Petition to the International Association of Prosecutors

Original petition can be found at

Dear members of the IAP Executive Committee and the Senate,

dear members of the IAP,

In the run-up to the annual conference and general meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) in Beijing, China, the undersigned civil society organisations urge the IAP to live up to its vision and bolster its efforts to preserve the integrity of the profession.

Increasingly, in many regions of the world, in clear breach of professional integrity and fair trial standards, public prosecutors use their powers to suppress critical voices.

In China, over the last two years, dozens of prominent lawyers, labour rights advocates and activists have been targeted by the prosecution service[1]. Many remain behind bars, convicted or in prolonged detention for legal and peaceful activities protected by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Azerbaijan is in the midst of a major crackdown on civil rights defenders, bloggers and journalists, imposing hefty sentences on fabricated charges in trials that make a mockery of justice[2]. In Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey many prosecutors play an active role in the repression of human rights defenders, and in committing, covering up or condoning other grave human rights abuses[3].

Patterns of abusive practices by prosecutors in these and other countries ought to be of grave concern to the professional associations they belong to, such as the IAP. Upholding the rule of law and human rights is a key aspect of the profession of a prosecutor, as is certified by the IAP’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, that explicitly refer to the importance of observing and protecting the right to a fair trial and other human rights at all stages of work[4].

Maintaining the credibility of the profession should be a key concern for the IAP. This requires explicit steps by the IAP to introduce a meaningful human rights policy. Such steps will help to counter devaluation of ethical standards in the profession, revamp public trust in justice professionals and protect the organisation and its members from damaging reputational impact and allegations of whitewashing or complicity in human rights abuses.

For the second year in a row, civil society appeals to the IAP to honour its human rights responsibilities by introducing a tangible human rights policy. In particular:

We urge the IAP Executive Committee and the Senate to:

  • introduce human rights due diligence and compliance procedures for new and current members, including scope for complaint mechanisms with respect to institutional and individual members, making information public about its institutional members and creating openings for stakeholder engagement from the side of civil society and victims of human rights abuses[5].

We call on individual members of the IAP to:

  • raise the problem of a lack of human rights compliance mechanisms at the IAP and thoroughly discuss the human rights implications before making decisions about hosting IAP meetings;

  • identify relevant human rights concerns before travelling to IAP conferences and meetings and raise these issues with their counterparts from countries where politically-motivated prosecution and human rights abuses by prosecution authorities are reported by intergovernmental organisations and internationally renowned human rights groups.

Supporting organisations

Amnesty International

Africa Network for Environment and Economic JusticeBenin

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern AfricaKwekwe

Article 19, London

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Asia Justice and RightsJakarta

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Chiang Mai

Asian Human Rights CommissionHong Kong SAR

Asia Monitor Resource CentreHong Kong SAR

Association for Legal Intervention, Warsaw

Association, Bern

Association Malienne des Droits de l’HommeBamako

Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement, Kyiv

Associazione AntigoneRome

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Minsk

Bir-Duino Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

Bulgarian Helsinki CommitteeSofia

Canadian Human Rights International OrganisationToronto

Center for Civil Liberties, Kyiv

Centre for Development and Democratization of InstitutionsTirana

Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Moscow

Center for the Judiciary Watch of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Seoul

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern GroupHong Kong SAR

Civil Rights DefendersStockholm

Civil Society InstituteYerevan

Citizen WatchSt. Petersburg

Collective Human Rights Defenders “Laura Acosta” International Organization COHURIDELAToronto

Comunidad de Derechos Humanos, La Paz

Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos HumanosLima

Destination JusticePhnom Penh

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders ProjectKampala

Equality MyanmarYangon
Faculty of Law – University of Indonesia, Depok

Fair TrialsLondon

Federation of Equal Journalists, Almaty

Former Vietnamese Prisoners of ConscienceHanoi

Free Press UnlimitedAmsterdam

Front Line DefendersDublin 

Foundation ADRA PolandWroclaw

German-Russian ExchangeBerlin

Gram Bharati SamitiJaipur

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, Yerevan

Helsinki Association of Armenia, Yerevan

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw

Human Rights Center AzerbaijanBaku

Human Rights Center Georgia, Tbilisi

Human Rights ClubBaku

Human Rights Embassy, Chisinau

Human Rights House Foundation, Oslo

Human Rights Information CenterKyiv

Human Rights MatterBerlin

Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Vilnius

Human Rights NowTokyo

Human Rights Without Frontiers InternationalBrussels

Hungarian Civil Liberties UnionBudapest

IDP Women Association “Consent”Tbilisi

IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights MonitorJakarta

Index on CensorshipLondon

Indonesian Legal Roundtable, Jakarta
Institute for Criminal Justice ReformJakarta

