May 31, 2018 | News
The European Court of Human Rights has found that Romania and Lithuania violated the human rights of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah.
The court underlined both countries’ complicity in the ill-treatment of the pair while they were held in US secret detention facilities in these countries.
The judgments are a key milestone in holding European governments accountable for their involvement in illegal CIA activities in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.
“The US could not have operated the rendition and secret detention programme without its European allies. Today’s landmark rulings break the conspiracy of silence that has surrounded the presence of these secret sites in Lithuania and Romania, and publicly underlines European governments’ widespread complicity,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights.
“The rulings are an important milestone of accountability for victims of these flagrantly illegal practices.”
Al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah, currently in the US Guantánamo Bay detention facility, were subjected to enforced disappearance and torture as part of the rendition programme.
The European Court held that both governments are responsible for the men’s unlawful detention and ill-treatment in CIA ‘black sites’.
A December 2014 report by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence included details of al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah’s torture, but the names of the countries where people were held in secret sites were redacted. Courts in the USA have declined to hear cases related to the CIA operations deferring to US government claims that information about the sites should be protected as “state secrets”. There has been virtually no accountability for such abuses in the US.
“These rulings are a further step towards establishing the truth about European complicity in renditions and secret detentions, and holding European states accountable for their involvement. But the Lithuanian and Romanian governments were not alone. Many other European governments colluded with the US to illegally transfer, ‘disappear’ and torture people during rendition operations and must also be held accountable,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the International Commission of Jurists’ (ICJ’s) Europe and Central Asia Programme.
Amnesty International and ICJ intervened in both proceedings (see Al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah). The organizations submitted evidence, context and expert opinion in light of precedents within the court and elsewhere.
On 13 March 2018, at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri began his 800th week in US custody. Abu Zubaydah is also imprisoned there, but has not been charged with any crime.
Amnesty International and ICJ have repeatedly called for the closure of the facility and the fair trial or release of those detained.
The judgments follow previous rulings against Poland, Italy, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for their roles in the illegal rendition, torture, including waterboarding and mock execution, and enforced disappearance of alleged suspects at the hands of the CIA.
The Judgment
Based on numerous expert opinions and a 2014 US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA programme, the Court identified detention facilities “Detention Site Black” in Romania and “Detention Site Violet” in Lithuania.
The Court also held that both governments violated the prohibition on non-refoulement by allowing the men’s unlawful rendition to other countries despite the risk of further violations of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment.
In addition to the complicity in their unlawful detention and ill-treatment while detained in their respective countries, the Court held that both governments violated the prohibition on non-refoulement, which obliges states not to return anyone to a territory where they would be at risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations, by allowing the men’s unlawful rendition to other countries.
It found that Romania had violated its human rights obligations by assisting Al-Nashiri’s transfer out of Romania, despite the risk that he would face a flagrant denial of justice upon prosecution in a US Military Commission trial at Guantanamo Bay.
It also found that Romania violated Al-Nashiri’s right to life by facilitating his transfer despite the substantial and foreseeable risk that he would be facing the death penalty.
In both cases, the court held that neither state satisfied their obligation to carry out an effective investigation.
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications at ICJ, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Europe-Renditions Rom & Lit-News-press release-2018-ENG (full story in PDF)
May 30, 2018 | News
As Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno filed a motion today to reconsider the Supreme Court’s 11 May 2018 decision to remove her from the Court, the ICJ expressed its grave concern that the proceedings in the case had contributed to an overall deterioration in the rule of law in the country.
Sereno’s removal comes on the heels of a series of public statements by President Rodrigo Duterte attacking the Chief Justice, including direct threats to seek her removal from the Court.
The ICJ and other national and international observers have repeatedly and publicly condemned these attacks.
Her removal, through the contrivance of a judicial ruling by a sharply divided Court, adds to the perception that the government institutions are unable or unwilling to safeguard the rule of law, and will attack the institutions that protect it.
