Oct 11, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the appointment by President Andrzej Duda of 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July.
“These appointments are patently illegitimate and deal a severe blow to the rule of law in Poland,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The new appointments purport to replace the Supreme Court Justices including President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf, whose forced “retirement” is in clear violations of international standards on the security of tenure and independence of judges.
The decision of the President is even more concerning since it contravenes an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law and principles on the independence of the judiciary that the executive respect decisions duly made by the judiciary.
“In announcing these appointments now, while cases on the forced retirement of Supreme Court judges are still pending at the EU Court, President Duda has disregarded the proceedings of the EU’s apex judicial body,” Róisín Pillay added.
The ICJ considers that the legality of the appointments of the new judges is further compromised by the role played by the now politicized National Council for the Judiciary, whose independence and impartiality has been seriously compromised following recent legislative amendments.
The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to cease all interference with the Supreme Court in carrying out its legitimate functions, and to reverse the measures taken to force the retirement of Supreme Court judges.
Background
This attack against the actions of the Supreme Court occurs amid a systematic undermining of the independence of the judiciary in Poland by the Polish executive and legislative authorities, which attempt to increase political influence in the judiciary and which the ICJ has repeatedly condemned.
Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.
The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.
In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018.
At the same time Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.
Following the jurisprudence of the CJEU, the Supreme Court suspended the effect of national law on the forcible retirement of the judges.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Oct 5, 2018 | News
2018 marks the 60th anniversary of the ICJ’s move to Geneva thanks to the great Swiss jurist Jean-Flavien Lalive, who was ICJ’s Secretary General in 1958.
This makes the ICJ one of the earliest international organizations to establish its headquarters in Geneva.
At the 1959 ICJ Congress in New Delhi, Dr. Lalive helped breathe new life into the rule of law and human rights.
The Delhi Declaration is, to date, a fundamental instrument interpreting the rule of law as a living concept, and underscoring the primary role of lawyers in its safeguard and in the advancement of human rights.
The ICJ plays a unique and preeminent role as a non-governmental organization seeking to defend human rights and the rule of law worldwide.
The ICJ will mark this event with two major initiatives:
- A visibility campaign from 26th September to 9th October: the TV screens on the Geneva public transport network and five vehicles will carry the slogan “Global Advocates for Justice and Human Rights – 60 years in Geneva”
- The launch of the “60th Anniversary Appeal” to all lawyers in the Republic and canton of Geneva to support the ICJ and, in turn, their less privileged colleagues, victims of persecution on five continents.
“Geneva can be proud of its image as the world human rights capital. It is a beacon for justice advocates around the world. We must continue to make it shine,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
“Through its 60-year history, the ICJ has contributed significantly to Geneva’s human rights record: the campaigns that led to the creation of the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1993 and the UN Human Rights Council in 2006, as well as the adoption of the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1984 are some emblematic examples,” said Olivier Coutau, Head of La Genève Internationale.
“In the face of repeated attacks on human rights, the world needs, more than ever the ICJ’s competent, rigorous and effective defense of the rule of law,” Sam Zarifi added.
The Republic and canton of Geneva support the ICJ 60th Anniversary Appeal.
Additional information
The international reputation of the ICJ rests on these pillars:
- 60 Commissioners – eminent judges and lawyers – from all regions of the world and all legal systems – with unparalleled knowledge of the law and human rights;
- Cooperating with governments committed to improving their human rights performance;
- Effective balance of diplomacy, constructive criticism, capacity building, and if necessary, ‘naming and shaming’;
- Unmatched direct access to national judiciaries, implementing international standards and improved legislation impacting millions;
- Guiding, training and protecting judges and lawyers worldwide to uphold and implement international standards;
- Working for access to justice for victims, survivors and human rights defenders, in particular from marginalized communities;
- Following a strict result based management in project delivery.
In recognition of this effective approach, the ICJ has been awarded, during its long history, some of the most prestigious international awards: the Council of Europe Human Rights Prize, the United Nations Award for Human Rights, Erasmus Prize, Carnegie Foundation Wateler Peace Prize.
In 2018, the ICJ provided local trainings on five continents to assist 4,300 judges, lawyers and prosecutors strengthen their ability to protect and promote fundamental rights.
The ICJ has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the African Union.
Contact :
Michaël W. Sombart, Director Philanthropy & Strategic Partnerships, t: +41 22 979 38 31 ; m: +41 77 965 98 45 ; e: michael.sombart(a)icj.org
Oct 5, 2018 | News
The proposal to implement caning on those found guilty of corruption would directly violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law, said the ICJ today.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) called on the Government of Malaysia last week to consider caning as a punishment for those convicted of corruption to underline the efforts of eliminating corruption in the country.
Malaysia currently implements caning in a wide range of offences, including the Immigration Act 1959/63, the Penal Code (rape, criminal breach of trust), and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
At present, under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, the punishment for those found guilty of bribery is payment of a fine and imprisonment for up to twenty (20) years.
“Malaysia must immediately and completely abolish caning as a form of punishment. The proposals to implement caning for those found guilty of corruption, bribery, or any other offence is a significant setback for the country.
If this proposal is implemented, it will violate Malaysia’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and prosecute all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as.” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
After Malaysia’s historic election results on 9 May 2018 and the corruption charges levied against its former Prime Minister, Najib Razak, it would be superficial for Malaysia to view the implementation of severe punishments for the crime of corruption as the panacea to the deeply-rooted culture of corruption among those that have held public office and state authorities.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law, as well as international treaties binding on Malaysia, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that “any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It cannot be considered a “lawful sanction” under international law.
