FOCUS ASIAPACIFICAPRIL 2010 VOLUME 59

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

March 2015 Vol. 79

Contents

Editorial

Death Penalty in Central Asia
This article explains the moratorium on
execution of death row inmates in two
countries in Central Asia, and other issues
on those serving life or long-term sentences.
- Penal Reform International
Page 2

Death Row

Death Penalty: Fig Leaf for Government’s
IncompetenceThis article discusses the issue of using theexecution of death row inmates as a way todivert public attention from problems facedby the government in Taiwan.
- Lin Hsin-yi
Page 4

How many death row inmates have been subsequently proveninnocent of the crime they were convicted of? How many otherdeath row inmates who deserved to be declared innocent haveno hope of having that fate? And how many executed inmates
were later proven to have not committed the crime?

Champion Open Debate and Discourse on
Islamic Law
This is a call for a consultative process by
several concerned Malaysians to address theapplication of Islamic laws by religious
authorities that indicates “extreme
politicisation of race and religion” in the
country.
Page 6In our imperfect criminal justice system, people who areinnocent and have no means of maintaining appropriate defense
are doomed to face a higher probability of getting death
sentence. Poverty and discrimination cause innocent people toend up wrongly convicted and wrongly sentenced to die.

APCEIU: Facilitating Human Rights Educationin the Region
This article introduces APCEIU as an
institution that has continuously supported
human rights education in Asia and thePacific.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 9Human Rights and Businesses: Key Messages
This is the summary of key points raised
during the 14th Informal ASEM Seminar on
Human Rights held in Hanoi on 18-20
November 2014.
Page 12
Professor Dong-hoon Kim: A scholar whose
action was consistent with his thoughtThis is a tribute to the first Director of
HURIGHTS OSAKA who served from theopening of the center in 1994.
Page 15

Death penalty is not the only means of punishing those whohave been proven beyond any reasonable doubt of committing
the serious crime they were charged of. Life sentence deprives aperson of much of the human rights and freedoms many people
could enjoy. Lifetime imprisonment is a harsh punishment, evenin the best, modern and humane prison facilities. And it is abetter option than death penalty.
Death by execution is an injustice to an innocent person. It is aneasy way out for government that has the responsibility offinding the culprit, and having the appropriate punishment
served with due process properly respected.

1

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

Death Penalty in Central Asia
Penal Reform InternationalC

entral Asia presents a
unique picture of a region
on the cusp of abolition of thedeath penalty. Turkmenistan,
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan
abolished the death penalty inlaw in 1999, 2007 and 2008
respectively. In Kazakhstan andTajikistan, official moratoriums
have been in place since
January 2004 (in Kazakhstan)and July 2004 (in Tajikistan).
Between 2000 and 2010, theabolitionist Central Asian
countries all ratified the Second
Optional Protocol to theInternational Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (aiming at
the abolition of the death
penalty).
The moratorium in Kazakhstan
was imposed by Presidential
decree in December 2003. This
would make it easier to reverse
than Tajikistan’s, which passed alaw imposing the moratorium.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Ta j i k
moratorium covers both
executions and sentencing,while the Kazakh moratorium
only covers executions. Thismeans that (in theory) people
could still be sentenced todeath in Kazakhstan, eventhough there would be no way
for them to leave death row.
Currently, nobody is on deathrow in either country, as all
death sentences werecommuted following the
moratoriums. However, in bothcountries, the death penalty isretained in law and in theirconstitutions, raising the risk

th at ex e c u t i o n s c o u l d b e
resumed.
An additional issue is that theclassification of the death
penalty as a state secret makes
accountability almost
impossible. In both Kazakhstan
and Tajikistan, families were notinformed in advance about theexecution of their loved one,nor were the burial places ofexecuted persons revealed (inKazakhstan, families were toldof the location after two years).
In 2014, Kazakhstan completed
a reform of its Criminal Codes.
This did not abolish the death
penalty, instead slightly reduced
the number of death penaltyapplicable offences from 18 to
17. These offences are clusteredunder two headings of “acts ofterrorism resulting in death” and“ e s p e c i a l l y g r av e c r i m e scommitted during times of war,”
the two offences that can carry
the death penalty in theConstitution.
A study conducted on behalf ofPenal Reform International in2014, gauging public support
for the death penalty for
terrorism-related offences,
found that 72 percent did notwant the death penalty
abolished for terrorism-related
offences (though over half ofthat number wanted to retain
the moratorium). 37 percent of
all two thousand three hundred
thirty-seven respondents were
misinformed about the death2

penalty in Kazakhstan, as they
did not know that there was a
moratorium.
Tajikistan retains the death
penalty for five offences:murder; terrorism; rape of aminor; genocide; and biocide.
A review of the Criminal Codeis ongoing, though there is hopethat the death penalty will beabolished in the coming years.
A public opinion survey carriedout in 2013 for Tajik NGO Nota
Bene found that of over two
thousand respondents, 67
percent wanted the death
penalty abolished.
In neither country is the death
penalty applied to minors (thoseunder 18 at the time of theoffence) or to women of any
age. Men over 63 (in Tajikistan)or 65 (in Kazakhstan) at time ofsentencing cannot be sentenced
to death. Those not criminallyliable due to mental healthissues are also exempted.
Life imprisonment is now themost severe sanction that isused in all Central Asian
countries. In certain
circumstances this amounts tolife without the option ofparole, and where there is adeterminate “life” sentence, its
length is overly punitive.
In Kazakhstan, the prisoners
who were on death row at thetime the moratorium wasestablished had their sentences
commuted to life without theoption of parole. Following theFOCUS ASIAPACIFIC
moratorium, a new “life”
s e n t e n c e wa s c r e a t e d bylawmakers to replace the death
penalty, and established the
maximum sentence as twentyfive years imprisonment (thirty
years for cumulative offences).
This effectively established aparallel but discriminatory
system, whereby those initiallysentenced to death are serving aharsher sentence than thosesentenced after 2004. Tajikistan
also provides for whole life
sentences.
The number of life sentenced
prisoners is growing. In
November 2011, Kazakhstan
had ninety-five lifers (twentynine of whom are serving awh o l e l i f e s e n t e n c e ) a n d
Tajikistan fifty-two lifers. There
are no women or juveniles
serving a life sentence, and the
maximum age up to which a
man can be sentenced to life is
65 in Kazakhstan and 63 in
Tajikistan. Furthermore, thetypes of crime for which a life
sentence may be imposed raise
doubts about whether thissevere sentence is being used
only for the most serious ofoffences. For example, prior to
the introduction of the 2015
Criminal Code, Kazakhstan had
twenty-four crimes for which alife sentence may be imposed.
These included drug-related
offences, smuggling, andvarious non-lethal military
offences.
Th e g r o w i n g u s e o f l i f e
imprisonment in the region, its
disproportionate length andoverly punitive nature raise anumber of legal and practicalissues.
Across the region, people aresentenced to life after

