Sep 10, 2018 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today called on all MEPs to vote in favour of the draft resolution and report by rapporteur Judith Sargentini MEP, before the European Parliament, which would activate Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union in respect of Hungary.
A vote for the resolution would mean that, under Article 7.1, the Council would determine whether there is a clear risk of serious breach by Hungary of the founding values of the EU.
Ultimately, if the situation persists, this would allow the Council to take more robust measures, including suspension of voting rights, to address the situation.
The vote, scheduled for 12 September, is crucial for the rule of law in Hungary and throughout the European Union.
The Parliament will vote on whether to activate the process under Article 7, by calling on the Council to identify a risk of serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s founding values, including the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The ICJ considers that the measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.
Cumulatively, these measures pose a grave, systemic threat to the protection of the human rights of all people in Hungary.
“The European Parliament should respond to the critical situation in Hungary by using the powers available to it under Article 7 TEU to defend human rights and the rule of law. Not to do so would be to abandon Hungary to an increasingly dangerous path, and would set a damaging precedent for all of Europe,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
Read the full statement and key concerns here: Hungary-triggering Art 7-Advocacy-2018-ENG (in PDF)
Jul 11, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
Twenty-two senior judges from across the globe wrote today to Polish President Andrzej Duda to condemn the recent attacks on the independence of the judiciary.
The judges, all Commissioners or Honorary Members of the International Commission of Jurists, criticized the forced resignation of 27 of 72 judges of Poland’s Supreme Court as a severe blow to the independence of the Polish judiciary in violation of international standards.
The letter was organized by the ICJ and its Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in consultation with jurists from 17 countries.
“The Polish government’s assault on the country’s judiciary is a major blow to the rule of law in Poland,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General.
He added:
“The situation in Poland is of concern to judges in the country, as well as in the European Union and around the world.”
“The ICJ and jurists everywhere will speak out against this surge of attacks on the judiciary that is increasingly a pattern in many countries, including several that until recently were at least rhetorically champions of the rule of law.”
“This letter shows that the commitment to the rule of law and judicial independence is not limited to just one part of the world or one legal system, but rather reflects the views of the global community of jurists.”
In their letter, the ICJ senior judges “condemn the recent forced retirement of 27 out of 72 Polish Supreme Court justices, including its President Małgorzata Gersdorf (photo), and urge President Duda to act immediately to restore the independence of the judiciary by reinstating them in office.”
They express grave concern “that the effective dismissal of one third of the Supreme Court, coupled with the broad discretion given to the President’s office to make exceptions, has taken place in contravention of international human rights law and standards, including the right to a fair hearing, and is contrary to basic principles of the rule of law.”
Finally, the “undersigned jurists urge the President of the Republic of Poland to act immediately to restore the independence of the judiciary by reinstating the Supreme Court justices forced into retirement, follow the recommendations of the European Commission on judicial reform, and take action to repeal the law on the Supreme Court that strikes at the very core of judicial independence.”
The signatories
- Justice Adolfo Azcuna, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Justice Solomy Balungi Bossa, Ugandan Judge on the International Criminal Court
- Justice Ian Binnie, retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
- Justice Azhar Cachalia, Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
- Dame Silvia Cartwright, former Judge of the High Court in New Zealand and of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
- Justice Moses Chinhengo, Judge of the High Court of Botswana
- Justice Martine Comte, former President of the Orleans Court of Appeal, France
- Justice Radmila Dracigevic-Dicic, Acting President of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia
- Justice Elizabeth Evatt, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
- Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
- Justice Paul J. G. Kapteyn, former Judge of the European Court of Justice
- Justice Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia and former President of the International Commission of Jurists
- Justice Kalthoum Kennou, Judge of the Tunisian Cassation Court
- Justice Ketil Lund, former Justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court
- Justice Qinisile Mabuza, Judge of the High Court of Swaziland
- Justice Egbert Myjer, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights
- Justice Michèle Rivet, former President of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal
- Justice Kalyan Shrestha, former Chief Justice of the Nepalese Supreme Court
- Justice Philippe Texier, Judge of the French Court of Cassation
- Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Justice of the Supreme Court of Uganda
- Justice Stefan Trechsel, former ad litem Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
- Dr Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, former Assistant Justice of the Constitutional Court of Colombia
Poland-Reinstate forcibly retired judges-Advocacy-Open letters-2018-ENG (full text of letter in PDF)
Jun 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today raised concerns for the independence of the judiciary in Serbia, in a statement to the United Nations.
