Feb 24, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to put an immediate end to their campaign to muzzle judges through unfair and arbitrary “unfitness” proceedings.
The Disciplinary Board, in hearings that tried dozens of judges at the same time, declared a total of 41 judges “unfit” for judicial office in 2015, forcing them into retirement.
The Supreme Disciplinary Board is currently reviewing these two cases.
The ICJ is concerned that many of the judges that have been subjected to these proceedings are leading advocates for judicial independence in Egypt and that the proceedings before both the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board were not fair.
Further, the cases stem from the judges’ exercise of freedom of association, belief, assembly and expression, and it appears that the Disciplinary Boards did not act in accordance with relevant international standards in this regard.
”Ending judges’ tenure following mass proceedings that are both arbitrary and unfair is inconsistent with Egypt’s obligations under international law,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“With these assaults on individual judges, the Egyptian authorities are ensuring that their ongoing, sustained crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms is extended to the very institution that is supposed to protect such rights and freedoms- the judiciary,” he added.
In the “July 2013 Statement Case”, 56 judges were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, following the Military seizure of power in July 2013, for endorsing a statement that called for the 2012 Constitution to be restored, for a dialogue between all stakeholders to be established within the framework of constitutional legitimacy, and for the right to peaceful demonstration to be respected.
The ICJ considers the statement to have been made consistent with the judges’ right to freedom of expression and association, exercised in a manner that preserved the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
However, on 14 March 2015, the Disciplinary Board found that 31 of the 56 judges were not fit to hold judicial office and in effect removed them from office by forcing them into retirement.
The Board found there was not sufficient evidence that the other 25 judges had in fact endorsed the statement.
The ICJ is concerned that the procedures and hearings before the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board have not satisfied international standards of fairness.
In many instances, judges were not adequately notified of the dates of the hearings or of the courtrooms where such hearings took place.
In Egypt, judges facing disciplinary hearings are entitled to have another judge represent them; however, many of the judges were not permitted by Board officials to bring their representative to the hearings, without any reason being given for barring the representative, or because no representative could be secured as a result of fear of reprisals.
Further, many judges were not provided with adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.
In another case, the “Judges for Egypt Case”, each judge had limited time to make his case before the Board during the hearings, though they were granted the right to submit at the final hearing written pleadings of no more than two pages .
At the final hearing in the case, while the judges waited all day in the Board’s premises, the hearing was held in the absence of all but one of them.
Furthermore, the Board refused to collect the written pleadings without giving any reasons.
On 22 February 2016, after protesting against the adjournment of his hearing, Judge Amir Awad was arrested and placed under detention for four days by the office of the prosecutor.
He is charged with insulting a public employee and forcibly entering his office.
“Both cases have been tainted by failures to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The Egyptian authorities must nullify all decisions to remove judges resulting from these proceedings and put an immediate end to all forms of intimidation against and persecution of judges,” Benarbia added.
Contact:
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Attacks against judges-News-Web Stories-2016-ENG (full story in PDF, English)
Egypt-Attacks against judges- Press Release -2016- ARA (full story in PDF, Arabic)
Feb 19, 2016 | E-bulletin on counter-terrorism & human rights, News
Read the 99th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...
Feb 19, 2016 | News
The ongoing incommunicado detention of human rights defenders Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà must end, said today seven human rights groups, including the ICJ. It violates their right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All charges against Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà, should be withdrawn and they should be immediately and unconditionally released, the organizations added.
An incommunicado detention is one in which a detainee is held without access to the outside world, particularly to family, lawyers, courts and independent doctors. The practice of incommunicado detention violates key rights of persons deprived of liberty and facilitates torture and other ill-treatment. Prolonged periods of incommunicado detention can themselves constitute a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment.
Nguyễn Văn Đài and Lê Thu Hà were arrested on 16 December 2015 and charged under Article 88 of the Penal Code, ‘Conducting propaganda against the state’. All efforts by family and legal counsel to visit the pair since their arrests have been denied.
Vietnam-Release prisoners-News-webstory-2016-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Feb 13, 2016 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The land of several communities from the Municipality of Nebaj was sold to the State during the civil war. But this happened without any valid legal basis.
The expropriation occurred in 1984 in the area of Tzalbal, at a time when most of the people from 14 local communities had flown to Mexico or the neighboring forests because of the war, which was particularly intense in the area.
The loss of farmland affected some 15000 people.
In 2013, the communities asked the ICJ to help them recover their land.
An initial investigation by the ICJ confirmed that the mayor at that time (1984) had signed a document transferring the land into the State’s hand.
However, this happened without consulting the communities and none of their representatives signed the document.
The ICJ asked the State to return the land to the communities through a Governmental Agreement, which was initially accepted.
However, the Government eventually reneged on its promise and ended the negotiations.
The ICJ is now preparing an action for protection of constitutional rights to help the communities recover their land through a judicial decision.