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
proceedings which fail to meetinternational standards for a fairtrial as guaranteed under Article
14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), to which all
Central Asian countries arestate-parties. Although the rightto a fair trial is not impeded bya lack of legal guarantees, it isimpeded in practice. One of thefundamental problems lie in thefact that in the judicial systems
across the region, which dateback to the times of the Soviet
U n i o n , t h e o f fi c e o f t h eprosecutor
hasdisproportionately strong
powers, often exhibited throughits influence over the judiciaryand an unfair advantage vis-àv i s t h e a c c u s e d . Th i s i samplified by a judiciary that iso v e r l y i n fl u e n c e d by t h e
executive, lacks security oftenure, and is subject toallegations of corruption. As aconsequence thoroughinvestigations are not carriedout. Instead, investigations areoften focused only on collecting
e v i d e n c e s u f fi c i e n t t odemonstrate guilt rather thancollecting information that may
reveal innocence. This results innotoriously low acquittal rates.
Ineffective access to legal aid
for indigent defendants,
obstruction of detainees’ accessto a lawyer during the arrestand pre-trial stages, and lawyers
with limited expertise or
experience further undermine
the right to an adequate legal
defence.
Allegations of widespread illtreatment and torture madebefore, during or after trial byinvestigative and other officials
to obtain information also raise
serious concerns across the3

region. There is evidence todemonstrate that allegations of
torture are inadequately
investigated or are ignored, andalthough evidence obtained
under torture is legally
inadmissible in a court of law,
courts continue to rely on“confessions” extracted throughtorture as evidence in criminal
trials.
A harsh and discriminatory
prison regime, and a lack ofrehabilitation for life or longterm prisoners, reinforces thepunitive nature of life
imprisonment. Prison
conditions across the region are
far below international
standards. Improvements aredesperately needed to be madein terms of accommodation,
nutrition, sanitation, access to
medical and psychological care,visitation rights, sentenceplanning, and reformation andsocial rehabilitation programs
including work and education
programs. Life and long-term
prisoners are often separated
from the rest of the prison
population and kept under amuch harsher and stricter regime– including solitary confinement
and semi-isolation – which isunrelated to prison security, but
based on their legal status as
lifers. Financial and otherresources are under-committed,
demonstrating a lack ofprioritization by governments in
the region in upholding a humanrights model for theadministration of justice.
To their credit, concerns related
to fair trial safeguards andhumane sentencing practices
have prompted bothgovernment and civil society(Continued on page 8)

FOCUS ASIAPACIFICMARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

Death Penalty: Fig Leaf for Government’s Incompetence
Lin Hsin-yi

The spring of 2014 marked
the season of restlessness
and discontent in Taiwan. The
ruling party, the Kuomintang(KMT), made a unilateral moveon 17 March 2014 at theLegislative Yuan (Parliament)that would force the Cross-Strait
S e r v i c e Tr a d e A g r e e m e n t(CSSTA) with China to thelegislative floor without giving it
a clause-by-clause review aspreviously established in a June2013 agreement with the
opposition party, Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP). To
protest against the move of the
KMT, crowds of people thrusti n t o t h e L e g i s l a t ive Yu a nbuilding and occupied thelegislative floor on the eveningof 18 March 2014, while
several hundred protesters
remained outside the building
demanding the clause-by-clausereview of the CSSTA, and theadoption of public monitoring
rules before such review.
Hundreds of other protesters
tried to occupy the Executive
Yuan (Premier’s office) on thenight of 24 March 2014, butwere brutally dispersed by thepolice. The movement, alsoc a l l e d t h e S u n fl o w e r
Movement, lasted for twentythree days and received wide
attention from the international
media.
Soon after the anti-CSSTA
protest, on 27 April 2014, overfifty thousand people occupied
the main roads in front of the
Ta i p e i t r a i n s t a t i o n a n dparalyzed the traffic for an antinuclear energy road rally. At
2:30 a.m. on the following day(28 April 2014), Taipei Mayor
Hau Lung-bin ordered todisband the unarmed peacefulprotesters with water cannon,
causing injuries to several
people. The government’s brutal
action enraged Taiwan citizens.
However, the government did
not know how to respond to thedisappointment and anger fromthe civil society. Later, in theevening of 29 April 2014, news
came that the Minister ofJustice, Luo Ying-shay, hadsigned earlier in the day the firstbatch of death warrants; the firstwarrants she signed since taking
office. Five death row inmates,
Deng Guo-liang, Liu Yen-guo,
Dai Wen-qing, and brothers Du
Ming-lang and Du Ming-xiong
were subsequently executed.
The first transfer of power in thepast fifty-five years in Taiwan
took place in 2000. The thenelected President, Chen Shuibian, from the DPP announced
the policy of phasing out thedeath penalty. As a result, thenumber of executions
decreased every year sincethen. From 2006 onward, a defacto moratorium was appliedin Taiwan. Taiwan experienced
the second transfer of power in
2008, when Ma Ying-jeou fromthe KMT was elected President.
In 2009, the Taiwan governmentr a t i fi e d t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a lCovenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the4International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) by passing the
Act to Implement theInternational Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and theInternational Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. By 2009, four years had
passed without any executionsin Taiwan. Many human rights
workers and international death
penalty abolition organizations
had hoped to keep themoratorium. Moreover, theyh o p e d t h a t Ta i wa n c o u l dbecome the next death-penaltyfree country in Asia.
Contrary to these expectations,
the Minister of Justice, TsengYung-Fu, signed four death
warrants on 30 April 2010. Four
executions were carried out.
Execution of death row inmatescontinued in the succeeding
years: five in 2012, six in 2013,
and another six in 2014. Witht h e r a t i fi c a t i o n o f t h einternational human rights
covenants, the government not
only failed to reduce thenumber of executions; instead,
it increased the number of
executions every year. Tsengordered twenty-one executions
in total during his term. The
current Justice Minister, Luo
Ying-shay, has ordered to carryout five executions so far
despite her media statementthat she personally preferred theabolition of the death penalty
because she was a Buddhist.

