Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 5, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the need for accountability for crimes under international law in Libya, and concerns for the independence of lawyers in Ukraine, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The oral statement, delivered in the general debate on technical cooperation and capacity building, read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the oral updates on Ukraine and Libya.
Technical assistance and capacity building objectives in Libya can only be achieved if the protection of human rights, entrenchment of the rule of law and pursuit of accountability are prioritized.
States should support the Fact-Finding Mission by extending its reporting mandate, increasing contributions to the UN budget necessary to establish the Mission’s secretariat, and fully cooperating with it.
States should also support the Berlin Process working groups, ensuring that the political and accountability pillars work in unison and making meaningful commitments to implement their recommendations.
Across all of Ukraine, lawyers continue to be associated with their clients and may face consequences for representing them by private individuals and also through abuse of legal proceedings. High-profile cases bear risks for independent lawyers who choose to diligently represent their clients.
The decline in security of lawyers in and outside of courts, and the problem of threats, harassment, and attacks against lawyers, should be addressed as a matter of priority, including through technical cooperation. Measures should be taken to build the capacity of law enforcement agencies and court security personnel to ensure that lawyers and others involved in court proceedings can work in an atmosphere free from intimidation, harassment, and improper interference.
Thank you.”
Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and IHOP today put the spotlight the lack of independence of the judiciary and the abuse of criminal and anti-terrorism laws in Turkey, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement, made during the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Turkey, reads as follows:
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) welcome the acceptance by Turkey of recommendations to ensure the independence of the judiciary (recommendations 45.112, 45.113, 45.114, 45.115, 45.118, 45.120, 45.121, 45.124, 45.125, 45.126, 45.127, 45.128, 45.129, 45.132, 45.133).
The ICJ and IHOP however regret to report that, based on their research and experience, the statements by the Turkish Government that the recommendations on the independence of the judiciary have already been implemented is simply not correct.
On the contrary, during the state of emergency more than 4000 judges and prosecutors were dismissed, more than 2000 judges and prosecutors were detained, through arbitrary processes that did not meet international standards.
The judiciary in Turkey does not enjoy basic guarantees of institutional independence because its Council of Judges and Prosecutors is fully appointed by the Legislative and Executive powers contrary to international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ and IHOP further regret that Turkey only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendations to reform its penal and counter-terrorism legislation in line with international standards on freedom of expression (recommendations 45.90, 45.91, 45.92, 45.93, 45.94, 45.95, 45.96, 45.97, 45.98, 45.99, 45.100, 45.101, 45.102, 45.103, 45.104, 45.148, 45.158).
The statement by the Government that “legal amendments have already been adopted” and that these laws are in line with international standards is also fundamentally incorrect.
Anti-terrorism laws and other criminal offences continue to be abused to unjustifiably prosecute political opposition members, judges, lawyers, prosecutors and human rights defenders.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Turkey, ICJ calls on Turkish authorities to
- radically reform the governance of the judiciary to restore its independence in line with international standards;
- promptly finalize all criminal and administrative cases concerning former judges and prosecutors, respecting international standards of judicial independence;
- truly reform the country’s anti-terrorism law, and
- stop all arbitrary prosecution of human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and academics.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Sep 21, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on Enforced and Involunatary Disapparances during the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ has called on Tajikistan and Turkey to comply with the recommendations by the Working Group and to end practices of abduction and forced return.
The Chair of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disapperances in his replies to the questions pressed Turkey to implement the recommendations of the Working Group’s report.
The oral statement read as follows:
Mr Vice-President
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report by the Working Group on the follow up of its recommendations on its visit to Turkey (A/HRC/45/13/Add.4) and shares its concerns at the lack of implementation by the Turkish authorities and at the State-sponsored practice of “abductions and forced returns” (para 8). The ICJ agrees with the Working Group that a critical factor that fosters impunity in Turkey is “the lack of judicial independence and impartiality” (para 17).
The ICJ also welcomes the Working Group’s report on Tajikistan (A/HRC/45/13/Add.1). The ICJ shares its concern at the forcible return of Tajikistan nationals to the country, involving enforced disappearances (para 53), the harassment of lawyers (para 9) including the lengthy imprisonment of Buzurgmehr Yorov and Nuriddin Makhkamov, the obstruction of lawyers’ access to detainees, and inadequate judicial review of detention (para 47).
The ICJ urges both countries to fully implement the recommendations of the Working Group and particularly:
- on Tajikistan, to end forced return of their nationals, and to ensure prompt and confidential access to lawyers for detainees and prompt and independent judicial review of detention.
- on Turkey, to stop all practices of abduction and forced return from other countries and to restore the independence of its judiciary.
Sep 18, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ and IBAHRI have called on Belarus to comply with its international human rights obligations, including by releasing those arbitrarily detained and ceasing abusive prosecutions as well as harassment of lawyers.
The oral statement read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) are concerned at the continuing human rights violations in Belarus following the Presidential election. Widespread arbitrary arrests, police violence against peaceful protesters, torture and other ill-treatment of detainees and allegations of enforced disappearances, violate Belarus’s international law obligations, and require accountability.
Our organizations are particularly concerned about reports that these violations are accompanied by widespread denial of detainees’ access to a lawyer. Lawyers face harassment and obstacles in carrying out their professional duties.
We highlight the recent arrests and detention of two prominent lawyers, Ilya Salei and Maxim Znak, on politically motivated charges on 9 September 2020. According to official information, the lawyers are charged with the crime of “calls for actions aimed at causing harm to the national security of the Republic of Belarus”.
We urge the Council to call on Belarus to:
- comply with its international human rights obligations, including by releasing those arbitrarily detained and ceasing abusive prosecutions;
- provide detainees with confidential access to lawyers of their choice;
- end harassment of lawyers and ensure accountability and reparations for those whose human rights have been violated; and
- request OHCHR to monitor and report to the Human Rights Council on the human rights situations in Belarus.
Thank you”
Sep 14, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and ECRE intervened today before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the extradition of a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity back to his country of origin where he would be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment .
In their submissions, the ICJ and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) analysed thenon-refoulement obligations of the Russian Federation under international human rights law in relation to the consideration of evidence to assess the substantial grounds to believe that a concerned person will face real risk of a serious human rights violation; and the use of diplomatic assurances purportedly to protect against torture and other serious human rights violations in light of international law.
The two NGOs also provided the Court with an update on the legal framework governing extraditions from the Russian Federation to Central Asian States, in particular Kyrgyzstan, as well as Russia’s extradition practice. They concluded that the analysis of the law and practice revealed a number of critical human rights deficits.
They submitted that the lack of respect for the procedural aspect of the principle of non-refoulement, the consequent ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in this regard, in the Russian Federation, and the abysmal record of Kyrgyzstan in upholding its obligation to respect and protect the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment mean that extraditions from the Russian Federation to Kyrgyzstan entail a high risk of violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the principle of non-refoulement.
These submissions are an update of the third party intervention submitted by the ICJ before the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 2016. The Chamber had ruled that no risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement existed in the case but the judgment is now subject to the review of the Grand Chamber.
ECtHR-TK and others v Russia-GC-ICJECRE-Final (download the third party intervention)
