Apr 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s adoption, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of the Working Group’s “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court”.
Under its resolution 20/16 (2012), the UN Human Rights Council requested the Working Group to prepare draft basic principles and guidelines on habeas corpus. The Working Group set out a first draft set of principles and guidelines ahead of its global consultation on the subject in September 2014. From 2 to 5 February 2015, the Working Group met to continue its elaboration of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, resulting in the adoption of a second draft. The Working Group adopted its final iteration of the document at the conclusion of its session on 29 April 2015. The Basic Principles and Guidelines will be presented to the Human Rights Council during the Council’s 30th regular session, to be held from 14 September to 2 October 2015.
The ICJ welcomes the Basic Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus. It especially welcomes certain aspects of the document, including:
- Paragraph 68, in which applicable qualifications are set out to any derogating measures to accommodate constraints on the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- Principle 6 and Guideline 4 which reaffirm that habeas corpus petitions must be heard by courts that bear all characteristics of competence, independence and impartiality (paras 27, 70 and 72(a)), that competence includes the power to order immediate release if detention is fund to be arbitrary or unlawful (para 27), that immediate implementation of such orders is required (para 71(c)) and that courts must give reasoned and particularized decisions (para 71(d));
- Guideline 7, in which it is provided that individuals are entitled to take proceedings multiple times (paras 81 and 82), that expediency is required, including in cases of subsequent challenges, and especially in cases alleging, among other things, torture or ill-treatment (para 83) and that authorities remain obliged to ensure regular review of the continuing need for detention (para 84);
- Principle 9 and Guideline 8 concerning legal representation and legal aid;
- The clarifications in Principle 10 and Guideline that persons able to bring proceedings include counsel, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee (paras 34 and 92) and that no restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s ability to contact such persons (para 35);
- The express recognition in Guideline 12 that information obtained by torture or other forms of ill-treatment may not be used in evidence;
- Guideline 13 concerning disclosure and limitations applicable to any non-disclosure of information on security or other grounds;
- Guideline 14, reflecting authorities’ obligation to justify the need and proportionality of detention;
- Principle 15 and Guideline 16 (on remedies), reflecting the overarching right to remedies and reparation (paras 43), the need for authorities to give immediate effect to an order for release (para 44) and the right to compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (paras 109-112); and
- Principle 16 concerning the application of Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) alongside international humanitarian law (paras 45 and 47), the application of Article 9(4) to civilians in an international armed conflict (para 47), the application of habeas principles to prisoners of war (para 48), and the question of administrative detention or internment in the context of a non-international armed conflict (para 49).
The ICJ has engaged in all stages of the Working Group’s elaboration and consultations. It made written submissions in November 2013, April 2014 and March 2015. Its staff, Matt Pollard and Alex Conte, gave panel presentations at the September 2014 global consultation.
Apr 28, 2015 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ is urging the European Council to immediately act to take effective measures to protect the lives of migrants at sea, after it failed to respond adequately to the repeated tragedies at a special meeting held on 23 April.
The special meeting of the European Council was called after the sinking of a boat in the Libyan Search and Rescue Zone left at least 700 persons dead. Since then, other incidents have brought the death toll in the Mediterranean to more than 1,000 in one week.
In its statement, released following the meeting, the European Council directed the EU institutions and the Member States to take a set of actions with the stated aim of preventing further loss of lives at sea.
The ICJ is deeply saddened by these tragedies that are the concern not only of the Mediterranean region and of Europe, but of the whole of the international community.
It is deeply regrettable that the reaction of the European Union and its Member States at a moment of such gravity has concentrated on presevering security of borders, and returning migrants, rather than on humanitarian and human rights concerns, particularly strengthening search and rescue operations in order to save lives, the ICJ says.
Although the European Council has affirmed that its “immediate priority is to prevent further loss of life at sea”, the measures envisaged in this statement are not designed to achieve this aim. Instead, they reflect a continuing security-based policy, centred on the need to “fight the traffickers” and on combatting irregular migration.
