Aug 23, 2018 | News
The Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF-3), in a watershed judgment, ruled that prescription or statute of limitations was not applicable to claims of reparation by a victim of torture during the military regime in the 1970s. The Court accepted the arguments of ICJ Commissioner Belisário dos Santos Jr.
The hearing in the lawsuit against the Union and the State of São Paulo took place on Wednesday 22, after the case had been dismissed by the court first instance.
Belisário dos Santos Jr., Executive Committee Member of the ICJ, argued the case for the victim at the invitation of the Juridical Department of CA XI.
He noted: “On the one hand there could be no statute of limitation on torture claims, while on the other hand the the application of the statute of limitations which adopted by Decree 20.910 / 32 had to be considered.”
The lawsuit, which began in 2012, alleges political persecution and torture that took place beginning 1971 .
Belisário dos Santos Jr. argued that the rationale for the law and jurisprudence affirming the inapplicability of statute of limitation lies in the seriousness of the violation of torture, which had been committed on a widespread and systematic basis by order or with the knowledge of high-level State authorities in Brazil at the time.
“The obligation to provide reparation under the UN Convention against Torture could not be superseded by provisions of the domestic law of a State. In addition, the obligation to provide a remedy and reparation is a legal duty of the State which must not depend on the conduct or activity of the victims. For these reasons, the case could not have the same treatment of other lawsuits against the Public Treasury,” he said.
Belisário dos Santos Jr. also pointed out that, pursuant to article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, which was ratified by Brazil in 1991, “the reparation must be fair and adequate, as recognized by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice and TRF 3, itself in accordance with international human rights law and jurisprudence. ”
The TRF-3 decided by 3-2 majority that the statute of limitation was inapplicable and, unanimously, granted the appeal on merit, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Aug 23, 2018 | News
On 22 August, the ICJ co-organized a preparatory discussion in Bangkok for civil society organizations on Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP).
This event was organized one day in preparation for a formal NGO consultation event on the NAP held today.
The formal NGO consultation event was organized by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) to consider the draft NAP released by Thailand’s Ministry of Justice’s Rights and Liberties Protection Department (RLPD) in August 2018.
The ICJ hosted the preparatory discussion jointly with Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC), Amnesty International Thailand (AI Thailand), Protection International (PI), Fortify Rights and the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Thirty members of civil society organizations from all across Thailand attended the preparatory discussion.
Of these participants, four persons from the North of Thailand were supported by the ICJ to attend the discussion, including Ms. Arisara Lekkam, Lecturer of Law at Mae Fah Luang University in Chiang Rai, who was also a speaker at the event.
The event began with a presentation about the NAP and business and human rights issues in Thailand, during which Arisara Lekkam provided an overview of the business and human rights situation in Thailand.
Following the presentation, participants divided into groups to discuss four prioritized areas covered by the NAP: Labour, Land and Natural Resources, Human Rights Defenders and Cross-Border Investment.
At the end of the discussion, each group presented a set of recommendations on the draft NAP pertaining to each prioritized area. These recommendations will be provided to the Ministry of Justice’s RLPD.
This is the third event the ICJ has held on business and human rights in collaboration with partners from the North of Thailand.
On 22 November 2017, the ICJ, in collaboration with Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, held a roundtable discussion on human rights litigation concerning special economic zones in Myanmar and Thailand.
Between 29 and 31 July 2017, the ICJ, in collaboration with Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, held a workshop on ‘Introduction to Business and Human Rights & Basic Principles on Documenting Human Rights Violations” for 25 academics, NGO representatives and lawyers in Chiang Mai.
Background
During the second Universal Periodic Review of Thailand in May 2016, the Royal Thai Government accepted a recommendation to develop, enact and implement a national action plan on business and human rights in order to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
In August 2018, Thailand’s Ministry of Justice’s RLPD, which is currently leading the development of the NAP, released a revised ‘zero draft’ of the NAP.
In line with the release of the revised ‘zero draft’, the NHRCT led the organization of a formal NGO consultation event on 23 August 2018, jointly with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and OHCHR.
The Royal Thai Government reportedly plans to launch the NAP in September 2018.
Aug 21, 2018 | News
The ICJ and its Polish Section (ICJ Poland) today expressed their support for the actions of the Supreme Court to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Poland, including by recourse to the European Court of Justice (CJEU).
