Feb 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern over amendments to Egypt’s 2014 Constitution proposed by the House of Representatives yesterday, which could increase President el-Sisi’s control over the judiciary, extend his rule for 15 more years, expand the jurisdiction of military courts’ to prosecute civilians and broaden the military’s powers.
The amendments were proposed by one-fifth of the House of Representatives on 4 February, and reported to Parliament by its General Committee yesterday.
“The proposed amendments are a flagrant assault on the independence of the judiciary, and would expand the powers of presidency and further facilitate el-Sisi’s subordination of judicial and prosecutorial authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The amendments would grant the President authority to choose the Supreme Constitutional Court’s (SCC) President and its new members, chairs of all other judicial authorities, and the Public Prosecutor.
The President would also have authority to select the Chair and members of the Commissioners Authority, a judicial board that provides advisory opinions to judges on legal issues in cases pending before the SCC.
The General Committee’s report states the amendments are to “unify the mechanism of appointment” of these institutions.
The amendments would also establish a “High Council for Joint Judicial Affairs” chaired by the President to manage all common matters relating to the judiciary.
The amendment to Article 140 of the Constitution would extend presidential terms from four to six years.
Another “needed transitional article” would reportedly also permit President el-Sisi to run for re-election for another two terms, which, combined, could permit him to stay in office until 2034.
Article 140 of the Constitution currently imposes a two-term limit, and Article 226 prohibits amendments to “texts pertaining to the re-election of the president of the Republic…unless the amendment brings more guarantees.”
“This is an attempt to undermine constitutional safeguards aimed at protecting the right of the Egyptian people to freely choose their government and to take part in the conduct of public affairs,” said Benarbia.
“In accepting these amendments, the Parliament would abdicate its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law,” he added.
Further amendments include the “redrafting and deepening the role of the Armed Forces” by expanding its mandate to include broad terms such as “safeguarding the constitution and democracy” and “preserving the basic elements of the state and its civilian character.”
The jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians for “direct assault[s]” against military facilities, objects and personnel would also be expanded by the removing the requirement that the assaults be “direct.”
The amendment would make permanent a temporary constitutional provision requiring the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—a military body—to approve the appointment of the Minister of Defense.
“The amendments effectively place the military above the law and the Constitution,” said Said Benarbia.
“They pave the way for the further entrenchment of the military in civilian affairs, which has already led to significant violations of civilian rights to participate in political life and express opinions critical of the regime,” he added.
Under international law, the jurisdiction of military courts must be limited to holding military personnel accountable for alleged violations of military discipline. No civilian should be prosecuted before military courts.
The amendments, which are still subject to parliamentary discussion and drafting by parliamentary committee, must eventually be approved in a two-thirds vote, and then by a majority in a referendum.
The ICJ expressed its concerns about the process for adoption of the 2014 Constitution, and its capacity to serve as a basis for the establishment of the rule of law in Egypt.
The ICJ made recommendations aimed at facilitating public participation in the legislative process in accordance with international standards and at ensuring constitutional provisions were consistent with international human rights law.
These concerns remain valid today.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ENG (full story with background infomation, in PDF)
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ARA (full story in Arabic, in PDF)
Feb 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ is concerned that the dismissal of 17 judges and prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors on 10 January, for alleged membership of or connections with the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation” (FETÖ) did not respect their right to a fair trial.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it lacks any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
The ICJ points out that international law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.
Furthermore, the ICJ recalls its conclusions in the 2018 report Justice Suspended that, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since last July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency were extended for 3 years by Law no. 7145. It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without respect for the right to a fair procedure, in disregard of international standards.
Considering that the Council of State has not delivered a single decision about dismissed judges and prosecutors during the state of emergency, in more than two years now, it seems likely that it would take at least two years before the recent decision of the CJP is reviewed by an independent judicial authority. Until then, absent further action by the CJP, the reasons for the dismissals will not be known by the purged judges and prosecutors, or by the general public.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order and re-examine the cases under the ordinary dismissal procedures and on the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
Finally, the ICJ expresses concern at the conviction of the former head of the judges’ organisation YARSAV, Mr Murat Arslan, for alleged membership of FETÖ. There are credible reports of violations of the right to a fair trial in the proceedings, including four changes of judges during the proceedings, often without reasons given and without re-examination of witnesses, significant limitations to the defence access to evidence before trial and use of witnesses with undisclosed identity. The ICJ considers that these allegations of violations of the right to a fair trial should be thoroughly re-examined in appeal before an independent court and in full respect of Mr Arslan’s fair trial rights.
Background
On 10 January, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use for the first time of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously existed under the state of emergency legislation.
One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorised to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145.
Based on this amendment, on 10 January 2019 the Council of Judges and Prosecutors took its first decision (Decision No. 2019/1) by dismissing 17 judges and prosecutors (6 Public prosecutors, 3 Members of Administrative Court, 7 judges of of Tax Court) based on the allegation of membership to FETÖ.
International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law (including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights). The Basic Principles state that a:
“charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. …
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jan 31, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
For the past two years the ICJ and its partners Refugee Rights Turkey (RRT), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and Mülteci-Der (MD) have provided trainings and training materials for Turkish lawyers on international human rights law relating to migration and asylum as part of the project Fostering Access to Rights for Migrants, Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Turkey.
