCR, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), 11 August 2000, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 34. [32] Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule No. 9. [33] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rules No. 24 and 27.]]> International organisations, including FIDH and OMCT within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, call on the Thai government to end the abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists, and protesters. Additionally, they urge a thorough and independent investigation into the death in custody one month ago of Netiporn 'Bung' Sanesangkhom. AI Index Number: ASA 39/8157/2024 Tawee Sodsong Minister of Justice 404 Chaeng Watthana Rd, Thung Song Hong Sub-district, Lak Si District, Bangkok 10210 June 14, 2024 Dear Minister of Justice, RE: REQUEST to BRING AN END TO the abuse of the judicial process and Arbitrary Detention of HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, ACTIVISTS AND PROTESTERS, and TO investigate the death in custody of Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom We, the undersigned organisations, write this open letter to request you take urgent and immediate steps to end the ongoing abuse of the judicial process and apparent arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists and protesters in Thailand, solely because of their exercise of their right to peaceful protest. Our organisations remain concerned that, in contravention of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, the Thai authorities are initiating criminal proceedings against individuals solely because they have exercised their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, leading to their being convicted and often sentenced to imprisonment as a result. The ongoing abuse of the judicial process extends to systematically denying human rights defenders, activists and protesters temporary release on bail. We also request a prompt, thorough, transparent, independent, impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of the death in custody of activist Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom on May 14, 2024 (see below), while she was arbitrarily detained. We urge the government to provide redress as appropriate for the loss of her life. Bung carried out two lengthy hunger-strikes prior to her death to protest against the restrictive environment preventing pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders from exercising their rights, and against the abuse of the judicial process to target, silence and, detain activists, protesters and human rights defenders, including herself. [1] We call on the Thai government to take the opportunity provided by its candidature for membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council between 2025 and 2027 to demonstrate its commitment to upholding and protecting international human rights law. With respect to this, we further urge the government to take immediate steps to address the concerns outlined below and ensure Thailand’s compliance with its international human rights obligations to protect the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and other human rights, and create a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders to exercise and defend their own rights as well as those of others. Abuse of the judicial process Since mass protests calling for political and social reforms started in 2020, the Thai authorities have targeted human rights defenders, activists and protesters solely for their participation in peaceful protests or for expressing their opinions, often with protracted criminal proceedings that lead to criminal and civil sanctions. According to statistics gathered by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), between July 2020 and May 2024, the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against at least 1,954 individuals in 1,296 cases, including 286 young persons under 18 years old, for participating in peaceful protests or expressing their opinions online and offline. [2] At least 424 persons, including children, face charges under the Criminal Code for offences related to “security”, carrying lengthy prison terms upon conviction. In this connection, Thai authorities have initiated proceedings against at least 272 persons for lèse-majesté (Article 112) and 152 persons for sedition (Article 116). [3] In addition, at least 202 people were charged under the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) in connection with their online expressions. [4] At the time of writing, trials were still ongoing in at least 729 cases, and at least 717 individuals are facing potential sentences linked to their exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. [5] Courts have handed down prison sentences, with some individuals notably being sentenced to up to 50 years for lèse-majesté offences. [6] UN human rights bodies and independent experts have raised concerns about the use of criminal provisions to criminalise the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, including with respect to their use in Thailand, due to their incompatibility with international human rights law. [7] The UN Human Rights Committee, for example, has held that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” for defamation-related offences [8] and has expressed concern over criminal provisions, including sedition and lèse-majesté under the Criminal Code and the CCA. [9] The restrictive, overbroad, ambiguous or imprecise language of these criminal provisions fails to narrow down the scope of the punishable offences in question with a clear definition of the criminalised conduct, establishing its elements and the factors that distinguish it from conduct that is not criminally proscribed. As such, these criminal provisions fail to meet the requirements of international law with respect to the principle of legality; the limited and narrowly defined legitimate fundamental public interests allowed under international human rights law (namely, for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, national security, public safety, public order, public health or public morals); necessity; proportionality; non-arbitrariness and non-discrimination. [10] As a result, these criminal provisions give officials wide discretion to unduly limit the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the name of public security, order and health, and allow for the imposition of lengthy prison terms. Regardless of whether criminal proceedings lead to prosecution, imprisonment or fines, their use may have the effect of further undermining the enjoyment of defendants’ rights. Individuals are required to commit time and other resources to defend themselves against unwarranted charges. Children and young people are particularly impacted by abuse of the judicial process which may result in stigma and compromise their ability to fully enjoy their right to education. [11] Arbitrary detention According to TLHR, as of June 6, 2024, at least 43 individuals involved in protests were in detention, 19 of whom had been sentenced to imprisonment and 24 of whom were still in pre-trial detention. [12] Of the 24 people, 17 were charged with t lèse-majesté offences. [13] The Thai authorities repeatedly held prominent protesters in detention and denied them temporary release on bail. [14] Under international human rights law and standards guaranteeing the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, there is a presumption that people charged with a criminal offence will not be detained while awaiting trial. [15] The UN Human Rights Committee has held that a defendant may only be detained pending trial in exceptional circumstances where the authorities must demonstrate that their deprivation of liberty pending trial is both necessary and proportionate, for example, in cases where there is substantial reason to believe that if released, the individual would abscond or commit a serious offence or interfere with the investigation or obstruct the course of justice. [16] In addition, pre-trial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, nor should it be ordered for a period based on the potential sentence for