Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
Dec 2, 2014 | E-bulletin on counter-terrorism & human rights, News
Read the 88th 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...
Dec 1, 2014 | News
The ICJ expresses deep concern that the Legislative Assembly of Bolivia continues to threaten three Constitutional Court judges with removal, and possibly criminal punishment, based solely on legislators’ disagreement with a legal opinion and ruling issued by the judges.
A “trial” of the three judges conducted by the Senate is scheduled to begin on 4 December 2014.
The ICJ has previously condemned the proceedings as fundamentally flawed and in violation of international standards for the independence of judges.
The legislature and government now appear to accept some of the ICJ’s criticisms.
Last-minute legislative amendments would apparently specify that the legislative assembly process is disciplinary in character and that the only sanction the assembly can directly impose is permanently to remove judges from office; if a disciplinary violation is found, the case would be referred onward for criminal prosecution before the ordinary courts. (Legislators were previously reported to be seeking for the Senate itself to impose a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.)
The ICJ reaffirms, however, that the case against these three judges remains inherently flawed because the allegations on which the proceedings are based cannot be a valid basis for any removal from office or criminal punishment.
“It is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law, that judges must be able to decide cases without fear of punishment for their legal opinions and rulings, including those that the government or legislature may not like,” said Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ.
“The procedural amendments under consideration could be an improvement for other kinds of cases in the future,” said Pollard. “However, the stated reason for pursuing these three judges – disagreement with the content of their legal opinion and ruling – cannot form a valid basis for their removal from office or criminal punishment under any procedure.”
“The case against these three judges cannot be cured by legislative ‘quick fixes’ and must simply be dropped immediately,” Pollard added.
The ICJ is also concerned that the legislature has said it will press ahead immediately with the “trial” on 4 December, a few days from now, while fundamental changes to the procedure are still underway.
Further, the media has reported that Chamber of Deputies President Marcelo Elío has stated that the judges could avoid trial by “voluntarily” resigning before 4 December.
It would be unacceptable to use the threat of unjust or unclear procedures to pressure a judge to resign.
The ICJ welcomes the decision by the legislature to review and potentially reform judicial accountability procedures in Bolivia.
At the same time, reform of procedures that are of such fundamental importance to the rule of law and democracy should be based on a process of broader consultation with all concerned stakeholders, and more considered, comprehensive and detailed assessment and analysis in relation to international standards.
For instance, under the new amendments, it would appear that the Senate (photo) has no option in any case to impose a disciplinary penalty less than permanent removal from office, even if this would be disproportionate.
Placing all responsibility for disciplinary proceedings with an independent Judicial Council should also be considered.
In October, the ICJ sent an open letter and analysis brief to members of the Legislative Assembly, explaining why the proceedings violate international law and standards, urging that proceedings against the three judges immediately be ended, and recommending a process of longer-term reform of judicial accountability processes in Bolivia.
Contact:
English: Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ, t: +41 79 246 54 75; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Spanish: Carlos Ayala, ICJ Commissioner, t: +58 212 952 8448; e: carlos.ayala(a)icj.org
Bolivia-Procedimento magistrados-News-Press Release-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
(Update: the proceedings were suspended on 4 December, and are to continue on 9 December)
Nov 27, 2014 | News
The ICJ today strongly condemned the decision by Prime Minister Najib Razak to retain and even strengthen the country’s 1948 Sedition Act despite having made a commitment in 2012 to repeal the Act.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed its concern that the Sedition Act has been used to stifle and criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression and to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, among others.
The ICJ considers the Act as it stands to be incompatible with international human rights standards and to be made still more repugnant by the politically loaded manner in which it is typically applied.
In early September, the ICJ denounced the use of sedition against two members of the legal profession, Dr. Azmi Sharom (photo) and N. Surendran for commenting on questions of law and public policy.
On 20 September 2014, Edmund Bon a prominent human rights and constitutional lawyer, was questioned by the police regarding comments made in a based on the decision of a Malaysian Federal Court.
On 30 September 2014, Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari, a law professor at the University of Selangor, was summoned for a police interview over comments made about the selection process of the new Chief Minister by the Sultan of Selangor.
Background:
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
Nov 27, 2014 | News
Following a visit to the country from 15 to 19 November, the ICJ called on the government of Tajikistan to take meaningful steps to ensure that the institutional independence of the legal profession and the personal integrity of individual lawyers are secured.
