Nov 26, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ joined other NGOs in condemning the Thai police’s use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020.
The statement reads:
We, the undersigned organizations, condemn the Thai police’s unnecessary and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020. We are concerned that authorities could employ similar measures when facing protesters who have declared they will march to the Siam Commercial Bank headquarters on November 25.
On November 17, police set out barriers and barbed wire to prevent a peaceful march organized by pro-democracy movements from reaching the parliament. Protesters planned to protest outside the parliament as members of parliament and senators debated seven different proposals for constitutional amendments, including an amendment proposed by the lawyers’ non-governmental organization iLAW (Internet Law Reform Dialogue), which was supported by the People’s Movement and its allies. Police refused to let protesters through the barriers, and when the demonstrators acted to breach those barriers, police crowd control units used water cannons laced with purple dye and an apparent teargas chemical, as well as teargas grenades and pepper spray grenades, to forcibly disperse thousands of demonstrators, including students, some of whom are children. Water cannons were first used at approximately 2:25 pm and police continued their efforts to disperse protesters, with constant use of water cannons, teargas and pepper spray into the evening.
Police also failed to prevent violence between pro-democracy protesters and royalist “yellow shirts” near the Kiak Kai intersection, near the parliament. Initially, riot police separated the two groups. However, video posted on social media later showed police officers informing the royalist protesters that they would withdraw and seconds later they vacated their position between the two groups. During the ensuing skirmishes, both sides were filmed throwing rocks and wielding clubs. Live broadcasts included sounds that appeared to be gunfire.
The Erawan Medical Centre reported that there were at least 55 protesters injured, mostly from inhaling teargas. It also reported that there were six protesters who suffered gunshot wounds. The injured included children: a kindergartener and elementary school students.
Although some pro-democracy protesters engaged in violent conduct in responding to royalist protesters, we emphasize that the overwhelming number of protesters were entirely peaceful. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that while specific participants of an assembly who engage in violence are subject to a response that is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate, they also retain all other human rights including the right to life, to security of person and to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
International human rights law, as expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand acceded to in 1996, protects the rights to freedom of expression (article 19) and peaceful assembly (article 21). But Thai authorities have routinely enforced censorship and stifled public assemblies, meetings, and discussions about human rights, political reforms, and the monarchy’s role in society.
In General Comment 37, which sets out the content Thailand’s legal obligations in guaranteeing the right of peaceful assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee—the body responsible for interpreting and applying the ICCPR—made clear that there is a presumption in favor of considering assemblies to be peaceful. Isolated acts of violence by individuals should not be attributed to others, to the organizers, or to the assembly as such. While the right of peaceful assembly may in certain cases be limited, the onus is for the State to justify any restrictions, which must pass the tests of legality, legitimacy, and necessity and proportionality.
Read the full statement in English and Thai.
Nov 23, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a Zoom workshop where Turkish and international experts will discuss the plight of violence against women in Turkey in light of the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention.
To participate, please register by writing an email to ihop@ihop.org.tr (the Human Rights Joint Platform).
Join our great panel of speakers:
– Dame Silvia Cartwright, ICJ Commissioner, former Governor-General and High Court judge of New Zealand, former CEDAW member
– Prof. Dr. Feride Acar, former Member of CEDAW, former Chair of GREVIO
– Zuzanna Warso, Lawyer, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights of Poland
– Hülya Gülbahar, Women rights activist, Lawyer
– Nebahat Akkoç, Chair of KAMER Foundation
– Yasemin ÖZ, Lawyer, Kaos GL
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP)
– Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-WomenAccess2Justice-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-WomenAccess2Justice-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
Nov 20, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release human rights defenders Gasser Abdel-Razek, Mohamed Bashseer and Karim Ennarah.
The detainees, senior staffers of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), a leading human rights organization, were targeted in connection with their human rights work.
The arrests are part of a broader, relentless campaign by the military and government to intimidate and silence civil society organizations, including through such means as trumped-up “terrorism” charges and sham judicial proceedings.
“By arresting Mohamed Bashseer, Karim Ennarah and Gasser Abdel-Razek, and charging them with terrorism-related offences, the Egyptian government led by President Al-Sisi are writing a new, terrifying chapter in their repression playbook,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Their crackdown on independent civil society must end.”
On 19 November 2020, Gasser Abdel-Razek, EIPR’s Executive Director, was arrested by security forces from his home in Maadi, Cairo. He appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) and charged in case No. 855/2020 with, among other charges, “joining a terrorist group” and “spreading false news.”
On 15 November 2020, EIPR’s Administrative Manager Mohamed Bashseer, was arrested at his house in Cairo. On 17 November 2020, Karim Ennarah, EIPR’s director of the criminal justice programme, was also arrested.