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC
Everyone was puzzled. Why did
the government ratify theinternational human rights
covenants if it had no intention
to abide by them? Article Six of
ICCPR does not require a Stateparty to abolish the death
penalty immediately, however,i t c a n b e a f fi r m a t i v e l yconcluded that the State-parties
should reduce the use of thedeath penalty and work towards
i t s a b o l i t i o n . Th e Ta i wa n
government has completely
ignored its obligation. We
wonder why.
All the executions since 2010,
when the four-year moratorium
was lifted, took place when thegovernment approval rate waslow. For instance, executions
were carried out in 2010 aftert h e c o n t r ove r s y ove r t h eEconomic Cooperation
Framework Agreement (ECFA)
between Taiwan and China
broke out. More executions
were carried out after the reopening of investigation of thewrongly executed Air ForcePrivate Chiang Kuo-ching in
2011. In 2012 and 2013,
executions were ordered after
the disclosure of high-levelgovernment officials’ corruption
and serious criminal offenses
that fueled public indignation.
Finally, the executions in 2014
were obvious examples of using
execution to divert thefrustration of the people.
More and more Taiwanesepeople have seen through thegovernment’s problem-shiftingt a c t i c s . Th e D u B r o t h e r s
executed last year were actuallyfound not guilty in their district
court trial. In their case, theproblematic Cross Strait
Agreement on Cracking Down
on Crimes Collectively and

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
Judicial Cooperation between
Taiwan and China was applied
because the offense took placein China. Prior to the execution,
the Taiwan Alliance to End the
Death Penalty and the Taiwan
Association for Innocence bothconsidered their case as apotential wrongful conviction.
After the execution of the Du
Brothers, reactions from thesociety were remarkably
different from the otherexecutions in the past four
years. People started to question
the motivations of the executions
and were concerned that state
violence was threatening people
in various ways.
Taiwan still has a long way to
go before it abolishes the death
penalty. In my opinion, thegovernment constitutes thebiggest obstacle to the abolitionof death penalty since it takes
the lead in breaking the laws
and violating the internationalcovenants. Even though thegovernment has ratified the two
human rights covenants, it issimply unwilling to fulfill its
obligations. And since Taiwan is
not a member-state of theUnited Nations, the Human
Rights Committee does notrecognize its ratification of thetwo human rights covenants.
But for the death penalty
abolition organizations and thedefense lawyers, the passage ofthe law to implement theinternational human rights
covenants in Taiwan provided abasis for arguing cases in court
based on international humanrights standards. Failure to usethat law may even lead the
Taiwan government to shirk its
duty to fulfill the obligations
enshrined in the covenants.
Some preliminary results havebeen obtained by lawyers citing5

the international human rights
standards in courts. Before
2010, most appeals in theSupreme Court of defendants
with death sentences were notassisted by lawyers. This lack ofassistance from lawyers inappeals to the Supreme Court
was a widely accepted practiceand not considered unlawful.
But the practice could haveaffected the right to fair trial ofthe defendants. After 2012, withthe enforcement of the two
human rights covenants, allappeals of death sentences bydefendants in the Supreme
Court were mandatorily assisted
by defense lawyers. Court
hearings and oral debates havealso been held on theseappeals. This is one example ofa little progress on the way tothe abolition of the death
penalty. Nevertheless, we will
not give up hope and continue
to strive for the abolition of thedeath penalty.
--oOo-Additional information on thedeath penalty situation in
Taiwan can be found in thesearticles:Taiwan Alliance to End the
Death Penalty, When a
Trigger-Happy Government
Willfully Uses Violence toThreaten Its People, How
Can They Ask the People toRenounce Violence? ,www.taedp.org.tw/en/story/
2670.
The Death Penalty Project,
Th e D e a t h Pe n a l t y i n
Ta i w a n : A R e p o r t o n
Taiwan’s Legal Obligations
under the International(Continued on page 8)

FOCUS ASIAPACIFICMARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic
Law*
WE, a group of concerned
citizens of Malaysia, would liketo express how disturbed anddeeply dismayed we are overthe continuing unresolved
disputes on the position andapplication of Islamic laws inthis country. The debate overthese matters displays a lack ofclarity and understanding on
the place of Islam within ourc o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e m o c ra cy.
Moreover, they reflect a serious
breakdown of federal-state
division of powers, both in theareas of civil and criminal
jurisdictions.
We refer specifically to thesituation where religious bodies
seem to be asserting authority
beyond their jurisdiction; whereissuance of various fatwa
violate the Federal Constitution
and breach the democratic andconsultative process of shura;
where the rise of supremacist
N G O s [ n o n - g ove r n m e n t a lorganizations] accusing
dissenting voices of being antiIslam, anti-monarchy and antiMalay has made attempts atrational discussion and conflict
resolution difficult; and mostimportantly, where the use of
the Sedition Act hangs as aconstant threat to silence
anyone with a contrary opinion.
These developments undermine
Malaysia's commitment todemocratic principles and ruleof law, breed intolerance andbigotry, and have heightened

