Sep 8, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On 29 August and 5 September, the ICJ collaborated with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to hold a webinar series for legal aid providers in the Philippines on eliminating gender discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards women.
Members of IBP’s legal aid committees from the Eastern and Western Mindanao Regions participated in these webinars, focused on gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices that exist in the legal profession and in the work of legal aid providers who directly engage with women when they seek justice.
Dato Ambiga Sreenevasan, ICJ’s Commissioner from Malaysia, addressed the promotion and protection of women’s human rights in the context of the legal profession: “While conditions for women have improved, there is still work to be done to achieve equality between men and women in the legal profession. At the entry level, things appear to be going well, but we must look also at women’s opportunities throughout their legal career and question why it is the case that some areas are still male-dominated.”
Mikiko Otani, ICJ’s Commissioner from Japan and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, spoke about how gender stereotypes and gender discrimination hinder women from accessing justice. “The Bar should be at the forefront of advocating for improvement in legal structures that would help eliminate gender discrimination,” she said.
The Philippines had previously featured as one of the top ten performers in addressing gender disparities, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index. However, it has recently fallen to rank 16th out of 153 countries. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, acknowledged various measures adopted by the Philippines to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), such as the adoption of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act and the Magna Carta for Women. She noted, however, that the Philippines still must do a great deal more.
“The existing culture of impunity and lack of effective remedies for women to access the justice system are just some of the difficult challenges the country faces that prevent it from achieving this goal,” Emerlynne Gil said.
The webinar series also featured a discussion on specific challenges faced by women when accessing justice during the COVID 19 pandemic and in the context of the “drug war” in the Philippines. The lawyers discussed their role and also that of the Bar as an institution to immediately identify and eliminate these gender stereotypes to ensure their clients’ right to access to justice.
Judge Amy Alabado Avellano, a Regional Trial Court judge in the Philippines led this discussion. Attorney Burt Estrada, IBP Executive Vice President, and Attorney Marienne Ibadlit, former IBP Governor for Western Visayas, also held a dialogue with the lawyers on how the IBP as a professional association for lawyers in the Philippines could contribute towards enhancing access to justice for women in the country.
Contact
For questions and clarifications, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Sep 7, 2020 | News
Turkish authorities should immediately release human rights defender Osman Kavala, in compliance with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ decision of 3 September 2020, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The decision followed a Committee of Ministers hearing to assess the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Osman Kavala. The Committee, acting in its supervisory capacity for Court Judgments, ordered the Turkish authorities, “to ensure the applicant’s immediate release,” pointing to, “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”
“After the finding by the European Court of Human Rights that Kavala’s detention is unlawful, the Committee of Ministers has affirmed that Turkey is continuing to violate his rights by keeping him in detention” said Roisin Pillay, director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme at the International Commission of Jurists. “European Court rulings are binding, and Osman Kavala should be released immediately.”
Despite the unlawful detention and an acquittal by the Turkish criminal court presiding over his trial, Osman Kavala has been kept behind bars under a newly issued charge of “espionage” since March 2020. His lawyers are currently challenging the lawfulness of the detention before Turkey’s Constitutional Court. However, the Committee of Ministers indicated in its decision that Turkey should not wait for a ruling of the Constitutional Court but should release Kavala immediately.
In June, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project made a detailed submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The submission argued that the sequence of events and repeated local court decisions to ensure Kavala’s detention subsequent to the European Court’s ruling in December 2019 demonstrated that Turkey was prolonging the violations found by the European Court.
The European Court judgment in Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) found violations of the following provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), and the rarely used Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken together with Article 5(1). The Court required Turkey to release Kavala and said that any continuation of his detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention.
The judgment on Osman Kavala’s case is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey in which the Court determined that, in interfering with an individual’s rights, Turkey acted in bad faith and out of political motivations, violating Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court said that by detaining Kavala since November 2017 and prosecuting him, the Turkish authorities had “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender.”
Kavala has been held in detention since November 2017, initially on bogus allegations that he used the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests as a pretext for an attempt to overthrow the government, and that he was involved in the July 15, 2016 attempted military coup. On February 18, 2020, Kavala and his eight co-defendants were acquitted on charges of “attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence” in the Gezi Park trial.
But Kavala was not released, and a court ordered his detention again immediately on one of the grounds for his initial detention on 1 November 2017, namely the charge of “attempting to overthrow the Constitution by force and violence” because of the ongoing July 15, 2016 coup attempt-related investigation against him. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had publicly criticized his acquittal just before he was detained again. Weeks later a court ordered his detention a second time on another charge (“espionage”) but under the same investigation file on the coup attempt and relying on the same evidence.
“The decision by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers confirms our submission that political considerations are behind the court orders prolonging Osman Kavala’s detention , and that there has been a concerted official effort to prevent Kavala’s release,” said Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey director at Human Rights Watch.