The statement was delivered during the discussion of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Serbia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) congratulates Serbia on the completion of its Third Cycle Universal Periodic Review.
The ICJ welcomes the acceptance by Serbia of all recommendations to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, including by limiting political influence over judicial appointments (Norway, 6.1; Sweden, 6.2; France, 6.3; Australia, 6.20; Germany, 6.22; Morocco, 6.23; Estonia, 6.24; Republic of Korea, 6.25; Singapore, 6.26; Canada, 6.27).
The ICJ regrets, however, that constitutional amendments currently under discussion in Serbia run counter to these recommendations.
The amendments would empower the National Assembly to determine appointments and dismissals of judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as for half of the members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors.
The independence and autonomy of the Constitutional Court, High Judicial Council and State Prosecutorial Council, would be better secured by reducing or eliminating the role of political bodies such as the National Assembly, particularly as regards dismissals.
The ICJ stresses that the judiciary and the prosecution service must exercise their functions free from direct or indirect external influences, threats or interferences, including from the legislative and executive powers.
While welcoming reforms for life tenure of judges and deputy prosecutors, the ICJ urges Serbia to implement the accepted recommendations by precluding involvement of the National Assembly in the appointment and dismissal of judges, court presidents, public prosecutors, and deputy public prosecutors.”
Jun 20, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, on an effective accountability mechanism for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements. The statement was as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes that the report (A/HRC/38/41) of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants recognizes the importance of monitoring mechanisms, access to justice, and accountability in the context of returns (para 78).
The ICJ, which is a member of the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights, shares the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the current implementation of an individual complaints mechanism for Frontex is “rather ineffective, since it largely relies on the discretionary powers of internal oversight bodies” and deficient in its follow-up procedure (para 84).
Furthermore, the ICJ considers that giving the Executive Director of Frontex competence to decide the merits of complaints creates a reasonable perception of bias. This, together with the lack of any requirement to publish its decisions, mean the existing complaint mechanism cannot constitute an effective remedy for human rights violations.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at these shortcomings in light of, as the Special Rapporteur noted, the “externalization of States’ obligations through the actions of international or regional organizations during return procedure” (para. 82). Such externalisation prevents victims of human rights violations from accessing effective remedies.
Finally, the ICJ notes that actions such as the closure of harbours to ships rescuing migrants, including refugees, are in clear breach of the international law of the sea and effectively prevent any access to legal remedies. Such actions should be condemned by this Council.
The ICJ supports the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that States and international and regional organisations must ensure accountability for human rights violations and invites him to explore further such organisations’ responsibility in this regard under human rights law.”
Jun 19, 2018 | Advocacy
The ICJ welcomes the proposal of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in its Recommendation 2121(2018) calling for the development of a Council of Europe Convention on the Profession of Lawyer.
The ICJ believes that such a Convention could make an important contribution to strengthening the rule of law and the protection of human rights in the Council of Europe region, building on existing Council of Europe standards and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
The ICJ particularly welcomes PACE’s call for an effective control mechanism to be put in place under a new Convention, as recent developments in a number of Council of Europe Member States show a significant gap in implementation of Council of Europe standards on the independence and security of lawyers.
Lawyers, along with judges and prosecutors, are one of the pillars on which protection of the rule of law and human rights through the justice system rests.