anxieties over national peaceand stability.
As moderate Muslims, we areparticularly concerned with thestatement issued by Minister
Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom,
in response to the Court ofAppeal judgment on the right oftransgendered women to dress
according to their identity. Heviewed the right of thetransgender community andSisters in Islam to seek redress
as a "new wave of assault on
Islam" and as an attempt to leadM u s l i m s a s t r a y, a n d p u t
religious institutions on trial in asecular court.
Such a statement from a federal
minister (and not for the firsttime) sends a public message
that the prime minister'scommitment to the path ofmoderation need not be taken
seriously when a cabinet
minister can persistently
undermine it.
These issues of concern weraise are of course difficult
matters to address given theextreme politicisation of raceand religion in this country. But
we believe there is a real needfor a consultative process thatwill bring together experts invarious fields, including Islamic
and constitutional laws, andthose affected by theapplication of Islamic laws inadverse ways.
We also believe the prime
minister is best placed with the6resources and authority to leadthis consultative process. It isurgent that all Malaysians areinvested in finding solutions tothese longstanding areas ofconflict that have led to thedeterioration of race relations,eroded citizens' sense of safety
and protection under the rule oflaw, and undermined stability.
There are many pressing issues
affecting all of us that need theurgent leadership and vision of
the prime minister, the supportof his cabinet and all moderate
Malaysians. They include:i) A plural legal system that has
led to many areas of conflictand overlap between civil andsyariah laws. In particular there
is an urgent need to review the
Syariah Criminal Offences(SCO) laws. These laws which
turn all manner of "sins" into
crimes against the state have led
to confusion and dispute inboth substance andimplementation. They are in
conflict with Islamic legal
principles and constitute a
violation of fundamental
liberties and state intrusion into
the private lives of citizens. In
1999, the cabinet directed theAttorney-General's Chambers toreview the SCO laws. But to thisday, they continue to be
enforced with more injustices
perpetrated. The public outrage,
debates over issues ofjurisdiction, judicial challenge,
accusations of abuses
committed,
genderFOCUS ASIAPACIFIC
discrimination, and deaths andinjuries caused in moral
policing raids have eroded thecredibility of the SCO laws, thelaw-making process, and publicconfidence that Islamic law
could indeed bring about
justice.
ii) The lack of public awareness,even among top politicalleaders, on the legal jurisdiction
and substantive limits of thepowers of the religious
authorities and administrationof Islamic laws in Malaysia. The
Federal Constitution is thesupreme law of the land andany law enacted, including
Islamic laws, cannot violate theConstitution, in particular theprovisions on fundamental
liberties, federal-state divisionof powers and legislative
procedures. All Acts,
Enactments and subsidiarylegislations, including fatwa, arebound by constitutional limits
and are open to judicial review.
iii) The need to ensure the rightof citizens to debate the ways
Islam is used as a source of
public law and policy in thiscountry. The Islamic laws of
Malaysia are drafted by the
executive arm of government
and enacted in the legislative
bodies by human beings. Theirsource may be divine, but theenacted laws are not divine.
They are human made andtherefore fallible, open todebate and challenge to ensurethat justice is upheld.
iv ) Th e n e e d t o p r o m o t eawareness of the rich diversityof interpretive texts and juristic
opinions in the Islamict ra d i t i o n . Th i s i n c l u d e s
conceptual legal tools that exist
in the tradition that enable

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
reform to take place and theprinciples of equality andjustice to be upheld, inparticular in response to thechanging demands, role andstatus of women in the family
and community.
v) The need for the prime
minister to assert his personalleadership as well as appoint
key leaders who will, in all
fairness, champion open andcoherent debate and discourseon the administration of Islamic
laws in this country to ensuret h a t j u s t i c e i s d o n e . We
especially urge that theleadership sends a clear signalthat rational and informed
debate on Islamic laws in
Malaysia and how they arecodified and implemented are
not regarded as an insult toIslam o r t o t h e re l i g i o u s
authorities.
These issues may seem complex
to many, but at the end of theday, it really boils down to this:as Muslims, we want Islamic
law, even more than civil law,
to meet the highest standards ofjustice precisely because it
claims to reflect divine justice.
Therefore, those who act in thename of Islam through theadministration of Islamic law
must bear the responsibility ofdemonstrating that justice isdone, and is seen to be done.
When Islam was revealed to ourProphet SAW in 7th century
Arabia, it was astoundingly
revolutionary and progressive.
Over the centuries, the religion
has guided believers throughharsh and challenging times. It
is our fervent belief that for
Islam to continue to be relevant
and universal in our times, theunderstanding, codification and

7

implementation of the teachingsof our faith must continue to
evolve. Only with this, canjustice, as enjoined by Allah
SWT, prevail.
The above letter was issued in
the names of 25 prominent
Malaysians listed below.
Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Din,
Former Secretary-General,
Ministry of Home Affairs
Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar,
Former Secretary-General,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tan Sri Dr Aris Othman, Former
Secretary-General, Ministry of
Finance
Tan Sri Dr Ismail Merican,
Fo r m e r D i r e c t o r- G e n e r a l ,Ministry of Health
Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Mohd
Kassim, Former SecretaryGeneral, Ministry of Finance
Tan Sri Dr Mustaffa Babjee,
Fo r m e r D i r e c t o r- G e n e r a l ,Veterinary Services
Tan Sri Nuraizah Abdul Hamid,
Former Secretary-General,M i n i s t r y o f E n e r g y,
Communications andMultimedia
Tan Sri Dr Yahya Awang,
Cardiothoracic Surgeon andCore Founder National Heart
Institute
Datuk Seri Shaik Daud Md
Ismail, Former Court of Appeal
Judge
Datuk Abdul Kadir Mohd Deen,
Former Ambassador
Datuk Anwar Fazal, Former
Senior Regional Adviser, UN
Development Programme

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

Datuk Dali Mahmud Hashim,
Former Ambassador

Datuk Ranita Hussein, Former
Suhakam Commissioner

Datuk Emam Mohd Haniff
M o h d H u s s e i n , Fo r m e r
Ambassador

D a t u k R e d z u a n Ku s h a i r i ,Former Ambassador

D a t u k Fa r i d a h K h a l i d ,Representative of Women's
Voice
Datuk Latifah Merican Cheong,
Former Assistant Governor,
Bank Negara Lt Gen (Rtd)Datuk Dr Sharom Ahmat,
Former Deputy Vice-Chancellor,
Universiti Sains Malaysia

