Jul 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today mourns the passing of Chinese human rights defender and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 and was described as the “foremost symbol of the struggle for human rights in China.”
He passed away today at the First Hospital of China Medical University, while still in the custody of Chinese authorities.
He has been imprisoned since 2009, after being found guilty for “subverting state power”, for calling for a new constitution in China. His wife, poet Liu Xia, remains under house arrest in Beijing.
In May 2017 authorities announced that he had been diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer.
Chinese authorities refused calls that he be allowed to travel to receive medical treatment abroad.
The ICJ honors Liu Xiaobo for his peaceful and unrelenting pursuit for human rights in China, and calls on the government to end the house arrest, and guarantee the freedom of movement, of Liu Xia.
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General said: “Liu Xiaobo will continue to serve as an inspiration not only for those fighting for human rights in China, but also for all human rights defenders working to promote and protect human rights all over the world.”
The ICJ believes that the death of Liu Xiaobo should serve as a wake up call to the Government of China that they cannot simply and brutally silence dissenting voices.
Liu Xiaobo’s death only serves to amplify his call for human rights and upholding the rule of law in China.
The ICJ has consistently called upon the Chinese government to end the harrassment and unlawful detention of lawyers and human rights defenders.
Jul 12, 2017 | News
The ICJ is alarmed at ongoing attacks on the rule of law in Poland.
On 12 July 2017, the Government tabled in Parliament draft bill no. 1727, that, if approved, would automatically dismiss all judges of the Supreme Court and let the Minister of Justice decide which judges are to be reinstated or newly appointed.
“This draft law is a direct blow to the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock of the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme.
“The security of tenure and conditions of service of individual judges are essential to judicial independence,” he added.
Draft bill no. 1727 follows another piece of legislation, recently approved by Parliament, by which the Parliament empowered itself to appoint the majority of the members of the National Council of the Judiciary, the body which selects and governs the judiciary.
That law gives political powers in the Polish legislature and executive, which have increasingly demonstrated deep disregard for human rights and the rule of law, undue influence over the judiciary.
Such deficiencies were also highlighted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE in May 2017.
“These series of legislative attacks to the independence of the judiciary in Poland must stop. These actions are inconsistent with the international obligations of Poland to ensure the independence of judges,” said Massimo Frigo.
“The European Union must intervene. A EU Member State that directly undermines the checks and balances of its own legal system threatens the founding values of the EU of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” he added.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
International standards
Particularly in a context like present day Poland, mass removal of all judges from a court, by another branch of government, without a fair and evidence-based individual process for each judge, is incompatible with international standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (See, ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13 on Judicial Accountability, pp. 99-104). The UN Basic Principles affirm, among other things, that:
1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
10. …Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. …
12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Similar mass removals with politicization of the procedure for reinstatement and new appointments have been condemned as violations of States’ international human rights obligations by, for instance, the UN Human Rights Committee acting under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is also party (see Busyo, Wongodi, Matubaka et al v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Doc CCPR/C/7878/D/933/2000 (2003), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see e.g. Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coelle et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 266 (2013) and Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 268 (2013).
Council of Europe standards, in the form of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, provide among other things as follows:
26. Councils for the judiciary are independent bodies, established by law or under the constitution, that seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges and thereby to promote the efficient functioning of the judicial system.
27. Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
44. Decisions concerning the selection and career of judges should be based on objective criteria pre-established by law or by the competent authorities. Such decisions should be based on merit, having regard to the qualifications, skills and capacity required to adjudicate cases by applying the law while respecting human dignity.
45. There should be no discrimination against judges or candidates for judicial office on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, disability, birth, sexual orientation or other status. A requirement that a judge or a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the state concerned should not be considered discriminatory.
46. The authority taking decisions on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the executive and legislative powers. With a view to guaranteeing its independence, at least half of the members of the authority should be judges chosen by their peers.
47. However, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary (without prejudice to the rules applicable to councils for the judiciary contained in Chapter IV) should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice.
48. The membership of the independent authorities referred to in paragraphs 46 and 47 should ensure the widest possible representation. Their procedures should be transparent with reasons for decisions being made available to applicants on request. An unsuccessful candidate should have the right to challenge the decision, or at least the procedure under which the decision was made.
49. Security of tenure and irremovability are key elements of the independence of judges. Accordingly, judges should have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age, where such exists.
