Jul 3, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted rising threats to the rule of law in Europe, specifically mentioning Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and Kazakhstan in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) adopted a Declaration on Reinforcing the Rule of Law last March at its 19th World Congress in Tunis.
The Tunis Declaration (link) stresses that not only are human rights and the Rule of Law indispensable to the betterment of the human condition, but to address such contemporary challenges as catastrophic climate change and the effects of digital technology.
Against these standards, however, the ICJ is concerned at the increasing and serious threats to the Rule of Law and those who defend it around the world, including across Europe.
In Poland, the attacks on the judiciary continue under the guise of disciplinary proceedings against judges who took recourse to EU institutions to defend the Rule of Law.
Hungarian authorities, while pausing their reforms of administrative courts, have not abandoned unjustified restrictions on the judiciary’s independence and on civil society.
Finally, in Turkey, the judiciary continues to have no guarantees in law to guarantee its independent functioning.
Across Central Asia, lawyers may face disciplinary or criminal persecution for discharging their profession independently. For example, in Kazakhstan, Sergey Sizintsev was disbarred on arbitrary grounds for criticizing a problematic reform of the legal profession.
The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments of extreme concern.
Jun 24, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the rights and duties of judges and prosecutors to exercise their freedoms of expression, assembly and association to defend the rule of law and human rights.
The oral statement was delivered in a Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of judges and prosecutors.[1]
As the report acknowledges, exercise of these rights can be subject to restrictions arising from the fundamental need for judges and prosecutors to be perceived as independent and impartial. At the same time, as the report also emphasizes, any such restrictions must be provided by law and be demonstrably necessary to such legitimate aims, which in turn crucially requires proportionality.[2] These standards have been recognized both globally and in all regions of the world.[3] Any such restrictions on judges should be adopted and enforced by the judiciary itself.
We particularly welcome the recognition in the report that in situations where democracy and the rule of law are under threat, judges and prosecutors have not only the right, but potentially a duty, to speak out and organize in defence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and that this can include participating in peaceful public demonstrations.[4]
Far too often in the ICJ’s work around the world, we see Executive and Legislative bodies, as well as compromised judicial hierarchies, arbitrarily or selectively targeting judges and prosecutors for removal, demotion or other disciplinary measures, precisely for exercising these rights to defend against threats to the rule of law. Examples highlighted in our submission to your study included Egypt, Morocco, Honduras, Hungary and Bulgaria.[5]
Mr. Rapporteur, how can judiciaries, governments, and civil society organisations (including international or regional legal professional associations) act internationally to support judges and prosecutors who are facing such abuse in another country?
The ICJ also welcomes the reports of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We urge all States to strongly support the renewal of this essential mandate at the current session.
Thank you.”
[1] ICJ’s detailed submission to the Special Rapporteur’s consultation is available at: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/
[2] Paragraphs 39, 45, 46, 89.
[3] In addition to the global and European, Asian, and American standards cited in the report, see the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2005), paras A(4)(s) and (t), and F(d) and (e).
[4] Paragraphs 61, 69, 90, 102.
[5] See for further information: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/
Mar 28, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ filed a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of its review of Kazakhstan’s human rights record in October-November 2019.
In its submission, the ICJ considered the situation with the independence of the legal profession in Kazakhstan and provided information on the status of international human rights treaties ratified by Kazakhstan.
The ICJ called on the Human Rights Council and the Working Group to recommend Kazakhstan:
• to amend the current legislation to ensure that representatives of the executive, such as the Ministry of Justice, are not included in the disciplinary bodies of the legal profession;
• to amend the current legislation to ensure that the qualification procedures are fully governed by the legal profession in Kazakhstan in line with international law and standards on the role of lawyers; in particular, the Qualification Commissions should be bodies of the Bar Association while their composition should predominantly consist of lawyers delegated by the Bar Association itself;
• to ensure that as the main stakeholder in any reforms affecting the legal profession, the Bar Association participates in such reforms in a meaningful way;
• to take effective measures to prevent further interference by the executive and law enforcement bodies in the exercise of lawyers’ professional duties, in particular prevent the practice of bringing disciplinary complaints against lawyers solely for their defence of their clients or legitimate exercise of their right of freedom of expression;
• to ensure that the right of lawyers to freedom of expression is respected, especially in regard to matters of public interest and law.
Furthermore the ICJ suggested:
• To ratify the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court.
• To ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families as well as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights.
Kazakhstan-ICJ UPR 2019-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2019-ENG (full text of submission, in PDF)
Mar 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary and Azerbaijan, and the need to address corporate complicity in South Sudan, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, delivered during general debate, read as follows:
“The situation remains grave for the rule of law and legal protection of human rights in Turkey and Poland.
In Turkey, constitutional reforms in 2017 that undermined the independence of the judiciary should be abolished. Civil society members are prosecuted under overbroad and vague terrorism offences.