the crime charged rather than on a determination of necessity. [17] Further, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) has repeatedly and consistently found Thailand’s detention of individuals solely as a result of their peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression, including under lèse-majesté provisions and article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act, to be arbitrary. [18] The UNWGAD has expressed grave concern at a pattern of arbitrary detention resulting in serious harm to society by causing a chilling effect and leading individuals to “[refrain] from debates on matters of public interest in order to avoid prosecution.” It has called on the Thai authorities to release individuals arbitrarily detained in violation of Thailand’s human rights obligations, including the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2, 9, 14 and 19 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Thailand is bound as a State party. [19] The United Nations Human Rights Committee [20] and UN Special Procedures, [21] as well as governments during the Universal Periodic Reviews [22] , have made further recommendations to the Thai government to stop arbitrarily detaining individuals and imposing excessive restrictions on the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Death in custody Netiporn ’Bung’ Sanesangkhom, a 28-year-old woman activist, was among those who were denied bail and was held in arbitrary detention twice due to her peaceful activism. Netiporn faced seven criminal charges because of her involvement in the protest movement, including one charge of lèse-majesté which stemmed from peacefully conducting a public opinion poll on February 8, 2022 about road traffic controls imposed during royal motorcades. [23] She was initially granted temporary release pending her trial, but on May 3, 2022, the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court revoked bail and remanded her in custody in the lèse-majesté case mentioned above because Netiporn had continued to take part in peaceful assemblies and had violated a bail condition requiring her to refrain from “joining a protest that causes public disorder”. [24] She then went on her first hunger strike until she was temporarily released on August 4, 2022. [25] More recently, in a separate case, on January 26, 2024, Netiporn was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for contempt of court. [26] In late February 2024, her detention was then extended, as the Bangkok Criminal Court t revoked bail and remanded her in custody for the same aforementioned lèse-majesté case against her, which was still pending. [27] Starting on January 27, 2024, she went on her second hunger strike, this time for more than 65 days, to protest her detention and the detention of other activists. [28] Eventually, she reportedly suffered a cardiac arrest on May 14, 2024 and passed away, while in the Central Women’s Correctional Institute Hospital. [29] Under international human rights law and standards, the Thai authorities must respect, protect, and fulfill the right to life of everyone under their jurisdiction, including people in detention. There is a presumption of State liability for arbitrary deprivation of life that arises in connection with custodial deaths. Such presumption may be rebutted only when the State is exonerated of any liability through a prompt, thorough, effective, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances and causes of such a death, which is an essential requirement to uphold the right to life. [30] Thailand is further obligated under international human rights law to provide medical care for everyone deprived of their liberty. Thailand is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that governments must respect the right to health by ensuring equal access to health services for all persons, including prisoners. [31] The 1990 UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulate that prisoners should have access to the same health services as the general population in a country without discrimination. [32] Additionally, the revised 2015 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) restate that right and mandate prompt access to medical attention in urgent cases and the transfer of prisoners requiring specialised treatment or surgery to appropriate facilities, which can also be civil hospitals if needed. [33] Recommendations The abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, activists and protesters constitute violations of Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law, as would any failure to effectively investigate the custodial death of Netiporn ‘Bung’ Sanesangkhom. The Thai government must act to uphold its commitments to protect human rights and ensure the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, liberty and security of person, due process guarantee, and the right to life, among other rights, are respected. The Thai authorities need to take immediate steps outlined below to address the concerns raised in this letter and to demonstrate their adherence to their international human rights obligations, with a view to fostering an environment where human rights are fully respected and protected. These actions are essential to comply with the ICCPR and other international standards. To end the abuse of the judicial process and the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and activists, we call on the Thai authorities to: • Respect, protect and fulfil the rights of everyone, including of children and other young people, to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly; • Conduct a thorough review of the bail process to align it with international human rights law and standards, ensuring that detention in connection with the legitimate exercise of human rights is arbitrary and unlawful, and pre-trial detention be the exception rather than the rule; • Immediately and unconditionally release individuals from arbitrary detention, drop criminal investigations and prosecutions and quash convictions related solely to their exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; • Repeal or amend laws used to stifle peaceful dissent, including by bringing the lèse-majesté (Article 112) and sedition (Article 116) provisions and the CCA in line with international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression, as recommended by the Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures and the UN Human Rights Committee; and • Establish regular, structured dialogue with civil society organisations to address concerns referred to in this letter and involve them in relevant policy-making processes. To address the concerns around the death in custody of Netiporn, take the following actions: • Conduct a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances and cause of Netiporn’s death, in line with international human rights law and standards, including in the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), to establish accountability and prevent future occurrences; • Provide appropriate forms of remedy, including compensation and other forms of reparations, as warranted in line with international law; and • Ensure the right to health for all detainees, as a minimum as mandated by the Nelson Mandela Rules, including by providing prompt access to medical attention and necessary specialised treatment or surgery as needed. The undersigned organisations remain committed to working with relevant government agencies to provide any additional information you may need in order to fulfill these recommendations.    

Footnotes

