Mar 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the first referral of allegations of gross human rights violations to the recently constituted Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) at the Tribunal of First Instance of Gabés.
On 2 March 2018, the Truth and Dignity Commission (“Instance Vérité et Dignité”, IVD) transferred a case concerning 14 suspects and the crime of enforced disappearance to the SCC, established to bring justice and accountability for the legacy of serious human violations allegedly committed in Tunisia from 1 July 1955 to 31 December 2013.
“The IVD’s decision is an important first step in the process of ensuring accountability and dismantling the structural impunity that has prevailed over cases of gross violations of human rights in Tunisia,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“We call on the responsible Tunisian authorities to fully support this process and remove the obstacles that continue to impede the IVD’s work, including by ensuring its full, rapid and unimpeded access to archives and to information related to the conduct of police and security forces under the former regime,” he added.
The ICJ also reiterated its previous call on the Tunisian authorities to remove the legal and practical obstacles that may hinder the SCC’s capacity to deliver justice effectively.
In two memos addressing the jurisdiction and the procedures to be applied by the SCC, the ICJ identified such obstacles and formulated recommendations for amendments and reform.
“The Government must reform the legal framework and procedures to be applied by the SCC so that they can effectively exercise their jurisdiction, establish the truth about past violations, hold those responsible to account, and deliver meaningful justice and reparation for victims,” Benarbia said.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
The SCC were formally established by Decree No. 2014-2887 of 8 August 2014 and have been set up within the Tribunals of First Instance of thirteen Courts of Appeal.
Under article 8 of the 2013 Transitional Justice Law, the SCC have jurisdiction over cases related to gross violations of human rights, as defined in international treaties applicable to Tunisia and in the provisions of the 2013 Law, involving “murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, enforced disappearances, and death penalty without fair trial guarantees”.
The 2013 Law attributes a leading role to the IVD with respect to how cases are brought before the SCC. According to article 42 of the 2013 Law, the IVD refers to the Office of the Public Prosecutor (OPP) “cases where gross human rights violations are proven”. As of 15 June 2016, the deadline for victims to submit files, the IVD has received over 60000 cases.
Tunisia-SSC disappearances-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 5, 2018 | News
The ICJ has welcomed last Thursday’s judgment of the Pretoria High Court which declares the South Africa’s involvement in shutting down the South African Development Community Tribunal “unlawful, irrational, arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional”.
ICJ’s Africa Director, Arnold Tsunga described the judgment as a “triumph for the rule of law in Southern Africa and an opportunity for governments in the SADC region to commit to immediate restoration of the Tribunal”.
The SADC Tribunal has been inactive since 2012, when SADC Member States suspended its operations and removed individual access to the Tribunal, including in cases involving human rights violations.
The action was widely seen as a backlash for several judgments against Zimbabwe in relation to land programmes implemented during the administration of former President Robert Mugabe.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by High Court Judge President D Mlambo, the Court held that “any act which detracted from the SADC Tribunal’s exercise of its human rights jurisdiction at the instance of individuals, was inconsistent with the SADC Treaty itself and violated the rule of law”.
Describing former President Zuma’s decision to sign the replacement 2014 Protocol of the SADC Tribunal as one such act, the Court held that the rule of law in South Africa’s constitutional dispensation required prior Parliamentary approval for the Executive to lawfully participate in a decision to curb the powers of the Tribunal or withdraw South Africa from its obligations under the SADC Treaty and the Protocol establishing the Tribunal.
“A restoration of the SADC Tribunal to its original character will facilitate individual access to a much needed accountability mechanism and greatly enhance regional confidence in human rights and the rule of law”, said Arnold Tsunga.
In line with articles 14 and 15 of its 2000 Protocol, the SADC Tribunal had exercised supervisory jurisdiction over the human rights commitments of SADC Member State under the SADC Treaty.
The ICJ called on the governments of Southern Africa’s other 14 SADC Member States to take immediate and concrete steps to restore the SADC Tribunal and recommit to rebuilding, staffing and funding it to ensure its effectiveness.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director; t: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +234 8034927549; e: solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org
Mar 5, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on transitional justice, prevention and impunity, highlighting the continuing problem of impunity in Nepal.
