Jun 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today raised concerns for the independence of the judiciary in Serbia, in a statement to the United Nations.
The statement was delivered during the discussion of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Serbia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) congratulates Serbia on the completion of its Third Cycle Universal Periodic Review.
The ICJ welcomes the acceptance by Serbia of all recommendations to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, including by limiting political influence over judicial appointments (Norway, 6.1; Sweden, 6.2; France, 6.3; Australia, 6.20; Germany, 6.22; Morocco, 6.23; Estonia, 6.24; Republic of Korea, 6.25; Singapore, 6.26; Canada, 6.27).
The ICJ regrets, however, that constitutional amendments currently under discussion in Serbia run counter to these recommendations.
The amendments would empower the National Assembly to determine appointments and dismissals of judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as for half of the members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors.
The independence and autonomy of the Constitutional Court, High Judicial Council and State Prosecutorial Council, would be better secured by reducing or eliminating the role of political bodies such as the National Assembly, particularly as regards dismissals.
The ICJ stresses that the judiciary and the prosecution service must exercise their functions free from direct or indirect external influences, threats or interferences, including from the legislative and executive powers.
While welcoming reforms for life tenure of judges and deputy prosecutors, the ICJ urges Serbia to implement the accepted recommendations by precluding involvement of the National Assembly in the appointment and dismissal of judges, court presidents, public prosecutors, and deputy public prosecutors.”
Jun 27, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the deteriorating situation for human rights and rule of law in Cambodia.
The statement came during a general debate at the UN Human Rights Council, on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention. It read as follows:
“Mr. President,
A State rapidly moving in an authoritarian direction, with widespread and deepening repression of human rights, whose civil society cannot even speak openly at this Council for fear of reprisals, should be discussed as a situation requiring the Council’s attention under item 4, and not merely a matter of technical assistance and capacity-building under item 10. An urgent example is Cambodia.
The continuing human rights and rule of law crisis orchestrated by the ruling party has deeply compromised national elections scheduled for 29 July.
Authorities continue to abuse the legal system to repress civil society, independent media, the political opposition, and increasingly, ordinary individuals.
The Government has threatened prosecution of any person calling for a boycott of the highly compromised elections. It has established a working group to monitor and control all information on websites and social media. Ordinary people are being arrested, charged and detained under a new lèse-majesté law.
Repression of civil society and independent media continues – with the sale of the last independent English-language newspaper to an owner allegedly linked to the Government, and judicial investigation of civil society members in criminal proceedings against detained opposition leader, Kem Sokha.
The Council and its members must respond more effectively to the ongoing crisis in Cambodia, particularly in the few weeks remaining before the election.
Thank you, Mr. President.”
The delegation of the Cambodian government exercised its right of reply at the end of the debate. Its statement is available here: UN_HRC38-Cambodia-Reply-2018
Jun 25, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The statement on behalf of four groups was delivered in the context of the General Debate on Item 3 during the 38th Session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The groups called all States to take up the opportunity to strengthen a multilateral approach the issue of business and human rights by joining the intergovernmental process to establish a legally binding instrument in this field.
The statement is as follows:
The current intergovernmental process to establish a legally binding instrument in the field of business and human rights offers States the opportunity to work through international cooperation and multilateral engagement to effectively address the human rights impact of business activities.
We thus urge all States –including those that have been so far reluctant to engage- to actively participate in this process.
Only constructive dialogue among all States and other stakeholders, especially the affected communities, can lead to sustainable solutions to the existing normative and protection gaps.
This 38th session of the Human Rights Council marks the 10th anniversary of its adoption of the Framework Report “Protect, Respect and Remedy”.
As we celebrate the contribution of this Framework, which led to the creation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, we must emphasize the need to increase the international community’s response.
In the past ten years, although important work has been done in some areas and by some countries, little systemic positive change has been felt on the ground, where many individuals, especially indigenous and peasant workers and communities, continue to endure the violation of their rights without recourse to real remedy avenues.
The creation of an international legally binding framework for States to maximize action and cooperation regarding rights abuses in the context of business operations remains a compelling necessity of our times.
I thank you.
Full statement in English (PDF): Universal-HRC38-BHR-treaty-Advocacy-non-legal-submission-June-2018-ENG
Jun 25, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke at the UN on the role of judicial councils, judicial independence in Turkey and Poland, and on business and human rights in Peru.
The statement was made at the UN Human Rights Council during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights.