Datin Halimah Mohd Said,
Former Lecturer, Universiti
Malaya and President,
Association of Voices of Peace,
Conscience and Reason

Datuk Syed Arif Fadhillah,
Former Ambassador

Puan Hendon Mohamad, Past
President, Malaysian Bar

Datuk Maulob Maamin,
Lieutenant General (Rtd)Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad,
Fo r m e r D i r e c t o r- G e n e r a l ,Malaysian Timber Industry
Board

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin,
Former Ambassador

Datuk Zainuddin Bahari,
Former Deputy Secretary-

Death Penalty in Central Asia

Kyrgyzstan is the establishmentof National Preventative
Mechanisms (NPM) under the
Optional Protocol to theConvention against Torture(OPCAT). These bodies have theauthority to enter andinvestigate places of detention,and (it is hoped) will serve as am e ch a n i s m t o e f f e c t iv e l yprevent torture and ill-treatment
towards those serving the most
severe of sentences.

(Continued from page 3)

across the region to engage
actively in various reform
programs aimed at humanizing
the criminal justice and penal
systems, and establishing more
stringent controls. However,these reform processes arehaving a slow or limited effecton those who are accused of, orsentenced to, life imprisonment.
One important reform that istaking place in Kazakhstan and
Death Penalty in Taiwan(Continued from page 5)

Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, 2014, fullreport available at http://
portfolio.cpl.co.uk/DPP/
Taiwan-report/1/.
European Economic andTrade Office, The European

General, Ministry of Domestic
Tra d e , C o - o p e ra t ive s a n d
Consumerism

This article is based on Penal
Reform International’s 2012

Union and death penalty in
Ta i w a n ,http://
eeas.europa.eu/delegations/taiwan/eu_taiwan/h u m a n _ r i g h t s /abolition_death_penalty/
index_en.htm.
Lin Hsin-yi is the Executive
Director of the Taiwan Alliance
to End the Death Penalty.

8* Reprinted with permission
from The Daily Star newspaper(www.thesundaily.my) which
published this document on 9
December 2014.

report “The abolition of thedeath penalty and its alternatives a n c t i o n i n C e n t ra l A s i a :Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan,” available fromwww.penalreform.org.
For further information, pleasecontact: Penal Reform
International’s Head Office,60-62 Commercial Street,
L o n d o n E 1 6 LT, U n i t e d
Kingdom; ph (44 20) 7247
6515; fax (44 20) 7377 8711;
e-mail: info@penalreform.org;
www.penalreform.org.

For more information, pleasecontact: Lin Hsin-yi, Taiwan
Alliance to End the Death
Penalty, Rm. 2, 10F, No. 26,
Sec. 2, Minquan E. Rd.,
Zhongshan Dist., Taipei city,
Taiwan; ph (8862) 2571-8677;
fax (8862) 2571-8679; e-mail:taedp.tw@gmail.com;
www.taedp.org.tw.

FOCUS ASIAPACIFICMARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

APCEIU: Facilitating Human Rights Education in the
RegionHURIGHTS OSAKAT

he 30th General
Conference of UNESCO(November 1999) resolved toestablish the Asia-Pacific Centreof Education for International
Understanding (APCEIU) in linewith UNESCO’s responsibility
to “promote education forinternational understanding,justice, freedom, human rights
and peace.” 1 The General
Conference resolution statesthat themain function of the
proposed centre is to carryout regional cooperative andcollaborative work in the fieldof education for international
understanding, inter alia on
research and development,
training, teaching materials
development, information
dissemination, andinternational conferences
and/or workshops...2

Th e Ko r e a n g ove r n m e n t
supported the establishment of
APCEIU in 2000, and continues
to provide financial support for
its operations in line with its
formal agreement with
UNESCO.
UNESCO recognizes APCEIU as
its focal point3 for centers under
its Education Sector Category
2.4 APCEIU has been holding
various activities every year
including training workshops,
preparation of publications,teacher exchanges, research

APCEIU photo, 2014

and development
educational resources.

of

Recently, its programs havebeen linked to the United
Nations (UN) Global Education
First Initiative (GEFI) launchedin 2012 to foster global
citizenship.
Flagship Training Program
APCEIU's flagship trainingp r o g ra m , t h e A s i a - Pa c i fi c
Tr a i n i n g Wo r k s h o p o n
Education for International
Understanding (APTW), hasbeen held annually since 2001.
Designed as a “Training ofTrainers (TOT) program,” APTW
aims to enhance theparticipants' knowledge, skills,
and commitment to Education
for International Understanding(EIU) and further enable them to9competently design andimplement EIU training
activities in their local andnational contexts. The 2014
program had the theme "EIU,
Fostering Global Citizenship,"and provided a platform whereparticipants could learn,experience, share and reflect
upon various issues on
education to foster global
citizenship in today's complex,
i n t e r c o n n e c t e d s o c i e t y.
Fostering global citizenship is
one of the three key priorities of
the UN's Global Education First
Initiative (GEFI) and is in linewith EIU's core values in termsof the promotion of learning tolive together in order to forge
more just, peaceful, andinclusive societies.
The intensive nine-day 2014
APTW included lectures,

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC
discussions, workshops, indepth seminars, field visits,
action plan development aswell as formal and informal
work in small groups. It washeld in Seoul and in an
educational center inside avillage in the demilitarized zone
(DMZ) on 21-29 August 2014.
2014 APTW Objectives
The objectives of APTW for2014 included the following:• To expand the participants'
understanding andknowledge of key concepts
and principles of EIU/GCE;• To reorient the participants'
perspectives towards a
Culture of Peace throughc r i t i c a l a n d r e fl e c t i v eanalysis of the current
educational issues;• To s t r e n g t h e n t h eparticipants' practical skills
to design and implement
EIU/GCE training programs
tailored to their respective
local context.
APCEIU defines Education forInternational Understanding(EIU) as a holistic and multidimensional educational
initiative to promote learning tolive together for a Culture ofPeace. EIU advocatesp a r t i c i p a t o r y d e m o c r a c y,human rights and dignity, social
a n d e c o n o m i c e q u i t y,ecological sustainability, andpeaceful reconciliation ofc o n fl i c t s . E I U p e d a g o g yemphasizes transformative andinclusive education, relevanceof knowledge, empowerment oflearners, as well as holistic
approaches. To APCEIU, EIU isinterchangeably called Global
Citizenship Education (GCE).