Institute for Democracy and MediationTirana

Institute for Development of Freedom of InformationTbilisi

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Partnership for Human Rights, Brussels

International Service for Human RightsGeneva

International Youth Human Rights Movement

Jerusalem Institute of JusticeJerusalem

Jordan Transparency Center, Amman

Justiça GlobalRio de Janeiro

Justice and Peace Netherlands, The Hague

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Almaty

Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative, Kharkiv

Kosovo Center for Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption – KUND 16, Prishtina

Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims, Prishtina

Lawyers for LawyersAmsterdam

Lawyers for LibertyKuala Lumpur

League of Human RightsBrno

Macedonian Helsinki CommitteeSkopje

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (Mappi FH-UI), Depok

Moscow Helsinki Group, Moscow

National Coalition of Human Rights DefendersKampala

Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Hague

Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, Utrecht

NGO “Aru ana“, Aktobe

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO), Bahawalpur

Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS), Bogotá

Pen InternationalLondon

Philippine Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)Manila

Promo-LEX Association, Chisinau

Protection InternationalBrussels

Protection Desk Colombia, alianza (OPI-PAS), Bogotá

Protection of Rights Without BordersYerevan

Public Association DignityAstana

Public Association “Our Right”, Kokshetau

Public Fund “Ar.Ruh.Hak”Almaty

Public Fund “Ulagatty Zhanaya”, Almaty

Public Verdict Foundation, Moscow

Regional Center for Strategic Studies, Baku/ Tbilisi

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Lagos

Stefan Batory FoundationWarsaw

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Petaling Jaya

Swiss Helsinki Association, Lenzburg

Transparency Anti-corruption Center International , Yerevan

Transparency International Austrian chapterVienna

Transparency International Republika ČeskáPrague

Transparency International Deutschland, Berlin

Transparency International EU OfficeBrussels

Transparency International FranceParis

Transparency International GreeceAthens

Transparency International GreenlandNuuk

Transparency International HungaryBudapest

Transparency International IrelandDublin

Transparency International ItaliaMilan

Transparency International MoldovaChisinau

Transparency International NederlandAmsterdam

Transparency International NorwayOslo

Transparency International PortugalLisbon

Transparency International RomaniaBucharest

Transparency International SecretariatBerlin

Transparency International SloveniaLjubljana

Transparency International EspañaMadrid

Transparency International SverigeStockholm

Transparency International SwitzerlandBern

Transparency International UKLondon

UNITED for Intercultural Action the European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants, refugees and minorities, Budapest

United Nations Convention against Corruption Civil Society Coalition

Villa Decius AssociationKrakow

Vietnam’s Defend the DefendersHanoi

Vietnamese Women for Human RightsSaigon

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human RightsHarare


[1] As documented by a number of internationally renowned human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and the ICJ. See, for example, the HRW World Report 2017, China and Tibet, available at:; China: call for action at UN on lawyers and other human rights defenders, available at:

[2]  The Functioning of the Judicial System in Azerbaijan and its Impact on the Fair Trial of Human Rights Defenders, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and Netherlands Helsinki Committee 2016, available at:

[3] See, for example: Human Rights and the Professional Responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors in the Work of CCJE and CCPE. Observations to the CCJE-CCPE Joint Report on “Challenges for Judicial Independence and Impartiality in the Member States of the Council of Europe”, Netherlands Helsinki Committee and Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 2017, available at:

[4] Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors on 23 April 1999.

[5] See, for example, Options for Promoting Human Rights Compliance by the International Association of Prosecutors, policy brief, October 2016

Petition to the International Association of Prosecutors

The Hague, 5 September 2017


Press statement by Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser 4 Sep 2017

The prospect of 3-cornered and even 4-cornered electoral battles in the next general election has now dawned on Malaysians. The delusional in Pakatan Harapan are in denial, claiming this will ultimately work out in favour of their candidates!

For those who have yearned for decades to see the end of BN hegemony and its racist, corrupt and unjust policies, such a scenario comes as a shocking reality especially when we recall the breakthroughs made to include PAS in the opposition electoral pact from the mid-Eighties.

