Sep 19, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council today, the ICJ called for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the situation for human rights in Venezuela, given the ongoing human rights and rule of law crisis in the country.
The statement, which was delivered during a general debate on country situations of concern, read as follows:
“In Venezuela, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, torture, arbitrary detention, prosecution of civilians by military tribunals, and persecution and attacks against opponents, dissidents and human rights defenders have become systematic and widespread practices.
Demonstrations and protests are violently suppressed by state security bodies and groups of armed civilians close to the government.
These gross human rights violations remain subject to impunity.
The possibility of exercising fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly, as well as political rights, is non-existent.
Following a series of decisions by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Government, the rule of law has ceased to exist, there is no separation of powers, the legislative branch has been stripped of its constitutional powers and the judiciary has become an instrument of the Executive Branch.
The National Constituent Assembly has usurped functions that do not belong to it, such as legislating and dismissing officials.
The International Commission of Jurists considers that, given the very serious human rights situation and the breakdown of the rule of law, it is imperative that the Human Rights Council appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Venezuela.”
ICJ reports:
Venezuela: the Supreme Court of Justice has become an arm of an authoritarian executive
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Sep 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today called for international legal regulation of private military and security companies, in an oral statement tot he UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and welcomed recent steps towards this goal.
The statement, made during general debate on thematic concerns, read as follows:
The ICJ welcomes the opportunity to comment on the “Report of the open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies on its sixth session.” (A/HRC/36/36)
The ICJ notes with satisfaction the consensus reached among States to commence elaborating the content of “an international regulatory framework” in efforts to protect human rights and ensure accountability for violations and abuses relating to the activities of private military and private security companies (para. 28).
The ICJ joins the Working Group on Mercenaries’ call for an international legally binding instrument “to ensure consistent regulation worldwide and adequate protection of human rights of all affected” by activities of PMSCs ((A/HRC/36/47, para. 67). This instrument would provide common standards on regulation and prevention as well as on measures to ensure access to effective remedies and reparations by the victims of abuse, areas where the working group has identified gaps of protection.
Broad-based participation by all stakeholders is critical for the success of the process, its legitimacy, the adequacy of its content as well as for the effectiveness of its implementation. The ICJ calls on the Chairperson Rapporteur ensure wide participation, especially from civil society from the developing countries.
The ICJ calls on this Council to support the renewal of the Open Ended Intergovernmental working Group as recommended in the report (A/HRC/36/36) and to actively participate in its deliberations.
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
On 13 September, the European Committee of Social Rights decided on the admissibility of the collective complaint submitted by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic.
The Committee assessed the admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee’s Rules and the Government’s objections on admissibility and declared the complaint admissible. The Czech Government has now two months to make written submissions on the merits of the complaint.
The complaint 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 submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-AdmissibilityDecision-2017 (download the Committee’s decision)
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy
In a joint statement released today, the ICJ joins several other organisations in calling on the Supreme Court of the Maldives to rescind the indefinite suspension of 56 lawyers.
The lawyers had signed a petition to the Supreme Court calling for the independence and reform of the judiciary.
The statement, made jointly with Maldivian Democracy Network, Front Line Defenders, Transparency International and FORUM-ASIA, can be downloaded here: Maldives-Advocacy-Lawyers-2017
Sep 13, 2017 | Advocacy, News
As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.
India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.
India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.
In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.
India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.
Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.
The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.
Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download the Q&A:
India-ICJ Q&A Jadhav case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
