Jan 21, 2017 | Agendas, Events, News, Training modules
Today, the ICJ and Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrants are holding a training for lawyers on the rights of migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms in Sofia.
The training aims to support the strategic use of national and international mechanisms to foster migrant children’s access to justice.
The training will take place over the course of two days from 21-22 January 2017.
The training will focus on accessing the international mechanisms in order to protect and promote the rights of migrant children, the child’s right to be heard and the best interests of the child principle.
A practical session on communication with child clients for lawyers as well as practical case studies will be part of the training.
Trainers include experts from the ICJ, Child Law Clinic of the University College Cork and Foundation for Access to Rights.
The training is based on draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published in the second half of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
It is organized as part of the FAIR project co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union and OSIFE.
Download the agenda in English here: Bulgaria-FAIR training-Events-Agenda-2016-ENG
Jan 17, 2017 | News
Leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, have hailed a landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court to hold the UK Government accountable for its role in human rights abuses overseas.
The country’s highest court issued today a long-awaited judgment in the two joined appeals in Belhaj and Others v. Jack Straw & Others and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence and Another.
The Court ruled that the UK Government could not rely on the legal doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state to escape claims in the two cases alleging UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
The first case, brought by the former Libyan opposition leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj (photo) and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, alleges that UK Government officials were complicit in the couple’s kidnap and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured.
The second case was brought by Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained by UK forces in Iraq before being handed over to US forces and allegedly tortured and imprisoned without charge for over ten years.
The Government argued before the Supreme Court that the claimants’ cases should be dismissed because, under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state, the UK courts were not permitted to rule on the legality of acts by foreign governments.
The claimants argued in response that the doctrines only applied in certain limited situations, and that they did not extend to the circumstances in Belhaj and Rahmatullah.
The claimants’ position in Belhaj was supported by several prominent human rights organizations – the ICJ, Amnesty International, JUSTICE and REDRESS – who intervened in the case.
The intervening organizations submitted that dismissing the claims would effectively grant impunity for torture to UK officials, violating international human rights law and weakening international commitments to an effective remedy for torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights breaches.
The Supreme Court found unanimously in favour of the claimants and dismissed the Government’s appeal.
It ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply because the foreign governments were not parties to the cases and their legal interests were not affected by the claims put forward.
In respect of foreign act of state, while the judges differed in their reasoning, they agreed that the doctrine could not be invoked for such serious violations of law as torture, unlawful detention and enforced disappearance.
The Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases will now proceed to full trials, where the courts will examine the facts of the claims and determine whether the UK Government and its officials were complicit in the claimants’ torture and other human rights abuses.
“The UK Supreme Court has spoken forcefully in affirming that the public interest in ensuring access to justice for victims of serious human rights abuses is paramount,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Human rights are universal and their effective enforcement must not be blocked by misapplied juridical doctrine that contrives to deny victims a remedy,” he added.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22979 3800 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
UK-Belhaj case-News-press releases-2017-ENG (full version of press release, in PDF)
Jan 11, 2017 | News
It is with great sadness that the ICJ mourns the loss of Honorary Member Lord William Goodhart QC who passed away on 10 January at the age of 83.
Lord Goodhart, from the United Kingdom, was a long-serving friend of the ICJ, having served as a Commissioner from 1993-2007, on the Executive Committee and also as ICJ Vice-President. from 2007-2009 Lord Goodhart also served as the Chairman of JUSTICE, the ICJ’s independent UK Section.
Lord Goodhart was a Liberal Democrat peer of the UK House of Lords, a Member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group and an eminent human rights barrister. He was knighted in 1989 and made a Life Peer in 1997 as Baron Goodhart of Youlbury.
Our thoughts and condolences are with his family and many friends.
Dec 6, 2016 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Nearly five months after the failed coup attempt in Turkey, the country remains locked in an acute rule of law crisis. The government must take urgent steps to restore the rule of law, the ICJ said today.
