Jan 22, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian Parliament to adopt a Draft Law on the appointment of women to the judiciary and to eliminate longstanding discrimination against their appointment as judges.
The Draft Law was introduced by member of the Parliament (MP) Nadia Henry this month and is supported by another 60 MPs.
The Speaker of Parliament has referred it to the legislative committee for review.
“Ensuring women’s full and equal participation in Egypt’s judiciary is necessary for a fair legal system reflective of the community it serves,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“It’s also necessary to end decades of discriminatory practices that have meant only a handful of women judges have ever been appointed despite explicit guarantees of equality in the Constitution,” he added.
Article 11 of the Constitution requires the State to ensure the “achievement of equality between women and men in all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,” including the right of “holding public and senior management offices in the state and their appointment in judicial bodies and authorities without discrimination”.
Women were first appointed to judicial office in 2007. Between 2007 and 2017 there were less than 67 female judges across Egypt, for a population of more than 100 million.
This significant under-representation of women is entrenched in a widespread discriminatory view, including within the judiciary itself, that working as a judge in court was an inappropriate profession for women.
“The Draft Law is significant first step towards challenging these discriminatory views and harmful practices. The Authorities must not only adopt it, they must also adopt other urgent, practical and structural measures to fully guarantee the rights of women to have equal access to judicial office and ensure their equal representation in the judiciary,” Benarbia added.
Background
The first article of the draft law places an obligation on all judicial bodies to appoint women to judicial offices and ensure that the conditions of their appointment are consistent with those that are applicable to men.
In its second article, the draft law nullifies any law that infringes on the obligation set forth in Article 1. Article 3 of the draft law invalidates any procedures in relation to the appointment of judges if such procedures do not comply with the Article 1 of the draft law.
Article 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that, “In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status…”.
The Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, key human rights treaties to which Egypt has been party since the early 1980s, also explicitly prohibit discrimination against women, including in relation to access to public office such as judicial appointments.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-women judges-news-2018-ARA
Jan 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the executions of 22 civilians during the past month, following death penalty cases before military courts in which fair trial guarantees appear to have been flagrantly violated.
The Egyptian authorities should establish an immediate moratorium and halt all pending executions with a view towards the total and permanent abolition of the death penalty, the ICJ added.
“The executions of these civilians constitute blatant, egregious violations of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Carrying them out based on military trials, which furthermore failed to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards, amounts to the arbitrary deprivation of life,” he added.
Based on information provided by the defendants’ lawyers and families, Egyptian NGOs have reported a litany of fair trial violations that marred these proceedings.
These included the case of a defendant who was convicted following one trial session, in the absence of his counsel.
It also included instances involving enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, some of which were documented in the prosecution reports.
In one case the defendants’ lawyers filed a motion to “review the case” under article 448 of the Code Criminal Procedure which should normally suspend the carrying out of any sentence of execution.
The executions were nevertheless carried out on 9 January, before the Military Court’s review, which was due on 28 February 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have brushed aside the most basic legal safeguards on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty,” Benarbia said.
“Because they cannot ensure respect of fair trial rights, they must impose an immediate moratorium on executions.”
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian judiciary fails to conform to these standards.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Executions-News-2018-ARA (Arabic translation in PDF)
Background
International standards recognize the particular concerns with judicial independence and impartiality that arise in relation to the trial of civilians by military courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to military personnel in cases of strictly military offences, i.e. alleged breaches of military discipline.
The above-mentioned cases involved civilians and allegations of ordinary offenses, including theft, rape, and murder (including murder of military officers).
Particularly in these circumstances, there could be no justification for these cases to have been adjudicated before military courts and the ICJ considers that this factor in itself renders the executions in violation of the right to life.
The ICJ furthermore opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation to the right to life and to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The cases in question were: Case No. 411/2013 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (15 executions in 26 December 2017), case No. 22/2015 before Tanta Criminal Military Court (4 executions in 2 January 2018) and case No. 93/2011 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (3 executions in 9 January 2018).
Jan 18, 2018 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern about the impacts on freedom of expression of a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would shut down Rappler, an online news source in the Philippines.
On 11 January, after a year-long investigation, the SEC of the Philippines revoked the Certificate of Incorporation of Rappler, Inc.
