Apr 9, 2020 | Advocacy, News
A joint statement signed by the ICJ and 102 other organizations.
The COVID-19 pandemic and public health crisis is presenting grave challenges for health care systems across Europe.
As European countries work to address the pandemic, protect their populations, and meet the increased demand on health care workers and health care facilities it is vital that they adopt measures to safeguard the health, human dignity, physical and mental integrity, and reproductive autonomy of women and girls in the region.
In many countries the lack of government measures to guarantee individuals’ safe and timely access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, goods, and information during the pandemic is of particular concern.
Women and girls – this statement refers to women and girls, as the majority of individuals who are needing abortion care identify as such but it equally applies to all individuals who may become pregnant and need abortion care or other sexual and reproductive health care – are facing significant restrictions in safely accessing essential sexual and reproductive health services, particularly timely abortion care, post abortion care, and emergency contraception.
Such restrictions disproportionately impact individuals belonging to marginalized groups, including women living in poverty, women with disabilities, Roma women, undocumented migrant women, adolescents, and women at risk or who are survivors of domestic and sexual violence.
These restrictions also create unnecessary risks of exposure to COVID-19 for women and girls and their families as well as for health care providers.
Particularly grave barriers are arising for women and girls living in European countries where abortion care is illegal or severely restricted, and where as a result they must travel to other countries to access legal care or must obtain abortion medication from outside their own jurisdiction.
These issues can also arise in those European countries where individuals are forced to go through burdensome or harmful administrative processes to access abortion care or where they may have difficulty finding doctors in their country willing to provide care.
We applaud those governments that have moved swiftly to safeguard access to essential time- sensitive sexual and reproductive health care during this time, in particular through ensuring access to telehealth and early medical abortion from home.
We call on all other European governments to follow suit and to follow the guidance of medical and public health experts.
We call on the six European countries (Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Poland and San Marino) where abortion is illegal or severely restricted to urgently reform these laws, which place women’s health and lives at risk.
Limitations on travel and transport now compound the impact of these highly restrictive laws. Individuals in these countries may no longer be able to travel abroad or to obtain medication for abortion sent by post from medical providers in other countries. As a result, they face heightened risks to their health and wellbeing.
We call on those countries where abortion is legal but where clinical services are unavailable or difficult to access due to a range of barriers, including medically unnecessary requirements that oblige individuals to take multiple or unneeded trips to health care facilities or undergo mandatory hospitalization, to urgently eradicate those barriers and ensure access to services.
Urgent steps should also be taken to ensure that refusals of care because of private beliefs by doctors do not jeopardize timely access to legal abortion care.
In accordance with human rights obligations3 and the recommendations of medical experts4 the following measures should be adopted, and at a minimum remain in place for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic:
- Ensure that abortion is treated as essential and time-sensitive health care and guarantee access to care in a timely manner.
- Authorize and make available in a timely manner telehealth consultations for anyone who is seeking abortion care or information. Specific measures should be adopted to ensure that telehealth consultations are free or low cost and easily accessible for marginalized groups.
- Guarantee timely access to early medical abortion throughout each jurisdiction and allow doctors to prescribe the necessary medication via telehealth consultation.
- Allow individuals to take all abortion medication at home. Requirements in some European countries that one pill must be taken in the physical presence of a doctor or in a health care facility should be removed.
- Remove mandatory waiting periods prior to abortion as well as mandatory counselling requirements or ensure counselling can be conducted through telehealth consultation.
- Authorize primary care doctors and midwives to provide early medical abortion.
- Adopt health system safeguards to guarantee access to care in cases where early medical abortion is not possible or is contraindicated, for individuals who need abortion care later in pregnancy or post-abortion care, or who may need to visit a health care facility for other reasons. Travel in such cases should be deemed essential and permitted even where governments have otherwise restricted free movement.
- Where a doctor’s authorization is required, this should be limited to one doctor. Requirements for multiple doctors’ approval of an abortion should be removed.
- Guarantee timely access to prenatal testing and psychosocial support where requested.
- Guarantee an adequate number of providers willing and able to provide abortion care throughout the country and widely publicize information on how women can identify health care professionals willing and available to provide abortion care. Urgently ensure that refusals of care by doctors do not jeopardize access to abortion care in a time of crisis.
