Dec 4, 2014 | Events, News
Today and tomorrow, the ICJ welcomes judges and lawyers from all regions of the world to discuss the “Judicial Enforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.
The 2014 Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is a joint initiative of the ICJ Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and the ICJ Programme on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Participants are exchanging views on the progress made over the past two decades, including the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2013.
The Protocol allows individuals to bring complaints of violations of such rights to an independent international body of experts for adjudication.
Discussions are held also in relation to challenges to the justiciability of these rights, including as regards the principle of separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government.
Managing potential implications for public human and financial resources of judicial orders for enforcement of ESCR, and the conflicts that may arise between state development plans, public interest and the interests and rights of the individuals, will also be topics of discussion.
Participants are invited to ground the discussion of conceptual issues in examples from their own actual experience and practice in their national jurisdictions.
Alejandra Ancheita, recent winner of the Martin Ennals Award 2014 – The Nobel Prize of Human Rights – is among the guest speakers.
A report of the discussions will be published in 2015.
The draft agenda for the 2014 Geneva Forum is available here:
Universal-Programme GVA Forum 2014-Events-2014-ENG (English)
Universal-Programme GVA Forum 2014-Events-2014-ESP (Español)
The 2014 Geneva Forum has been made possible with the support of the République et Canton de Genève, the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations in Geneva, and the Taipei Bar Association.
The Geneva Forum has been convened annually by the CIJL since 2010.
Information on, and reports of, the previous Geneva Forums can be found here:
Geneva Forum 2013 (photo)
Geneva Forum Series no. 1: Women and the Judiciary
Geneva Forum 2012
Third Geneva Forum for Judges and Lawyers: the report is published
Geneva Forum 2011
2nd ICJ Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers: final report
Geneva Forum 2010
1st ICJ Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers: accountable national security policies – the role of judges and legal practitioners
Dec 3, 2014 | News
The December 2 conviction of journalist David Bergman on contempt charges by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) further shrinks the narrowing space for observers to comment on the war crimes proceedings, the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said.
Bergman (photo) was sentenced to a symbolic “simple imprisonment till the rising of the court” and a fine of Taka 5,000 (about US$56) for comments he made in three separate blog postings regarding legal proceedings before the ICT.
The ICT is a specially constituted court set up to bring to account those responsible for grave violations of international law during the country’s 1971 war of independence.
Concerns over its statute, rules of procedure, and practices have been raised since its inception, including by international monitors and legal experts.
“The ICT is dealing with incredibly complex factual and emotional issues of tremendous interest to people in Bangladesh and across the world, and part of this process is establishing public confidence in the legal system,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Director for Asia. “Holding a credible and highly regarded journalist in contempt for raising important questions doesn’t end the debate surrounding the ICT’s performance, in fact it undermines confidence in the court’s commitment to justice.”
Download the full story in PDF here:
Bangladesh-Conviction of Journalist-News-Press release-2014-ENG
Dec 3, 2014 | News
Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser in Myanmar, and Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights made presentations at the annual Business and Human Rights Forum.
Vani Sathisan’s statement highlighted the State duty to protect human rights and provide access to remedies; the need for greater cooperation between businesses and local communities; and possibilities for home governments to cooperate on business and human rights issues.
She underscored that the State duty to protect, respect and fulfil human rights is one that is already grounded in international human rights law and accordingly, Myanmar must adopt and enforce laws – including policies, legislation, and regulations – that are preventative and remedial, and to regulate business conduct and protect the economic, social and cultural rights of its people.
Without proper investment, land and environmental laws, as well as an effective judiciary to enforce these laws and provide appropriate judicial remedies, development projects risk being counterproductive for sustainable development and the protection of human rights in Myanmar.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez Carlos Lopez focused on the work of the Committee on the rights of the child on business and human rights through the adoption of General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the impact of business on the rights of the child.
The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights do not establish legal obligations, but elaborate on the practical implications of those obligations. The legal obligations for States to protect, respect and fulfil human rights are contained in international human rights treaties. One of them is the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Besides examining State reports and providing conclusions and recommendations, the Committee elaborates General Comments to assist States in their implementation of their legal obligations under the Convention. In February 2013 the Committee adopted General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the business impacts on the rights of the child. This General Comment was necessary:
· First, because in the Committee’s examination of State reports the issue of impacts of economic actors had arisen repeatedly. The General Comment is a more organized response to these practical and recurrent issues.
· Second, the Committee considered that the existing instruments and guidance did not sufficiently address the particular situation and needs of children. GC16 aims at fulfilling that gap in relation with States while the UNICEF Child Rights and Business Principles does so in relation to business enterprises.
The Committee, with the support of a core group comprising UNICEF, ICJ, Save the Children and OHCHR started a process of reflection, research and global and regional consultations (these took place in Kenya, India and Argentina and an international seminar was held in Sion, Switzerland.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez also moderated a Panel on the rights of the child and business enterprises, under the title Measures for implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the context of business operations.
Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
Dec 1, 2014 | News
The ICJ expresses deep concern that the Legislative Assembly of Bolivia continues to threaten three Constitutional Court judges with removal, and possibly criminal punishment, based solely on legislators’ disagreement with a legal opinion and ruling issued by the judges.
A “trial” of the three judges conducted by the Senate is scheduled to begin on 4 December 2014.
The ICJ has previously condemned the proceedings as fundamentally flawed and in violation of international standards for the independence of judges.
The legislature and government now appear to accept some of the ICJ’s criticisms.
Last-minute legislative amendments would apparently specify that the legislative assembly process is disciplinary in character and that the only sanction the assembly can directly impose is permanently to remove judges from office; if a disciplinary violation is found, the case would be referred onward for criminal prosecution before the ordinary courts. (Legislators were previously reported to be seeking for the Senate itself to impose a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.)
The ICJ reaffirms, however, that the case against these three judges remains inherently flawed because the allegations on which the proceedings are based cannot be a valid basis for any removal from office or criminal punishment.
“It is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law, that judges must be able to decide cases without fear of punishment for their legal opinions and rulings, including those that the government or legislature may not like,” said Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ.
“The procedural amendments under consideration could be an improvement for other kinds of cases in the future,” said Pollard. “However, the stated reason for pursuing these three judges – disagreement with the content of their legal opinion and ruling – cannot form a valid basis for their removal from office or criminal punishment under any procedure.”
“The case against these three judges cannot be cured by legislative ‘quick fixes’ and must simply be dropped immediately,” Pollard added.
The ICJ is also concerned that the legislature has said it will press ahead immediately with the “trial” on 4 December, a few days from now, while fundamental changes to the procedure are still underway.
Further, the media has reported that Chamber of Deputies President Marcelo Elío has stated that the judges could avoid trial by “voluntarily” resigning before 4 December.
It would be unacceptable to use the threat of unjust or unclear procedures to pressure a judge to resign.
The ICJ welcomes the decision by the legislature to review and potentially reform judicial accountability procedures in Bolivia.
At the same time, reform of procedures that are of such fundamental importance to the rule of law and democracy should be based on a process of broader consultation with all concerned stakeholders, and more considered, comprehensive and detailed assessment and analysis in relation to international standards.
For instance, under the new amendments, it would appear that the Senate (photo) has no option in any case to impose a disciplinary penalty less than permanent removal from office, even if this would be disproportionate.
Placing all responsibility for disciplinary proceedings with an independent Judicial Council should also be considered.
In October, the ICJ sent an open letter and analysis brief to members of the Legislative Assembly, explaining why the proceedings violate international law and standards, urging that proceedings against the three judges immediately be ended, and recommending a process of longer-term reform of judicial accountability processes in Bolivia.
Contact:
English: Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ, t: +41 79 246 54 75; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Spanish: Carlos Ayala, ICJ Commissioner, t: +58 212 952 8448; e: carlos.ayala(a)icj.org
Bolivia-Procedimento magistrados-News-Press Release-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
(Update: the proceedings were suspended on 4 December, and are to continue on 9 December)
