Jul 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today mourns the passing of Chinese human rights defender and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 and was described as the “foremost symbol of the struggle for human rights in China.”
He passed away today at the First Hospital of China Medical University, while still in the custody of Chinese authorities.
He has been imprisoned since 2009, after being found guilty for “subverting state power”, for calling for a new constitution in China. His wife, poet Liu Xia, remains under house arrest in Beijing.
In May 2017 authorities announced that he had been diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer.
Chinese authorities refused calls that he be allowed to travel to receive medical treatment abroad.
The ICJ honors Liu Xiaobo for his peaceful and unrelenting pursuit for human rights in China, and calls on the government to end the house arrest, and guarantee the freedom of movement, of Liu Xia.
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General said: “Liu Xiaobo will continue to serve as an inspiration not only for those fighting for human rights in China, but also for all human rights defenders working to promote and protect human rights all over the world.”
The ICJ believes that the death of Liu Xiaobo should serve as a wake up call to the Government of China that they cannot simply and brutally silence dissenting voices.
Liu Xiaobo’s death only serves to amplify his call for human rights and upholding the rule of law in China.
The ICJ has consistently called upon the Chinese government to end the harrassment and unlawful detention of lawyers and human rights defenders.
Jul 12, 2017 | News
The ICJ is alarmed at ongoing attacks on the rule of law in Poland.
On 12 July 2017, the Government tabled in Parliament draft bill no. 1727, that, if approved, would automatically dismiss all judges of the Supreme Court and let the Minister of Justice decide which judges are to be reinstated or newly appointed.
“This draft law is a direct blow to the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock of the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme.
“The security of tenure and conditions of service of individual judges are essential to judicial independence,” he added.
Draft bill no. 1727 follows another piece of legislation, recently approved by Parliament, by which the Parliament empowered itself to appoint the majority of the members of the National Council of the Judiciary, the body which selects and governs the judiciary.
That law gives political powers in the Polish legislature and executive, which have increasingly demonstrated deep disregard for human rights and the rule of law, undue influence over the judiciary.
Such deficiencies were also highlighted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE in May 2017.
“These series of legislative attacks to the independence of the judiciary in Poland must stop. These actions are inconsistent with the international obligations of Poland to ensure the independence of judges,” said Massimo Frigo.
“The European Union must intervene. A EU Member State that directly undermines the checks and balances of its own legal system threatens the founding values of the EU of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” he added.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
International standards
Particularly in a context like present day Poland, mass removal of all judges from a court, by another branch of government, without a fair and evidence-based individual process for each judge, is incompatible with international standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (See, ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13 on Judicial Accountability, pp. 99-104). The UN Basic Principles affirm, among other things, that:
1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2. The judiciary shall decide 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, from any quarter or for any reason.
10. …Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. …
12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Similar mass removals with politicization of the procedure for reinstatement and new appointments have been condemned as violations of States’ international human rights obligations by, for instance, the UN Human Rights Committee acting under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is also party (see Busyo, Wongodi, Matubaka et al v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Doc CCPR/C/7878/D/933/2000 (2003), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see e.g. Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coelle et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 266 (2013) and Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 268 (2013).
Council of Europe standards, in the form of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, provide among other things as follows:
26. Councils for the judiciary are independent bodies, established by law or under the constitution, that seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges and thereby to promote the efficient functioning of the judicial system.
27. Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
44. Decisions concerning the selection and career of judges should be based on objective criteria pre-established by law or by the competent authorities. Such decisions should be based on merit, having regard to the qualifications, skills and capacity required to adjudicate cases by applying the law while respecting human dignity.
45. There should be no discrimination against judges or candidates for judicial office on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, disability, birth, sexual orientation or other status. A requirement that a judge or a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the state concerned should not be considered discriminatory.
46. The authority taking decisions on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the executive and legislative powers. With a view to guaranteeing its independence, at least half of the members of the authority should be judges chosen by their peers.
47. However, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary (without prejudice to the rules applicable to councils for the judiciary contained in Chapter IV) should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice.
48. The membership of the independent authorities referred to in paragraphs 46 and 47 should ensure the widest possible representation. Their procedures should be transparent with reasons for decisions being made available to applicants on request. An unsuccessful candidate should have the right to challenge the decision, or at least the procedure under which the decision was made.
49. Security of tenure and irremovability are key elements of the independence of judges. Accordingly, judges should have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age, where such exists.
50. The terms of office of judges should be established by law. A permanent appointment should only be terminated in cases of serious breaches of disciplinary or criminal provisions established by law, or where the judge can no longer perform judicial functions. Early retirement should be possible only at the request of the judge concerned or on medical grounds.
69. Disciplinary proceedings may follow where judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner. Such 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.