The ICJ supports the call of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants, Fraçois Crépeau, urging the EU and Member States to focus their migration policies on the introduction of safe and legal migration routes and combatting the black labour market.
The framing of migration policies around narrowly perceived “security” interests and the strengthening of border controls creates a situation in which smugglers provide the only route for many migrants and this is leading to serious abuses of human rights. Migrants, many of whom are fleeing war or persecution, should not have to resort to such means of reaching safety in Europe.
“Strengthening our presence at sea”
While welcoming the increase in financial support for Frontex operations Triton and Poseidon with a view to foster its search and rescue capabilities, the ICJ is concerned that this commitment in the context of operations presently aimed to “control irregular migration flows towards the territory of the Member States of the EU and to tackle cross-border crime” risks marginalizing rescue at sea within these operations.
Resources must also be allocated directly to increase search and rescue capacities at the EU and national levels, in order to ensure that the human rights of migrants are protected, and that lives are saved.
“Fighting traffickers in accordance with international law”
The commitment in the statement to increase intelligence and police co-operation with third countries as a means of fighting trafficking, without corresponding human rights protections. Any such co-operation must be carried out in compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights law and standards.
Without strong safeguards in law and in practice, there is a risk that such co-operation may lead to exchange of information or evidence with, or transfer of suspects to, States in which human rights abuses are systematic or widespread or where particular individuals may be at risk.
This may lead to violations of human rights, including of the right to asylum, the right to the protection of non-refoulement, the right to be free from torture and ill-treatment and the right life.
In addition, engagement in intelligence and police cooperation, while an important tool in effective law enforcement, risks, if not undertaken with adequate safeguards, leading to infringements to the right to privacy, the right to data protection, and the prohibition of collective expulsions.
All of these rights are protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as by international human rights treaties binding on EU Member States.
Regarding the commitment to take systematic action to capture and destroy vessels used by traffickers in the Mediterranean, the ICJ is also seriously concerned that any such any action risks to be in violation of international law and could lead to a risk of loss of lives.
Finally, the proposal to use Europol to detect and request removal of internet content used by “traffickers” to attract migrants and refugees may lack a sufficient legal basis in EU or national law.
While welcoming the statement’s acknowledgment that such measures must be in accordance with national constitutions, the ICJ recalls that they must also be in compliance with the EU Charter and international human rights law.
Any new measures must include safeguards and limitations to ensure that human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and association are fully respected.
“Preventing illegal migration flows”
The ICJ is concerned that the stepping up of cooperation initiatives envisaged in the statement, with the aim of preventing irregular migration, poses a risk of complicity by the EU, i.e. aiding or assisting in violations of human rights by third countries.
The ICJ urges that any co-operation with third countries in preventing irregular migration must be in compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and international human rights law.
Furthermore, the ICJ is particularly concerned by the decision of the European Council to promote further the readmission to third countries of “unauthorised economic migrants” and to order the establishment of a new return programme for the rapid return of “illegal migrants” from frontline member states, co-ordinated by Frontex.
While the content of the new fast return programme proposed by the Council remains unclear, as does the definition of “rapid return,” the ICJ considers that such a programme is likely to increase the possibility of European Union complicity in violations of the protections of non-refoulement, the right to asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsions and the right to an effective remedy, against its obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The ICJ is concerned that the rapidity of the return could be linked to certain national expulsion practices that are at odds with the Member States’ obligations under the EU Charter and international human rights and refugee law. Furthermore, the ICJ recalls that under article 9 of the Frontex Regulation, Frontex, in its joint return operations, is not able to assess the compliance of return decisions on the merits. This lack of control increases the risk of aiding or assisting in serious violations of human rights.
“Reinforcing internal solidarity and responsibility”
Finally, in regard to the commitment to provide emergency aid to frontline Member States, the ICJ supports the rapid deployment of a long-term, sustainable programme of aid to such states, directed at the provision of search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean, and designed to safeguard the lives and rights of migrants.
The ICJ also recalls that, consistent with the dictates of the UN charter and international human rights treaties, States are under a general obligation to engage in international cooperation and assistance to protect human rights.
