Sep 15, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Failure to assert the rule of law in the transfer of suspects across borders perpetuates violations of human rights in cases where national security is invoked, a new ICJ report finds.
Released today, the ICJ report Transnational Injustices – National Security Transfers and International Law documents laws and practices in the OSCE region involving transfer of national security suspects by all possible means without regard to national law or States’ international legal obligations.
“This report demonstrates that, under different guises, some States still continue to abuse extradition and expulsion procedures and sometimes even to resort to abductions and renditions in cases related to counter-terrorism or national security,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS Programme.
“This has pernicious consequences for the respect of human rights and the rule of law,” she added.
“In some states, such as in Russia and Central Asia, existing national legal procedures to protect against abusive transfers have been bypassed or ineffective,” Pillay said.
She added: “We need to put judges and human rights law at the heart of extradition procedures to ensure their effectiveness and to prevent arbitrary and extra-legal transfers of suspects.”
Lack of accountability in cases where suspects’ human rights have been violated fuels further abuses, the report finds.
“With the closure of the US programmes, renditions were thought to be over,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The almost complete lack of accountability for US renditions has provided a blank check of legitimacy to any countries trying to bend or break the rules at the expenses of the basic safeguards of one’s human rights,” he added.
Background
Practices in a number of States in recent years have highlighted the serious implications for human rights and the rule of law of transfers of people based on national security and criminal cooperation grounds in the Russian Federation, Central Asia and beyond.
Extraditions, expulsions and, sometimes, transfers occurring outside of the legal framework have triggered international reactions and rulings of international courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
The ICJ report Transnational Injustices – National Security Transfers and International Law is based on research of these practices, documenting illustrative cases, and the applicable legal framework.
The report analyses extradition, expulsion and informal transfers in the Russian Federation, Central Asian countries and EU Member States, as well as the rendition practices in the United States and assesses the situation against international human rights law.
The report offers concrete recommendations for change based on the comparative experiences of selected EU member States.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Europe-Transnational Injustices-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (Full report in English, PDF)
Europe-Transnational Injustices-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-RUS (Full report in Russian, PDF)
Europe-Transnational Injustices-ExecSummary-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (Executive Summary in English, PDF)
Europe-Translational Injustices-ExecSummary-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-RUS (Executive Summary in Russian, PDF)
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
On 13 September, the European Committee of Social Rights decided on the admissibility of the collective complaint submitted by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic.
The Committee assessed the admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee’s Rules and the Government’s objections on admissibility and declared the complaint admissible. The Czech Government has now two months to make written submissions on the merits of the complaint.
The complaint argues that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and FORUM submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-AdmissibilityDecision-2017 (download the Committee’s decision)
Sep 14, 2017 | Events
At a side event to the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2017, the ICJ will review the latest developments on extraditions, expulsions and other forms of transfers of national security suspects in countries of the OSCE region.
The event will address the challenges of such international criminal cooperation for human rights protection.
The panel discussion is being held to launch a new ICJ report which analyses recent experience of national security transfers, and makes recommendations for change based on international human rights law and comparative experiences.
The event will take place in Warsaw Friday 15 September at 13:15 – 14:45 at Room no. 1 at the OSCE HDIM 2017.
Panelists:
- Dmitry Nurumov, ICJ consultant
- Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser
- Irina Urumova, Independent Justice Reform Consultant
- Bruno Min, Legal and Policy Officer – Fair Trials International
- Johannes Heiler, Adviser on Anti-Terrorism Issues – ODIHR
Working language: English and Russian (simultaneous translation provided)
A flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
For more information, contact massimo.frigo(a)icj.org and/or dina.iskaliyeva(a)icj.org
Sep 13, 2017 | Advocacy, News
As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.
India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.
India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.
In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.
India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.
Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.
The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.
Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download the Q&A:
India-ICJ Q&A Jadhav case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Sep 12, 2017 | Events, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
At a side event to the UN Human Rights Council session, the ICJ reviewed today the latest developments in Venezuela, highlighting the extremely serious human rights situation and prevailing impunity, and discussed action that should be taken by the Human Rights Council to address the crisis.
- Laila Matar, Senior UN Advocate, Human Rights Watch
Speakers:
- Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General
- Carlos Ayala Corao, Venezuelan lawyer, ICJ Commissioner
- Federico Andreu Guzman, ICJ South America Representative
Watch the video:
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/10157079100584616/
For additional recent ICJ reports on Venezuela, click here.
The flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
For more information, contact un(a)icj.org
Sep 12, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Venezuelan Supreme Court has ceased to act as an independent court upholding the rule of law, but has become an arm of an authoritarian executive, the ICJ said in a new report released today.
The ICJ report The Supreme Court of Justice: an instrument of executive power says that through a series of rulings issued since December 2015, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has progressively dismantled the rule of law, undermined human rights and failed to faithfully apply key elements of the country’s Constitution.
In rulings on 27 and 28 March 2017 (Sentencias 155 and 156), the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) delivered a blow to the rule of law, effectively claiming legislative powers for itself, depriving the National Assembly of its Constitutional powers and granting sweeping arbitrary powers to the executive, the ICJ notes.
“These decisions amount to a coup d’état against the Constitutional order and have ushered in a new reign of arbitrary rule,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
The report analyses SCJ jurisprudence issued since December 2015 in the light of international law and standards, rule of law principles and the Venezuelan Constitution, and in relation to the Constitutional functions and faculties of the legislative power, parliamentary oversight, states of emergency and the amnesty.
It finds that:
- The SCJ has been decisively co-opted by the Venezuelan executive;
- The Court’s members are mainly from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) and/or ex-Government officials; and
- It has become a political instrument increasingly used against the political and social opposition.
The report also says the Court has interpreted the Constitution in an arbitrary manner, omitting to analyse key Constitutional standards while granting a supra-Constitutional status to standards of lesser rank.
It has abrogated due process and judicial review and so stripped the National Assembly of its Constitutionally mandated functions with regard to legislative matters, parliamentary oversight, regulation and internal administration in order to benefit the government politically, the ICJ adds.
“The rulings have not been issued with impartiality on the basis of facts and in accordance with law, as required under rule of standards,” Zarifi said.
“They are in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan Constitution. The SCJ has issued its decisions based on political considerations and ideological and party loyalties to the executive power,” he added.
The report also outlines key recommendations on the administration of justice which various UN and Inter-American procedures and bodies have made to Venezuela going back a number of years.
None of these recommendations appear to have been taken into account by the Venezuelan authorities. These include reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which are binding on Venezuela as a matter of law.
“The Venezuelan authorities are in breach of its international obligation to cooperate in good faith with international human rights bodies and procedures,” Zarifi said.
Finally, the report concludes that the SCJ has undermined the rule of law by violating the principle of the separation of powers and infringing upon the Constitutional functions and autonomy of the legislative power.
As a consequence of its decisions based on the political interests of the executive power, the SCJ has lost the essential attributes of an authentic judicial power, such as independence, impartiality, autonomy and legitimacy.
“The SCJ has assumed the role of giving an appearance of judicial legitimacy to the arbitrary political actions of the executive thus abandoning the exercise of its Constitutional function as the guarantor of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Zarifi added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzman, ICJ South America Representative, t +57 311 481 8094 ; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Download the report:
Venezuela-Suprem Court-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Further readings:
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
