Nov 5, 2013 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has called on States that are candidates for membership to the UN Human Rights Council to do more to respect human rights at home and at the international level.
On 12 November, the United Nations General Assembly will elect 14 new members to the Human Rights Council.
The ICJ added its name to a joint letter, delivered by International Service for Human Rights on behalf of 40 NGOs from all regions of the world, emphasising the need for candidate states to uphold the highest standards of respect for human rights, the fullest cooperation with the Human Rights Council, and to refrain from impeding the access of individuals and civil society to international human rights mechanisms.
HRC-GAElections-JointNGOLetter-NonLegalSubmission-2013 (download joint open letter in PDF)
Nov 5, 2013 | News
The ICJ condemns Bangladesh’s imposition of the death penalty in contravention of the global trend towards abolition of capital punishment.
It signifies a weakening of the rule of law and respect for human rights standards in the country.
On 5 November 2013, a special court sentenced 152 persons to death, most of them former officers of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), for participating in the 2009 mutiny in which 74 people were killed.
Two days earlier, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) had convicted Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan in absentia for abduction and murder during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971 and sentenced them to death.
The ICT, set up by the Government of Bangladesh in 2010 to prosecute persons accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious crimes during the 1971 war, has so far convicted nine accused. Seven have been given death sentences.
“The numbers of death sentences issued by special courts in Bangladesh is alarming,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director. “There seems little interest in seeking justice; this looks more like revenge.”
“Those responsible for committing atrocities during the Bangladeshi war of liberation and the 2009 mutiny must be prosecuted and brought to justice,” he added. “But the death penalty is a perversion of justice, even more so when imposed after trials that violate due process.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly called on all States to establish a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
Under international law and standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Bangladesh is required to scrupulously and strictly to observe all relevant fair trial guarantees.
This includes the right to effective legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings including the appeal.
The International Crimes Tribunal as well the Special Court set up by Bangladesh to try those accused of committing atrocities in the 2009 mutiny do not meet international standards and Bangladesh’s legal obligations concerning the right to a fair trial.
The 846 suspects tried by the special court in Dhaka for the 2009 mutiny had limited access to lawyers; did not have sufficient knowledge of the charges and evidence against them; and at least 47 suspects died while in custody, allegedly after being subjected to torture.
There are also serious procedural flaws at all stages in the ICT.
Pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to join the great majority of States around the world in rejecting the death penalty.
To that end, Bangladesh should impose a moratorium on the practice and take steps towards its abolition, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
In addition, Bangladeshi authorities must order a retrial of all persons accused of participating in the 2009 mutiny and ensure that their fresh trials meet international law standards on fair trial.
Bangladesh-Death penalty statement-news-web story-2013 (full text in pdf)
Nov 4, 2013 | E-bulletin on counter-terrorism & human rights, News
Read the 77th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...
Oct 29, 2013 | News
The ICJ welcomes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers presented to the UN General Assembly today.
The report calls for the adoption by the Human Rights Council of the draft principles governing the administration of justice through military tribunals, known as the ‘Decaux Principles’.
“This is a major step forward towards the establishment of universally applicable minimum standards to regulate the use and operation of military courts and tribunals”, said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.
“The investigation and prosecution of alleged offences involving serious human rights violations is in many countries undertaken by military courts for the purpose of avoiding the accountability of perpetrators of such acts. It is therefore significant that the UN Special Rapporteur has reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of ordinary courts should prevail in such cases,” he added.
“It is also important that the Special Rapporteur has reiterated the recommendation of many human rights experts that the trial of civilians in military courts should in principle not occur and should be limited to strictly exceptional cases,” Conte further said.
The ICJ closely followed and contributed to the development of the Decaux Principles and has repeatedly called for their adoption and implementation by all States.
These principles were elaborated in 2006 in consultation with human rights experts, jurists and military personnel from throughout the world, and include specific provisions relating to the establishment and functioning of military tribunals.
They are based on the principle that military justice should be an integral part of the normal judicial system and should operate in a way that guarantees full compliance with human rights, including the need to ensure accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations.
Contact:
Alex Conte, ICJ International Law and Protection Programmes Director (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Oct 21, 2013 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s ruling by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Inés Del Rio Prada, affirming that changes made retroactively to the remission of her sentence violated her rights.
The ICJ, which intervened as third-party in the case, says the judgment reinforces and makes effective the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, an essential element of the rule of law.
“This is a highly significant judgment that affirms and strengthens the rule of law in criminal sentencing,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme. “Rules and practices that have a significant impact on the calculation and remission of sentences must not be applied retroactively to the detriment of a convicted person.”
“The key principle that the Grand Chamber has upheld today is that the rules that apply to the calculation of the sentence to be served, must be clear and foreseeable under the law at the time of conviction. Subsequent re-interpretation by the courts cannot fundamentally revise the principles that apply to a sentence already handed down. While States have the responsibility for setting sentencing rules for crimes, any changes to those rules which would result in an increased penalty must not applied retroactively in breach of (Article 7 of) the European Convention on Human Rights,” she added.
BACKGROUND:
Inés Del Rio Prada had been convicted of terrorism offences and sentenced to a total of over 3,000 years of imprisonment.
According to Spanish sentencing rules in force at the time, this theoretical sentence was tantamount to an effective sentence of 30 years imprisonment.
While at that time, the benefit of sentence reduction for work performed in prison was applied to the 30-year period, in 2008 the Spanish courts decided to deduct such benefits from the 3,000 years of nominal imprisonment instead, thereby significantly reducing their impact, and leading to a considerably longer sentence in the case of the applicant.
In its judgment, the Grand Chamber held that the application of changes to Spanish sentencing rules as applied to applicant Inés Del Rio Prada had violated the prohibition on retroactive penalties guaranteed in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It held that a 2006 decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, which altered the system of calculation of maximum terms of sentences, leading to reduced remission of sentences for work done in prison, constituted a retroactive redefinition of the sentence previously imposed, which could not have been foreseen.
As such, the Court held that Spain had violated its obligations under article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court also found that the applicant’s continued detention violated the right to liberty under Article 5(1) ECHR, and required her release at the earliest possible date.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t +32 2 734 8446; e-mail : roísín.pillay(a)icj.org
Read also:
Third Party Intervention in Del Rio Prada v. Spain