Recognizing this, the ICJ, since its foundation in 1952, has worked to protect lawyers under threat and to develop international standards for the independence, role and integrity of the profession.
Successive ICJ Declarations, adopted by leading jurists from all regions of the world, have affirmed that the role of the legal profession is “paramount in safeguarding human rights and the Rule of Law” (2008 Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis (ICJ 2008 Declaration).
In any legal system, the legal profession plays a pivotal role in ensuring access to justice and effective remedies and accountability for violations of human rights, as well as upholding the right to fair trial, right to liberty and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment in the criminal justice process.
In defending criminal cases, in advising and representing victims of human rights violations and their relatives or in challenging before the courts national legislation or policy that is contrary to human rights , lawyers give practical effect to human rights guarantees and rule of law principles.
The importance of this role has been recognized by international standards as well as in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has emphasized the “specific status of lawyers [having] a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts”.
It is thus of fundamental importance that lawyers are able to fulfill their professional duties without interference. As the European Court of Human Rights has held, “persecution and harassment of members of the legal profession strikes at the very heart of the Convention system.”
Full text in ENG (PDF): Europe-Drafting-a-EU-Convention-on-the-Profession-of-Lawyer-2018-ENG
Jun 12, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and others intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case of thirteen undocumented children held in a hotspot in Italy.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), the Dutch Council for Refugees and the AIRE Centre jointly intervened in the case of Trawalli and others v. Italy.
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights is called to rule, among other issues, on whether their detention and reception conditions were lawful and/or constituted an inhuman or degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In their third party intervention, the three human rights organizations submitted the following arguments:
a) Taking into consideration migrant children’s status as persons in situations of vulnerability and the principle of the best interests of the child, article 5 ECHR should be read in light of the rising consensus in international law towards a prohibition of detention of children on immigration grounds, in particular based on the consolidated and clear position of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This applies to all instances of deprivation of liberty irrespective of their classification under domestic law.
b) In addition to the above, detention under article 5.1 ECHR will in any event be unlawful and arbitrary where it lacks a clear and accessible legal basis, outlining the permissible grounds of detention as well as the relevant procedural guarantees and remedies available to detainees, including judicial review and access to legal advice and assistance. In light of the obligations of EU Member States under EU law, the interveners submit that detention of asylum seeking children falling within the scope of the recast Reception Conditions Directive will result in a breach of the Convention standards also where it is not used as a measure of last resort, but rather is imposed without consideration of less onerous alternative measures and where the child’s best interests assessment has not been carried out and reflected in this decision.
c) Due to children’s extreme vulnerability, their detention for immigration purposes risks leading to a violation of Article 3 ECHR because of inadequate living conditions and/or to a violation of Article 8 ECHR because of a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with their development and personal autonomy, as protected under Article 8. In this sense, Article 8 must be regarded as affording protection from conditions of detention which would not reach the level of severity required to engage Article 3.
d) When the authorities deprive or seek to deprive a child of her or his liberty, they must ensure that he/she effectively benefits from an enhanced set of guarantees in addition to undertaking the diligent assessment of her/his best interest noted above. The guarantees include: prompt identification and appointment of a competent guardian; a child-sensitive due process framework, including the child’s rights to receive information in a child-friendly language, the right to be heard and have her/his views taken into due consideration depending on his/her age and maturity, to have access to justice and to challenge the detention conditions and lawfulness before a judge; free legal assistance and representation, interpretation and translation. The Contracting Parties must also immediately provide the child access to an effective remedy.
e) In order to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention, Contracting Parties must guarantee that asylum seeking children are accommodated in reception facilities which are adapted to their specific needs and provide adequate material conditions adapted to their age, condition of dependency and enhanced vulnerability. To do otherwise results in a failure by States to comply with their obligations under Article 3 ECHR and their specific obligations under EU law.
Italy-icj&others-Trawalli&others-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention)