They both face similar charges in the same case No. 855/2020, together with other numerous lawyers and human rights defenders, including Mohamed El-Baqer and Mahienour al-Massry.
Over the past seven years, EIPR has been subjected to a pattern of harassment and persecution by the military and government.
In 2016, the assets of EIPR’s founder and former executive director, Hossam Bahgat, were frozen and he was subjected to a travel ban since then.
On February 2020, Patrick George Zaki, an EIPR researcher, was arrested at Cairo Airport by National Security Agency officers who reportedly subjected him to torture, including with electric shocks. He was charged by a public prosecutor with, among other charges, “spreading false news” and “inciting protest without authorization”. He remains in custody
The recent arrests of the three senior EIPR officials follow a visit by a number of European ambassadors and other diplomats to the EIPR Cairo offices on 3 November 2020, during which the human rights situation in Egypt was discussed.
“The international community and in particular States engaging in political and security cooperation with Al-Sisi’s regime must not overlook the serious violations against human rights defenders taking place in the country,” added Benarbia.
“They should demand an end to these violations and ensure that individuals and independent human rights groups are able to do their legitimate and critical human rights work freely and without intimidation.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Download the Arabic version
Egypt-EIPR crackdown-News-2020-ARA
Nov 20, 2020 | News
The ICJ expressed today its deep concern at the arrest of some 26 lawyers and the investigation of around 100, including lawyers active in the defence of human rights, in South East Turkey.
The arrests and investigations are on charges of “establishing organizations in favour of an illegal organisation”, an offence often used to arrest human rights defenders in Turkey.
Around 26 lawyers were arrested this morning, 20 November, at around 5 a.m. and taken to the Anti-Terror Branch of the Police in Diyarbakır in South East Turkey as part of an investigation against the Democratic Society Congress. The ICJ understands that around 100 lawyers are concerned by this investigation that also concerns the Lawyers Association for Freedom (ÖHD).
“We are concerned that these lawyers have been arrested under vague charges that are often used in Turkey to target human rights defenders ,” said Roisin Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme,
“Unless law enforcement officers and prosecutors promptly substantiate such charges with adequate evidence, as well as demonstrating valid grounds for their detention, the lawyers must be released immediately.”
The ICJ will follow the case closely to ascertain whether international law and standards are respected in any action against the lawyers concerned.
“Lawyers are often subject to bogus charges in Turkey to curb their work, including in defence of human rights, and the exercise of their freedom of expression,” added Roisin Pillay.
The ICJ stressed that lawyers should never be subject to arrest for the legitimate exercise or defence of human rights or for the exercise of their professional functions. In the event that any of the lawyers arrested on 20 November are subject to charges for cognizable crimes consistent with Turkish and international law, they must be brought promptly before a court to further consider whether specific grounds exist to justify their continued detention. If charged, they must be ensured the right of fair trial by an independent and impartial court.
Background
It is understood from documents shared by unofficial sources that lawyers’ houses in Diyarbakır have been raided as a part of an ongoing investigation conducted against the Democratic Society Congress (“DSC”). DSC was established in 2007 and continued its work at the premises of Diyarbakır municipality in between 2011-2014. Its members included deputies, mayors, and councillors. The Speaker of the Parliament of the time, officially invited the DSC to the meetings of the Constitutional Reconciliation Commission in 2012. However, following the state of emergency declared in July 2016 a criminal investigation against the DSC was initiated. In 2018, the building of the DSC was raided under this investigation and information about the Congress was gathered during that operation. It is understood that the arrests were made based on information obtained in that search. In the search warrant issued by the public prosecutor today, security forces were asked to look for “organisational documents” such as books, journals, articles, newspapers etc. as evidence. From this warrant, it is clear that the operation conducted against lawyers are not related to acts of violence.
The detained lawyers and human rights defenders are: Lawyers Association for Freedom co-chair Av. Bünyamin Şeker, İHD Adıyaman branch head av. Bülent Temel, ÖHD and İHD member lawyers Abdulkadir Güleç, Eshat Aktaç, Serdar Talay, İmran Gökdere, Diyar Çetedir, Serdar Özer, Feride Laçin, Gamze Yalçın, Gevriye Atlı, Resul Tamur, Cemile Turhallı Balsak, Ahmet Kalpak, Devrim Barış Baran, Neşet Girasun, Sedat Aydın, Mahsum Batı, Şivan Cemil Özen and Haknas Sadak, former TTB Central Council Member and still Honorary Board member Dr. Şehmus Gökalp, HRFT Diyarbakır Representation Office employee, Social Service Expert Serkan Delidere, MED Prisoner and Convict Families Association of Legal and Solidarity Associations Federation (TUHAD-FED) executive Diyar Dilek Özer and federation member Leyla Ayaz, DİVES member Süleyman Okur, Bağlar Municipality Council member Panayır Çelik,
Contact:
Roisin Pillay, e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Nov 19, 2020 | News
On 18 November 2020, the ICJ hosted a Facebook Live with four transgender human rights activists from Asia and Africa. It highlighted the stark reality between progressive laws and violent lived realities of transgender people.