Mass arrests, many of them arbitrary, and credible allegations of the torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, mean that access to legal advice, to a fair trial and to effective judicial remedies are crucial. However, the unprecedented summary and arbitrary purge of the judiciary following the coup, and arrests of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, have significantly weakened the justice system and its capacity to protect against and effectively remedy violations of human rights. The vulnerability of detainees to violations of their human rights has been compounded by unwarranted restrictions on access to lawyers and extended periods of pre-trial detention.
State of Emergency
The ICJ is concerned that the State of Emergency, which involves derogations from Turkey’s international human rights law obligations, has been renewed for a second period of 90 days, until mid-January. Sweeping emergency decrees continue to erode human rights, including rights of fair trial, the right to liberty, and freedoms of expression and association.
The ICJ recalls that in times of crisis, any measures derogating from human rights must be strictly necessary to meet a current threat to the life of the nation. This necessity must be continually re-assessed so that the derogating measures apply for the shortest time possible. Certain human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, and the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy can never be restricted even in a state of emergency. The ICJ is concerned that Turkey’s notifications of derogation purport to derogate in general terms from a number of these rights.
Measures taken under the State of Emergency should be rigorously and urgently reviewed to ascertain whether they are permissible under international law and whether they remain necessary and proportionate to any current threat to the life of the nation. Moreover, it must be ensured that non-derogable rights, including the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment, and the right to a fair trial, are not limited by emergency measures. The ICJ urges the Turkish authorities to lift the State of Emergency and the derogations from its international human rights law obligations at the earliest opportunity.
Independence of the judiciary
The ICJ reiterates its grave concern at mass dismissals of judges and prosecutors, which have a devastating effect on the independence of the judiciary. More than 3,000 judges and prosecutors – approximately one fifth of the judiciary – have been arbitrarily dismissed under emergency decrees, without procedural safeguards and without the right to reasoned decisions.
Judges and prosecutors have been detained in very large numbers. In total, more than 2,000 have been detained, including two judges of the Constitutional Court, 109 members of the Court of Cassation, 41 Members of the Council of State and five members of the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK).
Restructuring of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, under legislation adopted in July, has required the reappointment of all judges of these courts. New judges have been appointed rapidly, through procedures that lack transparency, and in the context of strong executive influence over the appointment process in the HSYK.
The ICJ is also gravely concerned that the independent association of judges, YARSAV, has been shut down, and its President, Murat Arslan, has been arrested.
These measures have eroded the separation of powers in Turkey and have seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary at every level, compromising the courts’ ability to provide fair trials or an effective remedy for violations of human rights. The impact of this situation on the protection of human rights goes beyond what can be justified under the state of emergency. To meet its international human rights obligations, the Turkish government must as a matter of urgency take steps to restore the independence of the judges and of the governing bodies of the judiciary. Procedural safeguards that protect against arbitrariness in criminal, civil and administrative procedures, including in regard to the dismissal of judges, must be reinstated.
Independence of lawyers and access to legal advice
The ICJ is similarly concerned at measures that undermine the independence of the legal profession and the capacity of lawyers to protect human rights. More than 573 lawyers are reported to have been detained in connection with the failed coup since July, and more than 200 have been arrested, and their assets frozen.
Amongst those reported to be arrested are four Presidents of regional bar associations: Orhan Öngöz, President of the Trabzon Bar; Mehmet Cemal Acar, President of the Siirt Bar; İsmail Taştan, President of the Gumushane – Bayburt Regional Bar and Fevzi Kayacan, President of the Konya Bar. The ICJ considers that many of these detentions and arrests are likely to be arbitrary.
These developments have very serious consequences, not only for the rights of lawyers themselves, but also for the right to a fair trial of their clients and the effectiveness of judicial remedies for violations of human rights. They raise concerns that lawyers are being identified with their clients or their clients’ causes, contrary to the Principle 18 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. The ICJ recalls that under the UN Basic Principles, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Furthermore, the ICJ is concerned that hundreds of NGOs have been closed under emergency decrees, including a number of lawyers’ associations. Such closures have serious implications for rights of freedom of association and expression, and for the rule of law.