Factions within PKR can see the ominous signs of disaster if they cut off PAS totally and have to face 3 or more cornered fights, while others in the same party seem to have developed an aversion to PAS similar to the fear and loathing of PAS currently expressed by DAP.

Is it a question of “Hudud it”?

Recently, we have seen PAS attempting to introduce a parliamentary Bill that has elements of an Islamic criminal justice system. According to PAS, such laws would apply to all Muslims and would not apply to non-Muslims. However, legal experts have pointed out that there will be cases that are not so cut-and-dried and that hudud-type laws will infringe the Federal Constitution guarantees of equality for all Malaysians before the law.

Nevertheless, as it involves constitutional amendments, the enactment of PAS’ hudud law would require an improbable two-thirds majority in the Parliament. The fact that such an outcome remains unrealistic, has in the past enabled Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition members to justify their engagement with PAS. It did not stop the DAP forging a successful coalition with Semangat 46 and PRM under ‘Gagasan Rakyat’ while S46 had in turn forged another coalition with PAS under ‘Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah’ during the 1990 general election.

Although the Opposition failed to defeat the BN, the attitude of Malay voters toward the DAP changed positively because of its alliance with S46, PRM and PAS. In fact, the realization of this Opposition Front and the hope of a multiracial challenge to the Barisan Nasional had been the main reason for the entry of civil rights activists including myself into the DAP in the first place.

PAS’ 1985 policy statement a game changer

Without a doubt, PAS’ policy statement in 1985 on equality of all peoples before Allah was a game changer. In October 1985, then PAS Vice-President Haji Abdul Hadi Awang made an important policy statement when he declared that “…the question of privileges for the Malays will not arise under Islamic law.”

At a stroke, PAS had undermined the communalist ideology of UMNO which had dominated the Malay community for so long. The contrast with Dr Mahathir’s call to UMNO members at the time to “defend their special rights by holding fast to the spirit of nationalism” could not be starker. It immediately evoked the predictable response from UMNO that PAS was “traitorous to the religion, race and country…selling out the birth right of the Malays.”

The then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir said the Attorney-General would have to determine if the speech was seditious. Even the Home Minister indicated that his Ministry was studying the speech. Not only was the Sedition Act invoked, some quarters maintained that Hadi’s speech was tantamount to treason. The only voice of reason emanated from the former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn who said:

“The Sedition Act should not be invoked too easily just because people express views which do not conform with established views…the authorities should not stretch the provision of the law to make every non-conformist statement seditious or the law itself would fall into disrepute. There is the political aspect which involves the rights of the people to express their views. If it is blatant, one has to be careful in invoking the Act as it involves the freedom of speech.” (The Star, 20 September 1985)

Engaging with PAS against UMNO hegemony

Seeing an opportunity to engage with the leaders of such a large Malay-based party and to combat the racist ideology of UMNO, it was not the DAP but the leaders in the Civil Rights Committee (CRC) of the Chinese Associations (of which I was a member) who initiated a dialogue with the PAS leaders in 1985.

During the 1986 general election campaign, leaders of the CRC went around the country calling on the Chinese electorate to vote for the Opposition coalition, including PAS. In 1990, quite a few of us civil rights activists led by Lim Fong Seng the erstwhile Chairman of Dong Zong joined the DAP in order to strengthen the Opposition Front.

We saw PAS as the largest party outside Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional coalition which was capable of attracting Malay votes for the Opposition coalition. From its establishment in 1951, it had entrenched itself as one of the country’s strongest opposition parties. Except for a short period from 1974 to 1978 when PAS joined the governing Barisan Nasional coalition, the party has otherwise been in opposition at the federal level for the entirety of its history.

PAS’s electoral base is in Malaysia’s rural and northern states although in recent years it has been attracting the urban middle class as well. The party has governed the northern state of Kelantan since 1990 and has also, in the past, formed governments in Kedah and Terengganu. The party currently holds 21 of the 222 seats in the federal House of Representatives and has elected parliamentarians or state assembly members in ten of the country’s 13 states.

DAP’s continual flip flops over associating with PAS

During my association with the DAP between 1990 and 1995, I observed their constantly shifting attitude toward PAS depending on the way they perceived their “Chinese ground” shifting. The debates within the party leadership over relations with PAS and Gagasan Rakyat revealed a very muddled mindset of the DAP leaders.