“Instead of complying with the European Court’s judgment, Turkey has continued to violate Kavala’s human rights.”
The targeted harassment in Turkey of rights defenders is part of a wider practice of arbitrary detentions and abusive prosecutions of journalists, elected politicians, lawyers, and other perceived government critics. This practice has been well-documented in many reports by the Council of Europe, the European Union, and human rights organizations.
“The campaign of persecution against Osman Kavala and the failure to release him and drop all charges have perpetuated a chilling environment for all human rights defenders in Turkey,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, co-director of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
“Ending this blatantly unlawful detention, which has been ongoing for over 1000 days, will not only play a role in preventing further violations to Osman Kavala’s rights, it will also give a strong signal to the human rights defenders community that the oversight mechanisms in place to ensure Turkey’s compliance with its international human rights obligations can still be effective.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32-2-734-84-46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.orgMassimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-79-749-99-49 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org ; Twitter: @maxfrigo
Türkiye: Osman Kavala Serbest Bırakılmalı
Yetkililer, Avrupa Konseyi’nin İnsan Hakları Savunucusunu Serbest Bırakma Kararına Uymalıdır
(Cenevre, 7 Eylül 2020) Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu (ICJ), İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, yaptıkları açıklamada Türkiye makamlarının insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’yı Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesinin 3 Eylül 2020 tarihli kararına uygun olarak derhal serbest bırakması gerektiğini ifade etti.
Bu karar, Osman Kavala davasında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin kararının uygulanmasını değerlendiren Bakanlar Komitesi oturumunu müteakiben alındı. Mahkeme kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleme yetkisi olan Komite, Türk makamlarına “başvuranın derhal serbest bırakılmasını sağlama” talimatı vererek “mevcut tutukluluğunun mahkeme tarafından tespit edilen ihlallerin devamı olduğuna dair güçlü bir karine bulunduğuna” işaret etti.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Programı Direktörü Roisin Pillay,” Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin, Kavala’nın tutukluluğunun hukuka aykırı olduğunu tespit etmesinden sonra, Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’nin Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu sürdürerek onun haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini doğruladı” dedi. Pillay, “Avrupa Mahkemesi kararları bağlayıcıdır ve Osman Kavala derhal serbest bırakılmalıdır” dedi.
Hukuka aykırı tutukluluğuna ve davasının görüldüğü Ceza Mahkemesinin verdiği beraat kararına rağmen, Osman Kavala yeni ileri sürülen bir “casusluk” suçlaması nedeniyle Mart 2020’den bu yana parmaklıklar ardında tutulmaya devam ediliyor. Kavala’nın avukatları, Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi önünde tutukluluğun hukuksuz olduğuna ilişkin itirazlarda bulunuyorlar. Ancak Bakanlar Komitesi, kararında Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesinin vereceği bir kararı beklemeksizin Kavala’yı derhal serbest bırakması gerektiğini işaret ediyor.
Haziran ayında, ICJ, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleyen Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne ayrıntılı bir bildirim sundu. Bildirim, Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin Aralık 2019’daki kararının ardından Kavala’nın alıkonmasını sağlamak için gelişen olaylar serisinin ve tekrarlanan yerel mahkeme kararlarının, Türkiye’nin Avrupa Mahkemesi tarafından tespit edilen ihlalleri devam ettirdiğini gösterdiğini savundu.
Avrupa Mahkemesi, Kavala/Türkiye kararında (Başvuru no. 28749/18), madde 5/1 (özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı), madde 5/4 (alıkonmanın yasaya uygunluğuna ilişkin ivedi karar alma hakkı) ve nadiren kullanılan madde 18 (haklara getirilecek kısıtlamaların sınırlanması) ile birlikte madde 5/1’in ihlal edildiğine karar vermiştir. Mahkeme, Türkiye’nin Kavala’yı tahliye etmesini zorunlu kılmış, tutukluluğunun devam etmesinin ihlalleri devam ettireceğini ve Sözleşmenin 46(1) maddesi uyarınca AİHM kararlarına uyma yükümlülüğünü ihlal edeceğini belirtmiştir.
Osman Kavala kararı, Türkiye’nin kötü niyetle ve siyasi amaçlarla bir bireyin haklarına müdahale ettiğini ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 18. maddesini ihlal ettiğini tespit eden Türkiye aleyhindeki ilk nihai karar olduğundan özel bir önem taşımakta. AİHM, Osman Kavala’yı Kasım 2017’den bu yana alıkoyup yargılayan Türk makamlarının “başvuranın bir insan hakları savunucusu olarak susturulmasını sağlamak için örtülü bir amaç taşıdığını” tespit etmişti.
