Oct 26, 2020 | News
The ICJ and Lawyers Alert today called on the Nigerian authorities to undertake immediate independent and thorough investigations into credible allegations of extrajudicial killings by the military responding to mass protests against the SARS police unit.
Those responsible for criminal conduct must be brought to justice and held to account, the two organizations said.
The authorities must respect their international legal obligations under international law and cease the unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force in response to Nigerians’ lawful protest actions.
Protest actions have escalated over the last two weeks as Nigerians have staged a series of protests under the #EndSARS movement. Thousands of people joined the demonstrations, demanding an end to police brutality and corruption.
Reports confirm that more than 56 people have died over the two weeks of protest actions, including 38 protesters who were killed, on the 20 October alone, as a result of the Nigerian military opening fire on thousands of peaceful protesters.
“The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under international law, including the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Nigeria has acceded to. Nigeria’s brutal responses to the peaceful demonstrations, including the use of lethal force on force protestors, not only violates this right but also their right to life,” said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director.
Lawyers Alert Executive Director Rommy Mom said: “The Nigerian government’s responses to the protests have undermined the rule of law. Groups and persons should not be afraid to approach the Judicial Panels of Inquiry to lay their grievance towards identification of culpable SARS officers for appropriate sanctions and the compensation of victims.” The organizations recall that under international law, the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials is permissible only when strictly necessary to protect life.
Police in the SARS unit are credibly alleged to be responsible for a widespread practice of torture and other serious human rights violations.
In addition to ending these violent attacks on protestors, the ICJ and Lawyers Alert call on the Nigerian government to address the demands of protestors and embark on comprehensive reform of the police, with emphasis on oversight functions, tethering oversight to civil society groups, the National Human Rights Commission and the constitutional oversight body of the Nigeria police.
“These protests have gained momentum outside Nigeria and have extended beyond the local borders to Ghana, United Kingdom and South Africa. The world’s attention is currently on Nigeria, as the global support for protestors rise amidst further police brutality. The Nigerian government must ensure that it respects and protects the human rights of all in accordance with its obligations under international law,” added Ramjathan-Keogh.
Background
Founded in 1992, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was mandated to “investigate cases involving armed robbery and kidnapping”. However, since its inception, there have been widespread complaints by Nigerians about the conduct of SARS This year Amnesty International issued a report, documenting at least 82 cases of torture, ill treatment and extra-judicial execution by SARS during the period of January 2017 and May 2020
In addition to the ICCPR, Nigeria is party to the UN Convention against Torture and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), which guarantees the right to life under Article 4 and the right to assemble freely with others under Article 11. These rights are also respectively protected under sections 33(1) and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
Article 6 of the ICCPR prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life.
Principle 9 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials affirm that:
Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, c: +27845148039, e: kaajal.keogh(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer, tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Homepage photo credit: Tshwanelo Mathwai
Oct 26, 2020 | Advocacy, News
As the sixth session if the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEWG) working on a draft treaty convenes, the ICJ welcomes the Revised Draft treaty and calls on States to work to overcome political obstacles an make substantial progress towards completing its work on this much needed treaty.
The session, which takes place from 26 to 30 October, has before it a second Revised Draft of a Legally Binding Instrument, presented by the Chairmanship of the OEWG. The ICJ welcomes this draft as a very good basis for negotiations, though it considers that certain provisions still require revision and refinement.
The session takes place in the difficult and uncertain backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, with its serious impacts on human rights such as the right to health and strains on the capacity of States and society to tackle its consequences.
The ICJ is especially concerned at the adverse impact of the restrictions imposed on civil society participation deriving from the rules adopted by the UN for the holding of meetings, while at the same time understanding that meetings cannot be held in the normal manner particularly given the recent increase of COVID cases in Geneva.
In general and with some exceptions, the Second revised Draft LBI reflects changes in the text, structure and organization of the draft articles that improve its potential to serve as an effective protective instrument, as well as increase its overall coherence. The ICJ considers the second Revised draft as a good starting point for negotiations which states should engage into without further delay.
Universal-ICJ comments on BHR treaty 2-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full statement in PDF)
Oct 26, 2020 | News
A new bogus indictment against human rights defender and businessman, Osman Kavala, and US academic, Henri Barkey, for allegedly spying and attempting to overthrow Turkey’s constitutional order is politically motivated and bereft of legal credibility, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
The indictment, alleging the two were involved in the July 15, 2016, attempted military coup, demonstrates Turkey’s blatant refusal to abide by a European Court of Human Rights judgment, finalized in May 2020, which ordered Kavala’s release, and not only prolongs ongoing violations of his rights but gives rise to new ones.
An Istanbul court on October 8 accepted the indictment and has scheduled a first trial hearing against Kavala, who was been in Istanbul’s Silivri Prison since November 2017, and Barkey, who lives in the US, for December 18.