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
ProgramTh e 2 0 1 4 A P T W h a d s i x
subthemes, namely, EIU, humanrights e d u c a t i o n , c u l t u ra ldiversity and intercultural
understanding, education for
global/local justice, education
for sustainable futures, andeducation for peaceful conflict
resolution. Human rights arealso partly discussed in theother subthemes. There is also asession on pedagogy.
The training program also hadsignificant time allotted to thedevelopment of plans on how
to implement EIU/GCE programin the participants’ respective
areas of work.

APTW has the advantage of
having support from both theUnited Nations (through its
status as a UNESCO-mandated
institution) and the national
governments (through the
National Commissions for
UNESCO which in many cases
are under either the Ministry of
Education or the Ministry ofForeign Affairs5). Its activities onother issues have been
supported by UNESCO AsiaPacific Education Bureau and incollaboration with the Southeast
Asia Ministers of Education
Organization (SEAMEO).
Role of HURIGHTS OSAKA

School teachers, school
administrators, education
ministry officials, education
institute officers, university
professors and officials, andofficers of the UNESCO National
Commissions have participatedin the APTW throughout its
fourteen years of existence.

HURIGHTS OSAKA had theopportunity to contribute to thedevelopment of APCEIU's
human rights education
program in its early stage
through the 2000 “Regional
Workshop on Human Rights in
Asia and the Pacific: Challenges
and Strategies for the Protectionof Human Rights” organized by
the Korean National
Commission for UNESCO(KNCU) and the then ACEIU.6
Th e a c r o ny m AC E I U wa s
subsequently changed to
APCEIU. This collaboration was
repeated in 2003 through theconference entitled “Human
Rights Education in Asia-Pacific:
Challenges and Strategies” heldin Bangkok.7 In both activities,
representatives of nongovernmental organizations
were the main participants.

The participation of educatorsand education officials fromdifferent subregions of the AsiaPacific is a significant merit of
APTW. Among the programs
that provide the study of humanrights at the Asia-Pacific level,

HURIGHTS OSAKA has
likewise been invited toparticipate in a number of
APCEIU-organized/supported
conferences and workshops
including the 2013 and 2014
APTWs.

Participants
APTW facilitates the training of
educators and education
officials from different countries
in Asia-Pacific. It has given
particular attention to educatorsfrom Central Asia (including
Ky r g y z t a n , U z b e k i s t a n ,Kazakhstan, Afghanistan andI r a n ) , a n d S o u t h Pa c i fi c(including Fiji, Vanuatu, andSolomon Islands).

10

FOCUS ASIAPACIFIC
Regional Task
APCEIU clearly falls within the
category of institutions thatprovide human rights education.
As a UNESCO-mandated
institution, APCEIU has thestatus that allows it to promote
human rights in the field of
education among governments.
The financial support provided
by the Korean government,
which is relatively substantialconsidering the programs andprojects being handled year
after year, supplies the stability
that is needed in regional
programs.
APCEIU is a much-welcomed
support for human rights
education in the Asia-Pacificregion.
For more information, pleasecontact: Asia-Pacific Centre of
Education for International
Understanding (APCEIU), 26-1
Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul,
Republic of Korea 152-050; ph(82-2) 774-3933; fax (82-2)
774-3958;
e-mail:MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
ent@unescoapceiu.org ;www.unescoapceiu.org.
Endnotes
1 Text from resolution adopted on
the report of Commission II at
the 26th plenary meeting, on 17
November 1999, UNESCO,
Records of the General
Conference, 30th Session, Paris,
October to November 1999,
pages 39-40.
2 Ibid.
3 Network of UNESCO Category
2 Centres of Education, http://
category2.unescoapceiu.org/.
4 Education Sector Category 2
CentresCategory 2 Centres arerecognized as an important
extension of UNESCO's
programme delivery arm anda means to raise UNESCO's
profile in Member States. All
Category 2 Centres in
education contribute to one
or more of the Sector'spriority areas of teachers,
literacy, TVET[TechnicalVocational Education andTraining], and sector-wideplanning.
Category 2 Centres also
provide opportunities toshowcase and share the

APCEIU photo, 201411

capacity, technical expertise,and knowledge of Member
States. They can facilitate
regional networking and havethe potential to act as
resource hubs in specificeducation fields.
Source: www.unesco.org/new/
en/education/worldwide/
unesco-institutes-and-centres/
education-centres/.
5 It should be noted however that
the Korean National
Commission for UNESCO(KNCU), while receivings u p p o r t f r o m t h e Ko r e a ngovernment, is an autonomous
institution. The 1963 law thatcreated it provides for the“autonomy of the organization,
its finances and programmemanagement.” See the website
of KNCU, www.unesco.or.kr/
eng/front/about_us/
global_02.asp.
6 See report on the workshop,“Workshop for Human Rights
NGOs in Asia and the Pacific,”
FOCUS Asia-Pacific, volume 22,
December
2000,
www.hurights.or.jp/archives/
focus/section2/2000/12/
workshop-for-human-rightsngos-in-asia-and-thepacific.html.
7 This conference was organizedin cooperation with the AsiaPacific Regional Resource
Center for Human Rights
Education (ARRC) and
HURIGHTS OSAKA. See reporton the conference, “Challenges
and Strategies for Human Rights
Education in Asia-Pacific,”
FOCUS Asia-Pacific, volume 22,
December
2003,
www.hurights.or.jp/archives/
focus/section2/2003/12/
challenges-and-strategies-forhuman-rights-education-in-asiapacific.html.

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

14th Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights
Human Rights and Businesses : Key Messages*

While States remain themain duty bearers ofhuman rights obligations, theprivate sector has a growing
responsibility to ensure theprotection and promotion ofhuman rights in all its activities.