[1] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้, 14 May 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/66964 [2] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี, 5 June 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/67575 [3] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี (previously cited). [4] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, พฤษภาคม 2567: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวม 1,954 คน ใน 1,296 คดี (previously cited). [5] Information documented by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights [6] See Amnesty International, “Thailand: 87-year prison sentence handed in harshest lèse-majesté conviction,” 19 January 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/01/thailand-87-prison-sentence-lese-majeste and Guardian, “Man jailed for record 50 years for criticising Thai monarchy” 18 January 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/man-jailed-for-record-50-years-for-criticising-thai-monarchy#: :text=A%20Thai%20man%20has%20been,a%20 legal%20rights%20group%20said. [7] UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand, 25 April 2017, UN Doc. CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paras 35-38, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/ccprcthaco2-concluding-observations-second-periodic-report (‘2017 Concluding Observations’) [8] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, 12 September 2011, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, paras 30, 38 and 47, https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf. [9] UN Human Rights Committee, 2017 Concluding Observations (previously cited). [10] For further analysis of the laws against international human rights law and standards, see: ICJ, Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Thailand, April 2021, Part III, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Thailand-Dictating-the-Internet-FoE-Publication-2021-ENG.pdf [11] Amnesty International Thailand, ‘แอมเนสตี้-ศูนย์ทนาย’ ดำเนินคดีของเด็กและเยาวชน 3 ปี สร้าง 7 ผลกระทบ แนะ 6 ข้อ ก. ยุติธรรม, 21 พฤศจิกายน 2566, https://www.amnesty.or.th/latest/news/1190 [12] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, รายชื่อผู้ต้องขังทางการเมือง 2567, 6 June 2024, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/63015 [13] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, รายชื่อผู้ต้องขังทางการเมือง 2567 (previously cited). [14] This pattern of arbitrary detention through the denial of bail has been ongoing since 2021. See, for example, Amnesty International, Urgent Action: Peaceful protestors may face 100+ years in prison, 24 March 2021, Index: ASA 39/3891/2021, https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ASA3938912021ENGLISH.pdf; and Amnesty International, Thailand: Immediately drop unjustified charges against protest leader, 24 September 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/09/amnesty-thailand-protest-leader-arrest/; Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, The expanding universe of legal persecutions: Examining various developments following the #19Sept protest (Part 2), 29 June 2021, https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/31397 [15] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person, 16 December 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/general-comment-no-35-article-9-liberty-and-security-person, para 38. [16] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person (previously cited). [17] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 on Article 9: Liberty and security of person (previously cited). [18] See the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-seventh session, 28 August–1 September 2023, 23 October 2023, UN Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/49, para 61(a). The UNWGAD also referred to its opinions No. 35/2012, No. 41/2014, No. 43/2015, No. 44/2016 and No. 51/2017, which made the same assessment. [19] UNWGAD, Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-seventh session, 28 August–1 September 2023, para 71-72 (previously cited). [20] UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand, 25 April 2017, UN Doc. CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g17/099/90/pdf/g1709990.pdf?token=co1x9EVLWuVMLTDQbb&fe=true, para 25-26. [21] See recent examples of such communications from UN Special Rapporteurs at UN Special Procedures, Joint allegation letter, 13 March 2024, UN Doc. AL THA 3/2024, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28802; and UN Special Procedures, Joint allegation letter, 5 May 2023, UN Doc. AL THA 2/2023, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28064 [22] Thailand received at least four recommendations on arbitrary arrest and detention of activists during the Universal Periodic Review in 2021. See United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Univesal Periodic Review: Thailand, 21 December 2021, UN Doc. A/HRC/49/17, recommendation 52.47 by Mexico (“Decriminalize freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and avoid the detention of minors for exercising these rights”), recommendation 52.52 by Austria (“Guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and stop targeting civilians engaging in peaceful protests under criminal charges entailing punishment with exorbitant prison terms”), recommendation 52.60 by Sweden (“Amend article 112 of the criminal code on royal defamation to bring it into line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, as an intermediate step, remove mandatory minimum prison terms for violations of that provision”) and recommendation 52.83 by Ireland (“End arbitrary detentions, arrests and any acts of harassment against political actors and civil society, including human rights defenders”). [23] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [24] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, ศาลสั่งถอนประกัน “ใบปอ – เนติพร” ผู้ต้องหา ม.112 คดีทำโพลขบวนเสด็จ ชี้สร้างความวุ่นวายกับกลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมอื่น ผิดเงื่อนไขประกัน, 5 May 2022, https://tlhr2014.com/archives/43235 [25] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [26] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [27] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited). [28] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited) [29] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, บุ้ง เนติพร เสียชีวิตระหว่างการควบคุมตัวของ จนท.ราชทัณฑ์ รอชันสูตรพลิกศพต่อในวันพรุ่งนี้ (previously cited) [30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6(1); the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), and its companion document, the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016). See also: Amnesty International, Thailand: Tragic death of detained activist must be ‘wake-up call’, 14 May 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/thailand-tragic-death-of-detained-activist-must-be-wake-up-call/ [31] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), Article 12. See also CESCR, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), 11 August 2000, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 34. [32] Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule No. 9. [33] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rules No. 24 and 27.]]> Thailand: Death in detention of pro-democracy activist Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/thailand-death-in-detention-of-pro-democracy-activist-netiporn-bung-sanesangkhom/ Thu, 16 May 2024 11:30:18 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=22052 Paris - Geneva - Bangkok, May 16, 2024 – On May 14, 2024, Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom, 28, a member of the pro-democracy group Thalu Wang, died while in pre-trial detention on charges of violating Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code (lèse-majesté). The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (FIDH-OMCT), the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) are deeply saddened by her senseless death, which underscores the deep flaws in Thailand’s judicial and penitentiary systems. Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom was reported to have suffered a cardiac arrest while in custody of the Department of Corrections on the morning of May 14, 2024. She became unconscious at the Department of Corrections Hospital in Bangkok before being transferred to Thammasat University Hospital in Pathumthani Province, where she was later pronounced dead at 11:22am. Since January 26, 2024, Ms. Netiporn had been detained at the Central Women’s Correctional Institution in Bangkok, after the Bangkok South Criminal Court found her guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to one month in prison in relation to a physical altercation with the Court’s security personnel on October 19, 2023. The incident occurred while she and other Thalu Wang members were attending the verdict hearing in a lèse-majesté case against another pro-democracy activist. On the same day, the Bangkok South Criminal Court revoked Ms. Netiporn’s bail in a lèse-majesté case1 originating from a public opinion poll on royal motorcades conducted by her and other Thalu Wang activists at Bangkok’s Siam Paragon shopping mall on February 8, 2022. The Court ruled that Ms. Netiporn violated her bail conditions by spraying paint onto the Queen’s flag during a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ministry of Culture in Bangkok on August 6, 2023. On January 27, 2024, Ms. Netiporn commenced a dry hunger strike to demand judicial reform and the cessation of imprisonment of individuals for expressing dissenting opinions. Due to her deteriorating health, she was transferred to medical facilities several times. She resumed drinking water in February 2024 and eating in April 2024. Prior to her death, on April 4, 2024, she had been receiving treatment at the Department of Corrections Hospital in Bangkok for her deteriorating health as a result of the hunger strike. Ms. Netiporn had previously undertaken a hunger strike in 2022 while held in pre-trial detention at the Central Women’s Correctional Institution in connection with the opinion poll case, alongside fellow Thalu Wang activist Natthanit “Baipor” Duangmusit. Despite their deteriorating health, their requests for bail were repeatedly denied until August 4, 2022. They had initiated the hunger strike on June 2, 2022, to protest their detention. Ms. Netiporn was a prominent activist who advocated for LGBTIQ+ and youth rights in 2020-2021. She then joined the pro-democracy group Thalu Wang (“shattering the palace”), where she actively engaged in conducting public opinion polls regarding the Thai monarchy. Her political activism was met with repeated prosecutions since 2021, including two cases under Article 112. Between November 24, 2020 and May 16, 2024, at least 272 individuals, including many human rights defenders and 20 minors, were charged under Article 112 of lèse-majesté. Eighteen of them are currently detained pending trial, and seven are serving prison sentences, including Anon Nampa, a prominent pro-democracy activist and human rights lawyer who was found guilty under Article 112 for the third time on April 29, 2024, and is now serving a total prison term of 10 years and 20 days. The Observatory, CrCF, and TLHR express their deepest sorrow over the death of Netiporn Sanesangkhom and urge the Thai government and relevant authorities, namely the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Attorney General, and the police, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation to determine the cause and circumstances of her death. Furthermore, the organisations call for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders, including those held under Article 112. The organisations also urge the Thai government to refrain from arresting, prosecutin, and detaining human rights defenders under Article 112 for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression. Additionally, the organisations urge the Thai government to amend Article 112 to bring it into line with Thailand’s human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).   1 Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code imposes jail terms of three to 15 years for anyone found guilty of defaming insulting, or threatening the King, the Queen, the Heir to the throne, or the Regent.]]> Paris - Geneva - Bangkok, May 16, 2024 – On May 14, 2024, Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom, 28, a member of the pro-democracy group Thalu Wang, died while in pre-trial detention on charges of violating Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code (lèse-majesté). The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (FIDH-OMCT), the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) are deeply saddened by her senseless death, which underscores the deep flaws in Thailand’s judicial and penitentiary systems. Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom was reported to have suffered a cardiac arrest while in custody of the Department of Corrections on the morning of May 14, 2024. She became unconscious at the Department of Corrections Hospital in Bangkok before being transferred to Thammasat University Hospital in Pathumthani Province, where she was later pronounced dead at 11:22am. Since January 26, 2024, Ms. Netiporn had been detained at the Central Women’s Correctional Institution in Bangkok, after the Bangkok South Criminal Court found her guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to one month in prison in relation to a physical altercation with the Court’s security personnel on October 19, 2023. The incident occurred while she and other Thalu Wang members were attending the verdict hearing in a lèse-majesté case against another pro-democracy activist. On the same day, the Bangkok South Criminal Court revoked Ms. Netiporn’s bail in a lèse-majesté case1 originating from a public opinion poll on royal motorcades conducted by her and other Thalu Wang activists at Bangkok’s Siam Paragon shopping mall on February 8, 2022. The Court ruled that Ms. Netiporn violated her bail conditions by spraying paint onto the Queen’s flag during a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ministry of Culture in Bangkok on August 6, 2023. On January 27, 2024, Ms. Netiporn commenced a dry hunger strike to demand judicial reform and the cessation of imprisonment of individuals for expressing dissenting opinions. Due to her deteriorating health, she was transferred to medical facilities several times. She resumed drinking water in February 2024 and eating in April 2024. Prior to her death, on April 4, 2024, she had been receiving treatment at the Department of Corrections Hospital in Bangkok for her deteriorating health as a result of the hunger strike. Ms. Netiporn had previously undertaken a hunger strike in 2022 while held in pre-trial detention at the Central Women’s Correctional Institution in connection with the opinion poll case, alongside fellow Thalu Wang activist Natthanit “Baipor” Duangmusit. Despite their deteriorating health, their requests for bail were repeatedly denied until August 4, 2022. They had initiated the hunger strike on June 2, 2022, to protest their detention. Ms. Netiporn was a prominent activist who advocated for LGBTIQ+ and youth rights in 2020-2021. She then joined the pro-democracy group Thalu Wang (“shattering the palace”), where she actively engaged in conducting public opinion polls regarding the Thai monarchy. Her political activism was met with repeated prosecutions since 2021, including two cases under Article 112. Between November 24, 2020 and May 16, 2024, at least 272 individuals, including many human rights defenders and 20 minors, were charged under Article 112 of lèse-majesté. Eighteen of them are currently detained pending trial, and seven are serving prison sentences, including Anon Nampa, a prominent pro-democracy activist and human rights lawyer who was found guilty under Article 112 for the third time on April 29, 2024, and is now serving a total prison term of 10 years and 20 days. The Observatory, CrCF, and TLHR express their deepest sorrow over the death of Netiporn Sanesangkhom and urge the Thai government and relevant authorities, namely the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Attorney General, and the police, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation to determine the cause and circumstances of her death. Furthermore, the organisations call for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders, including those held under Article 112. The organisations also urge the Thai government to refrain from arresting, prosecutin, and detaining human rights defenders under Article 112 for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression. Additionally, the organisations urge the Thai government to amend Article 112 to bring it into line with Thailand’s human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).   