The ICJ is concerned that the decision to target Rappler may have been retaliatory and politically motivated.
The investigation was initiated by a letter transmitted by the Solicitor General to the SEC requesting the latter to investigate allegations of foreign ownership of Rappler, Inc.
“The cancellation of the Certificate of Incorporation of Rappler, Inc. constitutes a significant restriction on freedom of expression,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“The Courts must give rigorous scrutiny both to the specific basis the authorities offer for the decision concerning Rappler, Inc., and the scope and application of the foreign equity provision more generally, including an inquiry whether the law is being applied in a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner,” she added.
If such restrictions on freedom of expression are enforced with the actual aim of punishing or preventing critical political expression, or are enforced only against some political or other opinions and not others, this would violate the rights to freedom of expression and non-discrimination under the Philippine Constitution and international human rights law, the ICJ adds.
Further, under international human rights law any restriction on freedom of expression must be limited to what is necessary and proportionate both in relation to the legitimate aim it pursues and in relation to its impacts.
For instance, it would not be consistent with international human rights law to prohibit all foreign ownership of mass media or mass-media-owning entities, unless the government was able to demonstrate that the same legitimate aim could not reasonably be achieved by prohibiting only majority foreign ownership.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Philippines-Rappler-News-Web stories-2018-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Jan 16, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Myanmar’s government must take concrete action to counteract decades of military impunity for human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report published today.
The report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar finds that gross human rights violations in Myanmar rarely go punished, particularly in conflict areas.
Justice remains elusive for victims and their families as a result of laws, institutions and investigative practices that protect members of security forces from prosecution, the ICJ says.
“Decades of denial of justice for victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and impunity for the perpetrators, particularly when involving the military, have severely eroded the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The Myanmar government must now take concrete steps to combat impunity, especially for the military,” he added.
The release of the ICJ’s report follows last week’s statement from the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, acknowledging that security forces had participated in the killing of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State’s Inn Dinn Village.
It is the Tatmadaw’s first admission of serious crimes perpetrated by security forces during its ‘clearance operations’, which have resulted in mass displacement and human rights violations, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on 25 August 2017.
Military and security personnel in Myanmar seldom face justice for human rights violations, because they are protected by legal provisions of the 2008 Constitution, the 1959 Defence Services Act and the 1995 Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law, which include immunities and special courts that shield soldiers, police and officials from public criminal prosecutions for serious crimes, the ICJ notes.
The ICJ’s report finds that investigations into allegations of rights violations rarely result in effective prosecutions or redress.
Eight case studies – from Kachin, Karen, Mon and Rakhine states – illustrate how victims and their families, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, lack access to justice and are even harassed for seeking it.
“Admission of culpability for this one incident is an important first step and must be followed by a full and proper investigation, and justice for the victims and their families,” said Zarifi.
“The dire human rights situation in northern Rakhine State, and in conflict areas such as in Shan and Kachin states, necessitates credible, independent and impartial investigations with a view to publicly prosecute those responsible for unlawful acts and their commissioning.”
“Options available to the parliament and to the executive include addressing barriers to accountability, by reforming laws that protect security forces involved in serious crimes, and by aligning investigative procedures with international standards,” he added.
Contact
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Accountability Coordinator (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 6 4478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Special inquiries commissioned by the Government of Myanmar into allegations of human rights violations generally fail the test of independence and impartiality, or are severely undermined by inadequate resources and or restricted mandates.
These inquiries rarely result in effective prosecutions or access to remedies and reparation.
Members of security forces, when prosecuted, usually appear in military or special police courts, which generally impose low or meaningless sanctions that are wholly inconsistent with penalties applicable in Myanmar’s Penal Code.
Laws governing military and police acts are inadequate for the victims of human rights violations because they do not contemplate the provision of remedies and reparation.
There is very limited precedent or established practice for the provision of effective remedies or reparation for victims of criminal acts in Myanmar, particularly when such crimes involve human rights violations by State actors.
Wittingly or unwittingly, relevant authorities routinely violate national laws that prescribe procedures for the conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations.
Violations of basic fair trial rights, included in national laws, are commonplace.
State authorities continue to exert improper influence on politically-sensitive court cases including those involving allegations of gross human rights violations.
Courts tend to not intervene where human rights violations are occurring nor do they guarantee non-repetition where they have occurred.
Prosecutors rarely, if ever, accept petitions from victims of gross human rights violations to initiate criminal proceedings.
The judicial harassment of victims of human rights violations is commonplace in Myanmar when victims, their families or lawyers seek remedies or reparation through the courts or other mechanisms.
Defamation and unlawful association are among the criminal charges commonly instituted by authorities, including against journalists investigating human rights violations or working in conflict areas.
Overall, Myanmar’s prosecutors lack the independence to effectively prosecute acts involving human rights violations.
Interference with and intimidation of lawyers, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations, undermines their to effectively represent clients and to pursue effective remedies and reparations.
Download
Myanmar-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-GRA-Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic-reports-2018-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Accountability Baseline report-News-Press releases-2018-BUR (Burmese translation)
Read also
Questions & Answers on Human Rights Law in Rakhine State
Reuters journalists detained in Myanmar: respect their rights, end their incommunicado detention
Jan 16, 2018 | News
Tunisian authorities must respect and protect the right to freedom of assembly and of expression of everyone in Tunisia, the ICJ said today.
They also must regulate the use of force against protestors according to international law standards, and ensure that those who are arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, including as a result of the legitimate and peaceful exercise of these rights, are immediately released, the ICJ added.
Over the past week, protesters took to the streets challenging the government’s recentausterity measures, including a rise in prices and tax increases.
Sporadic cases of violence, looting and vandalism occurred, including incidents that targeted police stations.
Over 800 people were subsequently arrested. Further, one protestor died on Monday 8 January 2018 in Tebourba, 30km west of Tunis.
“The acts of sporadic violence committed by a few people do not justify the scale or character of interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly of others,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The Tunisian authorities must immediately release those arrested for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of assembly, and provide due process guarantees to those allegedly responsible for punishable acts,” he added.
In policing public assemblies, Tunisian authorities should comply with their obligations under international human rights law, including not only the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, but also those relating to the rights to life, to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person (and to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention).
To that end, security forces should use force in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and precaution, and in a manner that respects and ensures people’s lives and safety.
The ICJ expresses its concern that violations of human rights of this kind would take place now despite the many reform efforts during the seven years since the revolution.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +41 798783546, e-mail: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
PR Recent Events in Tunisia ARA (Arabic version in PDF)
Jan 15, 2018 | News
The ICJ is concerned at allegations that the recent arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, the head of the Chechen branch of the Russian human rights organisation Memorial, were carried out as retaliation for his human rights activity.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the more recent reports that family members of Oyub Titiev have had to leave Chechnya for security reasons following threats.
The ICJ calls on the Russian federal and local authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and independent investigation into allegations that criminal charges against Oyub Titiev have been fabricated by police.
Oyub Titiev should be immediately released pending the outcome of this investigation, and measures should be taken to protect his security and that of his family.
On 9 January 2018, at 10.30, according to an official statement of the Ministry of Interior of Chechnya, Oyub Titiev’s car was stopped near Kurchaloy town to check his documents.
During a search of his car, a plastic bag with approximately 180 grams of a substance identified as marijuana was allegedly found.
Titiyev was charged with possession of a large quantity of narcotics under article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, he has stated that the narcotics were planted and has filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate an investigation into these allegations.
Oyub Titiev, the head of Memorial in Chechnya, is one of very few human rights defenders who continue their work in Chechnya despite significant obstacles and threats.
He took over this position following the murder of the former head of Memorial in Chechnya, Natalya Estemirova in 2009.
In accordance with Article 2(a) of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), human rights defenders have a right to conduct human rights work individually and in association with others.
Under the same Declaration, States have a duty to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of everyone against any violence, threats, retaliation, adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate activities as a human rights defender.
Threats of violence and the falsification of evidence by public officials constitute crimes under the Russian Criminal Code. Reliance in criminal proceedings on evidence falsely planted by the police or other State actors would violate international human rights law including fair trial guarantees under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.
Attacks on human rights defenders working in an extremely difficult human rights environment such as that of Chechnya, or attacks on their family members, have a chilling effect on work to defend human rights there. If further such attacks are to be prevented, individuals responsible for them must be brought to justice through a fair procedure, the ICJ stressed.