Th e 1 4 t h I n f o r m a l A S E M
Seminar on Human Rights wasorganised by the Asia-Europe
Foundation (ASEF), the Raoul
Wa l l e n b e r g I n s t i t u t e ( a sdelegated by the Swedish
Ministry for Foreign Affairs), theFrench Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and International
Development and thePhilippine Department of
Foreign Affairs. It was hosted by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofVietnam and brought together
over 125 official government
representatives and civil society
experts, representing 47 ASEM
members to discuss theprotection and promotion ofhuman rights in the businesssector. Additional events at the
Seminar included side-eventson Collective Bargaining and on
National Action Plans on
Business and Human Rights. In
addition, a panel discussion
was organised on the role of theprivate sector in protecting
migrant workers’ rights during
the closing plenary session.
There was an overall consensus
that the UN Guiding Principles
on Human Rights and Business(UNGPs) provide a common
framework of globally agreed
principles that should bepromoted and consistently
applied across all ASEM
member countries as a means offraming policies and practices
at the national and regional
level. All ASEM members
should develop National Action
Plans (NAPs) to implement the
UNGPs effectively.
At the country level, existinglegislations that protect humanrights should be strengthened
and effectively implemented. Inorder to achieve government
policy coherence, businessrelated human rights should[be] integrated into theportfolios of all government
departments that touch upon
the subject. States should put
human rights and business on
the agenda of international
meetings and inter-regional
dialogue, including thosemeetings that take place on
trade, exports and investment.
Regional mechanisms that
document, evaluate and share
best practices in human rights
and business are required tostrengthen policy coherence
across Asia and Europe; such an
institution could be set up at the
ASEM level.
By failing to protect humanrights, businesses can lose theirsocial license to operate which
can have disruptive
consequences for theiro p e r a t i o n s . Th e i s s u e o f
corporate governance is key forstrong compliance measures tobe incorporated and some

12

multinational enterprises(MNEs) are increasingly
motivated to incorporate humanrights into their core businessactivities. In comparison, small
and medium enterprises (SMEs)
may lack the financial resources
and technical know-how to
i n c o r p o ra t e h u m a n r i g h t s
concerns into their daily
business operations.
Governments need to build
awareness and sensitisebusinesses, particularly SMEs, totheir human rights
responsibilities. Clarity on
concepts regarding CSR andhuman rights in business will
help create a consensus ofunderstanding and assist in theengagement of companies.
Companies should conductboth detailed human rights due
diligence and impact
assessments in their value chain
management. As various
industry codes of conduct are
already imposed on suppliers
there needs to be a coordinatedapproach for social audits
which can enhance theimplementation process on
business and human rights bycompanies in their value chain
management. States themselvespurchase a large variety of
products and services throughState-led procurement systems
which can be an effective tool
to promote and build awarenesson corporate responsibility forhuman rights among companies
which do business with stateagencies.

FOCUS ASIAPACIFIC
Remedy – as defined in the
UNGPs – can take on various
characteristics and functions but
a focus upon the risks andeffects on the victim may be agood frame for articulating aneffective remedy. Victims ofbusiness-related human rights
abuses face a range of legal andpractical barriers in their accessto effective remedy and mayneed support in receiving therequisite knowledge, skills andresources to do so. It is
important to extend full
protection to human rights
defenders working in the area ofcorporate accountability andhuman rights and business;
awareness-raising amongst
national law enforcement andjudicial authorities is requiredin this regard.
States should encourage support[for] both judicial and nonjudicial mechanisms. When
non-judicial (both State based
and non-State based) grievancemechanisms are engaged,
adequate protection to thevictims and efforts to ensure
fairness in both process andoutcome are required andefforts to ensure transparency,such as the effective applicationof freedom of information
legislation need to bestrengthened.
States and internationalorganisations should support
and work with multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) tolearn what human rights means
to business. MSIs can bridge the’language gaps’ between policy
makers and businesses byemphasising a specific objective
or context in which companies
operate, through reference torisk management, minimum
wages, occupational health and

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
safety. In addition to helping
businesses align their activities
with the UNGPs, MSIs should
develop a roster of goodpractices with regard to theoperationalisation of humanrights in business practices.
Th e S e m i n a r c o nve n e d 4
working groups for direct andin-depth discussion on therelationship between businesses
and human rights protection.
The working groups focused on
the state duty to protect humanrights against violations bybusinesses; corporate
responsibility and its
contribution to human rights
implementation; monitoring,
reporting and access toremedies; and multi-stakeholder
cooperation. Detailed reports of
the individual working group
discussions can be found in thecomplete Seminar Report,
which will be circulated by theorganisers.
General Recommendations to
ASEM Countries
1. States should implement
the UNGPs at the national
level and develop National
Action Plans (NAPs) on
human rights and business
which are fully inclusive,
participatory andtransparent.
2. States should adhere to
their existing international
human rights and labour
commitments by improving
the implementation ofnational legislation that
promote and protect humanrights. National reportingon human rights in businessshould be incorporated into
existing processes such as
the Universal Periodic

13

Review and other treaty
reporting.
3. States need to identify
appropriate measures toregulate and engage with
Multi-National Enterprises(MNEs) and Small andMedium Enterprises (SMEs)
to ensure compliance ofhuman rights standards.
a) All companies should be
required to report on the
non-financial impact of
their activities both athome and abroad.
Human rights impact
assessments should be arequirement for all new
business developments.
b) S M E s s h o u l d b e
encouraged to participate
in the United Nations
G l o b a l C o m p a c t ’s
national networks asthese can support
businesses in their CSR
and human rights
commitments.
c) Business responsibilities
on human rights
protection should be
integrated into start-up
support and advice
provided by publicagencies to newcompanies, especially
SMEs.
d) States should consider
developing soft
incentives (such aspreferential treatment inpublic procurement or inexports support) as ameans to encouragebusinesses to adopt goodpractices.
4. Human rights impact anddiligence is important insupply chain management.
Corporate human rights
codes for suppliers could
be standardized to covermost of the requirements

