Nov 2, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ and 56 civil society organizations called for an end to attacks on independent media by the Royal Government of Cambodia (“RGC”).
Amidst an increasingly repressive landscape, the organizations called on the RGC to:
- End harassment of journalists and media outlets;
- Immediately drop apparently politically motivated charges against journalists and unconditionally release those held in detention for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and information;
- Repeal or significantly amend repressive laws that unjustifiably impede media freedom and freedom of expression, including media freedom, so as to allow for a vibrant and free media landscape in line with its international human rights obligations;
- Immediately reverse revocations of media licenses to facilitate media freedom and the right to freedom of expression and information; and refrain from similar revocations of media licenses in the future.
Download the joint statement in English and Khmer.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Global Accountability Initiative e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: authorities must end increasing crackdown on human rights defenders’, 11 September 2020
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: ICJ and 64 organizations call for immediate withdrawal of Draft Law on Public Order’, 13 August 2020
ICJ, ‘ICJ and 31 organizations jointly urge Governments to call for respect of human rights in Cambodia’, 22 July 2020
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law’, 8 April 2020
Oct 30, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
From 27 to 28 October 2020, the ICJ, in collaboration with the National Commission for Lebanese Women (NCLW), held a seminar on recommended practice with respect to evidentiary standards in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual and gender-based violence offences in Lebanon.
Consultations held by the ICJ with the Lebanese authorities and with practitioners in July 2019 revealed the need to support and bolster the capacity of criminal justice system actors to effectively investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and sanction SGBV, prompting the ICJ, together with NCLW, to organize the seminar.
The seminar accordingly aimed to address the significant gaps in law and procedure and practical obstacles to ensuring key evidence be identified, collected and assessed in a manner consistent with international standards, including Lebanon’s obligations under international human rights law. It also aimed to provide a platform to connect Lebanese judges, prosecutors, police officers, lawyers, forensic practitioners and international experts, with a view to identifying solutions that will ensure women and girls’ effective access to justice for SGBV in Lebanon, in addition to accountability for, and protection from, SGBV.
The discussions predominantly focused on the international law and standards that apply to the identification, gathering, storing, admissibility, exclusion and evaluation of evidence in SGBV cases and how such standards may be used to fill gaps and strengthen domestic law and practice. Participants also discussed the adverse impact patriarchal and other harmful stereotypes have on investigation, prosecution and adjudication processes.
The seminar commenced with opening remarks from NCLW’s President and the International Commission of Jurists’ Middle East and North Africa Programme Director. Speakers included practitioners from international and domestic courts and tribunals, as well as ICJ staff.
The seminar followed the publication of ICJ guidance and recommendations to criminal justice actors in its report Accountability for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Lebanon, published on 22 October 2020.
Informed by international law and standards, the ICJ will now formulate recommendations based on the identification by the seminar’s participants of the reforms needed with respect to the Lebanese framework and practice. These recommendations will be included in the ICJ’s forthcoming publication on evidentiary rules and recommended practices in cases of SGBV in Lebanon, which will be published and disseminated among practitioners in Lebanon.
Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a conversation on the past and current situation of the fight against impunity in Turkey with eminent international and Turkish expert.
Registation is on a first come first served basis by writing to: ihop@ihop.org.tr
Join our speakers:
– Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
– Wilder Taylor, Former Secretary-General of ICJ and chair of Uruguary NPM
– Luciano A. Hazan, Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance
– Melis Gebeş, Lawyer, Truth Justice and Memory Center:
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of Human Rights Joint Platform
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
Oct 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the dismissal of eight judges and three prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) on 14 October 2020, for alleged membership of or connections with the Gülenist movement as a violation their right to a fair trial.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order. In case any further is to be taken, the cases should be re-examined under the ordinary dismissal procedures. The ICJ also urges the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
“This decision not only affects the rights of the judges and prosecutors at stake, but also the Turkish population as whole, which damages the functioning of a fair and independent justice system bound by the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it was not accompanied by any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
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.
As the ICJ demonstrated in the 2018 report Justice Suspended, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is itself not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency still apply, having been extended for three 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 a fair procedure, in disregard of international law,” added Massimo Frigo.
Background
On 14 October the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use 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. The decision was issued in the Official Gazette on 30 October 2020. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously applied under the state of emergency legislation. More than 30 judges have so far been dismissed under this procedure since the end of the state of emergency.
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 authorized 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
The decision to dismiss the nine judges and two prosecutors was made on 14 October 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 20 October 2020. After recalling Law no 7145 that enables the dismissal of judges and prosecutors by the Board, the decision states that all defendants have asked to submit their written defences. The decision also indicates that this is not a criminal conviction. The decision is based on complaints received and refers to investigations on their social environment, criminal investigations and prosecutors conducted by judicial authorities in general on the Gülenist organisation/FETÖ, minutes of hearings, contents of the communication app Bylock, statements by witnesses and suspects. However, the decision does not include any reasoning relating to the individual situation of each judge or prosecutor.
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
