Feb 12, 2019 | News
As the trial of twelve Catalan separatist leaders begins before the Spanish Supreme Court today in Madrid, the ICJ warns that their trial on broadly defined offences of rebellion and, possibly, sedition unduly restricts rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association.
“The very broad definition of the offence of rebellion being applied in this case risks unnecessary and disproportionate interference with rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia regional Director.
The twelve political leaders – including high-ranking Catalan government officials – have been charged in connection with their part in the administration on 1 October 2017 of a referendum on Catalonian independence.
The referendum was conduced despite having been declared illegal by the Constitutional Court.
The voting process during the referendum was partially suppressed by the police, with credible reports of the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force in breach of Spain’s international law obligations.
“Interference with peaceful political expression and protest must be justified as strictly necessary and proportionate under international human rights law. Where peaceful protests or political actions, even if declared unlawul by the authorities, provoke an excessive response by the police, it is solely the police and other state authorities who should be held responsible for the violence,” Pillay said.
“It is crucial that the Supreme Court, in its consideration of these charges, takes full account of Spain’s obligations under international human rights law,” she added.
The ICJ is concerned that prosecutors, and the Supreme Court in admitting the indictment in the case, have ascribed an unduly broad meaning to the offence of “rebellion” under article 472 of the Criminal Code.
According to that article, the offence requires violent insurrection to subvert the constitutional order.
But the referendum organizers are not accused of using or advocating violence.
Rather, they are being tried on the basis that they should have foreseen the risk of intervention and the use of force by the police.
It is therefore alleged that the defendants were criminally responsible for the violence that ensued from their decision to carry on with the referendum, despite it being declared illegal.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the use of force by Spanish law enforcement authorities during the repression of the referendum of 1 October 2017 was “legitimate and, as such proportionate”, international observers have concluded that such use of force was excessive and disproportionate.
In accordance with international human rights law, the mere fact that the use of force is considered to be legal under national law, does not of itself mean that it can be considered to be necessary and proportionate.
The Supreme Court has further already accepted that, if the facts alleged by prosecutors are proven, they could amount to the offence of sedition, which is committed by those that that rise up publicly and in a tumultous way, by force or by unlawful means, to impede the implementation of laws or of authorities’ orders.
“Vague, broadly defined offences of sedition or rebellion risk violation of the principle of legality, as well as arbitrary and disproportionate interference with human rights,” said Róisín Pillay.
“In a highly sensitive and politicised case such as that of the Catalonian referendum, they would set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of peaceful independence movements and political dissent, not only in Spain but internationally,” she added.
Several of the accused have already been held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods, further exacerbating the severity of the interference with rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and casting doubt on the proportionality of the response.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
The 12 people on trial in connection with the October 2017 referendum include Oriol Junqueras (photo), former Catalan vice-president; Carme Forcadell, former Catalan parliament speaker; eight former ministers in the Catalan government – Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Santi Vila, Meritxel Borràs, Dolors Bassa, Josep Rull, Carles Mundó -; Jordi Sànchez the former leader of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC); and Jordi Cuixart, former head of the independence organisation Òmnium Cultural.
The trial, which begins on 12 February in the Supreme Court in Madrid, is expected to last for several months.
Spain has obligations to protect freedom of expression, including political expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 21 and 22 ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on freedom of expression has affirmed that: “extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3 of article 19 ICCPR, which requires that restrictions on freedom of expression be provided for by law and must be necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as national security or public order .) Rights to participate in public life are protected under Article 25 ICCPR.
Feb 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, to retract his recent pronouncement that executions would resume in the country notwithstanding a moratorium on capital punishment that has lasted 43 years. The last execution was carried out in Sri Lanka in 1976.
“Resuming executions would be an egregious violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, a serious threat to human rights in the country, and it would be inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
Speaking in Parliament last week, President Sirisena vowed to resume executions of those convicted of “drug offences” as early as within the next two months.
The ICJ considers any resumption of executions in Sri Lanka as constituting a violation of international law and an appalling disregard for the international human rights system as a whole.
“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity,” Fredrick Rawski added.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances – as it constitutes a violation of the right to life and its imposition constitutes per se cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
The Human Rights Committee, the Treaty Body supervising the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Sri Lanka is bound, has recently made clear in its General Comment 36 on Right to life that, “it is contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 [of the ICCPR, which enshrines the right to life] for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty”, and that, “States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future. The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”
Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for “drug offenses” is incompatible with the Covenant.