The statement on judicial councils and independence was made jointly with the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association. The whole statement read as follows:
“Mr President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (A/HRC/38/38) on the role of judicial councils and similar bodies.
Based on many decades of relevant experience around the world, we urge that:
All countries should consider establishing an independent judicial council. Reliance on constitutional customs, cultures, and traditions alone often proves insufficient if a crisis arises.
To guarantee independence, a majority of members should be judges elected by their peers. Any other members must also be independent. The Head of State, executive or legislative officials, or political candidates, should not be members. Proactive measures should address under-representation of women or persons from minority or marginalized groups.
Such bodies should be responsible for all decisions relating to the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, suspension and removal of judges.
As an example of concern, in Turkey following constitutional reform in 2017 no member of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors is elected by their peers, contributing to a lack of institutional independence of the judiciary. We also share the concerns for lawyers in Turkey already expressed by The Law Society and other colleagues today.
On the report on the visit to Poland (A/HRC/38/38/Add.1), we concur that reforms in the name of efficiency and accountability have undermined the independence of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, and effectively placed the entire judiciary under “control of the executive and legislative branches” (para 74). Mr Special Rapporteur, how can other States assist in securing full implementation of your recommendations on Poland?
The findings of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights report on its mission to Peru (A/HRC/38/48/Add.2) are of great concern, that “large number of human rights defenders and local leaders” were reportedly killed, attacked or threatened for defending the environment and land rights, legitimate social protest is criminalized, and wide use of states of exception and the armed forces have lead to serious abuses. The ICJ urges Peru to implement the recommendations and asks the Working Group what it will do to follow up?
Thank you.”
Jun 22, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today issued a statement on online violence against women and girls.
The statement was issued on the occasion of an interactive dialogue at the UN Human Rights Council, with the UN Working Group on discrimination against women. The ICJ was unable to read the statement due to the limited time provided for NGO statements. The statement is as follows:
“International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the Report of the Special Rapporteur focusing on online violence against women and girls.
This is timely considering the noted rise in incidents of women being attacked online for expressing their opinions. In many countries, women political dissenters and women human rights defenders, who express their views through social media, face backlash from the subjects of their criticisms and their supporters. They are persecuted and are threatened with sexual and physical violence. Many of the attacks against them clearly embody harmful gender stereotypes.
The ICJ notes that these harmful stereotypes exist in many countries around the world and they hinder women from accessing justice. Unfortunately, technology and social media play a role in spreading and proliferating these harmful gender stereotypes.
The ICJ continues to assist in strengthening the capacities of formal justice actors such as judges to help women access justice and to eliminate gender stereotypes. In 2016, the ICJ engaged with judges from the Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Indonesia when they developed and adopted the Bangkok General Guidance for Judges in Applying a Gender Perspective.
The ICJ joins the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for States to provide training for all justice actors, including judges, to ensure their ability to bring perpetrators of cases of online and ICT-facilitated violence to justice. The ICJ offers the General Guidance as a tool for justice actors to consider evidence in these cases without resorting to gender stereotypes and to decide cases based on the principle of equality under international human rights standards.
The ICJ shall persist in its work to enable women to access justice and to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination.”
Jun 20, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, on an effective accountability mechanism for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements. The statement was as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes that the report (A/HRC/38/41) of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants recognizes the importance of monitoring mechanisms, access to justice, and accountability in the context of returns (para 78).
The ICJ, which is a member of the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights, shares the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the current implementation of an individual complaints mechanism for Frontex is “rather ineffective, since it largely relies on the discretionary powers of internal oversight bodies” and deficient in its follow-up procedure (para 84).
Furthermore, the ICJ considers that giving the Executive Director of Frontex competence to decide the merits of complaints creates a reasonable perception of bias. This, together with the lack of any requirement to publish its decisions, mean the existing complaint mechanism cannot constitute an effective remedy for human rights violations.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at these shortcomings in light of, as the Special Rapporteur noted, the “externalization of States’ obligations through the actions of international or regional organizations during return procedure” (para. 82). Such externalisation prevents victims of human rights violations from accessing effective remedies.
Finally, the ICJ notes that actions such as the closure of harbours to ships rescuing migrants, including refugees, are in clear breach of the international law of the sea and effectively prevent any access to legal remedies. Such actions should be condemned by this Council.
The ICJ supports the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that States and international and regional organisations must ensure accountability for human rights violations and invites him to explore further such organisations’ responsibility in this regard under human rights law.”