Conclusion
The ICJ deplores the fact that, following the tragic death of more than 1,000 people in one week, the EU Member States and the European Council, have failed to act meaningfully to protect the lives of migrants by taking decisive measures to protect the right to life of those crossing the Mediterranean.
In prioritizing border security and returns over search and rescue, the Member States of the European Union have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the human rights of migrants fleeing war, persecution or dire standards of living.
The ICJ urges the EU Member States and the EU institutions to take swift action, centred on the protection of lives and rights of migrants, in order to uphold the EU founding values of the rule of law and human rights, affirmed in article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union.
Apr 27, 2015 | News
The ICJ urged the Government of Indonesia today to stop the imminent execution of nine persons convicted of drug-related offenses.
The ICJ emphasized that the death penalty constitutes a denial of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Advisor, said: “The government is trying to send the message that it is forcefully cracking down on crime, especially on drug-related offenses. Extinguishing the lives of nine people will almost certainly not serve to reduce crime, but it will clearly subvert human rights and the rule of law.”
Recent studies have called into question the notion of any meaningful deterrent effect of capital punishment on the commission of crimes, the ICJ says.
“Indonesia, by imposing the death penalty on those convicted in drugs related cases, is violating its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Gil added.
Indonesia is a State Party to the ICCPR, having acceded to it in 2006.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
In line with the plea by the UN General Assembly in repeated resolutions, the ICJ calls on the Government of Indonesia, as a first step, to establish a moratorium with a view of abolishing the death penalty in the near future.
Background
Nine persons are scheduled to be executed in the next few days: Myuran Sukumaran (Australia), Andrew Chan (Australia), Mary Jane Veloso (Philippines), Rodrigo Gularte (Brazil), Sylvester Obiekwe Nwolise (Nigeria), Okwudili Oyatanze (Nigeria), Martin Anderson (Ghana), Zainal Abidin (Indonesia), and Rahem Agbaje (Nigeria).
Last month, the UN Human Rights Committee strongly criticized Indonesia for its failure to respond to the Committee’s call in 2013 to stop executing prisoners for drug-related crimes.
After a regular review of Indonesia’s human rights record, the Committee in August 2013 urged the State to reinstate the de facto moratorium on the death penalty and to ensure that, if capital punishment was maintained, it was only for the most serious crimes, which do not include drug-related offences.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty, with only 37 opposed.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, in Bangkok, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Photo: aerial view of a prison on Nusakambangang, the island where the executions take place.
Apr 24, 2015 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the deaths of two lawyers, Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi, who recently died while in police custody in Mataria police station.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the deaths of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody are part of a widespread and sustained campaign targeting hundreds of lawyers since 2013, including those defending political opponents of the regime and human rights activists, as well as lawyers exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
“The Egyptian authorities must effectively investigate and prosecute all those responsible for the alleged torture and death of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody and must hold accountable any person responsible for wrongful conduct ,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA Programme.
“The authorities must bring an end to their ongoing campaign of harassing and persecuting lawyers, including arbitrary arrests and prosecutions, for simply discharging their professional duties or for speaking out against human rights violations,” he added.
Under international standards, lawyers should be able to carry out their professional duties free from hindrance, intimidation, harassment or interference, says the ICJ.
They should not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes or subject to arbitrary arrest and prosecutions as a result of the discharge of their functions.
Background:
On 10 April, Imam Afifi, a 63-year old lawyer, was assaulted and arrested in the Mataria neighborhood where a demonstration was taking place against the government.
He was detained in Mataria police station where he was allegedly subjected to torture, including a severe beating to his head.
On 11 April, he was transferred from the police station to Mataria hospital.
A medical report from the same day, to which the ICJ had access, indicates that Imam Afifi was admitted to the hospital with a massive trauma to the head. He died in hospital on 22 April.
On 22 February, another lawyer, Karim Hamdi, was arrested and questioned on suspicion of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, membership of which has been outlawed, and participating in an unauthorized demonstration against the government.