“The new case against Osman Kavala and Henri Barkey demonstrates the Turkish authorities’ flagrant misuse of the courts for political ends and their fundamental disregard for the basic principles of criminal justice,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“Defying the European Court of Human Rights order to release Kavala has confirmed the Court’s conclusion that Turkey is using detention and prosecution to silence a human rights defender.”
The 64-page prosecutor’s indictment, dated September 28, accuses Kavala and Barkey of “securing for purposes of political or military espionage information that should be kept confidential for reasons relating to the security or domestic or foreign policy interests of the state” (under Turkish Penal Code article 328), punishable with up to 20 years in prison, and “attempting through force and violence to overthrow the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey or introduce a different order or prevent this order” (article 309), punishable with life in prison without parole.
The indictment recycles unsubstantiated accusations, which previously circulated in the pro-government Turkish media, that Kavala and Barkey were involved in espionage and in the 2016 attempted military coup. The indictment provides no credible evidence linking them with any criminal activities. (Further details about the content of the indictment are provided below.)
In a December 2019 judgment, which became final on May 11, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the evidence on which Kavala was detained for the Gezi protests and the 2016 coup attempt was insufficient and agreed that Kavala’s detention and the charges against him “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as a human rights defender.”
On September 3, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, acting in its supervisory capacity for the implementation of European Court judgments, issued a decision ordering the Turkish government to ensure Kavala’s release, pointing to “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”
On September 29, pro-government media reported that the Istanbul prosecutor’s office had prepared the new indictment against Kavala and Barkey. On the same day, Turkey’s Constitutional Court postponed its review of Kavala’s application regarding the legality of his continuing detention, which had been scheduled for that day.
On October 1, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issued a second decision calling on Turkey to ensure Kavala’s immediate release, expressing “deep concern that the applicant has still not been released” and announcing that an interim resolution would be issued at the Committee of Ministers’ December 1-3 session if Kavala had not yet been released.
“Turkey is bound by the ruling from European Court to free Kavala immediately, and the ruling covers his detention under the latest case against him,” said Roisin Pillay, director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The new indictment presents no new grounds to justify his detention, and it is imperative that Turkey ends the persecution campaign against him by releasing him and dropping all charges.”
For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Turkey, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
For more ICJ work on Turkey, please visit:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Turkey-Kavala case-News-press release-2020-ENG (story with additional information, in PDF)
Oct 23, 2020 | News
On 21 and 22 October, the ICJ and Cordaid held a webinar series aimed at tackling the challenges of protecting and promoting women’s human rights and access to justice for women in the context of religious and customary laws in operation around the world.
At its global 2019 Congress in Tunis, the ICJ identified the problem, concluding that: “Worldwide, increasing attacks on the rule of law have intensified longstanding inequalities and compounded intersecting forms of discrimination against women and girls and persons from marginalized groups. This has limited their enjoyment of human rights and their effective access to justice. Moreover, in many countries, culture, tradition, or religion are being used to justify laws, policies and practices that discriminate against women and girls.”
In light of the obstacles for women, the ICJ together with Cordaid created this webinar platform for an exchange of views and strategies among human rights defenders, justice sector actors and those from the religious community. Participants came from Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Webinar 1 addressed the ways in which custom and religion shape the ability of women to access justice. The meeting also grappled with the perceived clashes between women’s human rights and pathways to justice based on custom and religion.
“Custom and religious preferences are not superior to women’s rights, they operate simultaneously,” said Nazila Ghanea, Associate Professor in International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford.
Speakers included Professor Nazila Ghanea, Clara Rita Padilla, a lawyer from the Philippines with experience on women’s sexual and reproductive rights, Josephine Chandiru, Executive Director of Stewardwomen from South Sudan, and Claudine Tsongo, Director of Dynamique des Femmes Juristes. They focused on practical subjects, including the persistence of certain religious and cultural practices which have the potential to negatively affect women’s ability to defend their human rights. The session was moderated by ICJ Africa’s director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh.
Webinar 2, moderated by ICJ Commissioner and CEDAW Committee Member, Nahla Haidar, discussed obligations under international human rights law and best practice to ensure access to justice in cultural and religious contexts.
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or belief, Professor Ahmed Shaheed explained that “custom and religious law are, in some countries, used as cover to discriminate against women or to stop them from getting justice. These are not issues which are only present in the global south, they are rampant globally.”
Participants discussed practical measures which could be adopted by States, international organizations and civil society, to eliminate practices which exacerbate women’s inequality. In this regard, Shareena Sheriff from Sisters in Islam based in Malaysia, shared her experience on how they successfully embarked on advocacy to eliminate the harmful practice of Female Genital Mutilation in her country. She explained how Sisters in Islam worked closely with various stakeholders including community members, religious and justice actors to raise awareness on this issue.
Many speakers endorsed the importance of creating platforms such as the webinar to allow different voices from around the world to contribute their experience so as to learn from one another.