FOCUS ASIAPACIFC
that are applicable to allc o m p a n i e s . S i m p l i fi e dcompliance requirements
will allow for a harmonizedbase for social audits.
5. When governments act asinvestors, procure goods or
privatise the delivery of
public services, they should
aim to safeguard humanrights by: a) Following asocially-responsible
investment approach thatencompasses human rights
in all State investment
policies; b) Ensuringtransparency in the public
procurement process as aprecondition of monitoring
and accountability; c)Incorporating human rights
impact assessment into
privatisation processes; d)Integrating human rights
standards into publicawarded contracts andservice user agreements (forexample, through theA A AQ o r Ava i l a b i l i t y,
Accessibility, Acceptability
and Quality criteria).
6. Independence, integrity andimpartiality of the judiciaryand the judicial system are
critical to ensuring accesst o e f f e c t i v e r e m e d y.
Transparency and access to
information are imperative
to ensure victims are fully
aware of the facts as well as
the processes available tothem. It is the State’s duty toensure that this is
maintained as part of astrong rule of law.
In
addition, States should
support non-judicial
mechanisms which are an
important complement tojudicial grievancemechanisms and can haveboth remedial andpreventive functions.

MARCH 2015 VOLUME 79
7. Strengthening the capacityof victims as well as civilsociety groups (NGOS,
trade unions) and otherinstitutions such as national
human rights institutions(NHRIs) that can support
them in their pursuit ofremedies is necessary. Free
legal aid for victims
bringing human rightsrelated cases is one meansof ensuring this.
8. To enable NHRIs fulfill their
Paris Principles mandate on
human rights and business,certain measures areneeded, such as: a)
Safeguarding theindependence of NHRIs; b)
Ensuring NHRI mandates
are adequate to address andremedy human rights andbusiness – related abuses;c) Training and resources towork on human rights andbusiness issues.
9. The UNGPs note that multis t a k e h o l d e r i n i t i a t iv e s( M S I s ) h ave i m p o r t a n t
contributions to make tothe field of business andhuman rights. Governments
a n d i n t e r g ove r n m e n t a lorganisations should workwith MSIs to share bestpractice of the corporate
responsibility to respecthuman rights and assist
firms in exercising humanrights due diligence. MSIs
can help States andintergovernmentalorganisations reach acrossthe legal and policy
limitations of internationallaw and focus on what
human rights means tobusiness.
10. MSIs are not an end inthemselves. Their
effectiveness is dependent
on their internal dynamics
and governance, and on

14

their level of transparency
and accountability to all
stakeholders. In this regard,a) MSIs need to engage
SMEs also and not just large
businesses; b) National
Action Plans must include
the role MSIs can play; c)
MSIs themselves may need
to be aligned with theguiding principles. They
may need to have their own
grievance and reporting
mechanisms.

For further information, pleasecontact: Asia-Europe
Foundation (ASEF), 31 Heng
Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore
119595; ph (65) 6874 9744;
fax (65) 6872 1206; e-mail:ratna.mathailuke@asef.org;
www.asef.org.
* This is the official documenton the key messages of the14th
Informal ASEM Seminar on
Human Rights (18-20
November 2014, Hanoi), andpublished with permission fromASEF.

FOCUS ASIAPACIFICMARCH 2015 VOLUME 79

Professor Dong-hoon Kim: A scholar whose action
was consistent with his thought
Makoto KuboM

ost dictionaries defineinternational law as thelaw governing relations amongstates. However, the characterof international law radicallychanged after the second WorldWar.
The inclusion of thehuman rights promotion andprotection provision in the
United Nations Charter
integrated human rights law
into international law; thus
extending the reach ofinternational law to relations
between states and individuals.
This epoch-making change ininternational law met strongr e s i s t a n c e ; c o n s e q u e n t l y,international human rights law
took a long time to berecognized as a specific field of
law study.
In Japan, Professor Dong-hoon
Kim was one of those who
worked hard for the recognitionof the international human rights
law as a legitimate field of law
study. He was a disciple of oneof the pioneer legal scholars on
international human rights law
in the country, the late Professor

Shigejiro Tabata, who organized
the Kyoto International Law
Research Association.
Professor Kim showed his
admiration for Professor Tabata
by dedicating his major lifetime
work, the book entitled
Kokusaijinkenhou to Mainoriti
no Chii (International Human
Rights Law and the Status of
Minorities), to Professor Tabata.
But Professor Kim was not only
a scholar; he was also an
activist. He was very much apart of the domestic humanrights movement that pressured
the Japanese government to
ratify various international
human rights conventions. He
was also part of theinternational human rights
movement on the elimination of
all forms of discrimination. He
helped in the founding of theInternational Movement Against
All Forms of Discrimination andRacism (IMADR), the first Japanbased international humanrights non-governmentalorganization to obtain aconsultative status with theUnited Nations Economic
and Social Council(ECOSOC).
Professor Kim was involvedin the founding of the AsiaPa c i fi c H u m a n R i g h t s
Information Center(HURIGHTS OSAKA), andsubsequently became its

15

first Director in 1994. He wasinvolved in both domestic andregional activities of
HURIGHTS OSAKA. Despite
his many commitments as
academic and activist, Professor
Kim implemented the objectivesof HURIGHTS OSAKA throughprojects and activities that weremeant to serve the Asia-Pacificregion.
After retiring from his teaching
post at the Ryukoku University,where he was Professor
Emeritus, and as Director of
HURIGHTS OSAKA, Professor
Kim continued to actively
facilitate collaboration among
the people in Japan and South
Korea, his home country.
On 15 May 2014, Professor
succumbed to cancer. He was aloss to the human rights
movement in Japan andbeyond. He was a scholar
whose action was consistent
with his thought.
Makoto Kubo teaches
international law at the Osaka
Sangyo University.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA is preparing a training manual on business and human rights in the context ofNortheast Asia. Partner-institutions from China, Korea and Mongolia will join HURIGHTS OSAKA indeveloping the training manual. This training manual follows the publication of a research project on
business and human rights (Bridging Human Rights Principles and Business Realities in Northeast Asia,
2014).

JAPONTAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights
in the Asia- Pacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international
community; 3) to ensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raise human rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order to achieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is edited by Osamu Shiraishi, Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA.
Sender: HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
8F, CE Nishihonmachi Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005
Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002 
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Website: http://www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA