Mar 24, 2014 | News
The ICJ, in collaboration with other organizations, has dispatched a team of lawyers to attend the bail hearing of prominent lawyer and human rights defender, Thulani Maseko and journalist, Bheki Makhubu on 25 March 2014.
The ICJ is working with the SADC Lawyers Association, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network.
Maseko and Makhubu were jointly charged on 18 March 2014 and remanded to appear on 25 March for a bail hearing.
Their lawyer was not allowed to make submissions when the accused appeared for initial remand, in contravention of regional and international standards guaranteeing the right to be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings.
The accused were arrested after Chief Justice Ramodibedi issued a warrant for their arrest on charges of criminal contempt of court.
The charges arise from articles allegedly written by Maseko and Makhubu in February and March 2014, in which they questioned circumstances surrounding the arrest of government vehicle inspector, Vincent Gwebu.
The vehicle inspector had been arrested and charged with contempt of court after he had arrested the driver of a High Court Judge.
They questioned the integrity, impartiality and independence of the Swaziland judiciary in the way they handled the Gwebu case.
The legality of the arrest, detention and charges is likely to be challenged at the bail hearing.
The ICJ trial observer team of lawyers will assess the compliance of the trial proceedings with international standards of fair trial, including those of the African Union.
The ICJ has previously expressed initial concern that the arrest and detention appear to be arbitrary, and carried out in retribution for their exercise of their right to freedom of expression.
The ICJ also previously expressed further initial concern that the lawyer for the two was not allowed the legitimate exercise of his professional functions as a lawyer when the two appeared before the Chief Justice for the initial remand.
The team of trial observers consists of the following lawyers: Arnold Tsunga, Director, ICJ Africa Regional Programme; Martin Okumu-Masiga, Deputy Director, ICJ Africa Regional Programme; Andrew Makoni, Board member, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights; and Emilia Siwingwa, Deputy Director, SADC Lawyers Association.
Contact
For further information contact Arnold Tsunga or Martin Okumu-Masiga on +27 11 024 8268, +27 73 131 8411 or +27 78 234 9125.
Mar 21, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ spoke at the UN Human Rights Council on the lack of progress in Nepal on ending impunity.The oral statement was delivered during the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Nepal has failed to take concrete action to implement key UPR recommendations, including those crucial to implementing the right to an effective remedy and reparation, creating effective mechanisms for transitional justice and ending impunity.
The Government continues to try to force through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is not human rights complicant and has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Nepal.
Nepal has also failed to take meaningful measures to investigate human rights violations and abuses that arose during the armed conflict.
The ICJ called on Nepal to take specific measures towards ending impunity.
The full written statement can be downloaded, in PDF format: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-Nepal-OralStatement-2103214
The representative of Nepal exercised the right of reply in response to ICJ’s oral statement.
Video of the oral statement, and Nepal’s statement in reply, via the official UN webcast.
Mar 20, 2014 | News
Thailand’s caretaker government must remove emergency measures throughout the country following the lifting of the Emergency Decree in the capital Bangkok and its surrounding provinces this week, the ICJ said today.
On 18 March, the caretaker government voted to lift the Emergency Decree (effective 19 March) that had been in place in Bangkok and surrounding provinces since 21 January 2014 in response to protests led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).
At least 20 people have died in protest-related violence and hundreds have been injured.
The Emergency Decree was replaced by the Internal Security Act (ISA), which also does not fully comply with international standards, but provides better remedies for victims of human rights violations than the Decree.
“The imposition of the Emergency Decree creates an environment conducive to abuse of power and human rights violations such as arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and enforced disappearance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Lifting the Emergency Decree in Bangkok is a positive step, but it is crucial that the authorities remove the Emergency Decree and other measures of emergency rule, including martial law, that are in force in all or parts of at least 30 of Thailand’s 77 provinces.”
These measures should be replaced by law and action that are consistent with international human rights standards, Zarifi said, adding that martial law should not be used as a political tool.
The caretaker government must respond to demonstrations, unrest and emergencies in a manner which complies with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other international standards, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in 1990.
These standards set out the circumstances in which resort to necessary and proportional force may be lawfully exercised. Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms states that “exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”
In order to safeguard the rule of law and enhance the protection of human rights in Thailand, the ICJ calls on the caretaker government to repeal the Emergency Decree and other emergency measures including martial law, and to ensure accountability for violent acts through the thorough and effective investigation of criminal acts and prosecution of those reasonably suspected of committing them, in the course of fair, human rights-compliant criminal proceedings.