Jul 6, 2017 | News
The ICJ welcomed today’s judgment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) that South Africa had violated its legal obligations by failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during his visit to the country in June 2015.
The ICC said the South Africa should have surrendered him to the ICC for prosecution.
President al-Bashir (photo) had been indicted by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in connection with attacks against civilians in the Darfur region of the country.
“The judgment is a victory for international justice. It is an extremely important step toward tackling impunity in Sudan and worldwide,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Regional Director.
The court said unequivocally that South Africa had a duty to arrest and surrender president Bashir to the ICC for prosecution.
It said that South Africa had a duty to recognize that head of state immunity did not apply to al Bahsir under the terms of the Rome Statute, and that leaving the question of immunity to South Africa’s voluntary discretion would have created “an insurmountable obstacle for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.”
The Court also said that Sudan itself had an obligation to remove and immunities for al-Bashir in respect to matters for which he was under indictment.
“The ICJ calls upon the Governments of South Africa and Sudan to respect the judgment of the Court, and urges all States to cooperate with the Court to bring President al-Bashir, and others indicted to justice,” Tsunga added.
The ICC also called on the UN Security and the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC to take appropriate measures to address the non-compliance by South Africa and Sudan.
Background
South Africa has been a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court since 27 November 2000.
States parties to the Rome Statute are obliged to cooperate with ICC, including by arresting and surrendering persons under indictment by the ICC who may be on their territory.
South Africa took measures to cooperate with the ICC by enacting the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act, 2002.
Accordingly, South Africa had a duty to arrest President al-Bashir when he visited South Africa in 2015
President al-Bashir stands accused of serious crimes, with two warrants of arrest issued by the pre-trial chamber of the ICC.
They all are for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, related to events in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Among the acts are widespread murder, rape and torture.
Read also:
South Africa appears before ICC for failure to arrest Sudanese President Bashir – The ICJ observes the hearing
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Director for Africa, t +27716405926 ;
Thulani Maseko, ICJ Legal consultant, t: +268 7602 5165
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal & Policy Director, t: +41 22 979 3837
Jul 6, 2017 | News
The Turkish government should immediately release 11 people, including eight Turkish human rights defenders, who were detained yesterday in Istanbul, said the ICJ today.
The human rights defenders were arrested on unknown charges while attending a training in Istanbul on digital security and information management; also reported arrested were two trainers (reportedly a German and a Swedish national) and the owner of the training venue.
Amnesty International has reported that they were denied access to family members and lawyers, contrary to existing regulations.
“These arrests are an alarming setback to efforts to restore the rule of law in Turkey,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
“Arrest and harassment of human rights defenders violates Turkey’s international legal obligations. Turkish authorities should be protecting human rights and supporting the important work of human rights defenders, but instead we have witnessed a continuing pattern of arrests on human rights defenders in the country,” he added.
On 6 June, Taner Kiliç, the President of Amnesty International Turkey was arrested.
He is currently detained on remand in what several international observers have qualified as baseless charges.
Turkey is currently under a State of Emergency enacted after the attempted coup d’etat of 15 July 2016.
While recognizing the serious attack suffered by Turkish institutions, the ICJ has repeatedly called for an end to this year-long state of emergency under which sweeping measures have been enacted that continue to erode human rights, including rights of fair trial, the right to liberty, and freedoms of expression and association.
“It is time to turn the page of the emergency and return to the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi. “The work of human rights defenders, judges and lawyers is essential to a democratic society that upholds human rights.”
Background
The human rights defenders arrested are Idil Eser (current Director of Amnesty International Turkey, photo), İlknur Üstün (Women’s Coalition), Günal Kurşun (Human Rights Agenda Association), Nalan Erkem (Citizens Assembly), Nejat Taştan (Equal Rights Watch Association) , Özlem Dalkıran (Citizens’ Assembly), Şeyhmuz Özbekli, and Veli Acu (Human Rights Agenda Association).
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, ICJ Director of Media & Communications, t: +41 22 979 3808 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Jun 30, 2017 | Advocacy
A Joint NGO Statement was issued on the occasion of the Twenty-ninth meeting of UN treaty body chairs 27-30 June 2017, New York
This statement includes some reflections and recommendations, by the undersigned organisations (see list on p.6-7), in relation to the programme of work for the 2017 annual meeting.
Some of the comments and recommendations stem from a two-day consultation involving representatives of NGOs, States, treaty body members, OHCHR and academics, which took place in Geneva on 23-24 May 20171.
The consultation focused on developing a strategy for the Treaty Body strengthening process.
A report will shortly be made public.
The comments and recommendations below are structured around the substantive treaty body chairs meeting agenda items.
Universal-MeetingTreatyBodies-Advocacy-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
