Aug 28, 2015 | News
The Africa Regional Programme of the ICJ co-hosted the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum Annual Conference in Zimbabwe, held on 27-28 August 2015 under the theme “Guaranteeing the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa; Show casing Best Practice”.
The meeting was organized in conjunction with the Southern Africa Chief Justices’ Forum (SACJF) and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) of Zimbabwe.
This year it congregated 13 Chief Justices and 120 senior judges from East and Southern Africa.
The overall objective of the conference was to provide space for judiciaries in East and Southern Africa region to share achievements, best practices and innovations in justice delivery.
To this end, the conference sought to create a platform for judiciaries that had excelled in a variety of areas to showcase their achievements.
The programme was divided into three sub-themes, all of which had a direct relationship with the underlying theme of Fair Trial Rights in the Region.
The three sub thematic areas discussed were Appointment procedures, Judicial Training and Judicial Reform Each of the sessions was chaired by one of the Chief Justices, whose role it was to moderate the discussions and the speakers.
The panels had a presentation by a chief justice and experiences from another jurisdiction presented by a senior judge.
The presentations were then considered by discussants who were eminent academics.
Download the final declaration here:
Zimbabwe-SACJF ANNUAL CONFERENCE Declaration-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Aug 20, 2015 | News
The bombing in Bangkok that killed 20 people and injured more than 120 constitutes a serious attack on human rights and demands an impartial and effective investigation to bring the perpetrators to justice, the ICJ said today.
“Targeting ordinary people, mostly tourists visiting a religious shrine, is an assault upon our shared humanity and human rights,” said Sam Zarifi ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Thailand must counter this vile attack with a credible investigation that aims to deliver justice to the victims by identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice in accordance with the rule of law.”
“The Thai authorities must also resist the pressure to display progress through hasty conclusions and commit unwaveringly to an investigation that meets international standards and respects all legal and due process guarantees. Only a credible and fair process will provide truth and justice to the many victims and survivors,” he added.
As part of an effective investigation, the ICJ recommends Thailand to:
- protect the rights of the victims including by ensuring they:
o are treated with respect,
o receive regular information about the progress of the investigation and their rights in relation to it,
o receive all necessary support and assistance;
- ensure that the investigation hypothesis is not influenced by discrimination or bias based on ethnic, religious, political or other such grounds; and
- actively seek out and accept offers of assistance from other states including in the areas of:
o intelligence,
o forensic examination of crimes scenes, bodies and vehicles,
o analysis of phone material including call data and cell sites, and
o enhancement and analysis of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage.
Thailand is required to effectively investigate the attack, to prosecute and punish those responsible, and to ensure victims have access to effective remedies and reparation, as part of its international legal obligations as a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including pursuant to the right to life and the right to security of person.
Background:
On 17 August 2015 at approximately 19:00, an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was detonated near the popular Erawan religious shrine at the Ratchaprasong intersection in central Bangkok.
On 18 August 2015 at approximately 13:00, a second IED was detonated near Bangkok’s Sathorn boat pier that exploded harmlessly in the water.
To date, no groups or individuals have claimed responsibility for either attack.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarif(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e-mail: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-BKK Blast-News-Press releases-2015-THA (full text in pdf, THAI)
Photo: Xinhua / Li Mangmang
Aug 17, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the promulgation of the Counter-Terrorism Law by the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as a new, repressive move that would erode the rule of law and brush aside fundamental legal and human rights guarantees.
Calls to revise the draft Counter-Terrorism Law by the ICJ and other international and national human rights organizations and stakeholders, including Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Human Rights Council, were disregarded.
“The promulgation of the Counter-Terrorism Law by President el-Sisi expands the list of repressive laws and decrees that aim to stifle dissent and the exercise of fundamental freedoms,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Egypt’s authorities must ensure the law is not used as a tool of repression and, to this end, comprehensively revise it so that it fully complies with international human rights law and standards,” he added.
In a position paper published on 9 July, the ICJ detailed how the law is inconsistent with, and in numerous ways violates, Egypt’s obligations under international law, including those relating to the right to life, the right to liberty and not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, the right to privacy, and fair trial rights.
Further, the law gives state officials broad immunity from criminal responsibility for the use of force in the course of their duties, including the use of lethal force when it is not strictly necessary to protect lives, grants sweeping surveillance and detention powers to prosecutors, entrenches terrorism circuits within the court system (which have in the past frequently involved fair trial violations), and grants the President far-reaching, discretionary powers to “take the necessary measures” to maintain public security, where there is a “danger of terrorist crimes.”
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834; e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Counter-Terrorism Law Promulgated-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in pdf, ARABIC)
Aug 14, 2015 | News
Today, on the second anniversary of the killing by the armed and security forces of more than 1,000 individuals during the dispersal of the Rabaa’ Al-Adawyia and Al Nahda Square sit-ins, the ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to end its policy of impunity for serious human rights violations.
The authorities must conduct thorough, effective, independent and impartial investigations into protestor deaths with a view to holding to account all those responsible for unlawful killings and other human rights violations committed in the course of the demonstrations, the ICJ says.
“It is a measure of the total disregard for victims’ rights and the absolute impunity of the armed and security services that in the two years that have passed, no effective investigations in line with international standards have taken place and not a single person has been brought to justice for the mass killings of protestors,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The victims of human rights violations and their family members have been left without any effective remedies or reparation, including an acknowledgment by the Egyptian authorities of their responsibility for the hundreds of killings and injuries that day,” he added.
Although fact-finding initiatives were conducted by Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Human Rights Council and by a government-appointed commission, the ICJ considers these investigations to be deeply flawed and ineffective.
The ICJ says both had inadequate access to first hand or physical evidence from the scene, because they did not begin their work until weeks or months after the events took place; lacked the ability to compel State authorities to testify and provide evidence; failed to document the full extent of human rights violations that took place; and neither led to any form of criminal investigation, much less prosecution of those responsible for these violations.
Further, while the government-appointed commission found that over 700 people had been killed during the Rabaa’ and Nahda dispersals, the shambolic report it issued dedicated just 9 pages to these two dispersals, concluding summarily and without substantiation that the police had been justified in violently dispersing the protest and blaming primarily the organizers of the sit-ins as well as the protestors for the high death toll.
There are credible allegations that in dispersing these demonstrations the armed and security forces unlawfully resorted to excessive and disproportionate use of force, the ICJ adds.
“By turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations committed by the armed and security forces, and by shielding their members from any form of criminal accountability, the Egyptian authorities are fostering the structural impunity that prevails in Egypt instead of combatting it,” said Benarbia.
“To meet their obligations under international law, the authorities must dismantle such policies and practices and establish the truth about the sit-ins’ dispersal,” he added.
Under international law lethal force may never be used unless strictly necessary to protect life.
States are obliged to provide access to an effective remedy and reparation to victims of human right violations.
They are also required to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, with a view to holding criminally accountable persons responsible for serious human rights violations, particularly those involving a denial of the right to life.
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834; e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Impunity Rabaa Sq-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in pdf, ARABIC)
Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