The statement, which was made during a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remains deeply concerned by continuing impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world, which undermines the potential for transitional justice to contribute to prevention as outlined in the Joint Study (A/HRC/37/65).
For example, in Nepal, more than ten years after the civil war, political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability. There has been near absolute impunity for those responsible for serious crimes under international law.
Transitional justice mechanisms – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CoID) – have fallen short of international standards, both in their constitution and their operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to enforce the standards.
The Commissions’ deeply flawed mandates, among other problems, allow them to recommend amnesties for gross human rights violations. In addition, their non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.
The Government continues to flout its obligation, both pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders and under international law, to enact domestic legislation to criminalize serious crimes in accordance with international standards.
As highlighted by in the Joint study, turning a blind eye on past atrocities signals that some perpetrators are above the law, which further discredits State institutions and “breeds a (long-standing) culture of impunity in which atrocities may become ‘normalized’, rendering prevention significantly more difficult.” (para 43)
That, indeed, is the experience in Nepal: continuing impunity for gross human rights violations perpetrated during the conflict is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in the country. Ending impunity is essential to preventing further violations.”
Video of the statement is available here:
The delegation of Nepal exercised its right to reply later in the day. Its reply is here:
The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.
Mar 2, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council urging it to take action on the situation in Eastern Ghouta in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The statement, which was made during an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council convened with a view to adoption of a resolution, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) urges the Council to adopt a strong resolution today. The resolution should fully reflect the gravity, magnitude and character of the violations and abuses taking place, demand their immediate cessation, and set out specific measures for accountability of those responsible.
The ICJ highlighted these concerns in a statement one week ago. Every further day of delay costs lives. It is imperative that the Council act immediately and that the relevant forces move quickly to implement Security Council resolution 2401 and any resolution of the Human Rights Council. An immediate end to all attacks on civilians and civilian objects is paramount.
We welcome references to accountability, and urge the Council to explicitly call on States to make use of all means available in this regard, including in their national legal systems, as well as at the regional and international level.
All forces on the ground must respect international humanitarian law and human rights law and standards and be held accountable for failures in this regard. In particular, the Syrian Arab Republic and Russian Federation must comply with Security Council resolutions, ensure the effective protection of civilians, and create conditions in which rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief can actually take place.”
The Council did not complete the adoption of the resolution on 2 March, but ultimately did so on 5 March.
Mar 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on attacks on lawyers and the legal profession in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and China.
The statement, which was made during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, read as follows:
Our organizations welcome that the main report (A/HRC/37/51, para 13) and communications report (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, e.g. paras 278-297, 431, 508-510) of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders recognizes the role of lawyers as human rights defenders. In this regard, we would highlight the global problem of continued attacks on lawyers and threats to the independence of their profession, including for example as is well known in China (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, paras 278-297), but also in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
In Azerbaijan, lawyers face criminal prosecution, suspension or disbarment for statements clearly constituting protected freedom of expression. The lack of independence of the Bar Association is a serious concern, even more so now that new legislation prohibits lawyers from representing clients before courts unless they become a member.
In Kazakhstan, a proposed new law threatens the independence of lawyers by providing for representatives of the executive to be included on disciplinary bodies of the legal profession, contrary to international standards.
Finally, the situation of lawyers in Turkey under the current state of emergency is of particular concern. In particular, echoing the recent statement of five UN special procedures mandate holders for his release, we expresses concern at the current detention of Taner Kılıç, lawyer and president of Amnesty International Turkey.
These arrests, trial and disbarments as well problematic legislative changes have a chilling effect on the work of lawyers. They undermine access to effective and independent legal assistance to protect human rights, in contravention of the rights of both the lawyers and their clients, including as mentioned in the report of the visit to Turkey by the Special Rapporteur on Torture (A/HRC/37/50/Add.1, paras 24, 26, 41, 63-66, 71, 101(d)(e)(h), 106(c)).
Our organizations urge the Council to address these worrying developments threatening the rule of law.
The following organizations joined the statement, in addition to the ICJ:
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
- Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)
- Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L)
- the Law Society of England and Wales
- Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), and
- the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC).
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-JointOralStatement-LawyersHRDsTorture-2018