The 20th November 2020 marks the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR), the day when transgender and gender diverse people who have lost their lives to hate crime, transphobia and targeted violence are remembered, commemorated and memorialized.
The discussions focused on their individual experiences of Transgender Day of Remembrance in their local contexts, the impact of COVID-19 on transgender communities and whether laws are enough to protect and enforce the human rights of transgender and gender diverse people.
The renowned panelists were from four different countries, Amar Alfikar from Indonesia, Liberty Matthyse from South Africa, Tshepo Ricki Kgositau-Kanza from Botswana and Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli from India. The panel was moderated by the ICJ Africa Regional Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh.
The panel aimed to provide quick glimpses into different regional contexts and a platform for transgender human rights activists’ voices on the meaning of Transgender Day of Remembrance and the varied and devastating impacts of COVID-19 on transgender people.
The speakers discussed the meaning that they individually ascribe to Transgender Day of Remembrance. A common theme running across the conversations was that it is not enough to highlight issues and concerns of the transgender community only on this day. Instead, these discussions should be part of daily conversations about the human rights of transgender people at the local and international level.
Liberty Matthyse discussed the importance of remembering the transgender persons who have lost their lives over the past years, and added:
“South Africa generally is known as a country which has become quite friendly to LGBTI people more broadly and this, of course, stands in stark contradiction to the lived realities of people on the ground as we navigate a society that is excessively violent towards transgender persons and gay people more broadly.”
Amar Alfikar describes his work as “Queering Faiths in Indonesia”. This informs his understanding of what Transgender Day of Remembrance means in his country and he believes that:
“Religion should be a source of humanity and justice. It should be a space where people are safe, not the opposite. When the community and society do not accept queer people, religion should start giving the message, shifting the way of thinking and the way of narrating, to be more accepting, to be more embracing.”
It was clear from the discussions that a lot of the issues that have become prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic, have not arisen due to the pandemic. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has had the effect of a magnifying glass, amplifying existing challenges in the way that transgender communities are treated and driven to margins of society. Speaking about the intersectionality of transgender human rights, Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli said:
“I don’t think LGBT rights or transgender rights exist in isolation, they are part of a larger gamut of climate change, racial equality, gender equality, the elimination of plastics, and all of that.”
The panelists had different opinions on whether it is enough to rely on the law for the recognition and protection of the human rights of transgender individuals.
The common denominator, however, was that the laws as they stand have a long way to go before fully giving effect to the right of equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination of transgender people.
Tshepo Ricki Kgositau-Kanza, who was a litigant in a landmark case in Botswana in which the judiciary upheld the right of transgender persons to have their gender marker changed on national identity documents, explained the challenges with policies which, on their face, seem uniform:
“Uniform policies… are very violent experiences for transgender persons in a Botswana context where the uniform application of laws and policies is binary and arbitrarily assigned based on one’s sex marker on one’s identity document which reflects them either as male or female. Anybody in between or outside of that kind of dichotomy is often rendered invisible and vulnerable to a system that can easily abuse them.”
This conversation can be viewed here.
Contact
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer, African Regional Programme, e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Nov 17, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the renewed threat of criminal proceedings by prosecutorial authorities against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions, as his case is appealed before a panel of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland, but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya’s immunity should be maintained. Actually he should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with as its decisions were in accordance with the law and the principles of transparency and public trials,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“His case is a further demonstration of the relentless attacks against the independence of judges ongoing in Poland.”
The Disciplinary Chamber, in a single-judge formation, upheld Judge Tuleya’s immunity on 9 July but the prosecution appealed the ruling that will be now decided by the same Chamber before a three-judge panel, Tomasz Przelawski, Slawomis Niedzielak and Jaroslaw Sobutka.
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which has given competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“Immunity claims against a judge should be decided only by an independent body,” Massimo Frigo added.
“As EU Court of Justice held, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on this case.”
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver was rejected on 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government, in a single-judge formation. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the ruling. The case will be now considered by the same Disciplinary Chamber in a three-judge formation. A first hearing was scheduled for 5 October 2020 but was postponed. It will take place on 18 November.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 797499949