While in police custody in Mataria police station, he was reportedly severely beaten on his neck, chest and abdomen. He died two days later after being transferred to hospital.
Following a complaint by the Bar Association to the prosecutor’s office, two members of the National Security Agency were charged with torturing and murdering Karim Hamdi.
Additional information:
According to information available to the ICJ, attacks against lawyers since 2013 include the following:
On 23 April 2015, six lawyers were summoned for interrogation in relation to their participation in a demonstration on 9 March to protest against the death of Mr Karim Hamdi.
The lawyers also challenged the prosecutor’s decision to prohibit anyone from reporting on the investigation into Mr Hamdi’s case.
On 23 March 2015, human rights lawyer, Azza Soliman, was charged with breaching public order and security under the 2013 Demonstration Law after voluntarily providing testimony against police involved in the killing of Social People’s Alliance party activist, Shaimaa El Sabbagh, on 24 January 2015.
The Qasr El Nile Prosecution Office in Cairo subsequently changed her status from witness to defendant.
On 9 February 2015, a human rights lawyer, Ms Mahienour El Massry, was sentenced to two years imprisonment after she attended the El-Ramel police station in Alexandria, in March 2013, in order to defend demonstrators.
The charges against her included “insulting government employees in the performance of their duties”, “insulting representatives of the authorities” and “attempting to break into a police station”.
Three lawyers, Basma Zahran, Mahmoud Bilal and Oussama Al Mahdi, were referred for investigation, on 3 September 2014, for “disrupting and causing trouble” during trial proceedings for insisting that their client, the human rights activist Ahmed Douma, seated in a sound-proof glass cage, should be heard.
On 5 July 2013, Abdel Men’em Abdel Maqsoud was arrested while attempting to attend the interrogation of his clients, deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Brotherhood, Rachad Bayoumi, and Mohamed Saad Al Katanah.
He was detained before being released on bail on 2 September 2014.
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 44 7815 570 834, e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 41 229 793 804, e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Deaths of lawyers-News-Press release-2015-ARA (full text of Arabic version in PDF)
Apr 23, 2015 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the recent arrest of Swaziland High Court Judges Jacobus Annandale and Mpendulo Simelane, the High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi and the Minister of Justice Sibusiso Shongwe.
The four detainees appeared today before High Court Justice Qinisile Mabuza (photo).
Justice Minister Sibusiso Shongwe was denied bail and remains detained, while the other two High Court Judges and the registrar were released on bail.
The judges, registrar and Minister of Justice are all facing various charges related to corruption and obstructing the course of justice.
The ICJ is also aware that police are presently seeking to arrest Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, and that they have surrounded his place of residence.
The ICJ has received information alleging that the police have cut off the electricity and water and have actively prevented people from bringing food supplies to him and his family.
The ICJ urges the authorities in Swaziland to immediately investigate the situation of the Chief Justice and, if the allegations are substantiated, to immediately restore supply of essential services to the Chief Justices family, denied in violation of rights guaranteed under the Swaziland’s Constitution and its international legal obligations.
“The arrest and attempted arrest of several judges, and a High Court Registrar as in this case, invariably raises questions of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary,” said Wilder Tayler Secretary General of the ICJ.
“The ICJ therefore calls on the authorities in Swaziland to conduct themselves with rigorous adherence to rule of law principles, the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. They must also do so with strict respect for international human rights law,” he added.
The ICJ emphasizes that the Chief Justice and the other judges are entitled as everyone else in Swaziland to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under international law.
These protections include the right to be informed the reasons for their arrest and the nature of any criminal charges, the right to representation by a lawyer of their choice and the right to be considered for bail if appropriate.
If no crime is alleged, but serious professional misconduct is suspected, then arrest and detention is inappropriate.
Additional information:
The ICJ has had longstanding concerns with the state of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession and the fair administration of the justice in Swaziland.
The ICJ has recently intervened in a case involving the conviction of prominent lawyer Thulani Maseko in an unfair trial.