Contact
Nokukhanya (Khanyo) Farisè, Legal Adviser (Africa Regional Programme), e: nokukhanya.farise(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer (Africa Regional Programme), e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Watch
The first webinar is available here.
The second webinar is available here.
Read
The report on the Tunis Declaration is available here.
Cordaid, Diverse Pathways to Justice for all: Supporting everyday justice providers to achieve SDG16.3, September 2019, available here.
Download
Universal-ICJ The Tunis Declaration-Advocacy-2019-ENG (the Tunis Declaration, in PDF)
Universal-ICJ Congresses-Publications-Reports-2019-ENG (the ICJ Congresses booklet, in PDF)
Oct 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the dismissal of eight judges and three prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) on 14 October 2020, for alleged membership of or connections with the Gülenist movement as a violation their right to a fair trial.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order. In case any further is to be taken, the cases should be re-examined under the ordinary dismissal procedures. The ICJ also urges the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
“This decision not only affects the rights of the judges and prosecutors at stake, but also the Turkish population as whole, which damages the functioning of a fair and independent justice system bound by the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it was not accompanied by any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
International law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.
As the ICJ demonstrated in the 2018 report Justice Suspended, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is itself not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency still apply, having been extended for three years by Law no. 7145.
“It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without a fair procedure, in disregard of international law,” added Massimo Frigo.
Background
On 14 October the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. The decision was issued in the Official Gazette on 30 October 2020. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously applied under the state of emergency legislation. More than 30 judges have so far been dismissed under this procedure since the end of the state of emergency.
One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorized to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145
The decision to dismiss the nine judges and two prosecutors was made on 14 October 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 20 October 2020. After recalling Law no 7145 that enables the dismissal of judges and prosecutors by the Board, the decision states that all defendants have asked to submit their written defences. The decision also indicates that this is not a criminal conviction. The decision is based on complaints received and refers to investigations on their social environment, criminal investigations and prosecutors conducted by judicial authorities in general on the Gülenist organisation/FETÖ, minutes of hearings, contents of the communication app Bylock, statements by witnesses and suspects. However, the decision does not include any reasoning relating to the individual situation of each judge or prosecutor.
International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Basic Principles state that a “charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.”
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Oct 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ calls on the Belarus authorities to revoke the disbarment of lawyer Aleksandr Pylchenko and to end harassment or other interference with the work of lawyers in the country.
His disbarment appears to be arbitrary and in violation of rights to freedom of expression as well as international standards on the role of lawyers.
The decision of 15 October 2020 of the Ministry of Justice to disbar the lawyer is clearly related to his work in defence of human rights and his representation of clients, including, opposition leaders or protesters.
This disbarment is part of a pattern of increasing obstruction of lawyers who represent those associated with recent protests in Belarus, including through arrests and detention of lawyers, and prevention of their access to clients.
Aleksandr Pylchenko represented Viktor Babariko and Maria Kolesnikova, two leaders of the opposition in Belarus.
Disbarment proceedings against Mr Pylchenko started as a result of his public criticism of the response of the law enforcement authorities to claims of ill-treatment of protesters.
On 14 August 2020, in a media interview Mr Pylchenko called on the Prosecutor General’s Office to take action, in particular to launch criminal investigations into the ill-treatment of protesters by the police and to remove the Minister of Interior and other officials from their posts because of their involvement in human rights violations.
According to the Ministry of Justice, Mr Pylchenko called for “illegal actions, including blocking and disarming military units” and his statements “mislead the public about the powers of state bodies and do not comply with procedural norms”.
Belarus has obligations under international law to protect the right to freedom of expression (Article 19 ICCPR). Lawyers have a particular role in publicly raising concerns about violations of the human rights of their clients, or problems in the justice system that lead to violations of human rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers, like others, are entitled to freedom of expression and in particular, have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.
Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments must ensure that lawyers ‘are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”. (Principle 23). Lawyers should not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics (Principle 16). They should never be identified with their clients’ causes.
Background:
Following the presidential elections of 9 August 2020 in Belarus, widespread protests across Belarus took place.
On 18 June and 7 September 2020, Victor Babaryka and Maria Kolesnikova, opposition leaders in Belarus, were detained.
There are reports that defence lawyers were denied access to those arrested including in high-profile cases, such as the case of the former presidential candidate Victor Babaryka whose lawyer was not allowed to see his client in the detention centre for significant period of time.
On 9 September 2020, lawyers Ilya Salei and Maxim Znak, were detained allegedly on politically motivated charges.
On 25 September 2020, the Minsk city Oktyabrsky District Court sentenced Luidmila Kazak, lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, to a fine (220 Euro) for “disobeyance to a lawful order” of a police officer (Article 23.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The lawyer stated that the arrest and administrative fine are connected to her legal representation of the opposition leader Maria Kolesnikova.
The ICJ has previously 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.
