Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
The ICJ is concerned with the passing of Constitutional Amendment no. 1 of 2017 by the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe on 25 July 2017.
The House of Assembly voted with over two-thirds majority for the amendment of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The amendment grants the President the right to appoint to office, the Judge President of the High Court, the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe.
Before this amendment the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) spearheaded the process of selection and appointment of judges with the President merely appointing from candidates recommended to him by the JSC.
The enactment of this Bill to law is likely to have a negative effect on the public’s perception of the judiciary. It also has the potential to affect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary.
“The amendment to the 2013 Constitution will negatively affect public confidence in the judiciary. Not only is this a departure from a position that was in line with international standards and best practices; the amendment is likely to have a ripple effect on the judiciary,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Director.
“In the short term the executive now has a carrot, which it can dangle in front of judicial officers. If a judge wants to be promoted to Judge President, Deputy Chief Justice or Chief they may have to align themselves with the thinking of the executive. Over time, given the central roles that these three office bearers play in the appointment process and thought leadership, Zimbabwe is likely to have a very executive minded bench,” he added.
To this end the ICJ calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed in the bill.
The procedure in section 180 of the constitution had distinguished Zimbabwe’s appointment procedures as exemplary in the region.
It is unfortunate that through this amendment the country has failed to consolidate this leadership position.
The amendment would be regressive and poses a real risk of undermining the essential role of the judiciary in securing the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe-Constitutional Amendment-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Jul 24, 2017 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
The AIRE Centre, ICJ, ILGA-EUROPE and ECRE have submitted a third party intervention in case O.S. v. Switzerland (no. 43987/16).
This intervention addresses the following points:
i) enforced concealment of one’s same-sex sexual orientation constitutes persecution under refugee law and is incompatible with the Convention, in particular, Article 3
ii) the criminalisation of consensual same-sex sexual conduct gives rise to a real risk of Article 3 prohibited treatment, thus triggering non-refoulement obligations under the Convention
iii) the risk of persecution based on sexual orientation in Gambia.
Universal-SexualOrientationRefugee-Advocacy-LegalSubmissions-2017-ENG (full legal submission)
Jul 20, 2017 | News
An interview of ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi with Reuters journalist Stephanie Nebehay.
GENEVA (Reuters) – Donald Trump is one of a new breed of leaders around the world who seek to use their democratic mandate to undermine the rule of law, the head of a legal and human rights watchdog said on Wednesday.
Branding the U.S. president an “authoritarian populist”, Saman Zia-Zarifi, secretary-general of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), compared him to the leaders of Turkey, the Philippines, Hungary and Venezuela.
Zarifi cited as an example Trump’s travel ban on nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, a policy that he called “highly problematic” under the U.S. constitution and international law.
“What is different now is that a certain kind of populism is being used to actually counter the notion of the rule of law,” Zarifi said in an interview at the headquarters of the ICJ, which is composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions who seek to protect human rights and the rule of law.
“The new populism has a certain shamelessness about it that is new. It’s not that people are denying that they are violating rights, what they are saying is they can violate rights because somehow they are empowered by the people,” he said.
Zarifi, who took over at the ICJ in April, said the new breed of populists included Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of Poland’s ruling party.
“I would say that in the U.S., Trump is an authoritarian populist. He has authoritarian tendencies but he still is facing checks and balances,” Zarifi said. “So he is not a full-blown authoritarian figure.”
The U.S. Supreme Court revised parts of Trump’s executive order banning travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, a policy Trump says is aimed at tackling terrorism.
“Looking at it again from the point of view of U.S. law – I’m an American lawyer – it seems highly problematic,” said the Iranian-born Zarifi, who moved to the United States as a teenager and holds a law degree from Cornell University.
Supreme Court rulings would be, he said, “a test for the health of the system of checks and balances in the U.S.”
Turkish Judiciary “Politically Compromised”
A crackdown by Erdogan’s government has led to the arrest of 50,000 people and the suspension of 150,000 in the year since a failed military coup in Turkey where the judiciary is “now politically compromised”, Zarifi said.
The Turkish government has said the action is justified by the gravity of the threat to the state from the coup attempt.
On Monday, the state prosecutor asked a court to remand the local Amnesty International director and nine other activists in custody pending trial for membership of a terrorist organisation.
Erdogan was quoted by Turkish media this month as saying they were detained on the basis of intelligence and that the judiciary would make its own decision.
But Zarifi said the judiciary should have thrown the case out.
“The handling of the case highlights the very serious concerns – and alarm in fact at this point – that we have raised about the independence of the judiciary and the legal system in Turkey over the last few years.”
Photo Credit: Reuters / Pierre Albouy
Jul 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt and apply procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) that are clear and comply with international human rights law and standards.
The statement came following a high-level mission to Tunisia from 12 to 15 July 2017 in which the ICJ engaged with senior judicial officials, including the President of the Cassation Court, members of the High Judicial Council, SCC judges, and other stakeholders.
An ICJ analysis, Procedures of the Specialized Criminal Chambers in light of international standards, was published at the end of the mission.
“While the Specialized Criminal Chambers have the potential to contribute to addressing impunity and deliver justice for victims in Tunisia, ambiguity about the procedures to be followed by these Chambers risks undermining their effectiveness,” warned Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
As detailed in the ICJ analysis, the lack of clarity comes in part from the 2013 transitional justice Law, which is seen by many stakeholders as setting up a special regime, separate from the existing criminal justice system.
There is fear that the SCC may decide not to apply the existing ordinary criminal procedures, while at the same time no detailed procedures specific to the SCC have yet been adopted.
The creation of such a gap would risk serious breaches of international standards of fairness and justice.
For example, the 2013 Law seems to give the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité, IVD) exclusive power to refer cases to the SCC.
However, no procedures specific to the SCC implement the rights of an accused to examine witnesses interviewed by the IVD or to access all documents and evidence collected by the IVD in order to prepare his or her defence, as required by international standards and the ordinary code of criminal procedure.
The 2013 Law also fails to clarify the role of prosecutors and investigating judges in addressing such cases, including by making their own determination in relation to charges, standard of proof, and whether these cases should be brought before the SCC.
“Clarifying the procedures to be applied by the Specialized Criminal Chambers and ensuring their full compliance with international standards, including those relating to fair trial, are a prerequisite to fully establish the truth about human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that the proceedings are fair to the victims and accused,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ set out a list of recommendations with a view to assisting the Tunisian authorities in their efforts in achieving these objectives, including by:
- Amending article 42 of the 2013 Law and related provisions to clearly provide victims of gross human rights violations with direct access to the SCC, including when victims did not submit a file to the IVD;
- Amending provisions of the IVD Guides to ensure that the review process and the possibility to challenge IVD’s decisions will apply to decisions not to transfer a case to the SCC and that such review be based on objective criteria for considering gross human rights violations in line with international standards;
- Establishing specialized prosecution services, investigating judges, and judicial police in line with international standards and with adequate resources to work in coordination with the SCC;
- Clarifying the relationship between the SCC and other ordinary criminal chambers and civil and other courts;
- Amending the legal framework to clearly provide that cases investigated by the IVD are to be transferred to specialized prosecutors who are to carry out their functions as defined in the CCP and in line with international standards;
- Ensuring that the IVD’s investigative function complements the role of the specialized judicial institutions in charge of the investigation and prosecution; and
- Amending the CCP and ensuring that any related provision of any other procedures adopted for the SCC fully respect fair trial guarantees.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 642837354, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (full memo in English, PDF)
Tunisia-SCC procedures memo-News-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (full memo in Arabic, PDF)
