The ICJ joined 17 other organizations in calling for robust and human rights compliant international standards to regulate the use of “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” , developed through fully inclusive and consultative processes.
Universal-DroneStandards-Advocacy-2017-ENG (full PDF)
As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.
India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.
India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.
In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.
India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.
Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.
The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.
Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download the Q&A:
Moderator:
Watch the video:
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/10157079100584616/
For additional recent ICJ reports on Venezuela, click here.
The flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
For more information, contact un(a)icj.org
Hoy la Comisión Internacional de Juristas lanza un nuevo informe sobre la grave ruptura del Estado de Derecho: El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela: un instrumento del Poder Ejecutivo.
A través de diferentes sentencias emitidas desde diciembre de 2015, el máximo órgano de la Judicatura venezolana fue progresivamente desmantelando el Estado de Derecho, socavando los derechos humanos y dejando sin aplicación la Constitución política de ese país.
En sus decisiones Nos. 155 y 156 de marzo de 2017, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ) daría una estocada final al Estado de Derecho, arrogándose las facultades legislativas, despojando a la Asamblea Nacional de sus facultades constitucionales y otorgando amplísimos y arbitrarios poderes al Ejecutivo.
En su Sentencia No. 155 de 27 de marzo de 2017, el TSJ se pronunció sobre un recurso de nulidad presentado por un Diputado oficialista contra un acto de la Asamblea Nacional, que pedía la reactivación del proceso de aplicación de la Carta Democrática Interamericana de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, para una resolución pacífica de la crisis y la reinstauración del orden constitucional en Venezuela.
En su Sentencia No. 156 de 28 de marzo de 2017, el TSJ se pronunció sobre una demanda de interpretación sobre Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos, que cercenó las facultades constitucionales de la Asamblea Nacional.
“Estas decisiones constituyen un verdadero Golpe de Estado al orden constitucional y han dado inicio del reino de la arbitrariedad”, declaró Sam Zarifi, Secretario General de la CIJ.
El informe de la CIJ analiza, a la luz de estándares internacionales y de los principios del Estado de Derecho así como de la Constitución venezolana, la jurisprudencia emitida desde diciembre de 2015 por el TSJ en relación con las funciones y facultades constitucionales del Poder Legislativo, el control parlamentario, los estados de excepción y la amnistía.
El TSJ – una institución totalmente cooptada por el Poder Ejecutivo e integrada mayoritariamente por del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) y/o ex funcionarios del Gobierno- se convirtió en un apéndice del Gobierno y un instrumento político del régimen para enfrentar la cada vez más creciente oposición política y social.
Invocando arbitrarias interpretaciones de la Constitución, omitiendo el análisis de otras normas constitucionales, otorgando rango supraconstitucional a normas de inferior jerarquía y obviando el debido proceso y el sistema de contradicción judicial, el TSJ fue despojando y vaciando a la Asamblea Nacional de sus funciones constitucionales en materia legislativa, de control parlamentario, de reglamentación y de administración interna, para favorecer políticamente al Gobierno.
“Los fallos no se han proferido con imparcialidad, de conformidad a los hechos y el derecho, como lo prescriben el principio 2 de los Principios básicos relativos a la independencia de la judicatura pero más bien están en flagrante violación de la Constitución venezolana. El TSJ ha proferido sus decisiones basado en consideraciones políticas y lealtades partidistas e ideológicas con el Poder Ejecutivo”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Asimismo, el informe relaciona las recomendaciones sobre administración de justicia que han venido formulando a Venezuela, desde hace varios años, distintos órganos y procedimientos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos, tanto en el ámbito de las Naciones Unidas como del Sistema Interamericano.
Ninguna de esas recomendaciones ha sido acatada por las autoridades venezolanas, incluso las órdenes de reparación decretadas por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, las cuales son de obligatorio cumplimiento.
“Esa posición de las autoridades venezolana es violatoria de su obligación internacional de cooperar de buena fe con órganos y procedimientos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Finalmente, el informe concluye que el TSJ ha socavado el Estado de Derecho, vulnerado el principio de separación de poderes y conculcado las funciones constitucionales y la autonomía del Poder Legislativo.