Events following the 1990 general election, especially the poor showing by S46 led predictably to the DAP leadership reappraising their relationship with Gagasan Rakyat. Thus, while S46’s other alliance with PAS had not posed a problem during the 1990 general election, by the time of the 1995 general election, the DAP leaders had started having second thoughts about any link at all with PAS claiming that their “Chinese ground” had been shaken.

Nevertheless, the civil rights activists argued that BN was still our main enemy and any policy or tactical adjustment should not detract from the task of weakening the BN through the six-point objectives of Gagasan Rakyat, namely:

–              To uphold the Federal Constitution;

–              To uphold democracy and human rights;

–              To uphold justice and the independence of the judiciary;

–              Defend the socio-economic rights of the people;

–              Oppose atrocities, corruption and abuse of power;

–              Strive for inter-ethnic harmony.

Agreement to these objectives did not change the ambivalent attitude of DAP leaders over engagement with PAS. During the subsequent leadership conference, a prominent DAP leader (who rose and rose irresistibly in the party leadership ranks) actually stood up to declare that, in his view, “PAS is our main political enemy”! He was visibly getting a load off his chest in response to an appeal to be clear in our minds as to who was our main political enemy.

Consequently, DAP decided to pull out of Gagasan Rakyat in 1995 apparently because they did not want to have a tainted association with PAS, even though their association that had not posed a problem in 1990.

The impetus for the formation of Barisan Alternatif was the Reformasi movement after the 1998 arrest and subsequent conviction of former UMNO deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. The Reformasi movement had set new political forces into play and on 24 October 1999 PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan formed an electoral alliance and issued a joint manifesto.

In the 1999 general elections, the BA cooperated to ensure only one candidate would contest in each constituency. PAS managed to capture the states of Kelantan and Terengganu and increased its parliamentary seats from 7 to 27. DAP increased its share from 7 to 10 but with two of its most prominent leaders, Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh losing their constituencies. This disappointing performance for DAP was again blamed on the DAP’s alliance with PAS. Keadilan took only 5 seats while the Barisan Nasional retained a 77% absolute majority with 148 of 193 seats.

With the disappointing results in the 1999 general elections, DAP once again began to review its alliance with PAS and shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York by Islamists, the DAP announced its withdrawal from the Barisan Alternatif on 21 September 2001.

The lessons of the 2004 general election

The split led to infighting between the opposition parties in the 2004 general election, resulting in many seats having multiple contestants. Nevertheless, it was a lesson to be learnt by the Opposition and by the 2008 general election the main opposition parties had realigned themselves to avoid three-cornered contests in that election.

On 1 April 2008, the leaders of PKR, DAP and PAS announced the new official alliance of Pakatan Rakyat and it led to the political tsunami at the 12th Malaysian general election. Together the three parties won 89 of the 222 parliamentary seats, its biggest electoral victory yet.

After the political tsunami of 2008, DAP did not have any problems being in the same coalition with PAS and PKR given their overwhelming support from the Malaysian electorate in the 12th Malaysian general election. In fact, during GE13 in 2013, there is a video in which the DAP Secretary General accepted PAS’ own commitment to the Islamic State while abiding by the common platform of PR.

Why was PAS kicked out of PR in 2015?

Why and when did the latest fallout between DAP and PAS start? Who exactly is responsible for the destruction of the painstaking efforts to construct the Opposition electoral pact all these years? NGOs and concerned Malaysians should demand to know the real reasons for PAS being kicked out of the Opposition coalition. We have been told that it is because of PAS’ commitment to the Syariah Amendment Bill. Is it really? Did Nik Aziz the former MB for Kelantan not legislate the same kind of Bill in the Kelantan State Assembly in the Eighties?

Those who have followed events will know that the rancour between DAP and PAS started well before the Syariah Bill in the Federal Parliament. Already during the silly ‘Kajang Move’ in 2014 we saw the former Selangor Menteri Besar being openly maligned by lesser DAP leaders for being inept and corrupt which was the justification for his ousting as Menteri Besar. Was the PAS President consulted about this frivolous byelection? The Kajang Move showed not only contempt for the voters in Kajang but also insensitivity toward the PAS leadership who were a part of the PR coalition.