1 Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code imposes jail terms of three to 15 years for anyone found guilty of defaming insulting, or threatening the King, the Queen, the Heir to the throne, or the Regent.]]> China: Oral statement at the 55th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in tribute to Cao Shunil https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/china-oral-statement-at-the-55th-session-of-the-united-nations-human-rights-council-in-tribute-to-cao-shunil-2/ Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:14 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=23856 Cao Shunli, who died in detention ten years ago. 37 NGOs - 17 organisations accredited to the UN and 20 NGOs without ECOSOC status - sponsored this solemn tribute. The signatories urge the international community to hold the individuals and institutions responsible for Ms Cao Shunli's death to account, and to end all acts of reprisals and repressive measures seeking to restrict civic space and prevent activists from engaging with the UN.   Read the statement here]]> Cao Shunli, who died in detention ten years ago. 37 NGOs - 17 organisations accredited to the UN and 20 NGOs without ECOSOC status - sponsored this solemn tribute. The signatories urge the international community to hold the individuals and institutions responsible for Ms Cao Shunli's death to account, and to end all acts of reprisals and repressive measures seeking to restrict civic space and prevent activists from engaging with the UN.   Read the statement here]]> China: Tenth anniversary of the death of Cao Shunli https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/china-tenth-anniversary-of-the-death-of-cao-shunli/ Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:00:53 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=21727 Civil society organisations, including the Observatory, honour the memory of Cao Shunli, a Chinese human rights lawyer who died in detention ten years ago, highlighting the urgent need for justice and accountability. Today, we pay tribute to Cao Shunli, and all human rights defenders targeted by the Chinese government for their commitment to uphold the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cao Shunli was a brave Chinese woman human rights defender and lawyer. Working with fellow activists, Cao documented abuses, including the now-abolished ‘Re-education through Labour’ extrajudicial detention system, which she was also subjected to as a result of her human rights work. She campaigned for independent civil society to be meaningfully consulted and to be able to contribute to the Chinese government’s national reports to its first and second Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR). In an attempt to speak with government officials about the UPR, Cao courageously organised peaceful sit-ins with other concerned citizens outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite great risks. She also submitted information on extralegal detention and torture in China to the UN and expressed the hope that ‘if we could get even 100 words’ into a UN report, ‘many of our problems could start to get addressed.’ On 14 September 2013, Chinese authorities detained Cao at the Beijing Capital International Airport as she was traveling to Geneva to participate in a human rights training, one month before China’s second UPR. Cao was forcibly disappeared for five weeks, until she resurfaced in criminal detention and was charged with ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’. By October 2013, it was clear that Cao Shunli was experiencing serious medical issues while in detention. After months of denial of adequate medical treatment, rejected appeals by her lawyers for bail on humanitarian grounds, and despite multiple calls from the international community for her urgent release, Cao died of multiple organ failure on 14 March 2014 in a hospital under heavy police guard to keep out her lawyers and friends. Cao was one of the 2014 finalists of the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. To this day, there has been no accountability for Cao Shunli’s death. The Chinese government refuses to admit wrongdoing, despite repeated calls in 2014 and 2019 by UN Special Procedures experts for a full investigation into this ‘deadly reprisal’. Her case is one of the longest-standing unresolved cases in the UN Secretary-General’s annual reports on reprisals against civil society actors for engaging with the United Nations. China is one of the most consistent perpetrators of reprisals over time, and one of the most egregious perpetrators in terms of the sheer number of individuals targeted. Cao is not alone: her courage, but also the abuses she endured, are unfortunately those of other human rights defenders who paid a high cost for cooperating with the UN. Her close colleague, Chen Jianfang was forcibly disappeared under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) from 19-20 March 2019 after paying tribute to Cao Shunli on the 5th anniversary of her death. Chen was sentenced to four years and six months in jail for ‘inciting subversion of State power’ and left prison on 21 October 2023, after which authorities subjected her to strict surveillance. UN experts have raised with the Chinese government acts of reprisals against Chen Jianfang, but also Jiang Tianyong, Li Qiaochu, Dolkun Isa, Li Wenzu and Wang Qiaoling, among others. The recent instances of intimidation and harassment against NGO participants in China’s 4th UPR in January 2024 further highlight the gravity of the situation. Li Qiaochu, Xu Zhiyong, Ding Jiaxi, Yu Wensheng, Xu Yan, Huang Xueqin, Li Yuhan, Chang Weiping: many other Chinese human rights defenders are today detained, disappeared, and at grave risk, for upholding the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These documented acts do not account for the even greater self-censorship and refusal to engage with the United Nation as a result of a generalised climate of fear. 14 March 2024 will mark the 10-year anniversary of Cao Shunli’s death. Ten years ago, when ISHR and many other human rights groups sought to observe a moment of silence at the Human Rights Council in her memory, the Chinese delegation, together with other delegations, disrupted the session for an hour and half. Cao Shunli is a paradigmatic case of reprisals, not only because of her prominence, but also due to the array of severe human rights violations against her, committed in total impunity. These range from Chinese authorities blocking herexit from her own country, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, lack of due process, torture or ill-treatment and denial of adequate medical care, to subsequent death in custody, and the lack of accountability for these abuses. The lack of any progress in achieving accountability underscores the urgent need for continued international attention and pressure on the Chinese government to ensure justice for Cao and all human rights defenders who face persecution for their work. Cao Shunli said before her death: ‘Our impact may be large, may be small, and may be nothing. But we must try. It is our duty to the dispossessed and it is the right of civil society.’ Today, we pay tribute to Cao Shunli’s legacy, one that has inspired countless human rights defenders in China and abroad. We urge UN Member States to call for a full, independent, impartial investigation into her death. We reaffirm that no perpetrator of reprisals, no matter how powerful, is above scrutiny, and that reprisals are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.]]