
European Court of Human Rights’ judgment inconsistent with refugee law
The ICJ expresses its disappointment today at the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of M.E. v. Sweden (Application No. 71398/12).
The ICJ expresses its disappointment today at the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of M.E. v. Sweden (Application No. 71398/12).
The ICJ made an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council, highlighting a severe lack of domestic judicial capacity, and the large needs for justice in relation to gross violations and international humanitarian law, as well as ordinary civil and criminal matters, in South Sudan.
The ICJ reported in 2013 that, notwithstanding substantial legal reforms, the justice system in South Sudan was so under-resourced that statutory courts were effectively unavailable to a large majority of the population. Further, judicial appointment procedures were insufficiently independent or transparent to satisfy international standards. Customary courts have a greater presence, but rightly do not have criminal jurisdiction, and further do not meet international standards as regards, for instance, institutional guarantees for independence and impartiality.
In addition to the difficulties most residents already faced in accessing justice, the conflict has resulted in gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. South Sudan must ensure effective remedy and reparation for victims of such violations, and that anyone reasonably suspected of responsibility is investigated and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted. At the same time, it must fulfill the fair and effective administration of ordinary civil and criminal justice.
Particularly given the scale and gravity of the violations, the South Sudanese justice system simply does not have the capacity to bear this burden, at least not alone. In addition to building the capacity of the domestic judiciary, it is clear that an international criminal tribunal, preferrably the International Criminal Court, will need to play a key role. Other states, too, will have to exercise all grounds of jurisdiction at their disposal, and deliver effective mutual legal cooperation.
The ICJ considers that the lack of an effective, independent and impartial court system in South Sudan may well have contributed to the rapid deterioration of the situation over the past months. Building an independent and impartial justice system in which all residents of South Sudan can have confidence is essential to preventing recurrence of the violations in the future.
HRC26-Oral statement on SouthSudan-Advocacy-non legal submission-2014 (full statement in PDF)
The ICJ has delivered an oral statement on the independence of judges, prosecutors and lawyers in Venezuela, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Referencing its report, Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela, the ICJ discussed the failure by Venezuelan authorities to respect institutional guarantees for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and prosecutors, as well as undue interference with individual judges, prosecutors and the legal profession. The ICJ highlighted the lack of security of tenure for most judges and virtually all prosecutors in Venezuela, and how the insecurity is amplified by cases of reprisal such as against Judge María Lourdes Afiuni Mora.
The ICJ urged Venezuelan authorities to take concrete measures to restore the rule of law and ensure the protection of human rights in Venezuela, in meaningful dialogue with civil society, and for other states to encourage Venezuela to do so.
The oral statement can be downloaded in full in PDF format here: ICJ-HRC26-Item4-Venezuela-OralStatement2-Advocacy-non-legal submission-2014
The ICJ delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, during the interactive dialogue with the Commission of inquiry on the Situation on human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The ICJ today made an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council, in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, responding to her report on her visit to the Russian Federation.
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, expressing concerns about recent and pending legislation in Pakistan on the use of firearms and other force by law enforcement officials.
The joint statement, delivered at the UN Human Rights Council during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur and on behalf also of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), expressed appreciation for the Special Rapporteur’s emphasis in his study on the issue, on the need for states to bring domestic laws on the use of force by law enforcement agencies, into line with international standards.
The statement noted that it was not clear whether the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO) 2013, which is currently in force, and the proposed Protection of Pakistan Bill (PPB) 2014 currently being debated in Parliament, were provided for review.
The statement explained how the PPO and PPB contain provisions that give law enforcement agencies overbroad powers to use firearms without independent accountability, in contravention of international standards. They increase the risk of use of excessive and lethal force and arbitrary deprivation of life.
The full statement may be downloaded in PDF form: Advocacy-HRC26-SREJEs-12062014.
The Report of the Special Rapporteur is available here.