This happened in the face of repeated attack by political figures and authorities.
Preserving and safeguarding the independence of the courts is essential for the protection of human rights in Poland, the organizations said.
The ICJ and ICJ Poland urged the Polish executive and legislative authorities to cease all interference with the conduct of the Supreme Court in the carrying out of its legitimate functions.
The law on the Supreme Court that has led to the forced “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court, including the President of the Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, must be repealed and the judges reinstated in office, the ICJ and ICJ Poland stressed.
On 2 August, the Supreme Court of Poland took the welcome step, in accordance with European Union law, of submitting a preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the recent legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law.
Specifically, the Supreme Court enquired as to the legislation’s compliance with the principle of irremovability of judges and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2000/78. The Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of the law during the proceedings before the CJEU.
The ICJ and ICJ Poland condemn the attacks against the Supreme Court by political authorities, including President Andrzej Duda, who claimed that the suspension of the law’s implementation has no legal basis.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Poland acted in compliance with its duties under article 267 of Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to raise a question concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and, in conformity with the case-law of the CJEU, to suspend the application of such measures which may violate the law of the European Union, pending resolution of the question.
The legislation raises serious issues of EU law, both in regard to protection of the rule of law under Article 2 of the TFEU, and in regard to discrimination on grounds of age.
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 the ICJ, ICJ Poland, and judges of the global ICJ network have repeatedly condemned.
The organizations emphasize that irremovability of judges is one of the main pillars of judicial independence and therefore of the rule of law. 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.
Aug 13, 2018 | News
From 9-12 August, the ICJ-supported trainings on human rights and the law for lawyers, youths and activists from Kachin and Shan states in Myanmar’s north.
On 9 and 10 August, the ICJ joined a “training of trainers” organized by the Humanity Institute, a civil society organization based in Myitkyina.
This aims to improve the capacity of local youths and activists from Kachin and Northern Shan State on basic human rights concepts and measures to engage with Regional and UN Human Rights mechanisms.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, shared information about the advantages and limitations of regional human rights mechanisms, including the Europe Commission of Human Rights and the ASEAN Commission of Human Rights. She provided an overview of the UN human rights framework and human rights mechanisms.
In addition to explaining how these work, she also focused on how human rights defenders can communicate with and participate in UN human rights mechanisms by reporting on human rights violations.
Then on 10 and 11 August, the ICJ facilitated a legal training for senior law students, and junior lawyers hosted by the Kachin Legal Clinic, an independent lawyers network.
The Kachin Legal Clinic seeks to develop a pool of young lawyers and with knowledge on the role of lawyers in the field of domestic and international human rights setting and the independence of the lawyers.
On the first day, a national legal adviser from the ICJ shared experiences of litigating for human rights in Myanmar. She also noted the critical role of independent lawyers in protecting human rights, by representing clients from all communities in different parts of Myanmar.
On the second day, Ja Seng Ing gave an overview of global and local law and standards and issues related to accountability and redress for gross human rights violations.
The ICJ’s international legal adviser, Sean Bain, gave an overview of international laws and standards related to the protection of human rights in times of conflict or crises, sourced from international human rights law as well as international humanitarian law and international criminal law.
These activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to civil society actors in Myanmar, from community to national level.
Aug 2, 2018 | News
The ICJ condemns in the strongest terms the violence that erupted in Zimbabwe after the elections, and calls for the restoration of the rule of law and respect for human rights.
At least 3 people are reported to have died in Harare on 1 August as a result of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ (ZDF) use of live ammunition “to disperse” unarmed protestors in Harare’s Central Business District.
Members of the ZDF are reported to have fired live bullets against the fleeing crowd, and assaulted people indiscriminately, resulting in injuries and loss of life.
While the ICJ does not condone acts of violence carried out by protesters and party supporters, it strongly condemns the intentional use of lethal force and other actions of the ZDF, which were disproportionate and unnecessary in the circumstances.
According to the ICJ, the unrest could have been contained in a manner consistent with Zimbabwe’s international human rights law obligations, which, in turn, could have avoided loss of lives and injuries to protesters and bystanders.
“The use of lethal force on unarmed protesters must never be condoned,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
“The intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life,” he added.
The ICJ reminds the authorities in Zimbabwe of their commitment to rule of law, constitutionalism and protection of human rights as provided for under the Constitution and relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ calls on them to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights during this post-election period.