50. The terms of office of judges should be established by law. A permanent appointment should only be terminated in cases of serious breaches of disciplinary or criminal provisions established by law, or where the judge can no longer perform judicial functions. Early retirement should be possible only at the request of the judge concerned or on medical grounds.
69. Disciplinary proceedings may follow where judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner. Such proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
Jul 6, 2017 | News
The ICJ welcomed today’s judgment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) that South Africa had violated its legal obligations by failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during his visit to the country in June 2015.
The ICC said the South Africa should have surrendered him to the ICC for prosecution.
President al-Bashir (photo) had been indicted by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in connection with attacks against civilians in the Darfur region of the country.
“The judgment is a victory for international justice. It is an extremely important step toward tackling impunity in Sudan and worldwide,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Regional Director.
The court said unequivocally that South Africa had a duty to arrest and surrender president Bashir to the ICC for prosecution.
It said that South Africa had a duty to recognize that head of state immunity did not apply to al Bahsir under the terms of the Rome Statute, and that leaving the question of immunity to South Africa’s voluntary discretion would have created “an insurmountable obstacle for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.”
The Court also said that Sudan itself had an obligation to remove and immunities for al-Bashir in respect to matters for which he was under indictment.
“The ICJ calls upon the Governments of South Africa and Sudan to respect the judgment of the Court, and urges all States to cooperate with the Court to bring President al-Bashir, and others indicted to justice,” Tsunga added.
The ICC also called on the UN Security and the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC to take appropriate measures to address the non-compliance by South Africa and Sudan.
Background
South Africa has been a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court since 27 November 2000.
States parties to the Rome Statute are obliged to cooperate with ICC, including by arresting and surrendering persons under indictment by the ICC who may be on their territory.
South Africa took measures to cooperate with the ICC by enacting the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act, 2002.
Accordingly, South Africa had a duty to arrest President al-Bashir when he visited South Africa in 2015
President al-Bashir stands accused of serious crimes, with two warrants of arrest issued by the pre-trial chamber of the ICC.
They all are for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, related to events in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Among the acts are widespread murder, rape and torture.
Read also:
South Africa appears before ICC for failure to arrest Sudanese President Bashir – The ICJ observes the hearing
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Director for Africa, t +27716405926 ;
Thulani Maseko, ICJ Legal consultant, t: +268 7602 5165
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal & Policy Director, t: +41 22 979 3837
Jul 6, 2017 | News
The Turkish government should immediately release 11 people, including eight Turkish human rights defenders, who were detained yesterday in Istanbul, said the ICJ today.
The human rights defenders were arrested on unknown charges while attending a training in Istanbul on digital security and information management; also reported arrested were two trainers (reportedly a German and a Swedish national) and the owner of the training venue.
Amnesty International has reported that they were denied access to family members and lawyers, contrary to existing regulations.
“These arrests are an alarming setback to efforts to restore the rule of law in Turkey,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
“Arrest and harassment of human rights defenders violates Turkey’s international legal obligations. Turkish authorities should be protecting human rights and supporting the important work of human rights defenders, but instead we have witnessed a continuing pattern of arrests on human rights defenders in the country,” he added.
On 6 June, Taner Kiliç, the President of Amnesty International Turkey was arrested.
He is currently detained on remand in what several international observers have qualified as baseless charges.
Turkey is currently under a State of Emergency enacted after the attempted coup d’etat of 15 July 2016.
While recognizing the serious attack suffered by Turkish institutions, the ICJ has repeatedly called for an end to this year-long state of emergency under which sweeping measures have been enacted that continue to erode human rights, including rights of fair trial, the right to liberty, and freedoms of expression and association.
“It is time to turn the page of the emergency and return to the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi. “The work of human rights defenders, judges and lawyers is essential to a democratic society that upholds human rights.”
Background
The human rights defenders arrested are Idil Eser (current Director of Amnesty International Turkey, photo), İlknur Üstün (Women’s Coalition), Günal Kurşun (Human Rights Agenda Association), Nalan Erkem (Citizens Assembly), Nejat Taştan (Equal Rights Watch Association) , Özlem Dalkıran (Citizens’ Assembly), Şeyhmuz Özbekli, and Veli Acu (Human Rights Agenda Association).