The ICJ urges the Government of Malaysia to abandon any proposal to implement caning as a form of punishment for any crime. The ICJ also calls on the Government of Malaysia to immediately abolish the practice of caning as it constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment prohibited under international human rights law and standards.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists,
mobile: +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
At a press conference on 1 October 2018, Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission’s Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Mohamad Shukri Abdul had proposed that the Malaysian government consider implementing caning for bribery offenders.
Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code states the mode of executing the sentence of ‘whipping’, in Section 288(3) it defines the ‘Rattan used for whipping shall not be more than half of an inch in diameter’ (the word caning is not mentioned), while Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the sentence of whipping is forbidden in the case of ‘females’, males sentenced to death and males whom the Court considers to be more than fifty years of age, except males sentenced to whipping under Section 376, 377, 377CA or 377E of the Penal Code.
Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.
The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.
Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.
He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”. Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.
On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.
On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.
According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.
The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.
The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.
“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.
Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.
The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.
Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) and ICJ held a workshop for judicial officers on housing rights in terms of South African and international human rights law.
The workshop, which was held in Johannesburg, was attended 46 participants from South Africa’s 9 provinces. It formed part of a “Human Rights Week For Judicial Officers” run by SAJEI, which on other days also covered “Refugee Rights”, “LGBTI Rights”, and “Gender and HIV”.
The objective of the SAJEI-ICJ workshop was to discuss the role of judicial officers in housing rights cases.
The content of the workshop was collaboratively determined in consultation with magistrates responsible for conducting the training of other magistrates around the country.
It sought to respond to their requests information and resources to assist in their daily decision-making.
The workshop was facilitated by a range of magistrates from around the country and judicial educators at SAJEI.
A keynote address on “Constitutional Imperatives on Rights to Housing” was presented Judge Antonie Gildenhuys, a retired judge who sat both on the High Court and the Land Claims Court in South Africa.
Workshop facilitators drew on a draft manual on housing rights, which the ICJ is working with SAJEI and a working group of magistrates to develop.
The manual’s particular focus is on international human rights standards from a range of sources including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, general comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
It is hoped that, when finalized, magistrates will be able to draw on this manual to assist in their adjudication of housing rights cases.
To assist judicial officers in understanding the challenges faced by communities advocating to prevent unlawful evictions and secure access adequate housing, Mr Thapelo Mohapi (General Secretary of Abahlali baseMjondolo) and Ms Susan Mkhwanazi (Slovo Park Community Forum) were asked to make presentations on their “lived experiences” in attempting to access protection on the right to housing.
Their important insights contributed immensely to the success of the workshop and were well received by the magistrates.
Opening remarks were delivered by Dr Gomolemo Moshoeu (CEO of SAJEI) and Mr Arnold Tsunga (Africa Director of the ICJ).
“We at the ICJ are very happy that the magistrates expressed a desire for more continuous legal education in the area of legal enforcement of economic and social rights given that historically very little attention has been paid to equipping magistrates with requisite information and resources to ensure consistent application of human rights standards in this area,” reflected Arnold Tsunga after the event.
Contact:
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2018 | News
The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) held a special hearing on the role of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) in Boulder, Colarado.
Ramón Cadena, the ICJ Director stated “We regret that the Government of Guatemala requested the IACHR to hold the hearing behind closed doors since all the points discussed were of public interest. The discussions should have been open to the press and the general public. We urge the authorities to ensure there will be no retaliations against the work carried out by human rights organizations and human rights defenders.”
The ICJ welcomed the participation of many NGOs at the event and the frank dialogue that took place on this crucial issue for human rights in that country. The Guatemalan government delegation claimed that the Inter-American System of Human Rights was not competent to consider the matter. However, the IACHR maintained it was competent, according to the American Convention of Human Rights and other regional human rights legislation. As an “external observer”, the IACHR stated it was “surprised” by the latest decisions taken by government authorities at the highest level not to extend the CICIG mandate nor allow the entry of Commissioner Iván Velásquez into the country. It considered these decisions were “excessive” and in no way strengthened the rule of law in Guatemala.
The government delegation further argued that the CICIG acted as a “parallel prosecutor” which affects the internal order of the country. The NGO delegation stated that on the contrary the CICIG acted as a “complementary prosecutor”. The delegation further noted that before the CICIG mandate was approved, the Constitutional Court, in an opinion published in the official gazette on 8 May 2007 (document no 791-2007), considered that the CICIG did not violate the constitutional order nor the rule of law in Guatemala.
The Constitutional Court referred to the CICIG as having “the function of supporting, assisting and strengthening the state institutions responsible for investigating crimes committed by illegal and clandestine security forces .. and does not exclude the possibility of receiving support from other institutions in the collection of evidence, provided that the participation has been established in a legal manner, as in the present case.”
The IACHR considered that the essential question was whether the State of Guatemala already had the judicial independence and strong institutions necessary to fight against corruption in Guatemala without the support of the CICIG. The NGO delegation considered, based on different arguments, that the presence of the CICIG in Guatemala was still necessary.
The IACHR also informed the government delegation that it was in their interest to invite an in-situ visit of the IACHR as soon as possible so as to better understand the human rights situation.
The ICJ Director for Central America Ramón Cadena participated in the hearing at the request of the Central American Institute for Social Democracy Studies (DEMOS), the Committee for Peasant Development (CODECA) and the Network of Community Defenders. The Indigenous Peoples Law Firm had been requested to attend by these organizations but was unable to do so at the last moment.
