Feb 14, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has set out key principles and sources on judicial councils and other national mechanisms for selecting, appointing, promoting, transferring, suspending or removing judges, in a submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.The submission was made in response to a call by the Special Rapporteur for input to a report he will present at the June 2018 session of the Human Rights Council.
The ICJ submission highlights that judicial councils are a proven means of safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring judicial accountability. It recommends that, even in countries where judicial independence and accountability have traditionally been secured by other means, consideration should be given to the establishment of a judicial council.
The submission stresses that judicial councils must be fully independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, and notes several key safeguards to help secure such independence.
The ICJ recommends that such judicial councils should in principle be responsible for all decisions relating to the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, suspension and removal of judges.
The submission also highlights the need for diversity of membership of such councils to ensure its representativeness of the society the judiciary is to serve, that it reflects a cross-section of the judiciary as a whole, and that it has the experience and expertise needed to be effective.
The full submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: Global-UN-SRIJL-JudicialCouncils-2018
Most of the sources cited in the submission are available here.
Related and more detailed guidance is available in the ICJ’s 2016 Practitioners’ Guide no. 13 on Judicial Accountability, as well as the 2007 Practitioners’ Guide no. 1 on Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
More information about the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For more information about the ICJ and judicial councils and similar mechanisms, contact Matt Pollard (matt.pollard(at)icj.org)
Feb 13, 2018 | Advocacy
The ICJ, together with other NGOs, has expressed serious concerns about the current wording of the draft Copenhagen Declaration on the future of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system, which has been proposed by the Danish government.
In a joint response to the first draft of the Copenhagen Declaration, the group of NGOs welcomed the willingness of the Danish government to engage with civil society in developing the Declaration, which is to be finalised at an intergovernmental conference in Copenhagen in April 2018.
However the NGOs expressed concerns that some of the language of the Declaration appears to diminish the role of the European Court of Human Rights, and risks fragmenting the European human rights protection system as well as undermining the independence of the Court. The NGOs emphasised that:
- The Declaration should affirm the need to respect and preserve the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, and should omit any language or proposals that put the independence of the Court at risk;
- Effective human rights protection at the national level must be subject to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights;
- Greater emphasis should be given to the role of civil society in implementing the ECHR at the national level, and this should be taken into account in developing proposals for more effective implementation;
- The universality of human rights protection should be respected, and the text should be worded to highlight the importance of all human rights in all situations across all of the Council of Europe states;
- The Declaration must not call into question the Court’s authority to review human rights cases concerning asylum and immigration, or those arising from international conflicts;
- Governments should not be given further opportunities to influence the Court, nor should the Declaration provide a pretext for states to exert political pressure on the Court;
- Council of Europe States should not only implement the European Convention on Human Rights, but also act promptly to execute judgments of the European Court;
- National processes for the selection and election of European Court judges should be further strengthened.
Europe-JointNGO-Response-Copenhagen-Declaration-Advocacy-2018-ENG (Full document in PDF)
Jan 31, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ submitted a written statement on impunity and transitional justice, ahead of the March 2018 session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The written statement can be downloaded in PDF format below:
In English: UN-HRC37-WrittenStatement-NepalPeruImpunity-EN
In Spanish: UN-HRC37-WrittenStatement-NepalPeruImpunity-ESP
Jan 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).
The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
During its 63rd session, from 23 April to 18 May 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Thailand.
Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Thailand’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Second Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.
Thailand ratified the CAT in 2007. Following its review of Thailand’s initial report under CAT, the Committee adopted its Concluding Observations at its 52nd Session in May 2014.
The ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.
In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Thailand, including on the following pressing issues:
- The fact that, since the coup d’ état of 22 May 2014, the constitutional and legal framework in force in Thailand has increased opportunities for legally-sanctioned impunity;
- The failure to criminalize through the adoption of bespoke domestic legislation the crimes of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and enforced disappearance, consistent with the CAT and other relevant international law;
- The failure to conduct investigations of credible allegations of enforced disappearances, as well as into credible reports of the widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in a prompt, effective, independent and impartial manner in numerous cases; and
- Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org
Thailand-CAT Submission-Advocacy-non-legal submission-2017-ENG (Full submission in PDF)
THAILAND-CAT additional info-Advocacy-2018-ENG (additional information, updated in April 2018)
Jan 11, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ responded today to the observations of the Czech Government on the merits of the collective complaint brought against it earlier last year by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights.
The complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights (ICJ v. the Czech Republic, No. 148/2017) argues that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and Forum for Human Rights reinforced the complaint, relying on Article 17 of the Social Charter, in relation to the State party’s failure to ensure that children below the age of criminal responsibility but recognised as having infringed the penal law are treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-ICJresponse1-2018-ENG (download the ICJ reply)
Jan 8, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and other organizations have intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights challenging expulsions of asylum seekers from Hungary to Serbia.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted today a third party intervention before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary.
The case challenges the systematic practice by the Hungarian authorities to send back to Serbia foreign nationals asking for asylum under the pretention that Serbia is a safe third country in which to ask for international protection.
The intervening organizations have argued before the Court that:
- a removal that exposes an applicant to the risk of refoulement and deprives them of protections under international and EU law, is prohibited regardless of whether the decision was taken on the basis of the safe third country concept or the country was included in a “safe third country” list.
- International law requires, inter alia, a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s arguable claim of potential prohibited treatment, access to an effective remedy following a negative decision, and access to the rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Application of the safe third country concept for EU Member States is contingent on the applicant being admitted to the territory and having effective access to a fair asylum procedure in the safe third country
- An assessment of whether restrictions on the freedom of movement of migrants, imposed in a border or international zone, amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR must be based on the impact of these measures on the individuals concerned.
Hungary-ECtHR-amicusbrief-cases-Ilias&Ahmed-ICJ&others-2018-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Background
Ilias Ilias and Ali Ahmed, both Bangladeshi nationals, fled their home country in arrived at the Hungarian-Serbian border on 15 September 2015 after having briefly crossed through Serbia during their trip.
Having asked immediately for asylum in Hungary, they were confined for days in a transit zone, a ” a confined area of some 110 square metres, part of the transit zone, surrounded by fence and guarded by officers”.
Their applications were rejected on the very same day of their application on the grounds that they could have asked for asylum in Serbia, considered by Hungary a safe third country, and appeals were rejected.
They were removed to Serbia on 8 October 2015.