The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe a an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.
It must be noted that Sri Lanka voted in favor of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution. This commitment should not be reversed, but upheld in practice instead, the ICJ says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reject the resumption of executions and to do away with the death penalty once and for all. Instead of planning on resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards, such as formulating policies and legislation that address the underlying social and economic causes of criminality, which are also vital to ensuring stability and the rule of law.
The ICJ also urges Sri Lanka to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
Feb 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International today called for the Government of Nepal to commit to a transparent and consultative transitional justice process that complies with international law and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Nepal.
On 6 February, the Government of Nepal extended the mandates of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearance of Persons (CIEDP) for an additional year and committed to the selection of new commissioners by April 2019.
Following the announcement, the ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International voiced concerns about past approach to transitional justice and urged the Government to ensure that the next two months are used to get the flawed process on track.
The organizations warned that this should not become another missed opportunity to ensure that victims are provided the justice, truth and reparation that they so desperately seek.
“A further one-year extension will be meaningless if measures are not taken to secure the independence and impartiality of the commissions,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
“This can only be achieved through a transparent selection process driven by a genuine will to combat impunity – not just for conflict victims, but for future generations,” he added.
The three organizations reiterated their view that the process to date has failed to deliver justice, truth or reparation for victims of crimes under international law and gross human rights violations or establish laws and institutional safeguards to ensure that such crimes are never repeated.
The organizations underscored the need for independent, competent and impartial commissions, compliance with international law, and the meaningful participation of conflict victims, civil society and National Human Rights Commission in the design and implementation of the process.
“This is a great opportunity for Nepal to learn from its past, as well as experiences from other post-conflict societies, that the credibility of transitional justice process ultimately lies on the integrity, competence, independence and expertise of the commissioners. The independence of the Commission, together with a legal framework in accordance with international law, will make or break the success of the commitment to guarantee justice, truth and reparation,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director of Amnesty International. “The process for appointing new commissioners must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Victims and civil society must have a robust opportunity to propose and vet candidates.”
The organizations also noted with disappointment that substantive legal concerns raised repeatedly by victims, civil society and the international human rights community have gone unanswered.
The government has not given a clear indication as to whether or how these concerns will be addressed.
“In addition to its obligation to ensure that conflict victims have access to an effective remedy and reparation, the authorities have a separate and independent obligation to investigate and if there is sufficient admissible evidence, prosecute those suspected of criminal responsibility in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts – and, if found guilty, punish them with appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of the crimes,” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Head of TRIAL International’s program in Nepal.
“These obligations are clearly established in international law, as well affirmed in ruling after ruling by the Supreme Court. It is about time that the Government stopped proposing measures that are clearly inconsistent with the letter and spirit of those judgements,” she added.
Concerns raised about existing, and proposed, legislation include: disparities between the definitions of specific crimes under international law and human rights obligations and violations under national, and international law; inadequate provisions to ensure that serious crimes under international law are subject to criminal accountability (including punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes); and a reliance on compensation at the expense of other forms of reparation and remedy for conflict survivors and their families
The ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International had previously submitted a legal analysis of draft transitional justice legislation circulated in 2018, including recommendations on how to ensure compliance with international law and good practices.
Feb 7, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has submitted a written statement on Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council ahead of its 40th Session in Geneva.
Almost ten years after Sri Lanka emerged from a period of conflict and massive human rights violations, the Government of Sri Lanka still has largely failed to implement its human rights obligations and commitments as reflected in Resolution 30/1.
The ICJ statement focuses on two of four transitional justice mechanisms which the Government committed to establish under the Resolution: (a) the judicial mechanism with special counsel to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; and (b) the office of missing persons. It highlights how female victims of war are uniquely impacted by the Government’s failure to implement the commitments made before the UNHRC and underscores the importance of holistically including women when such measures are implemented.
Recommendations:
The ICJ considers that the gravity and character of the crimes under international law committed in Sri Lanka, and the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to meet its obligations and commitments to ensure justice for such crimes including as provided for in resolution 30/1, means that referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability would be fully warranted. If however the Council does not choose to pursue these options at this stage, the ICJ urges the Council at minimum to:
- Continue the monitoring of Sri Lanka through the adoption of a new resolution to ensure that the Government complies with all its obligations and commitments as reflected in resolution 30/1.