The ICJ urges the responsible authorities to hold to account members of the ZDF responsible for the loss of life and limb during the protests on 1 August.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists C: +263 77 728 3248, E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background information
Protests erupted in the morning of 1 August 1 2018 during the announcement of the results for the National Assembly following “the Harmonised Elections” held on 30 of July 2018.
It is alleged by authorities that protesters were damaging property during the protest.
Media reports published later in the day indicate that the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) invoked section 37(1) of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11 :17], which allows the Minister of Home Affairs upon request by the Commissioner General of Police to seek assistance from the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) to quell civil commotion in any district and for the ZDF to assist.
The Zimbabwean Constitution recognizes and protects the rights of citizens to freely and peacefully demonstrate and petition.
It also guarantees the freedom of assembly and association.
Although section 86 of the Constitution makes clear the non-absolute nature of these rights, Zimbabwean authorities must be reminded that any limitations must be in terms of a law of general application and must be fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom.
Citizens of Zimbabwe are also reminded of these constitutional provisions and encouraged to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.
Jul 31, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the government of Kazakhstan to drop all charges of “knowingly disseminating false information” against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov related to his representation of a child who is the alleged victim of sexual abuse by older children.
“The prosecution of Bauyrzhan Azanov in relation to statements he made as part of his representation of a child violates the lawyer’s freedom of expression, and prevent him from effectively representing his client,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Instead of targeting a lawyer, the investigative authorities should use their resources to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in this case and ensure the protection of the rights of this child in accordance with Kazakhstan’s international obligations,” he added.
Bauyrzhan Azanov, a prominent lawyer in Kazakhstan, took up a high-profile case in which he represented a minor, an alleged victim of sexual and physical abuse over a prolonged period.
The case became public in March 2018 through media reports.
Once the case became public several district police officers were fired, and two heads of schools and some other state agents were suspended from office, reportedly in relation to their failure to report and investigate the case.
In his statements in the social media, Azanov alleged the investigation had been obstructed due to corrupt reasons.
In reaction to this, on 21 May 2018, the mother of the minor submitted a complaint against Azanov where she expressed concerns about “social tension”, “forming a negative image of the investigative body” and herself “as a mother”.
Following the mother’s complaint, on 24 July, the General Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the lawyer for knowing dissemination of false information, which alleged that:
“The information disseminated by lawyer B. Azanov was deliberately distorted and untrue, which created a false idea among the public about the alleged corruption of justice system, investigative bodies, the mother of the child and other persons. This caused psycho-emotional and social tension among the public and created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation, thereby creating a threat of violation of public order.”
Through the media, Azanov has denied the allegations against him and has stated that he acted in the best interests of his client and sought to ensure accountability for criminal acts.
On 1 June 2018, Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan commented on the case stating that unreasonable prolongation of the investigation is connected with the nepotism in the police and higher investigative authorities.
The Ombudsperson, members of the Kazakhstan Bar Association and human rights activists have made public statements in support of Bauyrzhan Azanov.
In these circumstances, the ICJ is concerned that criminal charges against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov for public comments in which he raised concerns about possible violations of human rights of his minor client, may violate the lawyer’s right to freedom of expression.
The right to freedom of expression is protected under international treaties to which Kazakhstan is a party, including by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the UN Human Rights Committee stated in its General Comment 34 on the freedom of expression:
“When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”
According to the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers, lawyers 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 without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization (Principle 23).
It is of particular concern that the Prosecutor’s Office document uses vague concepts that may amount to arbitrary use of grounds for restriction of freedom of expression of the lawyer.
In particular, it is unclear how prosecutorial authorities measured “psycho-emotional and social tension of the public” or that on what basis the lawyer’s comments may have “created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation” creating a threat to the public order.
These broadly and atypically worded justifications for prosecution are likely to lead to arbitrary interference with freedom of expression.
Prosecution of the lawyer for his attempts to raise human rights-related issues of his minor client, unsupported by any evidence or explanation what they may refer to, is also likely to have a chilling effect on those who defend human rights of victims of abuse.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Kazakhstan-Lawyer Azanov-News-web story-2018-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Kazakhstan-Lawyer-Azanov-News-Web-story-2018-RUS (full story in Russian, PDF)