CONTACT: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
For further reading on ICJ’s work on emergency laws in Thailand see: Thailand’s Internal Security Act, Risking the Rule of Law? (2010) https://www.icj.org/thailands-internal-security-act-risking-the-rule-of-law/ Implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree (2007) https://www.icj.org/thailand-implementation-of-thailand%C2%B4s-emergency-decree/ More Power, Less Accountability: Thailand’s New Emergency Decree (2005) https://www.icj.org/more-power-less-accountability/
Mar 20, 2014 | News
The ICJ today called on the Ukrainian authorities to discontinue criminal prosecutions and dismissals of Constitutional Court judges.
These measures, which came at a time of crisis in the country, were taken due to disagreement with a ruling made by the judges in 2010.
The measures interfere with the independence of the judiciary, and are inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers and respect for the rule of law.
Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General underscored that “In times of crisis the stability and continuity of the judiciary is essential. Judges should not be subject to arbitrary removal, individually or collectively, by the executive, legislative or judicial branches”.
On 24 February 2014, the Verkhovna Rada, the Parliament of Ukraine, adopted a resolution according to which twelve of the eighteen judges of the Constitutional Court were to be dismissed by the institutions which appointed them.
Five of the judges were dismissed by the Rada itself. The Rada recommended that the Acting President and the Congress of Judges consider dismissing the other seven judges.
On 13 March, the Parliament appointed four new judges of the Constitutional Court.
The grounds for dismissals were breaching the oath of a judge.
Moreover, in accordance with the resolution, the Prosecutor General was assigned by the Parliament to initiate criminal proceedings against those judges who were “guilty of adopting the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 30 September 2010 No 20-rp/2010”, which overturned the adoption of the Constitution of 2004.
The Parliament’s resolution against the justices of the Constitutional Court followed the Ukrainian political crisis, which reached its peak on 22 February 2014 after three months of protests and violent clashes, and resulted in a change of government.
“The ICJ is deeply concerned at the dismissal and criminal prosecution of Ukrainian Constitutional Court judges on grounds of their interpretation of the law in judicial decisions” said Wilder Tayler.
“These measures are inconsistent with respect for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. It is precisely at moments of transition or crisis, such as Ukraine is now experiencing, that upholding the rule of law and the separation of powers is most critical. Any disciplinary action against judges must respect the independence of the judiciary, be based on established standards of judicial conduct and be taken only following a fair procedure in which the rights of the judge concerned, including to a defence, are respected.”
The ICJ stressed that action taken against the judges of the Constitutional Court is inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the government of Ukraine to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary.
This duty, a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and a fundamental aspect of the principle of separation of powers of the three branches of government, is enshrined in both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international human rights treaties to which the State is a party.
Furthermore, Article 1 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarifies that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This requires that judges have jurisdiction over issues of a judicial nature and that judicial decisions by courts must not be subject to revision (Principle 4).
Judges must have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office (Principle 12) and can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
The European Court of Human Rights found, in the recent case of Volkov v Ukraine, that dismissal of a judge of the Ukraine Supreme Court through a parliamentary procedure violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since there had been insufficient examination of the merits of the case, and it had not been heard by a tribunal established by law.
Contacts:
Róisin Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, t + 32 273 48 46, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, t + 41 22 979 38 32, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Ukraine-dismissal and criminal prosecution of judges-news-2014 (Statement, PDF)
Mar 18, 2014 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest and detention on 17 March of prominent human rights lawyer, Thulani Maseko and Nation Magazine editor, Bheki Makhubu.
The ICJ is concerned that Thulani Maseko is being subject to persecution for the legitimate exercise of his professional functions as a lawyer, and that both men appear to be detained for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The men were arrested after Chief Justice Ramodibedi had issued a warrant for their arrest on charges of “scandalizing the judiciary” and contempt of court.
The charges arise from articles allegedly written by Thulani Maseko and Bheki Makhubu in February and March 2014, in which they questioned circumstances surrounding the arrest of government vehicle inspector, Vincent Gwebu.
The vehicle inspector had been arrested and charged with contempt of court after he had arrested the driver of a High Court Judge.
Thulani Maseko and Makhubu, were jointly charged on 18 March 2014 and remanded to appear on 24 March for a bail hearing.
Their lawyer was not allowed to appear on their behalf, in contravention of international and African regional law and standards guaranteeing the right to be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings.
The ICJ is also concerned that the accused did not appear in open court, but instead in the Chief Justice’s chamber and were not allowed to apply immediately for bail, also in contravention of international and African regional standards.
The ICJ calls upon the Swazi immediately to release the two men. For as long as they are in detention they must be given access to their lawyers.
For further information contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org, Director, ICJ Africa Regional Programme
Or
Martin Okumu-Masiga, Martin.okumu-masiga(a)icj.org, Deputy Director.