“Preserving the independence of the judiciary in the Philippines is crucial at a time when the government is credibly alleged to have been engaged in widespread and systematic human rights violations, amounting to crimes under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
“Given the perception of political interference and the potential impact of this case on the credibility of the judiciary as a whole, it is imperative that the Court swiftly and fairly consider the Chief Justice’s motion for reconsideration,” he added.
The removal decision came in response to a quo warranto petition filed by the Solicitor General, the government’s foremost counsel.
The petition sought to nullify her appointment on the grounds that she had failed to comply with disclosure requirements, despite the fact that her qualifications had already been certified as sufficient by the Judicial and Bar Council when her name was included in the short-list submitted to the president for consideration.
The decision superseded ongoing impeachment proceedings in the Congress.
The ICJ raised concerns that the decision could open the floodgates to similar attacks, not only against members of the Court, but to members of the judiciary and other bodies, such as the Philippine Commission on Human Rights.
It called on the Supreme Court to take care to ensure that any proceedings are conducted in line with the highest standards of judicial ethics, as reflected in the international standards such as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
The ICJ also reminded the government of the Philippines that under international standards – including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary – the judiciary, including individual judges, must be able to conduct itself without “improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect… for any reason.”
It is a responsibility of both the judiciary and the political branches of government to ensure that this principle is respected.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
May 30, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today made a submission for an upcoming report by the UN Secretary General on recent developments concerning human rights in the administration of justice.
In 2016, the UN General Assembly requested the Secretary General “to submit to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session a report on the latest developments, challenges and good practices in human rights in the administration of justice, including on efforts to ensure equal access to justice for all through the independent, impartial and effective administration of justice, and on the activities undertaken by the United Nations system as a whole”.
The UN is in the process of preparing the report, which will cover developments during the last two years since the previous report of the Secretary General.
The ICJ’s submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-GA-AdminJustice-2018
May 29, 2018 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La CIJ expresa su profunda preocupación, por las diferentes acciones que se vienen dando en contra de la Jueza Erika Aifán.
La Jueza Erika Aifán se ha caracterizado siempre por ser recta en sus decisiones; honesta y apegada al Derecho en todos los casos que ha conocido; independiente, objetiva e imparcial en todas sus decisiones.
Para la CIJ, en los casos contra la Jueza Erika Aifán, existe un riesgo inminente de afectar la Independencia Judicial.
La CIJ considera que la independencia de jueces y juezas, es imprescindible en un Estado de Derecho, para que dichos funcionarios públicos puedan garantizar efectivamente, mediante una recta administración de justicia, el acceso a la justicia de las víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos.
Por tal razón y con base en la Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala y Convenios y Tratados en materia de Derechos Humanos, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Guatemala debería intervenir en la defensa de la independencia judicial.
Tal y como lo establece la misma Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, “el principio de independencia del Poder Judicial ha sido reconocido como costumbre internacional y principio general de derecho y ha sido consagrado en numerosos tratados internacionales”.
En tal sentido, la CIJ considera que la Corte Suprema de Justicia debe asumir un papel activo en la defensa de la independencia judicial en general y específicamente, en el caso de la Jueza Erika Aifán.
La Jueza Erika Aifán tiene a su cargo casos paradigmáticos en la lucha contra la impunidad y la corrupción y la CIJ considera que ese es el verdadero motivo de los ataques y cuestionamientos en su contra.
Grupos interesados en promover la impunidad desean apartarla o separarla del cargo.
La CIJ se permite recordar que la separación del cargo de un juez o jueza, debe obedecer exclusivamente a las causales permitidas por la ley, mediante un proceso disciplinario que reuna las básicas garantías inherentes al debido proceso, o cuando el funcionario judicial ha cumplido el término o período de su mandato.
En el caso de la jueza Erika Aifán, no existe ninguno de estos presupuestos, razón por la cual la CIJ concluye que se trata de un ataque contra la independencia e imparcialidad e independencia de la funcionaria judicial.