The ICJ calls on the Turkish government to take urgent steps to guarantee the independence of the legal profession, protect lawyers from arbitrary detention or arrest and provide procedural safeguards to ensure the right to fair trial of lawyers under criminal investigation.
Contact:
Roisin Pillay, ICJ Europe Director, at roisin.pillay(a)icj.org or +32 2 734 84 46
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Europe Legal Adviser, at massimo.frigo(a)icj.org or +41 22 979 38 05
Dec 2, 2016 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, the ICJ and Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna are holding a training for lawyers on the rights of migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms in Pisa (Italy).
The training aims to support the strategic use of national and international mechanisms to foster migrant children’s access to justice. The training will take place over the course of two days from 2-3 December 2016.
The training will focus on accessing the international mechanisms in order to protect and promote the rights of migrant children, the child’s right to family life and the best interests of the child principle. A moot court exercise will be held on the second day of the training.
Trainers include experts from the ICJ and Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, the Italian Court of Cassation and the University of Milan.
The training is based on draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published in the second half of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
It is organized as part of the FAIR project co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union and OSIFE.
Download the agenda in Italian here:
italy-rights-migrant-children-training-agenda-2016-ita
Nov 30, 2016 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
European Union Member States must ensure that a new effort to standardise counterterrorism laws does not undermine fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, a group of international human rights organisations said today.
Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.
The groups call on EU Member States to ensure that implementation of the directive in national law includes additional safeguards to guarantee compliance with regional and international human rights obligations. These safeguards are especially important to ensure that any new laws passed, which will remain in place for years to come, cannot be used abusively by any government, including any that may be tempted to sacrifice human rights and due process in the name of pursuing security.
‘States must effectively address the threat of terrorism. But the EU has rushed to agree a vaguely worded counterterrorism law that endangers fundamental rights and freedoms,’ said Róisín Pillay, Europe Programme Director at the ICJ. ‘Time and again we’ve seen governments adopt abusive counterterrorism laws without assessing their effectiveness, and then implement them in ways that divide and alienate communities. We worry this directive will reinforce this trend and leaves too much leeway for governments to misuse the directive to violate rights.”
The groups also noted that the legislative process for adopting this directive lacked transparency and opportunity for critical debate. There was no impact assessment of the proposal, negotiations moved forward without parliamentary-wide review of the text, and the proposal was rushed through behind closed doors and without any meaningful consultation of civil society.
Despite the inclusion of a general human rights safeguarding clause and repeated caution from our organisations the final text fails to fully protect human rights within the EU:
• The directive repeats the EU’s already overly broad definition of ‘terrorism,’ which permits states to criminalise, as terrorism, public protests or other peaceful acts that they deem ’seriously destabilise the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.’
• Significantly, the directive requires states to criminalise a series of preparatory acts that may have a minimal or no direct link to a violent act of terrorism, and may never result in one being committed. For example the offences of participating in a terrorist group, travelling or receiving training for terrorist purposed are not adequately defined. Unless these broadly outlined offences are subject to careful drafting and strong safeguards in national law, they are likely to lead to violations of rights, including the right to liberty and freedoms of expression, association, and movement.
• The directive criminalises the public distribution of messages, including messages that ‘glorify’ terrorist acts, if the distribution is intentional and causes a danger that a terrorist offence may be committed. However, such a low threshold likely to lead to abuse if not limited as the UN recommends ‘to incitement that is directly causally responsible for increasing the actual likelihood of an attack’. The directive should have incorporated this language to avoid unjustified interference with freedom of expression.
We welcome the directive’s protection of activities of recognised humanitarian organisations. However we remain concerned that the protection does not expressly extend to all individuals providing medical or other life-saving activities that international humanitarian law (IHL) protects during times of armed conflict.
States should take the directive as an opportunity to reassess their counterterrorism laws, policies and practices and engage with civil society and other stakeholders. We welcome the European Commission’s commitment to formally include civil society organisations in their activities to support transposition of the directive.
Contact:
Roisin Pillay, ICJ Europe Director, at roisin.pillay(a)icj.org or +32 2 734 84 46
eu-press-release-flawed-counterterrorism-directive-2016-eng (download the statement)