- Provide for OHCHR to develop, with the Sri Lankan Government, an implementation strategy with definitive timelines to ensure that the time afforded under the new resolution is utilised to expedite the implementation of measures assured under Resolution 30/1.
- Encourage Member States to exercise universal jurisdiction in order to bring perpetrators to justice.
The ICJ urges the Government of Sri Lanka to:
- Take immediate measures to establish the judicial mechanism with international involvement as contemplated under operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 30/1. The mechanism should ensure gender parity, be accessible for women in civil society, and allow female victims to fully participate in the process.
- Spread awareness regarding the importance of certificates of absence and confirm to the community that issuance of a certificate will not result in the end of efforts to find the person.
- Ensure an overall gender strategy is integrated in all other transitional justice mechanisms that are yet to be established so that structural injustices against women, especially in terms of discrimination and lack of participation, are addressed.
(full text of submission, in PDF: UN-HRC40-SriLanka-WrittenStatement-2019-EN)
Feb 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern over amendments to Egypt’s 2014 Constitution proposed by the House of Representatives yesterday, which could increase President el-Sisi’s control over the judiciary, extend his rule for 15 more years, expand the jurisdiction of military courts’ to prosecute civilians and broaden the military’s powers.
The amendments were proposed by one-fifth of the House of Representatives on 4 February, and reported to Parliament by its General Committee yesterday.
“The proposed amendments are a flagrant assault on the independence of the judiciary, and would expand the powers of presidency and further facilitate el-Sisi’s subordination of judicial and prosecutorial authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The amendments would grant the President authority to choose the Supreme Constitutional Court’s (SCC) President and its new members, chairs of all other judicial authorities, and the Public Prosecutor.
The President would also have authority to select the Chair and members of the Commissioners Authority, a judicial board that provides advisory opinions to judges on legal issues in cases pending before the SCC.
The General Committee’s report states the amendments are to “unify the mechanism of appointment” of these institutions.
The amendments would also establish a “High Council for Joint Judicial Affairs” chaired by the President to manage all common matters relating to the judiciary.
The amendment to Article 140 of the Constitution would extend presidential terms from four to six years.
Another “needed transitional article” would reportedly also permit President el-Sisi to run for re-election for another two terms, which, combined, could permit him to stay in office until 2034.
Article 140 of the Constitution currently imposes a two-term limit, and Article 226 prohibits amendments to “texts pertaining to the re-election of the president of the Republic…unless the amendment brings more guarantees.”
“This is an attempt to undermine constitutional safeguards aimed at protecting the right of the Egyptian people to freely choose their government and to take part in the conduct of public affairs,” said Benarbia.
“In accepting these amendments, the Parliament would abdicate its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law,” he added.
Further amendments include the “redrafting and deepening the role of the Armed Forces” by expanding its mandate to include broad terms such as “safeguarding the constitution and democracy” and “preserving the basic elements of the state and its civilian character.”
The jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians for “direct assault[s]” against military facilities, objects and personnel would also be expanded by the removing the requirement that the assaults be “direct.”
The amendment would make permanent a temporary constitutional provision requiring the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—a military body—to approve the appointment of the Minister of Defense.
“The amendments effectively place the military above the law and the Constitution,” said Said Benarbia.
“They pave the way for the further entrenchment of the military in civilian affairs, which has already led to significant violations of civilian rights to participate in political life and express opinions critical of the regime,” he added.
Under international law, the jurisdiction of military courts must be limited to holding military personnel accountable for alleged violations of military discipline. No civilian should be prosecuted before military courts.
The amendments, which are still subject to parliamentary discussion and drafting by parliamentary committee, must eventually be approved in a two-thirds vote, and then by a majority in a referendum.
The ICJ expressed its concerns about the process for adoption of the 2014 Constitution, and its capacity to serve as a basis for the establishment of the rule of law in Egypt.
The ICJ made recommendations aimed at facilitating public participation in the legislative process in accordance with international standards and at ensuring constitutional provisions were consistent with international human rights law.
These concerns remain valid today.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ENG (full story with background infomation, in PDF)
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ARA (full story in Arabic, in PDF)