El TSJ, como consecuencia de sus decisiones basadas en imponer los intereses políticos del Poder Ejecutivo, ha perdido sus atributos esenciales de un genuino Poder Judicial, tales como: independencia, imparcialidad, autonomía, y legitimidad.
“El TSJ ha asumido un rol de dar apariencia de legitimidad jurídica a las acciones políticas arbitrarias emanadas del Poder Ejecutivo, convirtiéndose en un apéndice del Poder Ejecutivo y dejando de ejercer su función constitucional de garante del Estado de Derecho y de los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Contactos:
Sam Zarifi: Secretario General de la CIJ; t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzmán: Representante para Suramérica de la CIJ; t + 57 311 481 8094; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Venezuela-Tribunal Supremo-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-SPA (el informe en PDF)
Venezuela-Actualización-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-SPA (mas información en PDF)
The Venezuelan Supreme Court has ceased to act as an independent court upholding the rule of law, but has become an arm of an authoritarian executive, the ICJ said in a new report released today.
The ICJ report The Supreme Court of Justice: an instrument of executive power says that through a series of rulings issued since December 2015, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has progressively dismantled the rule of law, undermined human rights and failed to faithfully apply key elements of the country’s Constitution.
In rulings on 27 and 28 March 2017 (Sentencias 155 and 156), the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) delivered a blow to the rule of law, effectively claiming legislative powers for itself, depriving the National Assembly of its Constitutional powers and granting sweeping arbitrary powers to the executive, the ICJ notes.
“These decisions amount to a coup d’état against the Constitutional order and have ushered in a new reign of arbitrary rule,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
The report analyses SCJ jurisprudence issued since December 2015 in the light of international law and standards, rule of law principles and the Venezuelan Constitution, and in relation to the Constitutional functions and faculties of the legislative power, parliamentary oversight, states of emergency and the amnesty.
It finds that:
The report also says the Court has interpreted the Constitution in an arbitrary manner, omitting to analyse key Constitutional standards while granting a supra-Constitutional status to standards of lesser rank.
It has abrogated due process and judicial review and so stripped the National Assembly of its Constitutionally mandated functions with regard to legislative matters, parliamentary oversight, regulation and internal administration in order to benefit the government politically, the ICJ adds.
“The rulings have not been issued with impartiality on the basis of facts and in accordance with law, as required under rule of standards,” Zarifi said.
“They are in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan Constitution. The SCJ has issued its decisions based on political considerations and ideological and party loyalties to the executive power,” he added.
The report also outlines key recommendations on the administration of justice which various UN and Inter-American procedures and bodies have made to Venezuela going back a number of years.
None of these recommendations appear to have been taken into account by the Venezuelan authorities. These include reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which are binding on Venezuela as a matter of law.
“The Venezuelan authorities are in breach of its international obligation to cooperate in good faith with international human rights bodies and procedures,” Zarifi said.
Finally, the report concludes that the SCJ has undermined the rule of law by violating the principle of the separation of powers and infringing upon the Constitutional functions and autonomy of the legislative power.
As a consequence of its decisions based on the political interests of the executive power, the SCJ has lost the essential attributes of an authentic judicial power, such as independence, impartiality, autonomy and legitimacy.
“The SCJ has assumed the role of giving an appearance of judicial legitimacy to the arbitrary political actions of the executive thus abandoning the exercise of its Constitutional function as the guarantor of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Zarifi added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzman, ICJ South America Representative, t +57 311 481 8094 ; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Download the report:
Venezuela-Suprem Court-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Further readings:
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
The UN Human Rights Council makes significant but limited progress in addressing human rights around the world, as atrocities multiply in the Middle East and elsewhere
ICJ hosts an African Regional Convening in Kenya on Transformative Equality Jurisprudence
Russian Federation: Arbitrarily detained human rights lawyer Maria Bontsler must be released
ICJ Oral statement at HRC urgent debate on protection of children and schools in armed conflict