Feb 19, 2020 | News
Huda Al- Sarari, Yemeni lawyer and human rights defender, is the 2020 Martin Ennals Award laureate. She was among three women selected as finalists by a jury of ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, along with Sizani Ngubane, South Africa, and Norma Librada Ledezma, Mexico.
The 2020 Martin Ennals Award ceremony, co-hosted by the Martin Ennals Foundation and the City of Geneva, was held today, and for the first time in the history of the Award, all three finalists are women.
“Women human rights defenders are subject to the same risks as every human rights defender, but as women, they also face certain forms of violence and violations due to their gender. They are often stigmatized and ostracized by community leaders, faith- based groups and even family members,” said the Mayor of the City of Geneva, Sandrine Salerno.
“The Martin Ennals Foundation is particularly proud to honour and support three resilient women human rights defenders this year, our laureate Huda Al-Sarari, as well as our two finalists Sizani Ngubane and Norma Librada Ledezma for their achievements. We hope that the award will shed a light on their achievements, and strengthen protection mechanisms around them,” said Philippe Currat, President of the Board of the Martin Ennals Foundation.
Huda Al-Sarari is a Yemeni lawyer and human rights defender who graduated in Sharia and Law from Aden University. She also holds a masters in Women’s Studies and Development from the Women’s Centre at Aden University. Over the last years, Huda investigated, exposed and challenged the enforced disappearances that occurred as a result of secret prisons run by foreign governments in Yemen where thousands of men and boys have suffered from arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. She collected evidence on more than 250 cases of the abuse taking place within those prisons.
“Being a human rights defender in Yemen is extremely challenging, and being a woman makes this even more difficult. In a male-dominated society, I have to prove myself maybe ten times more than a man,” she said.
Despite the threats, defamation campaigns and sacrifices she and her family endured, Huda continues to stand alongside the families of those who have disappeared.
“Receiving the 2020 Martin Ennals Award for human rights defenders means the world to me. It gives me great strength and emboldens me to continue this fight for justice. I believe the Award will be incredibly important in drawing attention to the continual plight of victims of arbitrary detention, abuse and torture in Yemen,” she added.
“We commend Huda for the work that she conducted, not only against the backdrop of the ongoing Yemeni civil war, but also, in a country where women still struggle to express their political and civil rights. Huda’s legacy is crucial as her thorough investigations and search for accountability will serve to bring justice for human rights violations occurred during the conflict,” said Hans Thoolen, Chair of the Martin Ennals Award Jury.
The two finalists of the Martin Ennals Award this year are Sizani Ngubane (South Africa) and Norma Librada Ledezma (Mexico).
Sizani is a human rights defender who advocates for land rights for women in rural areas on South Africa. She also supports women to access education, and fights for the end of the traditional practice of Ukuthwala, which is the abduction and forced marriage of young girls and women.
Norma is the founder of Justicia para Nuestras Hijas. She has supported over 200 investigations into cases of feminicide, enforced disappearance and human trafficking in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Both were praised by the Martin Ennals Jury member organizations for their commitment and tremendous achievements in their respective countries.
Additional information
The City of Geneva has hosted the Award ceremony since 2008, together with the Martin Ennals Foundation, as part of its deep commitment to the defense of human rights. The support of the City, by means of its Service for International Solidarity, reflects its mission to promote human rights both internationally and
The Jury of the Martin Ennals Award is comprised of ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations: the ICJ, Amnesty International, FIDH, Human Rights First, HURIDOCS, International Service For Human Rights, Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World), Front Line Defenders, Human Rights Watch and the World Organization Against Torture.
Download
Universal-MEA2020bios-News-2019-ENG (full bios of finalists, in PDF)
Universal-MEA2020winner-News-Press releases-2019-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Universal-MEA2020bios-News-2019-ARA (full bios of finalists, in Arabic, PDF)
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Watch the ceremony as it happened
https://www.facebook.com/MartinEnnals/videos/2552501445008021/
Jan 9, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, the ICJ and Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) are holding a 2-day training seminar for judges and lawyers in Dublin, Ireland, on the rights of migrants, in particular the right to family life and due process in asylum proceedings.
The participants consist of about 30 judges and judicial assistants from the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) administrative decision makers (IPO/INIS), and legal professionals.
During the two days of training, experts from the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Immigration Tribunal, Trinity College Dublin, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the ICJ will deliver the training, bringing international human rights and EU law perspectives to the discussion on the Irish context.
Among the issues discussed will be – on day 1 – the right to private and family life in migration, including, and recent developments at the ECtHR, and right to private and family life in the national context as well as best interests of the child determination and family life rights in return decisions. On day 2 discussion will focus on procedural rights and remedies in the context of international protection,. Issues discussed will include due process rights in asylum procedures, safe third country concept, and credibitity assesments and vulnerability in international protection applications.