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, ICJ Director of Media & Communications, t: +41 22 979 3808 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Jun 30, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
ICJ Commissioner Karinna Moskalenko talks about the vulnerabilities of human rights defenders in Russia, as part of the ICJ’s ongoing women profiles series.
Ms Moskalenko is a Russian lawyer who has been a Commissioner of the ICJ since 2003. In the early 1990s she founded, and was the former Director of, the International Protection Centre based in Moscow.
The Centre was founded after Russia had ratified the Human Rights Committee Mechanism with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provided an opportunity to be able to use international mechanisms to appeal against injustices.
Once Russia had ratified the European Convention it was also possible to use the European Court of Human Rights as another means to challenge incidences where domestic remedies were failing to protect the rights of people in Russia.
The Centre pursued many cases successfully and the credibility of the organization grew, which also increased demands for help. Karinna said that women have a strong role to play in human rights defence work in Russia and form the majority of the human rights community where they are well respected.
However, this is not reflected elsewhere in Russian society where, although women are visible in senior roles within the judiciary and the executive, they do not often play an important role in leadership positions or decision-making.
“Women in Russia are sometimes much more vulnerable than other groups of the population,” said Karinna. She identified the particular problem of domestic violence as one where women are unable to obtain legal protections because police are not very interested in the problem. In addition many people within society think that women already have enough protections so there is little public opposition for reducing protections and no support for enhancing these.
Karinna felt compelled to work as a human rights defender to protect the most vulnerable people but commented that many lawyers are not interested in this field of law. Instead, they prefer to build careers within official bodies of the judiciary or the government. Human rights activities are no longer very popular, she said.
Members of non-governmental organizations are often accused of being ‘foreign agents’ or ‘enemies of the State’. As many people do not understand the nature of human rights defence work, Ms Moskalenko said it can be frustrating and hurtful to have to defend yourself against these accusations. However, Karinna thinks that those working in human rights are the most patriotic people she knows because they care about the rights of each and every member of society.
Fortunately, the International Protection Centre has won so many cases for ordinary people that they have a very good reputation in society, but they do not have enough funding for their activities. They cannot accept international funds and domestically no funding is available. Many lawyers take on unpaid cases, but not everyone can afford to do so. The defence of human rights is a very difficult career.
“I cannot say that there is no fear. There is, of course. Some of my friends were killed because of their human rights activity.”
Ms Moskalenko said that human rights defence work is very important but in Russia defenders are not protected financially, legally, morally or physically. They are frequently threatened, persecuted and even killed.
However, although working as a human rights defender is difficult, Karinna says that “when you somehow help people, you want to continue that, you think that you believe that you must do that, you cannot stop and people come to you, how can you refuse?”
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
Jun 30, 2017 | News
On 29 and 30 June, the ICJ co-organized a workshop for Cambodian civil society on the UPR.
The workshop was organized with the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, the Cambodia Country Office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UPR Info, and the Cambodian Human Rights Committee on the mid-point review of the Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Universal Review (UPR) of Cambodia.
The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) underwent its second UPR in January 2014.
The objectives of the workshop were to:
1. conduct a comprehensive mid-term assessment of the progress and challenges as of late June 2017 of the RGC’s implementation of those recommendations made during the second UPR cycle of Cambodia that the RGC had accepted with a view to informing advocacy around the September 2017 session of the HRC;
2. To take stock of the situation of UPR implementation to provide a basis for preparation of NGO shadow reports during the 3rd cycle of the UPR;
3. To discuss a specific set of UPR recommendations among relevant government bodies and civil society organizations in order to build relationships and raise awareness of the recommendations;
4. To advocate for the full implementation of the recommendations accepted during the second UPR cycle of Cambodia; and
5. To increase awareness of and demand among the Cambodian public for the implementation of the accepted UPR recommendations and to increase awareness of the HRC and UPR process.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia for the ICJ, moderated a panel discussion on “developing strategic advocacy plans for monitoring the implementation of UPR recommendations” and delivered a presentation on “strategies to effectively implement recommendations and lessons learned from other countries” focusing on past UPR cycles of Thailand Lao PDR.
After a comprehensive review of the recommendations accepted by the RGC during the last UPR cycle it was determined that many of the recommendations had not been implemented.
Civil society agreed that it was important to further strengthen coordinated efforts to monitor and conduct advocacy around the UPR process, engage constructively with the RGC, and begin preparation for the third UPR cycle focusing on lessons learned from the last cycle and regional experiences.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