Guatemala-Caso Nebaj-News-Web Story-2016-SPA (full story in PDF, Spanish)
The Nebaj case in video (Spanish, English subtitles)
Feb 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called for the reversal of last Thursday’s decision removing Judge Mohamed Al-Haini from office with suspension of his pension rights.
Judge Al-Haini, together with his colleague Amal Homani, was referred to the High Judicial Council by the Minister of Justice on unwarranted allegations of “violating the duty of discretion” and “expressing opinions of a political nature” following social media comments and media articles written by the judges in which they criticized the government’s Draft Laws on the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire and on the Statute for Judges.
The ICJ stresses that it is entirely appropriate for a judge to comment on matters of public interest that go to the organization and governance of the legal profession.
The ICJ, as well as Moroccan professional associations of judges and civil society organizations, has previously called on the Moroccan authorities to revise these same two draft laws to fully comply with international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ is concerned both at the unfair and arbitrary nature of the proceedings against Judge Al-Haini. He was only granted two hearings before the High Judicial Council’s decision to dismiss him was taken.
Furthermore, several flaws in the proceedings curtailed Judge Al-Haini’s right to defense.
In particular, the High Judicial Council refused to strike the Minister of Justice from the disciplinary panel.
The Minister clearly had a conflict of interest, given his role in initiating the proceedings against the two judges.
As a result, Judge Al-Haini’s defense team withdrew from the case in protest.
At the second hearing the proceedings were carried out in the absence of any defense counsel.
“Despite recurring breaches of due and fair process standards, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Al-Haini continued leading to the harshest disciplinary sanction possible in violation of principles governing the independence of the judiciary,” said Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
According to international standards members of the judiciary facing disciplinary proceedings have the right to an independent and impartial authority or court with all the guarantees of a fair trial.
The ICJ is further concerned that under the current legal framework in Morocco, the decisions of the High Judicial Council are not subject to any form of review.
This is clearly inconsistent with international standards that require that any disciplinary decision should be subject to an independent review.
“The absence of any possibility to challenge the decision of dismissal deprives Judge Al-Haini of a safeguard against the improper use of disciplinary proceedings, which is clearly the case here,” Boutruche warned.
The ICJ had previously called on the Moroccan authorities to end the unwarranted and arbitrary disciplinary proceedings against Judges Al-Haini and Homani.
The ICJ stressed that members of the judiciary, like other persons, enjoy the rights to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly in consonance with the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
“This decision should be nullified and the proceedings against the two judges themselves should be terminated,” Boutruche added.
“This case is a stark reminder of the need for the Moroccan authorities to revise the two draft laws, that were adopted last Wednesday by the parliament, to properly strengthen the judicial independence and create a truly independent Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire in line with international standards,” he concluded.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +961 70 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Morocco-Al Haini Dismissal-Web Story-2016 (full web story in PDF, Arabic)
Feb 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan and called it a further attack on the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary.
“President Abdulla Yameen’s Government has dealt another blow to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan is another step down in the country’s downward spiral away from democracy and stability, and is squarely at odds with the Maldives’ international obligations,” he added.
Maldivian officials confirmed in a statement that Ahmed Nihan, a magistrate’s court judge, and Muhthaz Muhsin, former Prosecutor General, were arrested on Sunday night on charges of forging a warrant for the arrest of President Abdulla Yameen.
Muhthaz Muhsin was released soon after, but Judge Ahmed Nihan was placed in judicial custody for one week.
“Judge Ahmed Nihan’s arbitrary and seemingly politically motivated arrest is yet another example of executive highhandedness and the corrosion of separation of powers in the Maldives,” said Zarifi.
“Undue interference with the Human Rights Commission, the arbitrary dismissal of the Auditor General, and the unlawful removal of two Supreme Court justices are just a few examples,” he added.
According to the Maldivian media, the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by Judge Ahmed Nihan, related to an on-going investigation against President Abdulla Yameen for embezzlement of state funds.
President Yameen’s spokesperson said in an interview the warrant was “fraudulent” because it “did not originate from any official authority.”
The Maldivian police (photo) claim the arrest warrant was issued using “falsified information”.
The ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately release Judge Ahmed Nihan and allow him to continue his judicial duties.
The ICJ also reiterates its previous calls on the Maldivian Government to implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
In a fact-finding report released in August last year, the ICJ noted with concern the serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Maldives acceded to in 2006, safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
International standards on judicial independence, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, provide that judges shall be free from any “inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process”.
The fact that executive or legislative actors may disagree with a judge’s decision or interpretation of the law cannot be a valid ground for removal or punishment of the judge.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary further stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only through proceedings that guarantee the right to a fair hearing (Principle 17); and then only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18); that all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct (Principle 19), and decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review (Principle 20). The Basic Principles elaborate on legal obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant and Civil Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003 contain similar provisions.
Article 154 of the Maldivian Constitution states that a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the person is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct.