Kavala, Kasım 2017’den bu yana, 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını, hükümeti devirme girişimi için kullandığı ve 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu yönündeki asılsız iddialarla tutuklu. 18 Şubat 2020’de Kavala ve diğer sekiz sanık, Gezi Parkı davasında “cebir ve şiddet kullanarak hükümeti ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasından beraat etmiştir.
Ancak Kavala cezaevinden tahliye edilmemiş ve bir hakim kararıyla 2016 darbesiyle ilgili devam eden bir soruşturmayla ilişkili olarak “anayasal düzeni cebir ve şiddet kullanarak ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasıyla tekrar tutuklanmıştır. Tekrar tutuklanmasından kısa bir süre önce Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan halka açık şekilde Kavala’nın beraatini eleştirmiştir. Kavala haftalar sonra, yine bu delillere ve soruşturma dosyasına dayanan bir başka suçlama ile (casusluk) bir kez daha tutuklanmıştır.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Türkiye Direktörü Emma Sinclair-Webb,” Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin kararı bildirimimizi doğrulamakta, Osman Kavala’nın tutukluluk halini uzatan mahkeme kararlarının arkasında siyasi değerlendirmelerin olduğunu ve Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasını önlemek için ortak bir resmi çabanın bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır” dedi.
Sinclair-Webb, “Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin kararına uymak yerine, Türkiye, Kavala’nın insan haklarını ihlal etmeye devam etmiştir” dedi.
Türkiye’de insan hakları savunucularına yönelik baskı, daha genel olarak gazetecilere, seçilmiş siyasetçilere, hukukçulara, hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere yönelik keyfi alıkoymalar ve yargısal tacizin bir parçasıdır. Bu uygulama Avrupa Konseyi, Avrupa Birliği ve insan hakları örgütlerine ait birçok raporla belgelendirilmiştir.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi Eş Direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir “Kavala’ya karşı yürütülen yıldırma kampanyası, onun tahliye edilmemesi ve hakkındaki suçlamaların düşürülmemesi, Türkiye’deki tüm insan hakları savunucuları için baskı ortamının sürmesine sebep olmuştur” dedi.
“1000 gün boyunca devam eden açıkça hukuka aykırı olan tutukluluğun sona ermesi, yalnız Osman Kavala’nın haklarının daha fazla ihlal edilmesini önlemek konusunda değil, aynı zamanda insan hakları savunucuları topluluğuna Türkiye’nin uluslararası insan hakları yükümlülüklerine uyumunu denetleyen mevcut gözetim mekanizmalarının hala etkili olabileceği yönünde güçlü bir sinyal verecektir.”
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü’nün Türkiye ile ilgili diğer raporları için tıklayınız:
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/turkey
Daha fazla bilgi için :
İstanbul’da, Emma Sinclair-Webb (İngilizce, Türkçe): +90-538-972-4486 (Whatsapp); ya da sinclae@hrw.org. Twitter: @esinclairwebb
Cenevre’de, Massimo Frigo (İngilizce, Fransızca, İspanyolca ve İtalyanca): +41-79-749-99-49; ya da massimo.frigo@icj.org. Twitter: @maxfrigo
Brüksel’de, Róisín Pillay (İngilizce, Fransızca): +32-2-734-84-46 (cep telefonu); ya da roisin.pillay@icj.org
New York’ta, Aisling Reidy (İngilizce) +1-917-378-3178 (cep telefonu); ya da reidya@hrw.org
Sep 2, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made submissions to the Human Rights Committee, today, on Ukraine’s implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The ICJ broughtto the Committee’s attention some issues of concern pertaining to Ukraine’s compliance with and implementation of the ICCPR.
This submission highlights a number of concerns relating to the security and independence of lawyers in Ukraine, and their consequences for the protection of certain Covenant rights. In particular, this submission addresses:
- the institutional independence of the legal profession;
- security of lawyers and their right to life;
- restrictions on access to clients and the rights of the defence; and
- security of lawyers and access to justice in uncontrolled territories in Ukraine.
These concerns highlight Ukraine’s lack of compliance with its obligations under the Covenant, including in respect of the right to life under article 6 and the right to a fair trial under article 14, in particular, as well as under other Covenant rights, such as Ukraine’s obligations under articles 2, 7, 9, 10, and 17 of the ICCPR.
Ukraine-ICJ-Submission-CCPR-Advocacy-Non-Legal-Submissions-2020-ENG
Sep 1, 2020 | News
The ICJ today expressed its concern regarding the 31 August 2020 and 14 August 2020 decisions of the Indian Supreme Court to convict prominent human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court, on the basis of two twitter posts in which the lawyer criticized the performance of the Indian judiciary.
While the Court only imposed a symbolic fine of one rupee, rather than imprisonment, the ICJ considers that the conviction appears to be inconsistent with international standards on freedom of expression and the role of lawyers.