For an ICJ analysis of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession in Swaziland, go here.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Regional Director, ICJ’s Africa Programme, t: +27 731318411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Apr 22, 2015 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The three final human rights defenders who will compete for the award are Ahmed Mansoor (United Arab Emirates), Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) and Asmaou Diallo (Guinea). The ICJ is member of the MEA Jury.
The Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is the main award of the human rights movement and as such can be labelled as the Nobel Price for human rights.
It is a unique collaboration among ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide.
This award is selected by the International Human Rights Community (members of the jury are ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, International Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights and HURIDOCS).
It is given to Human Rights Defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk. The aim of the award is to highlight their work and protect them through increased visibility.
The 2015 Award will be presented on Oct. 6th at a ceremony hosted by the City of Geneva.
Since 2006, Ahmed Mansoor (United Arab Emirates) has focussed on initiatives concerning freedom of expression, civil and political rights.
He successfully campaigned in 2006-2007 to support two people jailed for critical social comments. They were released and the charges dropped.
Shortly after, the Prime Minister of UAE issued an order not to jail journalists in relation to their work.
He is one of the few voices within the United Arab Emirates who provides a credible independent assessment of human rights developments.
He regularly raises concerns on arbitrary detention, torture, international standards for fair trials, non-independence of the judiciary, and domestic laws that violate international law.
He was jailed in 2011 and since then has been denied a passport and banned from travelling.
“I’m very pleased to be nominated for the Martin Ennals award,” he said. “This recognition indicates that we are not left alone in this part of the world and I hope it will shed further light on the human rights issues in the UAE. It is not just full of skyscrapers, big malls and an area attractive to businesses, but there are other struggles of different sorts beneath all of that.”
Since his first year of University in 1974, Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) has courageously fought against human rights abuses.
He has been repeatedly imprisoned in harsh conditions, physically attacked as well as regularly threatened.
His education was interrupted numerous times and he was disbarred from 1993 – 2012.
In 2012, he managed to regain his license to practice law. Since then he has represented jailed child soldiers, those protesting at a contested copper mine, peaceful political protesters, those whose land has been confiscated by the military, as well as student activists.
Throughout his career he has provided legal services, or just advice, often pro bono, to those whose rights have been affected.
“I feel humble and extremely honored to be nominated for this prestigious award. This nomination conveys the message to activists, human rights defenders and promoters who fight for equality, justice and democracy in Myanmar that their efforts are not forgotten by the world,” he said.
Asmaou Diallo (Guinea)’s human rights work started following the events of 28 September 2009 when the Guinean military attacked peaceful demonstrators.
Over 150 were killed, including her son, and over 100 women raped. Hundreds more were injured.
She and l’Association des Parents et Amis des Victimes du 28 septembre 2009 (APIVA), which she founded, work to obtain justice for these crimes and to provide medical and vocational support to victims of sexual assault, many of whom cannot return to their homes.
She has worked to encourage witnesses to come forward and supported them as they provided information and testimony to court proceedings.
As a result, eleven people have been charged, including senior army officers.
“Being among the nominees for the Martin Ennals Foundation encourages me to continue my fight for the protection and promotion of human rights in Guinea. I trust that this award will have a positive effect on the legal cases concerning the events of the September 28, 2009, and will be a lever for all defenders of human rights in Guinea,” she said.
Contact:
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208 ; e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org
Universal-MEA Final Nominees 2015-News-Press Release-2015-ENG (Official press release in English)
Universal-MEA Final Nominees 2015-News-Press Release-2015-FRE (Official press release in French)
Universal-MEA Final Nominees 2015-News-Press Release-2015-ARA (Official press release in Arabic)
Universal-MEA Final Nominees 2015-News-Press Release-2015-BUR (Official press release in Burmese)
UAE-MEA 2015 Bio Ahmed Mansoor-2015-ENG (full bio in PDF)
Myanmar-MEA 2015 Bio Robert Sann Aung-2015-ENG (full bio in PDF)
Guinea-MEA 2015 Bio Asmaou Diallo-2015-ENG (full bio in PDF)
