ICJ welcomes adoption of Basic Principles and Guidelines on habeas corpus

ICJ welcomes adoption of Basic Principles and Guidelines on habeas corpus

The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s adoption, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of the Working Group’s “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court”.

Under its resolution 20/16 (2012), the UN Human Rights Council requested the Working Group to prepare draft basic principles and guidelines on habeas corpus. The Working Group set out a first draft set of principles and guidelines ahead of its global consultation on the subject in September 2014. From 2 to 5 February 2015, the Working Group met to continue its elaboration of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, resulting in the adoption of a second draft. The Working Group adopted its final iteration of the document at the conclusion of its session on 29 April 2015. The Basic Principles and Guidelines will be presented to the Human Rights Council during the Council’s 30th regular session, to be held from 14 September to 2 October 2015.

The ICJ welcomes the Basic Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus. It especially welcomes certain aspects of the document, including:

  • Paragraph 68, in which applicable qualifications are set out to any derogating measures to accommodate constraints on the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
  • Principle 6 and Guideline 4 which reaffirm that habeas corpus petitions must be heard by courts that bear all characteristics of competence, independence and impartiality (paras 27, 70 and 72(a)), that competence includes the power to order immediate release if detention is fund to be arbitrary or unlawful (para 27), that immediate implementation of such orders is required (para 71(c)) and that courts must give reasoned and particularized decisions (para 71(d));
  • Guideline 7, in which it is provided that individuals are entitled to take proceedings multiple times (paras 81 and 82), that expediency is required, including in cases of subsequent challenges, and especially in cases alleging, among other things, torture or ill-treatment (para 83) and that authorities remain obliged to ensure regular review of the continuing need for detention (para 84);
  • Principle 9 and Guideline 8 concerning legal representation and legal aid;
  • The clarifications in Principle 10 and Guideline that persons able to bring proceedings include counsel, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee (paras 34 and 92) and that no restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s ability to contact such persons (para 35);
  • The express recognition in Guideline 12 that information obtained by torture or other forms of ill-treatment may not be used in evidence;
  • Guideline 13 concerning disclosure and limitations applicable to any non-disclosure of information on security or other grounds;
  • Guideline 14, reflecting authorities’ obligation to justify the need and proportionality of detention;
  • Principle 15 and Guideline 16 (on remedies), reflecting the overarching right to remedies and reparation (paras 43), the need for authorities to give immediate effect to an order for release (para 44) and the right to compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (paras 109-112); and
  • Principle 16 concerning the application of Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) alongside international humanitarian law (paras 45 and 47), the application of Article 9(4) to civilians in an international armed conflict (para 47), the application of habeas principles to prisoners of war (para 48), and the question of administrative detention or internment in the context of a non-international armed conflict (para 49).

The ICJ has engaged in all stages of the Working Group’s elaboration and consultations. It made written submissions in November 2013, April 2014 and March 2015. Its staff, Matt Pollard and Alex Conte, gave panel presentations at the September 2014 global consultation.

Indonesia: stop executions and abolish the death penalty

Indonesia: stop executions and abolish the death penalty

The ICJ urged the Government of Indonesia today to stop the imminent execution of nine persons convicted of drug-related offenses.

The ICJ emphasized that the death penalty constitutes a denial of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Advisor, said: “The government is trying to send the message that it is forcefully cracking down on crime, especially on drug-related offenses. Extinguishing the lives of nine people will almost certainly not serve to reduce crime, but it will clearly subvert human rights and the rule of law.”

Recent studies have called into question the notion of any meaningful deterrent effect of capital punishment on the commission of crimes, the ICJ says.

“Indonesia, by imposing the death penalty on those convicted in drugs related cases, is violating its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Gil added.

Indonesia is a State Party to the ICCPR, having acceded to it in 2006.

The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.

In line with the plea by the UN General Assembly in repeated resolutions, the ICJ calls on the Government of Indonesia, as a first step, to establish a moratorium with a view of abolishing the death penalty in the near future.

Background

Nine persons are scheduled to be executed in the next few days: Myuran Sukumaran (Australia), Andrew Chan (Australia), Mary Jane Veloso (Philippines), Rodrigo Gularte (Brazil), Sylvester Obiekwe Nwolise (Nigeria), Okwudili Oyatanze (Nigeria), Martin Anderson (Ghana), Zainal Abidin (Indonesia), and Rahem Agbaje (Nigeria).

Last month, the UN Human Rights Committee strongly criticized Indonesia for its failure to respond to the Committee’s call in 2013 to stop executing prisoners for drug-related crimes.

After a regular review of Indonesia’s human rights record, the Committee in August 2013 urged the State to reinstate the de facto moratorium on the death penalty and to ensure that, if capital punishment was maintained, it was only for the most serious crimes, which do not include drug-related offences.

In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty, with only 37 opposed.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, in Bangkok, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Photo: aerial view of a prison on Nusakambangang, the island where the executions take place.

Egypt: authorities must effectively investigate deaths of lawyers in custody

Egypt: authorities must effectively investigate deaths of lawyers in custody

The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the deaths of two lawyers, Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi, who recently died while in police custody in Mataria police station.

The ICJ is deeply concerned that the deaths of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody are part of a widespread and sustained campaign targeting hundreds of lawyers since 2013, including those defending political opponents of the regime and human rights activists, as well as lawyers exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression.