What Malaysians saw during this Selangor Menteri Besar controversy was the contempt shown toward the PAS president not only in not being consulted from the start about the former MB’s alleged misconduct and the consequent “Kajang Move” but also in being set upon by DAP’s Rottweilers. There was clearly a dearth of leadership in Pakatan Rakyat that allowed lesser party leaders to be publicly insolent toward the president of a component party in the PR coalition. Before long, the DAP top leaders entered the fray with the DAP Secretary General calling the PAS President “mad” and “liar” among other things in the ongoing spat between the two PR parties. The coalition was formally declared disbanded by the DAP on 16 June 2015, citing their inability to work with PAS.

For all DAP leaders’ protestations about wanting to attract more Malay members, cursing the PAS supremo is not likely to endear the DAP to the grassroots PAS supporters all over the country. I am surprised DAP leaders think that the cosmetic efforts to co-opt a few Malay leaders into the DAP leadership can undo all the damage done by continually cursing the Malay-based party supremo!

Lack of electoral pact shows no resolve to replace BN

The disbanding of Pakatan Rakyat on 16 June 2015 after the DAP declared it could no longer work with PAS was a sad day for all Malaysians who had hopes for a viable alternative to the Barisan Nasional. In 2017, the DAP is now somehow willing and able to work with the man who was responsible for privatizing practically all of Malaysian industry and destroying whatever semblance of democracy we had in his 22 years in office … all because of the stated need to “save Malaysia”.

It is certainly a sad day for Malaysians who have carefully nurtured a working relationship with PAS since the Eighties, to see this Alternative Coalition wrecked by a total lack of sensitivity to coalition principles, human relationships and dearth of leadership.

This is a significant political turnaround by the DAP. Their current readiness to work with the erstwhile oppressor and autocrat of Malaysia requires a more responsible political economic analysis by the DAP leadership to justify this volte face. They also owe the Malaysian people an analysis of class oppression in Malaysia today and how this ties in with their new agenda to “save Malaysia”.

The DAP leadership is now banking on their token Malay entrists and the former PAS “New Hopers” to get by. No doubt the DAP are complacent to rule Penang since ruling the state government is already the petty bourgeois’ dream come true. Does their “Malaysian Dream” involve the capture of the federal government in order to introduce real reforms for all Malaysians – social justice, democracy and human rights?

Atrocities in Rakhine State in Myanmar Must Stop and Allegation of Crime against Humanity Must be Investigated

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is gravely concerned with the on-going crackdown and violence against ethnic Rohingya in the Rakhine state of Myanmar and condemn the escalating human rights violations against the Rohingya community in Rakhine.

The preliminary investigations and inquiry by the United Nations has raised concerns that there may be crime against humanity committed in Myanmar. Despite grave allegations posed against the Myanmar government, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s resolution (A/HRC/RES/34/22) to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission was refused by the Myanmar government, further cementing the concerns that there are substantial human rights violations in the region.

The persecution of ethnic Rohingya stand as one of the worst human rights violations in the ASEAN region. The consistent threats posed against the community by the Myanmar government and the active attempt to eliminate the Rohingya from Myanmar can no longer be treated as merely crime against humanity but must be called as it is, a genocide.

Recognizing the plight of the Rohingya, Malaysia must play a proactive role to protect and promote the rights of the community within and outside of Malaysia. The protection of these rights including the rights to peaceful assembly afforded to Malaysians and to any foreign nationals including the Rohingya.

SUARAM is appalled by the attempts to deprive the Rohingya of their fundamental human rights and call for all stakeholders to uphold the rights of the Rohingya in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Recognizing the immediate need for intervention and the irreparable harm inflicted on the Rohingya, SUARAM calls for the Myanmar government to:

  • Cease all hostilities and military maneuvers by the Myanmar government in Rakhine;
  • Allow the proposed international fact-finding mission to enter Rakhine to investigate all allegations of crime against humanity and genocide;
  • Allow the entry of humanitarian outfits to provide assistance to refugees and casualties of the conflict.

SUARAM also calls for the Malaysian government to:

  • Intervene, on behalf of the Rohingya people, in all international and regional platform;
  • Summon the Myanmar Ambassador to Malaysia to answer for the on-going human rights violations in Myanmar;
  • And, to suspend diplomatic ties with Myanmar in the event of further escalations.

In Solidarity
Sevan Doraisamy
Executive Director


Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Interview with Rohingya’s fleeing from Myanmar since 9 October 2016

Resolution A/HRC/RES/34/22