> Civil society organisations, including the Observatory, honour the memory of Cao Shunli, a Chinese human rights lawyer who died in detention ten years ago, highlighting the urgent need for justice and accountability. Today, we pay tribute to Cao Shunli, and all human rights defenders targeted by the Chinese government for their commitment to uphold the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cao Shunli was a brave Chinese woman human rights defender and lawyer. Working with fellow activists, Cao documented abuses, including the now-abolished ‘Re-education through Labour’ extrajudicial detention system, which she was also subjected to as a result of her human rights work. She campaigned for independent civil society to be meaningfully consulted and to be able to contribute to the Chinese government’s national reports to its first and second Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR). In an attempt to speak with government officials about the UPR, Cao courageously organised peaceful sit-ins with other concerned citizens outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite great risks. She also submitted information on extralegal detention and torture in China to the UN and expressed the hope that ‘if we could get even 100 words’ into a UN report, ‘many of our problems could start to get addressed.’ On 14 September 2013, Chinese authorities detained Cao at the Beijing Capital International Airport as she was traveling to Geneva to participate in a human rights training, one month before China’s second UPR. Cao was forcibly disappeared for five weeks, until she resurfaced in criminal detention and was charged with ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’. By October 2013, it was clear that Cao Shunli was experiencing serious medical issues while in detention. After months of denial of adequate medical treatment, rejected appeals by her lawyers for bail on humanitarian grounds, and despite multiple calls from the international community for her urgent release, Cao died of multiple organ failure on 14 March 2014 in a hospital under heavy police guard to keep out her lawyers and friends. Cao was one of the 2014 finalists of the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. To this day, there has been no accountability for Cao Shunli’s death. The Chinese government refuses to admit wrongdoing, despite repeated calls in 2014 and 2019 by UN Special Procedures experts for a full investigation into this ‘deadly reprisal’. Her case is one of the longest-standing unresolved cases in the UN Secretary-General’s annual reports on reprisals against civil society actors for engaging with the United Nations. China is one of the most consistent perpetrators of reprisals over time, and one of the most egregious perpetrators in terms of the sheer number of individuals targeted. Cao is not alone: her courage, but also the abuses she endured, are unfortunately those of other human rights defenders who paid a high cost for cooperating with the UN. Her close colleague, Chen Jianfang was forcibly disappeared under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) from 19-20 March 2019 after paying tribute to Cao Shunli on the 5th anniversary of her death. Chen was sentenced to four years and six months in jail for ‘inciting subversion of State power’ and left prison on 21 October 2023, after which authorities subjected her to strict surveillance. UN experts have raised with the Chinese government acts of reprisals against Chen Jianfang, but also Jiang Tianyong, Li Qiaochu, Dolkun Isa, Li Wenzu and Wang Qiaoling, among others. The recent instances of intimidation and harassment against NGO participants in China’s 4th UPR in January 2024 further highlight the gravity of the situation. Li Qiaochu, Xu Zhiyong, Ding Jiaxi, Yu Wensheng, Xu Yan, Huang Xueqin, Li Yuhan, Chang Weiping: many other Chinese human rights defenders are today detained, disappeared, and at grave risk, for upholding the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These documented acts do not account for the even greater self-censorship and refusal to engage with the United Nation as a result of a generalised climate of fear. 14 March 2024 will mark the 10-year anniversary of Cao Shunli’s death. Ten years ago, when ISHR and many other human rights groups sought to observe a moment of silence at the Human Rights Council in her memory, the Chinese delegation, together with other delegations, disrupted the session for an hour and half. Cao Shunli is a paradigmatic case of reprisals, not only because of her prominence, but also due to the array of severe human rights violations against her, committed in total impunity. These range from Chinese authorities blocking herexit from her own country, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, lack of due process, torture or ill-treatment and denial of adequate medical care, to subsequent death in custody, and the lack of accountability for these abuses. The lack of any progress in achieving accountability underscores the urgent need for continued international attention and pressure on the Chinese government to ensure justice for Cao and all human rights defenders who face persecution for their work. Cao Shunli said before her death: ‘Our impact may be large, may be small, and may be nothing. But we must try. It is our duty to the dispossessed and it is the right of civil society.’ Today, we pay tribute to Cao Shunli’s legacy, one that has inspired countless human rights defenders in China and abroad. We urge UN Member States to call for a full, independent, impartial investigation into her death. We reaffirm that no perpetrator of reprisals, no matter how powerful, is above scrutiny, and that reprisals are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.]]> India: Human rights defender Stan Swamy dies in custody https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/dcl-ind-050721-stan-swamy/ Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=17334 Turkey: Authorities are responsible for Ebru Timtik’s death in custody https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/cp-tur-280820-ebru-timtik/ Fri, 28 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16405 Ebru Timtik, prominent human rights lawyer and member of the Progressive Lawyers’ Association (PLA), died in custody at Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital in Bakırköy, İstanbul, yesterday. In February 2020, she had started a hunger strike to call for a fair trial in her case and that of 18 other human rights lawyers from her organisation currently being prosecuted in Turkey [1]. “ The Turkish authorities are responsible for the death of Ms. Ebru Timtik, as they repeatedly rejected all the appeals for her release, constantly denying any risk for her physical security, and any danger to her life ”, declared Alexis Deswaef, human rights lawyer and FIDH Vice President. Following the Court of Cassation’s August 14th rejection of an appeal for the release of Ms. Timtik, her lawyers lodged a further appeal for her release, on Sunday, August 23, four days before her death. “ The origin of this tragic death is the persecution of rights activists in Turkey that has to end. To start with we need to see the immediate and unconditional release of other lawyers of her law firm, specifically Mr. Aytaç Ünsal, Ms. Ebru Timtik’s colleague, whose case is pending before the Supreme Court and who has also been on hunger strike since February 2020 ,” added Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General. In March 2019, Ms. Timtik was sentenced to 13.5 years in prison over trumped-up terrorism-related charges. Her sentence was upheld by an appeals court in October 2019 — a ruling appealed by her lawyers before the Supreme Court; her case was pending at the time of her death. Mr. Aytaç Ünsal was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, and has been on hunger strike for 205 days. He is currently held in Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, and his health is deteriorating every day. The 17 other PLA human rights lawyers currently facing prosecution represented clients in cases such as the Soma and Ermenek mining massacres, forced relocations due to urban transformation projects, police violence and torture incidents, as well as individuals prosecuted for their opinions. Press contact: • FIDH: Ms. Eva Canan (English, French), +33 6 48 05 91 57 / Email: ecanan@fidh.org (Paris) • OMCT: Ms. Iolanda Jaquemet (English, French), +41 79 539 41 06 / Email : ij@omct.org (Geneva) [1] See Observatory Urgent Appeal TUR 006 / 0620 / OBS 063, published on June 8, 2020, available here: https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/turkey-judicial-harassment-of-19-prominent-human-rights-lawyers-from]]> Ebru Timtik, prominent human rights lawyer and member of the Progressive Lawyers’ Association (PLA), died in