“The Egyptian authorities must effectively investigate and prosecute all those responsible for the alleged torture and death of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody and must hold accountable any person responsible for wrongful conduct ,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA Programme.

“The authorities must bring an end to their ongoing campaign of harassing and persecuting lawyers, including arbitrary arrests and prosecutions, for simply discharging their professional duties or for speaking out against human rights violations,” he added.

Under international standards, lawyers should be able to carry out their professional duties free from hindrance, intimidation, harassment or interference, says the ICJ.

They should not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes or subject to arbitrary arrest and prosecutions as a result of the discharge of their functions.

Background:

On 10 April, Imam Afifi, a 63-year old lawyer, was assaulted and arrested in the Mataria neighborhood where a demonstration was taking place against the government.

He was detained in Mataria police station where he was allegedly subjected to torture, including a severe beating to his head.

On 11 April, he was transferred from the police station to Mataria hospital.

A medical report from the same day, to which the ICJ had access, indicates that Imam Afifi was admitted to the hospital with a massive trauma to the head. He died in hospital on 22 April.

On 22 February, another lawyer, Karim Hamdi, was arrested and questioned on suspicion of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, membership of which has been outlawed, and participating in an unauthorized demonstration against the government.

While in police custody in Mataria police station, he was reportedly severely beaten on his neck, chest and abdomen. He died two days later after being transferred to hospital.

Following a complaint by the Bar Association to the prosecutor’s office, two members of the National Security Agency were charged with torturing and murdering Karim Hamdi.

Additional information:

According to information available to the ICJ, attacks against lawyers since 2013 include the following:

On 23 April 2015, six lawyers were summoned for interrogation in relation to their participation in a demonstration on 9 March to protest against the death of Mr Karim Hamdi.

The lawyers also challenged the prosecutor’s decision to prohibit anyone from reporting on the investigation into Mr Hamdi’s case.

On 23 March 2015, human rights lawyer, Azza Soliman, was charged with breaching public order and security under the 2013 Demonstration Law after voluntarily providing testimony against police involved in the killing of Social People’s Alliance party activist, Shaimaa El Sabbagh, on 24 January 2015.

The Qasr El Nile Prosecution Office in Cairo subsequently changed her status from witness to defendant.

On 9 February 2015, a human rights lawyer, Ms Mahienour El Massry, was sentenced to two years imprisonment after she attended the El-Ramel police station in Alexandria, in March 2013, in order to defend demonstrators.

The charges against her included “insulting government employees in the performance of their duties”, “insulting representatives of the authorities” and “attempting to break into a police station”.

Three lawyers, Basma Zahran, Mahmoud Bilal and Oussama Al Mahdi, were referred for investigation, on 3 September 2014, for “disrupting and causing trouble” during trial proceedings for insisting that their client, the human rights activist Ahmed Douma, seated in a sound-proof glass cage, should be heard.

On 5 July 2013, Abdel Men’em Abdel Maqsoud was arrested while attempting to attend the interrogation of his clients, deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Brotherhood, Rachad Bayoumi, and Mohamed Saad Al Katanah.

He was detained before being released on bail on 2 September 2014.

Contact:

Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 44 7815 570 834, e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org

Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 41 229 793 804, e: nader.diab(a)icj.org

Egypt-Deaths of lawyers-News-Press release-2015-ARA (full text of Arabic version in PDF)

Swaziland: arrest of judges raises serious concerns

Swaziland: arrest of judges raises serious concerns

The ICJ is concerned at the recent arrest of Swaziland High Court Judges Jacobus Annandale and Mpendulo Simelane, the High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi and the Minister of Justice Sibusiso Shongwe.

The four detainees appeared today before High Court Justice Qinisile Mabuza (photo).

Justice Minister Sibusiso Shongwe was denied bail and remains detained, while the other two High Court Judges and the registrar were released on bail.

The judges, registrar and Minister of Justice are all facing various charges related to corruption and obstructing the course of justice.

The ICJ is also aware that police are presently seeking to arrest Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, and that they have surrounded his place of residence.

The ICJ has received information alleging that the police have cut off the electricity and water and have actively prevented people from bringing food supplies to him and his family.

The ICJ urges the authorities in Swaziland to immediately investigate the situation of the Chief Justice and, if the allegations are substantiated, to immediately restore supply of essential services to the Chief Justices family, denied in violation of rights guaranteed under the Swaziland’s Constitution and its international legal obligations.

“The arrest and attempted arrest of several judges, and a High Court Registrar as in this case, invariably raises questions of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary,” said Wilder Tayler Secretary General of the ICJ.

“The ICJ therefore calls on the authorities in Swaziland to conduct themselves with rigorous adherence to rule of law principles, the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. They must also do so with strict respect for international human rights law,” he added.

The ICJ emphasizes that the Chief Justice and the other judges are entitled as everyone else in Swaziland to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under international law.

These protections include the right to be informed the reasons for their arrest and the nature of any criminal charges, the right to representation by a lawyer of their choice and the right to be considered for bail if appropriate.

If no crime is alleged, but serious professional misconduct is suspected, then arrest and detention is inappropriate.

Additional information:

The ICJ has had longstanding concerns with the state of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession and the fair administration of the justice in Swaziland.

The ICJ has recently intervened in a case involving the conviction of prominent lawyer Thulani Maseko in an unfair trial.

For an ICJ analysis of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession in Swaziland, go here.

Contact:

Arnold Tsunga, Regional Director, ICJ’s Africa Programme, t: +27 731318411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

Translate »