The project has worked to enhance access to justice for migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, through establishing, equipping and supporting a well-informed group of lawyers and civil society organizations in Turkey and link them with their counterparts in EU Member States to defend the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers.
In a public event on the 17 December 2019 hosted in Ankara to mark the conclusion of the project, the ICJ and its partners presented a promotional video describing the work conducted throughout the project.
Watch video here:
(Rough Turkish subtitles available but will be revised at a later stage | Turn the Turkish subtitle by clicking on CC.)
The project “Fostering Access to Rights for Migrants, Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Turkey” is funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) of the European Union.
Jan 29, 2019 | News
On the second anniversary of the killing of prominent lawyer U Ko Ni, in public view at Yangon International Airport, the ICJ repeats its calls for a thorough and impartial investigation with a view to establish the facts, to deliver justice and to deter the repetition of similar crimes.
“This brazen killing of a prominent democracy advocate demands a rigorous State response to show this type of crime will be fully punished,” said Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Despite an official investigation and reports of more than 100 court hearings, nobody has been held accountable for U Ko Ni’s death – criminally or otherwise – and the circumstances have not yet been satisfactorily explained.
“Myanmar simply cannot satisfy its international law obligations without conducting an impartial and independent investigation that is free of military influence. Such an investigation is a pre-requisite for conducting an effective prosecution in a fair trial setting,” added Rawski.
U Ko Ni was well known as a vocal advocate for human rights and democratic reform in Myanmar. As an adviser to the National Legal of Democracy party, he was involved in creating the position of State Counselor, which formalized a leadership role for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, despite a constitutional provision barring her from the Presidency.
At the time of his death, it is understood that U Ko Ni was working on proposals to replace Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution, the source of law underpinning military power.
“A credible justice process is required not only for U Ko Ni and his family, but to demonstrate the State will protect the right to life of all people including democracy advocates,” said Sean Bain, legal adviser for the ICJ.
“A crime of this nature stifles participation in the democratic process and so an effective justice process is imperative to deter its repetition,” Bain added.
Myanmar has a particular obligation to ensure that lawyers and others acting as human rights defenders are protected in carrying out their work.
Any justice process must be timely, effective and shed light on the facts.
The investigation into U Ko Ni’s killing has been beset by obstacles, including the unknown whereabouts of a primary suspect, the incorrect identification of a deceased individual as a suspect and the arrest of a person with the same name, and reported military involvement in the police investigation. Lines of inquiry related to the political motivations for the killing, particularly considering the military links of many suspects, do not appear to have been pursued satisfactorily, nor impartially, given military involvement in the investigation.
Criminal proceedings in Yangon’s Northern District Court, and related proceedings in the Yangon High Court, have been sluggish. Observing lawyers and individuals including from the ICJ have noted multiple instances of admission into evidence of testimony that appears to be irrelevant, failures of key witnesses to appear, and the long drawn out process of court proceedings whereby weeklong delays are common while continuances over successive days are rare.
These issues are emblematic of challenges in Myanmar’s justice system previously identified by the ICJ in which police, prosecutors and courts generally lack the independence and or will to effectively administer justice, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
“Two years is an incredibly long time to get to the position we are in now, and in our experience this highlights broader problems with the administration of justice in Myanmar,” added Bain.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Download:
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-ENG (full story with background information, PDF)
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-BUR (full text in Burmese, PDF)
Read also:
Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report
Killing of lawyer U Ko Ni must be promptly and impartially investigated
Jan 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) submitted a joint amicus curiae in criminal defamation proceedings against human rights defenders Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri for bringing to light alleged labor rights violations at Thammakaset Company Limited.
The defamation charges relate to a 107-second film, produced by the non-governmental organization Fortify Rights, which documents previous defamation complaints brought by Thammakaset against 14 of its former migrant workers from Myanmar.
Nan Win was one of the migrant workers featured in the film. Sutharee Wannasiri, former Human Rights Specialist with Fortify Rights, was charged in connection with making three Twitter posts relating to the film.
The brief aims to clarify the nature and scope of Thailand’s international legal obligations relating to the right to freedom of expression and points out that the imposition of harsh penalties such as imprisonment or large fines on a human rights defender risks having a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of freedom of expression, which Thailand is bound to protect pursuant to its international legal obligations.
The preliminary examinations of Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri will begin on 4 February and 11 March 2019, respectively.
During the preliminary examination hearing, is the Court will consider the case before it to determine if it is a prima facie case.
The preliminary examination hearing is a mandatory proceeding in matters involving prosecution claims brought by private individuals or entities, such as in the case of Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri.
If the preliminary examination finds that the cases are prima facie, the court will admit to trial only the charges relating to the counts deemed prima facie.
If the court finds no prima facie case, it can rule that the charges be dismissed.
Read also:
Thailand: Drop defamation complaints against human rights defenders Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri (3 December 2018)
Download:
Thailand-Nan Win Kratik_Amicus-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-ENG (full amicus in PDF, English)
Thailand-Nan Win Kratik_Amicus-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-THA (full amicus in PDF, Thai)