In parallel, a training for 20 social care professionals working with migrant children is being delivered.
This is the second national training under the FAIR PLUS project, following the first training held last December in Pisa.
See the full agenda here.
This training is a part of FAIR PLUS project. It was carried out with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ICJ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Dec 27, 2019 | Advocacy
In December 2019, the ICJ launched its report Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia. The report looked at selected legal frameworks and case studies across ten countries in the region
The Myanmar section maps out a general pattern of abuse of legal frameworks by the government to restrict and control content online to the detriment of individuals’ rights to freedom of expression, opinion and information.
Download
Full report in Burmese.
The chapter on Myanmar in English and Burmese.
Dec 20, 2019 | Advocacy
Today, the ICJ published a compilation of cases (read the full document here) decided by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (articles 7 and 10).
This compilation draws together the views of the HRC in all individual communications adjudicated on the merits in respect of Tajikistan, concerning Article 7 and Article 10 of the ICCPR from 1999 to 2019.
This compilation provides a resource for lawyers, judges, civil society and other stakeholders working to protect against torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan. The cases in this volume demonstrate how the UN Human Rights Committee has applied the principles of its jurisprudence on torture and other ill-treatment to the particular legal and factual context of Tajikistan. These authoritative interpretations of the ICCPR by the Committee can help to inform consideration of these issues in the national courts, as well as in legislative reform and policy making.
In addition, by drawing together and analysing the facts of individual communications to the Committee from Tajikistan, this compilation also serves to identify underlying systemic issues which Tajik authorities and the national justice system fail to address. An introduction to the compilation highlight of the main issues which have been identified by the Committee in almost 20 years of its practice on Tajikistan. Several patterns regarding the actual functioning of the Tajik criminal justice system can be drawn from the Committee’s decisions. Together they represent an important evidentiary source to determine where the justice system fails in practice to protect human rights that are guaranteed by the ICCPR and often by Tajikistan law and procedure.
While the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7 is the central point of this review, it logically includes some reference to other relevant Articles of the ICCPR, including Article 2(3) (the right to an effective remedy for violations of the Covenant rights) Article 6 (right to life), Article 10 (conditions of detention), Article 9 (the right to liberty) and Article 14 (fair trial rights). These rights are analysed only where they are pleaded by applicants in cases also involving allegations of violations of rights under Article 7 or 10 ICCPR.
This compilation of cases is published as part of ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, with a view to rendering accessible the cases of the Human Rights Committee related to torture and other ill-treatment to a wide range of different actors within and engaging with the justice system. It should be useful both for independent practitioners such as lawyers, human rights defenders and civil society organizations, and for the judiciary, but also the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Interior, under whose competence some of the issues may fall. The publication should be of equal interest to IGOs working in or with an interest in Tajikistan.
Dec 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ called today on the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) to drop a draft law that would put judges at risk of disciplinary action for their interpretation and application of the law, including EU and international law.
The draft law would also mean that judges would face disciplinary penalties for legitimate criticism of judicial reforms.
“The Polish Parliament should reject these proposals which would place intolerable constraints on judges in interpreting and applying the law and would undermine their freedom to speak out on vital issues of judicial independence,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Elements of the proposals appear designed to prevent judges from fulfilling their obligation under the EU treaties to apply EU law, which is an attack on the independent exercise of their judicial function” she added.
Under the proposals, judges would face disciplinary action and possible dismissal for refusing to apply a legal provision, unless it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal.
This proposal appears to be a direct reaction to a recent decision of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court which, applying a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, held that the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber was not an independent court. The Labour Chamber found that that the Disciplinary Chamber is not independent since its judges are appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ). Following a recent constitutional reform, the NCJ is composed predominantly of members elected by Parliament and the executive, contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
New disciplinary offences for judges under the draft law would also include questioning the status of Polish judges, and “political engagement”. Judges would be prohibited from questioning the status of Polish courts or tribunals or constitutional organs. Futhermore, the draft law would prevent judges’ associations from adopting resolutions “expressing hostility towards other powers of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”.
These provisions would hamper judges’ capacity to criticize reforms which have led to questionable judicial appointments by the NCJ and have seriously damaged the independence of the judiciary as a whole. International human rights law and international standards on the judiciary recognise that judges have a right to freedom of expression and that they have a particularly important role in contributing to discussions on issues of the functioning of the judicial system and the rule of law.
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges 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 UN Basic Principles, also affirm the freedom of expression and association of judges (Principle 8) in line with protections under international human rights law, and their right to form and join associations of judges to represent their interests (Principle 9).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
The ICJ has documented, and the UN Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers has affirmed, that the right of judges to freedom of expression is particularly protected when in situations where the rule of law or constitutional order is under threat, they speak out in defence of the independence of the judiciary.
Contacts:
Róisín Pillay, Director for Europe and Central Asia Proramme, t: +32 2 734 84 46; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
