Oct 11, 2016 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Selected by a jury of 10 global human rights organizations, including the ICJ, Ilham Tohti has worked for two decades to foster dialogue and understanding between Uyghurs and Han Chinese. Detained in China, he could not travel to collect his prize in Geneva.
A renowned Uyghur intellectual in China, Ilham Tohti (photo) has rejected separatism and violence, and sought reconciliation based on a respect for Uyghur culture, which has been subject to religious, cultural and political repression in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
In 1994 he began to write about problems and abuses in Xinjiang, which led to official surveillance.
From 1999 to 2003 he was barred from teaching.
Since then the authorities have also made it impossible for him to publish in normal venues.
As a response, he turned to the Internet to broaden public awareness of the economic, social and developmental issues confronting the Uyghurs.
In 2006 he established Uyghurbiz.net, a Chinese-language site, to foster dialogue and understanding between Uyghurs and Han Chinese.
Over the course of its existence, it has been shut down periodically, and people writing for it have been harassed.
In 2009, he was arrested for several weeks after posting information on Uyghurs who had been arrested, killed and “disappeared” during and after protests.
In the following years he was periodically subjected to house arrest, and in 2013, while bound to take up a post as a visiting scholar at Indiana University, USA, he was detained at the airport and prevented from leaving China.
On January 15, 2014, Ilham Tohti was arrested on charges of separatism and sentenced to life imprisonment, after a two-day trial.
Numerous statements were issued by Western governments and the European Union condemning his trial and sentence, and in early 2016 several hundred academics petitioned the Chinese leadership for his release.
Upon his nomination as a Finalist for the Martin Ennals Award earlier this year, his daughter stated: “My father Ilham Tohti has used only one weapon in his struggle for the basic rights of the Uyghurs of Xinjiang: Words; spoken, written, distributed, and posted. This is all he has ever had at his disposal, and all that he has ever needed. And this is what China found so threatening. A person like him doesn’t deserve to be in prison for even a day.”
Martin Ennals Foundation Chair Dick Oosting said: “The real shame of this situation is that by eliminating the moderate voice of Ilham Tohti the Chinese Government is in fact laying the groundwork for the very extremism it says it wants to prevent.”
The two other finalists received Martin Ennals Prizes.
Zone 9 Bloggers (Ethiopia) are nine young activists who called themselves ‘Zone 9’ as a symbol for Ethiopia as a whole (Kality prison in Ethiopia, has 8 zones and holds many journalists and political prisoners).
They document human rights abuses and shed light on the situation of political prisoners in Ethiopia.
Six of its members were arrested and charged with terrorism.
Although they have now been released, three are in exile while four of the six remaining in Ethiopia are still facing charges and banned from travel.
Razan Zaitouneh (Syria) has dedicated her life to defending political prisoners, documenting violations, and helping others free themselves from oppression.
She founded the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), which documents the death toll and ill-treatment in Syria’s prisons.
She had started to cover all sides in the conflict when she was kidnapped, alongside with her husband and two colleagues, on 9 December 2013. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
Background
The “Nobel Prize of Human Rights”, the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide.
Strongly supported by the City of Geneva, the award is given to Human Rights Defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk. Its aim is to provide protection through international recognition.
The Jury is composed of the following NGOs: ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Int’l Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights, and HURIDOCS.
Contact:
Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208, e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org
Olivier van Bogaert, Director, ICJ Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08, e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
china-mea-laureate-2016-news-press-releases-2016-chi (full text in Chinese, PDF)
Watch the Martin Ennals Award Ceremony 2016:
Watch the Ilham Tohti movie:
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.
The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.
On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.
The petition had objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.
The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.
The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.
On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.
The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.
The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”
On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.
The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.
On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.
The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.
On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.
Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.
These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.
Read mor
botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Aug 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe (JSC) today held a one-day workshop in Harare to review the Magistrate Court Civil Rules.
Mr Chikwana, Deputy Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe, provided the opening remarks to the meeting.
He stated that the purpose of the review was to reconcile the procedural requirements in the courts with the provisions of the new constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).
Mr Chikwana mentioned that one of the objectives of the revisions was to create uniformity in the Rules of the different courts and in so doing make court processes simpler and more accessible to the general public.
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Director for Africa, said that the whole idea behind the in-country activities carried out by the ICJ was to strengthen justice administration in Zimbabwe.
The workshop commenced with a presentation on an Overview of the current rules and feedback on input from Stakeholders by Justice Uchena.
Thereafter the delegates were assigned to groups to discuss the 34 Orders within the Rules of the Magistrate’s Court. After the 45-minute discussions, the groups presented their feedback.
The meeting was attended by judicial officers from the Constitutional Court, High Court and Magistrate Court; members of the legal profession, academia and civil society organizations.
Other notable attendees at the workshop include the Deputy Attorney General Nelson Dias and Mr Edward Mapara from the Law Society. There were 23 female and 24 male delegates at the workshop.
Jul 30, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe, held a two-day Judicial Symposium for the end of the Second Term, at the Elephant Hills Hotel, Victoria Falls.
The subjects for discussion chosen by the judges reflect areas where judges felt the need for enlightenment.
In his opening remarks, the Deputy Chief Justice Malaba said that the purpose of this Symposium was to provide an opportunity for the judges to discuss and share ideas on the subjects chosen at the recreational environment.
The Symposium would serve to equip every judge with skills to feel confident in presiding over and disposing of cases fairly and expeditiously.
The former Chief Justice of South Africa Sandile Ngcobo delivered the keynote address which focused on Continued Judicial Education. Chief Justice Ngcobo stated that it was the collective responsibility of the judiciary to ensure it is sufficiently equipped to meet the demands of society and for the efficient dispensation of justice.
This would be achieved through continued judicial education.
Chief Justice Ngcobo was of the view that the importance of Continued Judicial Education lay beyond improving quality of justice but for the qualification of justice
Jul 12, 2016 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has issued a joint statement condemning increasing acts of harassment and intimidation against journalists in Lesotho.
The joint statement expresses concern about a number of incidents threatening freedom of expression, exemplified by the recent shooting of the editor of the Lesotho Times newspaper, and have called on Lesotho Authorities to ensure the right to freedom of expression is protected.
In addition to the ICJ, the statement has also been signed by: amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism; Amnesty International; Freedom of Expression Institute; Institute for Democracy; Lawyers for Human Rights; Lawyer for Human Rights (Swaziland); Media Institute for Southern Africa – Zimbabwe Chapter; Media Monitoring Africa; Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa; PEN Afrikaans; PEN South Africa; Rights 2 Know Campaign; SOS Coalition; Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network; Southern AFrican Litigation Centre; Transformation Resource Centre; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum; and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.
Lesotho-Joint statement-Freedom of expression-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