- Widely disseminate information on those changes to SRHR policies and health care services that are being made in the context of COVID-19 responses.
- Ensure access to contraception including emergency contraception, including through authorizing telehealth consultations and provision of emergency contraception over the counter in pharmacies without a prescription.
Finally, we call on all policy makers across the European region to reject proposals that purport to restrict access to safe abortion care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These disingenuous proposals simply serve to exacerbate the current public health crisis and have negative effects on the health, lives, and wellbeing of women and girls.
Download the full statement with additional information and the list of signatories
Mar 12, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the need for Kazakhstan to ensure the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary, in particular by ending the arbitrary disbarment of lawyers.
The statement, delivered during the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Kazakhstan by the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the acceptance by Kazakhstan of the recommendations by Denmark (138.83), France (139.85), Mexico (139.86) and Austria (139.113) to uphold the rule of law and to protect the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.
The ICJ however regrets that Kazakhstan only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendation by Czechia to “take immediate measures to ensure the effective protection of lawyers, media workers, bloggers and human rights defenders against any form of harassment” (139.114).
Furthermore, based on ICJ research, we regret to report that Kazakhstan’s assertion that the accepted recommendations are “in the process of implementation” (A/HRC/43/10/Add.1, para. 4) is simply not correct.
On the contrary, the ICJ considers that the independence of the legal profession is being actively undermined in the country.
The ICJ expresses particular concern at disbarment proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Justice, including the recent disbarment of Amanzhol Mukhamediarov and Yerlan Gazymzhanov.[1]
Finally, the situation is exacerbated by a Law on Advokatura that does not require the Bar Association’s authorisation to initiate disbarment proceedings.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Kazakhstan, ICJ calls on Kazakh authorities to stop all harassment of lawyers through disciplinary proceedings, readmit the lawyers unduly disbarred and reform its Law on Advokatura in line with international standards on independence of the legal profession.”
[1] See ICJ statement at https://www.icj.org/kazakhstan-disbarment-of-erlan-gazymzhanov-and-amanzhol-mukhamediarov-undermines-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession-icj-says/ .
Mar 6, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, speaking in a general debate at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, urged all States to work together towards adoption of a treaty on business and human rights, and highlighted threats to the independence of the judiciary in Europe.
The statement, delivered in the general thematic debate at the Council, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (A/HRC/43/55) in charge of the elaboration of a treaty on business and human rights and notes the consensual nature of its conclusions and recommendations. Abuses of human rights and environmental degradation caused with the involvement of business enterprises have so far been met with very limited action by businesses and States.
The ICJ considers that the revised draft treaty is a serious and advanced proposal that is suitable for negotiations and thanks the Chair-Rapporteur for its efforts and leadership in this process.
The ICJ urges States that are not yet actively involved in the negotiations to join the growing number of States that are active for a final push.
The ICJ also draws the attention of the Council to serious threats to independence of judges and lawyers in European countries.
In Poland, judges are being disciplined merely for applying EU law, under legislation curtailing their freedom of expression and independence.
In Turkey, independence of lawyers and judges continues to be seriously compromised, as demonstrated by the disciplinary proceedings against the Gezi trial judges launched after critical comments by the President of Turkey.
The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments of extreme concern.”
Feb 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ has intervened with an expert opinion to support the board members of the Turkish Medial Association in the appeal against their conviction for hate speech offences. The conviction raises significant concerns for freedom of expression.
The case before the Appeal Court concerns 11 defendants, all members of the Council of the Turkish Medical Association: Mehmet Raşit Tükel, Taner Gören, Sinan Adıyaman, Mehmet Sezai Berber, Selma Güngör, Bülent Nazım Yılmaz, Funda Barlık Obuz, Dursun Yaşar Ulutaş, Ayfer Horasan, Şeyhmus Gökalp and Hande Arpat.
On 3 May 2019, the defendants were convicted at first instance by the Ankara 32 Assize Court for having issued statements opposing the war during Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch in Syria.
The Assize Court concluded that the members of the Council publicly provoked hatred or hostility in one section of the public against another section which has a different characteristic based on social class, race, religion, sect or regional difference, in a way that creates an explicit and imminent danger to public security. The Court sentenced each defendant to two terms of 10 months’ imprisonment for provoking the public to hatred and hostility in two separate statements.