custody at Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital in Bakırköy, İstanbul, yesterday. In February 2020, she had started a hunger strike to call for a fair trial in her case and that of 18 other human rights lawyers from her organisation currently being prosecuted in Turkey [1]. “ The Turkish authorities are responsible for the death of Ms. Ebru Timtik, as they repeatedly rejected all the appeals for her release, constantly denying any risk for her physical security, and any danger to her life ”, declared Alexis Deswaef, human rights lawyer and FIDH Vice President. Following the Court of Cassation’s August 14th rejection of an appeal for the release of Ms. Timtik, her lawyers lodged a further appeal for her release, on Sunday, August 23, four days before her death. “ The origin of this tragic death is the persecution of rights activists in Turkey that has to end. To start with we need to see the immediate and unconditional release of other lawyers of her law firm, specifically Mr. Aytaç Ünsal, Ms. Ebru Timtik’s colleague, whose case is pending before the Supreme Court and who has also been on hunger strike since February 2020 ,” added Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General. In March 2019, Ms. Timtik was sentenced to 13.5 years in prison over trumped-up terrorism-related charges. Her sentence was upheld by an appeals court in October 2019 — a ruling appealed by her lawyers before the Supreme Court; her case was pending at the time of her death. Mr. Aytaç Ünsal was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, and has been on hunger strike for 205 days. He is currently held in Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, and his health is deteriorating every day. The 17 other PLA human rights lawyers currently facing prosecution represented clients in cases such as the Soma and Ermenek mining massacres, forced relocations due to urban transformation projects, police violence and torture incidents, as well as individuals prosecuted for their opinions. Press contact: • FIDH: Ms. Eva Canan (English, French), +33 6 48 05 91 57 / Email: ecanan@fidh.org (Paris) • OMCT: Ms. Iolanda Jaquemet (English, French), +41 79 539 41 06 / Email : ij@omct.org (Geneva) [1] See Observatory Urgent Appeal TUR 006 / 0620 / OBS 063, published on June 8, 2020, available here: https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/turkey-judicial-harassment-of-19-prominent-human-rights-lawyers-from]]> Kirghizistan : par une décision épouvantable, la Cour suprême confirme la condamnation à vie d’Azimjan Askarov https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/kirghizistan-par-une-decision-epouvantable-la-cour-supreme-confirme-la-condamnation-a-vie-dazimjan-askarov/ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16285 Azimjan Askarov. Ce recours visait un précédent verdict de la Cour de l’Oblast de Tchouï, qui avait confirmé sa condamnation à une peine de prison à vie le 24 janvier 2017. L’audience, à laquelle de nombreux représentants de missions diplomatiques ont été empêchés d’assister, a été entachée de graves irrégularités. Une foule hostile y était en revanche bien présente, et autorisée à insulter et accuser M. Askarov et les autres défenseurs des droits humains présents. C’est dans ce contexte que la Cour suprême a finalement confirmé la condamnation de M. Askarov à une peine de prison à vie. Le journaliste et défenseur des droits humains fera appel de cette décision devant le Comité des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies. " Je suis choquée par ce qui s’est passé à la plus haute cour du Kirghizistan aujourd’hui ! L’impunité dans l’affaire Askarov continue. Il n’y a pas de volonté politique au Kirghizistan pour les réformes et la mise en œuvre des décisions des Nations unies ", a déclaré Tolekan Ismailova, vice-présidente de la FIDH et présidente de Bir Duino-Kirghizistan, qui a assisté à l’audience aujourd’hui. " Face à cette pandémie de Covid-19, nous demandons aux autorités de libérer immédiatement Azimjan Askarov pour des raisons humanitaires ", a-t-elle ajouté. Les avocats de M. Askarov et Mme Tolekan Ismailova ont reçu des menaces de mort de la part des proches du policier tué. Les officiers de police présents à l’audience n’ont pris aucune mesure contre le comportement agressif de la foule, approuvant ainsi les menaces violentes et les insultes contre l’équipe chargée de la défense de M. Askarov. Âgé de 68 ans, le journaliste souffre depuis des années d’une détérioration de son état de santé, notamment de problèmes cardiaques et respiratoires. Lors de sa détention, il n’a pas reçu de soins médicaux appropriés et adéquats. Par son profil, M. Askarov fait partie des personnes risquant le plus de mourir du Covid-19. " Au vu des nombreuses violations des droits à un procès équitable, des tortures qu’il a subies et de la détérioration de son état de santé, M. Askarov ne devrait pas passer un jour de plus derrière les barreaux ", a conclu Gerald Staberock, Secrétaire général de l’OMCT. M. Askarov avait été condamné pour "participation à des émeutes de masse", "incitation à la haine ethnique" et "complicité dans le meurtre d’un officier de police" lors des tensions ethniques de 2010. L’enquête et le procès de M. Askarov ont été entachés de violations du droit à un procès équitable. Les allégations crédibles de M. Askarov selon lesquelles il aurait été torturé en détention préventive n’ont jamais fait l’objet d’une enquête en bonne et due forme. Sa condamnation a été confirmée après plusieurs appels, notamment par la Cour suprême. En 2016, le Comité des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies a demandé aux autorités kirghizes de libérer immédiatement M. Askarov, d’annuler sa peine injuste, et de lui assurer une indemnisation adéquate pour le préjudice enduré.]]> Azimjan Askarov. Ce recours visait un précédent verdict de la Cour de l’Oblast de Tchouï, qui avait confirmé sa condamnation à une peine de prison à vie le 24 janvier 2017. L’audience, à laquelle de nombreux représentants de missions diplomatiques ont été empêchés d’assister, a été entachée de graves irrégularités. Une foule hostile y était en revanche bien présente, et autorisée à insulter et accuser M. Askarov et les autres défenseurs des droits humains présents. C’est dans ce contexte que la Cour suprême a finalement confirmé la condamnation de M. Askarov à une peine de prison à vie. Le journaliste et défenseur des droits humains fera appel de cette décision devant le Comité des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies. " Je suis choquée par ce qui s’est passé à la plus haute cour du Kirghizistan aujourd’hui ! L’impunité dans l’affaire Askarov continue. Il n’y a pas de volonté politique au Kirghizistan pour les réformes et la mise en œuvre des décisions des Nations unies ", a déclaré Tolekan Ismailova, vice-présidente de la FIDH et présidente de Bir Duino-Kirghizistan, qui a assisté à l’audience aujourd’hui. " Face à cette pandémie de Covid-19, nous demandons aux autorités de libérer immédiatement Azimjan Askarov pour des raisons humanitaires ", a-t-elle ajouté. Les avocats de M. Askarov et Mme Tolekan Ismailova ont reçu des menaces de mort de la part des proches du policier tué. Les officiers de police présents à l’audience n’ont pris aucune mesure contre le comportement agressif de la foule, approuvant ainsi les menaces violentes et les insultes contre l’équipe chargée de la défense de M. Askarov. Âgé de 68 ans, le journaliste souffre depuis des années d’une détérioration de son état de santé, notamment de problèmes cardiaques et respiratoires. Lors de sa détention, il n’a pas reçu de soins médicaux appropriés et adéquats. Par son profil, M. Askarov fait partie des personnes risquant le plus de mourir du Covid-19. " Au vu des nombreuses violations des droits à un procès équitable, des tortures qu’il a subies et de la détérioration de son état de santé, M. Askarov ne devrait pas passer un jour de plus derrière les barreaux ", a conclu Gerald Staberock, Secrétaire général de l’OMCT. M. Askarov avait été condamné pour "participation à des émeutes de masse", "incitation à la haine ethnique" et "complicité dans le meurtre d’un officier de police" lors des tensions ethniques de 2010. L’enquête et le procès de M. Askarov ont été entachés de violations du droit à un procès équitable. Les allégations crédibles de M. Askarov selon lesquelles il aurait été torturé en détention préventive n’ont jamais fait l’objet d’une enquête en bonne et due forme. Sa condamnation a été confirmée après plusieurs appels, notamment par la Cour suprême. En 2016, le Comité des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies a demandé aux autorités kirghizes de libérer immédiatement M. Askarov, d’annuler sa peine injuste, et de lui assurer une indemnisation adéquate pour le préjudice enduré.]]