The ICJ stressed that the ruling risks having a chilling effect on the exercise of protected freedom of expression in India and urged a review of the laws and standards on criminal contempt as applied by the Indian courts.
The two tweets published by Prashant Bhushan referred to the Chief Justice of India riding an expensive motorbike belonging to a BJP leader “when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice” and asserted that the Supreme Court and the last four Chief Justices of India had contributed to how, in his view, “democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency”
The Court in its 31 August judgment held that the tweets were a serious attempt to “denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice” which, it said, is “capable of shaking the very edifice of the judicial administration and also shaking the faith of common man in the administration of justice.”
The Court considered that its ruling was consistent with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, saying that it will have to balance its exercise of power to punish for contempt for itself (Article 129) with freedom of speech and expression.
The ICJ is concerned, however, that the conviction appears inconsistent with international law on freedom of expression as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19, ICCPR) to which India is a party.
While some restrictions of freedom of expression are permitted by international standards, a particularly wide scope must be preserved for debate and discussion about such matters as the role of the judiciary, access to justice, and democracy, by members of the public, including through public commentary on the courts.
Any restrictions must be strictly necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate purpose, such as protecting public order or the rights and reputations of others.
“There is a general concern that the protection of freedom of expression is rapidly eroding in India,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“We have seen this recently around the COVID 19 crisis in relation to the imprisonment of human rights defenders, on draconian charges of sedition, rioting and unlawful assembly for protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.”
“While the Indian Supreme Court has over the years generally been an institution that has served to advance human rights in India and globally, we fear it now may be perceived as silencing criticism and freedom of expression by invoking outdated criminal contempt laws,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ joins the 1800 Indian lawyers in calling for the Supreme Court “to review the standards of criminal contempt”, emphasizing that the law is overbroad and should be aligned with international law and standards on the limited scope for restrictions on freedom of expression and criminal contempt.
“Prashant Bhushan is a lawyer and lawyers being part of the legal system have a ring-side view and understanding of the state of the court. Convicting a leading lawyer for contempt for expressing his views in this manner may have a chilling effect on lawyers, in particular considering his involvement in many public interest litigation cases,” said Mandira Sharma, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
Contact
Ian Seiderman – ICJ Legal and Policy Director; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org , t: +41 22 979 38 00
Matt Pollard – ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Director, ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org, t: +41 79 246 54 75
Download
India-Criminal-Contempt-of-Court-Press-Release-2020-ENG (PDF, with additional background information)
Aug 30, 2020 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The ICJ marked the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances today by releasing a baseline study (in Spanish) which identifies key obstacles to accountability for serious human right violations in Colombia.
“The report finds that although Colombia has a comprehensive legal framework aimed at providing accountability for serious human rights violations, victims still face many challenges in obtaining access to justice,” said Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative.
“A robust domestic legal framework is important, but without effective Government implementation at every level full accountability for these violations will remain out of reach,” added Abbott.
Among other challenges, some victims still encounter difficulties in participating in criminal proceedings or obtaining information about investigations and prosecutions of those alleged to be responsible for violations.
The study recommends steps Colombia should take to improve the implementation of the domestic legal framework, including:
- raising the awareness of civil servants, including judicial employees, of victims’ rights and the appropriate legal mechanisms employed to search for “disappeared” persons;
- improving coordination between the State’s institutions, including the Search Unit for Persons Presumed Disappeared in the context and by Reason of the Armed conflict, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, and the Office of the Attorney General; and
- ensuring that the investigation and prosecution of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings take place within the civilian rather than the military justice system.
The study also stresses the importance of Colombia recognizing the competence of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) to receive and consider individual communications. Considering the high levels of impunity, the recognition has been requested by Colombian civil society organizations and victims to improve the protection and guarantee of rights of victims of enforced disappearances.
The baseline study has been produced as part of the ICJ’s regional project addressing justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, sponsored by the European Union.
The baseline study is available in Spanish.
Background
The ICJ has long been monitoring laws, policies and practices concerning the investigation and prosecution of serious human rights violations and abuses in Colombia, including enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, as part of its efforts to promote accountability, justice and the rule of law around the world.
Enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings are among the most prevalent human rights violations committed in Colombia, particularly in the context of the ongoing internal armed conflict. In Latin America, Colombia has one of the highest figures of people who have been subject to enforced disappearance or unlawfully killed.
The project is implemented under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative which has also produced baseline studies for Eswatini, Nepal, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cambodia, Tajikistan and Tunisia.
Contacts
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the Global Accountability Initiative, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Carolina Villadiego, Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America, and Regional Coordinator of the Project, e: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Rocío Quintero M, Legal Adviser, Latin America, e: rocio.quintero(a)icj.org
Download
Colombia-GRA-Baseline-Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic-reports-2020-SPA (full report, in Spanish, PDF)
