يمكنكم قراءة وتحميل البيان باللغة العربية عبر هذا الرابط
At their forthcoming meeting on 20 March, EU foreign affairs ministers should publicly press the Tunisian authorities to reverse their crackdown against perceived critics, four human rights groups said today.
The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.
The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.
The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:
Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
European Union Member States must ensure that a new effort to standardise counterterrorism laws does not undermine fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, a group of international human rights organisations said today.
Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.
The groups call on EU Member States to ensure that implementation of the directive in national law includes additional safeguards to guarantee compliance with regional and international human rights obligations. These safeguards are especially important to ensure that any new laws passed, which will remain in place for years to come, cannot be used abusively by any government, including any that may be tempted to sacrifice human rights and due process in the name of pursuing security.
‘States must effectively address the threat of terrorism. But the EU has rushed to agree a vaguely worded counterterrorism law that endangers fundamental rights and freedoms,’ said Róisín Pillay, Europe Programme Director at the ICJ. ‘Time and again we’ve seen governments adopt abusive counterterrorism laws without assessing their effectiveness, and then implement them in ways that divide and alienate communities. We worry this directive will reinforce this trend and leaves too much leeway for governments to misuse the directive to violate rights.”
The groups also noted that the legislative process for adopting this directive lacked transparency and opportunity for critical debate. There was no impact assessment of the proposal, negotiations moved forward without parliamentary-wide review of the text, and the proposal was rushed through behind closed doors and without any meaningful consultation of civil society.
Despite the inclusion of a general human rights safeguarding clause and repeated caution from our organisations the final text fails to fully protect human rights within the EU:
• The directive repeats the EU’s already overly broad definition of ‘terrorism,’ which permits states to criminalise, as terrorism, public protests or other peaceful acts that they deem ’seriously destabilise the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.’
• Significantly, the directive requires states to criminalise a series of preparatory acts that may have a minimal or no direct link to a violent act of terrorism, and may never result in one being committed. For example the offences of participating in a terrorist group, travelling or receiving training for terrorist purposed are not adequately defined. Unless these broadly outlined offences are subject to careful drafting and strong safeguards in national law, they are likely to lead to violations of rights, including the right to liberty and freedoms of expression, association, and movement.
• The directive criminalises the public distribution of messages, including messages that ‘glorify’ terrorist acts, if the distribution is intentional and causes a danger that a terrorist offence may be committed. However, such a low threshold likely to lead to abuse if not limited as the UN recommends ‘to incitement that is directly causally responsible for increasing the actual likelihood of an attack’. The directive should have incorporated this language to avoid unjustified interference with freedom of expression.
We welcome the directive’s protection of activities of recognised humanitarian organisations. However we remain concerned that the protection does not expressly extend to all individuals providing medical or other life-saving activities that international humanitarian law (IHL) protects during times of armed conflict.
States should take the directive as an opportunity to reassess their counterterrorism laws, policies and practices and engage with civil society and other stakeholders. We welcome the European Commission’s commitment to formally include civil society organisations in their activities to support transposition of the directive.
Contact:
Roisin Pillay, ICJ Europe Director, at roisin.pillay(a)icj.org or +32 2 734 84 46
eu-press-release-flawed-counterterrorism-directive-2016-eng (download the statement)
The ICJ and ECRE presented today a joint submission on the situation of the asylum and reception systems in Greece to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The submission was presented in view of a meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation by Greece of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece that will take place next June.
The submission refers to the previous detailed joint submissions of ICJ and ECRE and provides recent information on the state of the asylum procedure, reception conditions and detention practices, which are likely to be of importance to the supervision of the execution of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ruling. It focuses on:
Greece-ICJECRE-MSS-CommitteeMinisters-5thsubmission-legal submission-2016-ENG (download the joint submission)
The ICJ joined today other prominent human rights organizations in urging the European Union and its Member States to respect and protect human rights and the rule of law in countering terrorism.
In their joint statement, the thirteen human rights organizations stressed the implications of Eu counter-terrorism laws and policies for human rights and the rule of law with regard to the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the principle of non-refoulement, the right to liberty and security of the person, the right to a fair trial, the principle of legality, the principle of non-discrimination, the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, the right to privacy, the rights of asylum-seekers and migrants, the freedoms of movement, of religion or belief and other dimensions.
The human rights organizations that signed up to this statement are, apart from the International Commission of Jurists, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), the Open Society European Policy Institute, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), Fair Trials, European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT), the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), and the European Association for the Defense of Human Rights (AEDH).
EU-counter-terrorism&humanrights-jointstatement-2016-ENG (download the joint statement)
The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Richmond Yaw and others v. Italy regarding the detention of four migrants in Italian Centres for Identification and Expulsion.
The case raises issues related to the lawfulness of their detention in immigration centres, and the compliance of the mechanisms of judicial review and compensation for unlawful detention with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Taky Berko Richmond Yaw, Yaw Ansu Matthew, Darke Isaac Kwadwo, and Dominic Twumasi, nationals of Guinea, had been detained in the Centre for Identification and Expulsion of Ponte Galeria (Rome).
In these submissions, the ICJ presented the Court with a summary of its findings regarding the law and practice of detention of migrants and the related judicial guarantees in Italy, in its 2014 report, “Undocumented” Justice for Migrants in Italy.
Furthermore, the ICJ presented an analysis of the principles that apply in regard to arbitrary detention of persons detained for the purposes of immigration control under article 5.1.f. ECHR, in particular:
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Yaw&others v Italy-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2015-ENG (download the third party intervention)
South Africa: Constitutional Court’s affirmation that principles of judicial independence are fully applicable to military courts is a welcome step forward
EU: Lawyers and civil society call for mandatory humanitarian clause in anti-smuggling directive
EU: Access to a lawyer in juvenile justice proceedings remains a key concern in several EU Member States