> Cameroon: Confirmation of the death while in detention of Mr. Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, aka Samuel Wazizi https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/cameroon-confirmation-of-the-death-while-in-detention-of-mr-samuel-ajiekah-abuwe-aka-samuel-wazizi-2/ Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16133 Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, aka Samuel Wazizi, a journalist working for the privately-owned broadcaster Chillen Muzik and TV (CMTV) in Buea, the capital of the English-speaking Southwest region of Cameroon. Mr. Wazizi was particularly known for reporting on cases of human rights violations that occurred in the context of the Anglophone crisis [1] and has expressed critical views regarding the management of the crisis by the Cameroon government. According to the information received, on June 5, 2020, the Spokesperson for the Cameroonian Ministry of Defense Colonel Cyrille Atonfack issued a statement confirming that Mr. Samuel Wazizi died at Yaoundé Military Hospital as a result of severe sepsis on August 17, 2019. The statement denied allegations according to which he would have been tortured in detention, and further stated that the family had been informed of his death, which the later refuted. The Observatory recalls that Mr. Wazizi was missing since August 7, 2019 (see background information) and notes that the military statement came as a result of wide national and international pressure after media reports alleged in early June 2020 that he had died at Yaoundé Military Hospital as a result of acts of torture he was reportedly subjected to by military officials while in detention. The Observatory strongly condemns the death while in detention of Mr. Samuel Wazizi and expresses its deep indignation that it took 10 months to the authorities to acknowledge his death, despite repeated requests from his family, lawyers, colleagues and media to get information about his fate and whereabouts. The Observatory urges the Cameroonian authorities to immediately carry out a thorough, transparent and independent investigation into the above-mentioned allegations of torture and his related killing in order to identify all those responsible, bring them before an independent tribunal, and sanction them as provided by the law. The Observatory condemns the increase in recent years of intimidation and attacks against human rights defenders and journalists in Cameroon, particularly since the beginning of the socio-political crisis in the Anglophone regions at the end of 2016, and recalls that several defenders of the rights of the Anglophone minority have been subjected to attacks, harassment and arbitrary detention under the Anti-Terrorism Law, or enforced disappearance, including Messrs. Felix Agbor Nkongho [2], Mancho Bibixy Tse [3] and Franklin Mowha [4]. Background information: On August 2, 2019, Mr. Samuel Wazizi was arbitrarily arrested by the Buea police and brought to the Muea neighbourhood police station. He was reportedly accused of “collaborating with separatists” and “spreading separatist information”, although to date no formal charges have been brought against him. Mr. Wazizi was denied bail as he was potentially facing charges under the Anti-Terrorism Law, which allows for indefinite detention without charges. On August 7, 2019 Mr. Samuel Wazizi was allegedly transferred to the 21st Motorized Infantry Battalion in Buea, even though the military do not have authority to investigate such charges and to try civilians. Mr. Wazizi’s whereabouts remained unknown until June 5, 2020. On November 5, 2019, the Fako Division of the High Court in Buea dismissed on technical grounds a habeas corpus petition that demanded Mr. Wazizi to be formally charged by a competent court or otherwise to be released.]]> Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, aka Samuel Wazizi, a journalist working for the privately-owned broadcaster Chillen Muzik and TV (CMTV) in Buea, the capital of the English-speaking Southwest region of Cameroon. Mr. Wazizi was particularly known for reporting on cases of human rights violations that occurred in the context of the Anglophone crisis [1] and has expressed critical views regarding the management of the crisis by the Cameroon government. According to the information received, on June 5, 2020, the Spokesperson for the Cameroonian Ministry of Defense Colonel Cyrille Atonfack issued a statement confirming that Mr. Samuel Wazizi died at Yaoundé Military Hospital as a result of severe sepsis on August 17, 2019. The statement denied allegations according to which he would have been tortured in detention, and further stated that the family had been informed of his death, which the later refuted. The Observatory recalls that Mr. Wazizi was missing since August 7, 2019 (see background information) and notes that the military statement came as a result of wide national and international pressure after media reports alleged in early June 2020 that he had died at Yaoundé Military Hospital as a result of acts of torture he was reportedly subjected to by military officials while in detention. The Observatory strongly condemns the death while in detention of Mr. Samuel Wazizi and expresses its deep indignation that it took 10 months to the authorities to acknowledge his death, despite repeated requests from his family, lawyers, colleagues and media to get information about his fate and whereabouts. The Observatory urges the Cameroonian authorities to immediately carry out a thorough, transparent and independent investigation into the above-mentioned allegations of torture and his related killing in order to identify all those responsible, bring them before an independent tribunal, and sanction them as provided by the law. The Observatory condemns the increase in recent years of intimidation and attacks against human rights defenders and journalists in Cameroon, particularly since the beginning of the socio-political crisis in the Anglophone regions at the end of 2016, and recalls that several defenders of the rights of the Anglophone minority have been subjected to attacks, harassment and arbitrary detention under the Anti-Terrorism Law, or enforced disappearance, including Messrs. Felix Agbor Nkongho [2], Mancho Bibixy Tse [3] and Franklin Mowha [4]. Background information: On August 2, 2019, Mr. Samuel Wazizi was arbitrarily arrested by the Buea police and brought to the Muea neighbourhood police station. He was reportedly accused of “collaborating with separatists” and “spreading separatist information”, although to date no formal charges have been brought against him. Mr. Wazizi was denied bail as he was potentially facing charges under the Anti-Terrorism Law, which allows for indefinite detention without charges. On August 7, 2019 Mr. Samuel Wazizi was allegedly transferred to the 21st Motorized Infantry Battalion in Buea, even though the military do not have authority to investigate such charges and to try civilians. Mr. Wazizi’s whereabouts remained unknown until June 5, 2020. On November 5, 2019, the Fako Division of the High Court in Buea dismissed on technical grounds a habeas corpus petition that demanded Mr. Wazizi to be formally charged by a competent court or otherwise to be released.]]> Cameroon: Confirmation of the death while in detention of Mr. Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, aka Samuel Wazizi https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/cameroon-confirmation-of-the-death-while-in-detention-of-mr-samuel-ajiekah-abuwe-aka-samuel-wazizi/ Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16106