The ICJ expressed concern at the continued detention of lawyer Shukhrat Kudratov, on criminal charges. It welcomed the release of another lawyer, Fakhriddin Zokirov, who had been on trial on charges that appeared to constitute an act of retaliation for his work as a defence lawyer. He was released on 3 November as a result of an amnesty.
“While the release of Fakhriddin Zokirov is a positive step, we are concerned that Shukhrat Kudratov remains in detention pending trial on similar criminal charges. We have received credible information that the charges against him are linked to his representation of a client, contrary to international standards on the independence of lawyers”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe and CIS programme at the ICJ.
The ICJ reiterated its concern at aspects of the reform of the legal profession presently under consideration under the draft law on Advokatura.
Following a mission to Tajikistan in 2013, the ICJ expressed concerns that the independence of the legal profession would be undermined by requirements in the draft law that all lawyers go through a new qualification process, administered by a body in which the Ministry of Justice would play a prominent role.
Amendments recently introduced to the draft law have not altered the inappropriate role which the Ministry of Justice would play in regulating the profession.
Under the draft law, the Deputy Minister of Justice would serve as an ex officio Chair of the Qualification Commission which determines who may be accredited as a lawyer.
This significant role by a member of the executive would jeopardize the independence of the profession.
The ICJ also remains concerned that the draft law would still require requalification of many lawyers, with exemptions only for those with at least 15 years of professional experience as defence lawyers.
Such provisions are contrary to international standards on the independence of the legal profession, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
The ICJ recalls Tajikistan’s earlier commitment during the UN Human Rights Committee’s session of 2013 that the Qualification Commission would be placed under the Ministry of Justice only for a short transitional period. A provision to this effect has not yet been introduced in the draft law.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Notes:
From 15 to 19 November, an ICJ legal expert, Dr Stefan Strobl, visited Tajikistan and held meetings with a number of international and local civil society organizations and lawyers to discuss recent progress on the reform of the legal profession and the wide ranging challenges it faces.
The visit followed an ICJ mission to Tajikistan in November 2013.
Tajikistan-Independence of legal profession-News-webstory-2014-RUS (full text in PDF)
Nov 25, 2014 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
Bangladesh must immediately launch a thorough investigation into alleged attacks on a prominent human rights lawyer, the ICJ said today. The government appears to have taken no real action in the year since the events.
Rabindra Ghosh (photo), advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and President of the non-governmental organization Bangladesh Minority Watch, has made credible allegations that he was subjected to acts of violence, intimidation and other interference with his functioning as a lawyer.
”The authorities in Bangladesh seem not to have taken Rabindra Ghosh’s allegations seriously, in breach of international standards,” said Matt Pollard, head of ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. “In addition to his complaints, our own letters to the authorities simply went unanswered.”
Rabindra Ghosh, among other incidents, alleges that he was physically attacked by six of his peers on 25 November 2013, while he was at work in the Gopalgonj District Court.
He further alleges that on 14 January 2014 he was subjected to physical violence, threats, and verbal abuse at the hands of police officers.
He reports that there has been no substantive investigation of his complaints and that he has received no response from the responsible authorities.
“Lawyers play an essential role in protecting human rights and the proper administration of justice,” Pollard added. “International standards require State authorities to prevent attacks and harassment of lawyers and to take effective measures to protect their security.”
The ICJ requested the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the President of the Bar Association to provide further information and a response to these allegations, but has received no response.
In addition to its call on the authorities of Bangladesh to immediately launch a thorough and independent investigation of the allegations made by Rabindra Ghosh, the ICJ calls on the authorities to take concrete measures to ensure that he and other lawyers are able to discharge their professional duties without any interference or intimidation of any kind. If the investigation confirms the allegations, those responsible must be held accountable.
“The ICJ has observed a general erosion of the rule of law and respect for the ability of lawyers to carry out their duties in Bangladesh,” said Pollard. “Lawyers play a crucial role in ensuring that people whose rights have been violated can demand their right to a remedy. When lawyers themselves become victims simply for carrying out their work, it signals a serious problem for the legal system.”
Rabindra Ghosh’s allegations come against the backdrop of a series of recent attacks on human rights defenders in Bangladesh, including among others the harassment of human rights defenders including Adilur Rahman Khan, secretary of Odhikar; the promulgation of a constitutional amendment that empowers the Parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges; and the amendment of the Information and Communication Technology Act, which is being used to assault freedom of expression and freedom from arbitrary detention.
Contact:
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, +41 22 979 3812, matt.pollard(a)icj.org
A brief background note on the case is available here in PDF:
Bangladesh-Ghosh backgrounder-Advocacy-2014-ENG
