Oct 21, 2018 | News
On 21 October, the ICJ, together with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), organized a lawyers’ meeting in Bangkok on the admissibility of evidence in the context of application of special security laws in Thailand.
Attendees included 30 human rights lawyers, paralegal officers, documentation officers, human rights defenders and journalists from Bangkok and other regions in Thailand.
The objectives of the meeting were:
- To discuss about the challenges that lawyers currently face regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, both in law and in practice, in the context of existing special security laws. These laws include the Martial Law, Emergency Decree, and the Internal Security Act that are applied in the southern border provinces, and certain repressive National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Orders that are applied nationwide;
- To discuss how to address the adverse effects on human rights and the administration of justice as a consequence of the implementation of these laws and how lawyers, members of civil society, and other stakeholders, at national and international levels, may work together to address such challenges; and
- To gather recommendations from participants and discuss future advocacy strategies to tackle identified challenges.
The ICJ’s Legal Memorandum on Hearsay Evidence and International Fair Trial Standards was used as one of the main reference materials during the meeting.
A main recommendation of the Workshop, echoed the ICJ’s assessment in the Legal Memorandum, namely that Thailand should review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards to ensure safeguards required to protect individuals from unfair trials.
Read also
Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards
Oct 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomes the interim measures prescribed today by the Court of Justice of the EU as a necessary step in stemming the evident erosion of the rule of law in Poland.
The Court provisionally ordered Poland to preserve the composition of its Supreme Court of 3 April 2018, before a law forcing into retirement a third of the Court’s members entered into force.
The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to comply with the EU Court order by maintaining in office the Supreme Court judges .
“In accordance with today’s court’s order, Polish authorities should immediately rescind all measures taken since April 2018 that modify the composition of the Supreme Court. They are obliged to do this under EU law as it is binding on Polish authorities and by the fundamental principle of the rule of law that decisions of the judiciary must be respected and implemented.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
On 10 October, President Andrzej Duda appointed 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July. The ICJ condemned this act of the President of Poland because it contravened an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the EU Court. Critically, the mass and forced retirement of sitting judges before the end of the established terms of tenure undermines their security of tenure, a key principle regarding the independence of the judiciary.
Background
The independence of the judiciary in Poland has been systematically undermined by the Polish executive and legislative authorities.
Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.
The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.
In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018. Today’s decision by the Court of Justice granted this interim measures request.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Oct 14, 2018 | News
From 12 to 13 October 2018, the ICJ and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) held its second national workshop on eliminating gender discriminatory attitudes and behaviours towards women.
Participants at the workshop were members of IBP’s Board of Governors and Committee on Bar Discipline. The workshop was held in Cebu City, Philippines.
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser opened the workshop by emphasizing that it is crucial for lawyers of all areas of expertise to engage in dialogues such as this in order to further enhance women’s access to justice.
Gil pointed out that gender stereotypes incorporated in laws and perpetuated in the administration of justice impair the capacity of women to exercise their right to access to justice.
She emphasized that lawyers, as frontline formal justice actors, play a key role in eliminating these stereotypes.
Marienne Ibadlit, IBP’s Governor for Western Visayas, spoke about the establishment of the Gender and Development (GAD) Committee as a standing committee of the IBP.
The establishment of the GAD Committee is expected to advance gender and women’s human rights within the IBP.
It is also expected to institutionalize within the IBP efforts to build the capacity of lawyers in the Philippines to assist women in accessing justice.
The participants recognized during the opening session that recourse to gender stereotypes in the practice of law and administration of justice is widespread in the Philippines and that gender stereotypes directly impact women’s access to justice.
A range of stereotypes were identified, including the idea of women being the ‘weaker sex’ and the perception that female lawyers are not suited for litigation of controversial political or criminal cases.
During the workshop, participants discussed how they could maximize their role as lawyers in facilitating women’s access to justice, specifically in the areas of domestic violence, sexual violence, family law, and employment law.
Some of the participants noted that they themselves had been influenced by gender stereotypes and committed to be more consciously gender sensitive in their work and personal life.
While acknowledging that much more must be done to bring about systematic change, it was agreed that incremental measures could be impactful.
Abdiel Dan Fajardo, National President of the IBP, expressed support for more action by lawyers in the Philippines on women’s human rights.
Both the ICJ and IBP reinforced their commitment to joint collaboration in furthering the advancements in women’s access to justice in the country.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.
The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.
Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.
He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”. Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.
On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.
On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.
According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.
The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.
The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.
“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.
Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.
The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.
Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ made submissions today to the European Court of Human Rights in support of the right of association of Azerbaijan’s lawyers representing applicants before the Court and highlighting the situation of harassment of the legal profession in the country.
The ICJ intervened today in the cases of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan and Mustafayev and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan.
In these cases, lawyer Asabali Mustafayev and its NGO challenged the compliance of the freezing of their assets and criminal proceedings for financial offences as arbitrary interferences with their work as human rights defenders and in representation of clients before the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The ICJ has intervened to highlight the case-law regarding the right to individual application before the Court under article 34 ECHR and its application to the work of lawyers and legal NGOs.
It further examined the systemic practice in Azerbaijan of harassment of lawyers and of NGOs established by lawyers for the purpose of providing legal advice or representation, including representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, the ICJ analyzed the implications of such practices with regard to the State’s obligations under article 18 ECHR read together with article 11 ECHR.
Azerbaijan-icj-DHRRC&other-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Question to the parties: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184179