Ante el hostigamiento que sufren jueces y juezas independientes en Guatemala, la CIJ urge la presencia en el país del Relator de Naciones Unidas sobre la Independencia de Jueces y Abogados.
La CIJ considera, además, que el Procurador de los Derechos Humanos de Guatemala debería presentar este caso ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, no sólo para que dicha Comisión otorgue medidas cautelares a favor de la Jueza Aifán, sino para que dicha Comisión verifique la violación flagrante a la independencia judicial en el país.
Desde ya, la CIJ solicita a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), que invenga en el presente asunto.
Demás está decir, que la independencia de todo órgano que realice funciones de carácter jurisdiccional es un presupuesto indispensable para el cumplimiento de las normas del debido proceso en tanto derecho humano y su ausencia afecta el ejercicio del derecho de acceder a la justicia, aparte de generar desconfianza y hasta temor, que provoca que las personas no recurran a los tribunales de justicia por falta de credibilidad.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América expresó: “Debemos apoyar a la Jueza Erika Aifán, ya que la garantía de la independencia judicial está siendo seriamente afectada. La Jueza Aifán es una de las más honestas y valientes y está llevando casos paradigmáticos que podrían ser afectados, en caso procedan las acciones legales en su contra.”
“Es una vergüenza que un Tribunal del Poder Judicial mismo, imponga una multa de Q.1000.oo a una profesional que está cumpliendo con su deber. Los magistrados de la Sala Tercera, son los que deberían de ser investigados por el Ministerio Público, debido a sus actuaciones en contra de la Independencia Judicial.”
May 29, 2018 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned about the recent attacks against Judge Erika Aifán that put judicial independence in Guatemala at imminent risk. Judge Aifán has always been upright and honest in her rulings, which she bases on sound principles of the rule of law.
Ramon Cadena, Director of the Central American office of the ICJ stated today: “We must support Judge Aifán because the guarantee of judicial independence is under serious threat.”
“Judge Aifán is an honest and brave Judge presiding over emblematic cases, which could be put in jeopardy if the legal actions against her proceed,” he said.
“It is totally unacceptable that a Court imposes a fine against a professional carrying out their duty. The Judges of the Third Court who imposed this fine should be investigated by the Public Ministry on account of their actions, which constitute an attack on judicial independence,” he added.
The ICJ firmly believes that the independence of judges is essential to uphold the rule of law so that public officials can effectively guarantee access to justice for victims of human rights violations.
The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has established that “the independence of the judicial power has been recognized as a general principle of law and enshrined in many international treaties”.
For that reason, and with reference to the Guatemalan Constitution and international human rights standards, the ICJ considers that the Guatemalan Supreme Court should take an active role in the defence of judicial independence and in this specific case concerning Judge Aifán.
The ICJ also urges the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to visit the country.
The ICJ also considers that the Guatemalan Prosecutor for Human Rights should submit the case to the IACHR so that that Commission can grant preventive measures to Judge Aifán and investigate this flagrant violation of judicial independence.
The ICJ also requests that the IACHR intervenes in the present situation.
The ICJ considers that the motives for the attacks against Judge Aifán are because she is currently presiding over emblematic cases in the fight against impunity and corruption.
Groups who are interested in maintaining a situation of impunity wish to see her removed from her position.
The ICJ recalls that a judge can only be removed from office for reasons established by law, following a disciplinary process that complies with the basic guarantees of a fair trial; or when a judicial officer has completed the term of their mandate.
Neither of these conditions is met in the case of Judge Aifán. Therefore, the ICJ can only conclude that the attacks against her are attacks on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole.
It is self-evident that the independence of every judicial body is indispensable for the fulfilment of fair trial standards without which the right of access to justice is undermined.
Furthermore, without judicial independence, people lack confidence in the courts or are fearful and therefore refrain from taking cases to justice.