Hande Arpat was additionally convicted of “disseminating propaganda in support of a terrorist organization” to 18 months and 22 days in prison concerning her three Facebook posts.
The ICJ expert opinion presented before the Court of Appeal examines international law standards relevant to the criminalization and prosecution of crimes of expression.
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-ENG (download the expert opinion in English)
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-TUR (download the expert opinion in Turkish)
Feb 5, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members today denounced the rapidly escalating rule of law crisis in Poland, after a new law was passed that would result in harassment of judges upholding the independence of the judiciary.
A group of 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members, including senior judges, lawyers and legal scholars from around the world said in their statement “it is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.”
The statement
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), its Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and the undersigned Commissioners and Honorary Members of the ICJ are alarmed at the rapidly escalating rule of law crisis in Poland.
It is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.
The passing by the Sejm on 23 January of the amendments to the laws on the judiciary, and their signing into law on 4 February, means that judges will be prohibited from questioning the legitimacy or institutional independence of any Polish court, even where its members have been appointed through a politically controlled process, in violation of EU and international law. Judges will face disciplinary action for denying the validity of any judicial appointment.
This law is an attempt to prevent any Polish court from upholding the independence of the judiciary, in the face of repeated legislative and government attacks on judicial independence in recent years.
This is directly contrary to the obligations of judges under the EU treaties to apply EU law, and would therefore lead to violations of Poland’s EU law obligations. It would also lead to violations of Poland’s obligations under international human rights law, since it would require judges to act contrary to their duty to uphold the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
As the Venice Commission noted in its recent opinion on the amendments, they are clearly “designed to have a nullifying effect” on recent judgments and resolutions of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Polish Supreme Court, which have called into question the validity of recent judicial appointments. As such, they do severe damage to the rule of law in Poland.
These developments follow recent legislation which has politicised the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and imposed executive control of the appointment process for judges of the Supreme Court, court presidents and other judges. A powerful new Extraordinary Chamber as well as a Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, appointed under this new system, has further entrenched political control of the judiciary.
The ICJ, its undersigned Commissioners and Honorary Members, applaud the continued resolute defence of the rule of law by sections of the Polish judiciary. This has been evident in the resolution of the Supreme Court (Civil, Criminal, Labour and Social Security Divisions) of 23 January which found that recent judicial appointments meant that some Polish courts were not sufficiently independent to be legitimately constituted.
We deplore the response by President Adrzej Duda in which he suggested that judges opposing the judicial reforms on the judiciary acted out of improper self-interest.
The undersigned ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members affirm their solidarity with Polish judges, in particular those who are currently facing abusive disciplinary or criminal proceedings for carrying out their judicial functions in accordance with the principle of judicial independence, or for exercising their freedom of expression, association or assembly as a means to defend the rule of law.
We recall that international human rights law and international standards on the judiciary require all branches of government to respect the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, they recognise that judges have rights to freedom of expression and association and that they have a particularly important role in contributing to discussions on issues of the functioning of the judicial system and the rule of law, especially in defending the independence of the judiciary.
We call on the international community to respond to the Polish rule of law crisis in a manner appropriate to the gravity of the situation, before the damage to the Polish legal system becomes further entrenched.
In particular, we call on the European Union to urgently advance proceedings concerning Poland under Article 7 TEU, in light of the clear breach of EU law and EU fundamental values entailed by the new law, in conjunction with previous reforms, and by the government’s open defiance of decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Polish Supreme Court.
Poland-Commissioners-Statement-Advocacy-Open-Letter-2020-ENG, (full text with all signatories, PDF)
Nov 22, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case challenging the blocking of the website Wikipedia by the Turkish Government throughout the country.
In its intervention the ICJ addressed issues related to the compliance of Turkey’s Internet law and its application in practice, with rights under Article 10 ECHR to freedom of expression and to receive information.
In particular it addresses:
- international standards relating to freedom of expression on the Internet;
- evaluation of the Turkish Internet Law by international authorities, including bodies of the Council of Europe and United Nations;
- blocking of websites and other internet under Article 8/A of Law no. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications, and the judicial safeguards applying to such measures; and
- whether remedies including the individual application to the Constitutional Court can redress the deficiencies of the law.
Europe-Wikimedia v Turkey_TPI-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2020-ENG (download the intervention)