In Poland, the Legislature is trying arbitrarily to remove one third of the Supreme Court, a measure that is on hold only temporarily. Unjustified disciplinary proceedings are also being pursued against Polish judges for having sought a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Elsewhere, in Hungary civil society is ostracized and subject to legislation that risks criminalizing their legitimate activities. In Azerbaijan, as one example of a broader pattern of interference with lawyers and other human rights defenders, lawyer Elchin Sadigov was reprimanded for advising in a confidential manner to his client in detention to complain about torture to which he allegedly had been subjected.
The ICJ is also concerned at the findings by the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (A/HRC/40/69, A/HRC/40/CRP.1) that point to the oil industry as a “major driver” in the continuation of the armed conflict and resulting human rights violations. Potential corporate complicity with crimes under international law demand investigation and a strong monitoring mechanism for the use of oil revenues should be established.”
Mar 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a joint oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures to repress human rights defenders and other civil society actors, and highlighting deep concerns about possible moves to allow Egypt a significant role over the UN’s independent expert on human rights and counter-terrorism.
The statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The ICJ made the statement jointly on behalf of Amnesty International, Article 19, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Privacy International.
The organisations had earlier sent a joint letter to all States’ delegations to the Council in Geneva, highlighting Egypts appalling record of abuse of counter-terrorism measures, and urging States to strongly oppose any attempts to weaken the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, whether by diluting or distorting it by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the Mexican-led resolution for its renewal, or any moves by longstanding leader Mexico to share co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with Egypt or other States with such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
The joint oral statement to the Council read as follows (check against delivery):
“Madame Special Rapporteur,
Our organizations welcome your report on the impacts of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures against civil society and human rights defenders (A/HRC/40/52).
We strongly concur with your findings regarding the deliberate and targeted abuse of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism and violent extremism to criminalize and otherwise suppress human rights defenders and other civil society actors. We also appreciate your highlighting the need to prevent indirect impacts on civil society.
Among those States with a particularly appalling record of deliberate and targeted abuse, Egypt, which is mentioned in your report (paras 53 and 56), is a prominent example. As Human Rights Watch recently stated: “Using counterterrorism as a guise to crush all forms of dissent could be Egypt’s hallmark of 2018… There’s simply not much room left to peacefully challenge the government without being detained and unfairly prosecuted as a ‘terrorist’.”[1] Other examples from the reports before the Council include Turkey (para 53), Saudi Arabia (A/HRC/40/52/Add.2 paras 21-29), and China particularly as regards Uyghurs and Kazakhs (paras 55 and 57).
We share your concern about the elements lost from the previous Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” in their March 2018 merger with the deeply flawed Egyptian-led initiative on “effects of terrorism” (para 29). We reiterate our call from March 2018 for future versions of the resolution to address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.[2] We strongly oppose any attempts to dilute your mandate, including by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the resolution for its renewal, or any sharing of co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with States that have such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
Madame Rapporteur, beyond the particular cases mentioned in your report (para 53), what are your views on the broader situation within Egypt in terms of abuse of counter-terrorism measures and what can States, the United Nations, civil society, and other stakeholders do to stop such abuses in the name of counter-terrorism in Egypt and other egregious situations?
Thank you.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/egypt-new-moves-crush-dissent (17 January 2019). See also among others: Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/egypt; EuroMed Rights, Egypt – Finding Scapegoats: Crackdown on Human Rights Defenders and Freedoms in the Name of Counter-terrorism and Security (Feb 2018) https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EuroMed-Rights-Report-on-Counter-terrorism-and-Human-Rights.pdf; Joint NGO Statement, Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat (23 June 2016) https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Egypt-Advocacy-JointNGOStatement-2016.pdf.
[2] Joint NGO end-of-session statement (23 March 2018) https://www.icj.org/hrc37-endofsession/.”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-JointOralStatement-SRCTHR-2019-EN
For more information email un(a)icj.org.
Nov 14, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of a judge and a scholar that were arrested in the wake of the state of emergency in Turkey.
Mr Hakan Baş is a judge who was dismissed and arrested under emergency legislation following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Mr Seyit Ali Ablak is a teacher and was arrested in 2017 also during the state of emergency declared following the attempted coup.
They claim, among others, the violation of their right to a judicial review of detention under articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In this intervention, the ICJ addressed the following issues:
- the international legal and normative framework on the independence of the judiciary and the role of judges, in particular in implementation of obligations under articles 5.3 and 5.4 ECHR;
- the current situation of the independence, governance and administration of the judiciary in Turkey, with particular regard to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors and the role of the peace judges, and their conformity with State obligations under articles 5.3 and 5.4 ECHR. The situation will be assessed with reference to the findings of an ICJ mission undertaken in May 2018 and contained in the mission report Justice Suspended.
Turkey-icj-Bas-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention in Baş v. Turkey)
Turkey-icj-Ablak-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention in Ablak v. Turkey)
