Sep 10, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ condemned the mass convictions of some 739 defendants, 75 of whom were sentenced to death, by the Cairo Criminal Court, in connection with a sit-in protest at Raba’a Al Adaweyya square in August 2013.
The ICJ deplored that the convictions had followed a grossly unfair trial and called on the Egyptian authorities, including the prosecutorial authorities, to take immediate steps to quash them.
The ICJ said that as an immediate matter the death sentences, issued in contravention of Egypt’s international legal obligations, must be vacated.
In addition to the death sentences, another 658 individuals were sentenced either to life imprisonment or to five to 15 years’ imprisonment, including journalists and others monitoring the sit in, many of them in high security facilities.
The accused were convicted of offences including “killing police officers,” “taking part in an illegal assembly,” “joining an illegal group,” and “vandalism and other acts of violence” following dispersal of a sit-in protest at Raba’a square.
The convictions follow a grossly unfair trial in which rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to legal counsel, among others, were violated and many accused were arbitrarily detained.
“The trial, with its industrial-scale convictions and blatant disregard of basic fair trial guarantees, is yet another example of how Egypt’s judiciary is being used by the military and the executive to crush freedom of expression, assembly, and association; silence any and all critical voices, and intimidate witnesses of human rights violations,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The trial was marred by a litany of fair trial violations. A presumption in favour of pre-trial detention was routinely applied.
Of the 739 defendants tried, all 320 arrested were held in pre-trial detention for more than five years, protestors and protest monitors alike.
For example, photo journalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid, known as “Shawkan”, was arrested while covering the Raba’a dispersal and was in pre-trial detention throughout the trial.
The Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants without making individual findings of guilt or relying on credible evidence, violating the presumption of innocence.
Four hundred and nineteen defendants were tried in absentia—a number of whom may have been sentenced to death—without the opportunity to mount a meaningful defence.
Charges such as “joining an illegal group” were also blatantly unfounded insofar as they targeted journalists and others reporting on the sit in.
“The convictions are unreliable and ought to be quashed. Those convicted solely for the legitimate and peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly must be immediately and unconditionally released,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
It has previously called on Egypt to respect repeated Resolutions by the UN General Assembly for all retentionist States to impose an immediate moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ previously documented how the Egyptian Judiciary has consistently failed to conform to these standards, and has instead been using the administration of justice as a tool of repression.
The ICJ has underscored that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a party, protects the rights to liberty, to a fair trial, to life, to freedom of expression, to freedom of assembly, and to an effective remedy against violations of human rights.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that impunity continues to prevail over the gross human rights violations committed by armed and security forces in the course of the dispersal.
In this regard, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet noted the contrast between Saturday’s decision and Egypt’s adoption of Law 161(2018) in July, which effectively immunized security forces from prosecution for offences committed between 3 July 2013, the date of the military coup, and January 2016.
The High Commissioner further warned that “justice must apply to all” and that immunizing security personnel by such a law only “promotes impunity, and undermines the faith of the Egyptian people in the Government’s capacity to deliver justice for all.”
“It is a measure of the absolute subordination of the judiciary to the will of the military and executive that not a single person has been held accountable for the unlawful killings of hundreds of protesters, and that those arrested and prosecuted in the context of the dispersal are convicted and sentenced to death and cumulatively thousands of years’ of imprisonment,” Benarbia said.
Egypt-Rabaa Ruling-News-webstory-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Sep 5, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will participate in the side event “Accountability and the need to end impunity for human rights violations in Yemen,” organized by the CIVICUS, FIDH, CIHRS in cooperation with Mwatana for Human Rights and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR).
This side event at the Human Rights Council will take place on Monday, 10 September 2018 from 12:00 – 13:00 in room XXIV of the Palais des Nations.
The issue of human rights defenders including bloggers, Internet activists, and journalists who are at extreme risk of persecution will be discussed.
Speakers:
- Radhya Al-Mutawakel, Co-founder and Chairperson of Mwatana for Human Rights
- Khalid Ibrahim, Executive Director, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
- Vito Todeschini, Associate Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Miriam Puttick, Head of MENA Programmes, Ceasefire for Civilians Rights
Moderator:
Antoine Madelin, International Advocacy Director, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Yemen-Side event at HRC-News-events-2018-ENG (download the flyer)
Jul 24, 2018 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
In a briefing paper published today, the ICJ called on the parties to the conflict in Yemen to take immediate and effective measures to ensure the protection of the civilian population, including against human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations.
Serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Yemen include direct and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and the impediment of access to humanitarian relief of the civilian population.
Gross human rights violations and abuses include widespread instances of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ has called for persons responsible for such violations to be held to account.
“All parties to the conflict in Yemen have acted in blatant disregard of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“The top priority is to end these violations and in particular to protect the civilian population,” he added.
In its briefing paper, the ICJ analyses international law violations committed in the conduct of hostilities and against persons deprived of their liberty.
The Saudi Arabia-led coalition and the Houthis are allegedly responsible for direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including local markets, food storage sites, water installations and medical facilities.
The United Arab Emirates, the internationally recognized government of Yemen and the Houthis have allegedly engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ briefing paper also examines the potential legal implications of the blockade imposed by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition on Yemen and the sieges laid by the Houthis against several towns and localities, which impede the civilian population to access humanitarian relief.
The ICJ briefing paper further assesses the potential responsibility of third States for transferring arms to the parties to the conflict.
Under numerous instruments, including the Arms Trade Treaty, States are prohibited from selling arms to the parties to an armed conflict whenever a risk exists that the end-user could commit international law violations.
Arms transfers may even engage the exporting States’ international responsibility for aiding or assisting in the commission of such violations.
“Victims must have access to effective legal remedies and be provided with adequate reparation,” Benarbia said.
“The international community must state loud and clear that impunity is not an option. The Security Council should refer the situation in Yemen to the International Criminal Court and third States should consider, where feasible, the exercise of universal jurisdiction to prosecute relevant crimes under international law,” he added.
Contact
Vito Todeschini, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216-71-962-287; e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Yemen-War briefing-News-web story-2018-ENG (full story with background information, English, PDF)
Yemen-War impact on populations-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ENG (Analysis Brief in English, PDF)
Yemen-War briefing-News-web story-2018-ARA (full story with background information, Arabic, PDF)
Yemen-War impact on populations-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ARA (Analysis Brief in Arabic, PDF)
Jun 18, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the Human Rights Council takes place on Wednesday, 20 June, 16:00-17:00, room XXIII of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by the ICJ.
Speakers:
May 25, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian Parliament to reverse its decision of 26 March 2018 and allow the Truth and Dignity Commission (IVD) to carry out its mandate for at least another year.
The IVD should be in the position to finalize its investigations of past serious human rights violations in the country and, when appropriate, refer cases to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), the ICJ added.
Since its decision, the Parliament has not considered or adopted any measures to address the legal and practical consequences, including how incomplete investigations by the IVD will be handled, how other investigations will be transferred to the SCC and by whom, how evidence will be preserved and protected, how the documents and the material gathered by the IVD will properly be archived, and what would happen if the IVD were unable to complete the drafting of the final report.
The initial four-year term of the IVD ends on 31 May 2018.
“It’s absolutely irresponsible for the Tunisian Parliament to thwart the whole transitional justice process and curtail the work of the IVD without providing any path forward,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“As one of the three branches of government, the Parliament must abide by Tunisia’s obligations under international law to establish the truth about past human rights violations, bring the perpetrators to account, and provide victims with effective remedies and reparation,” he added.
The March decision runs counter to all these obligations.
It denies the rights of victims, and broader society, to know the truth, including about the circumstances and reasons that led to decades of serious human rights violations in the country.
The IVD has not been able to finalize its investigations or produce its final report.
It also shields those responsible from criminal accountability. Only eight cases have so far been referred by the IVD to the SCC.
The fate of cases that have been investigated but are not referred before 31 May 2018 remains unclear. The IVD reportedly received some 62’712 complaints.
“The Parliament is abdicating its responsibility to respect and protect victims’ rights,” Benarbia said.
“Instead of playing cynical political games that can only foster impunity, the Parliament should reverse its decision and remove all the obstacles that might impede the IVD’s work in ensuring accountability for past abuses, ” he added.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Under the 2013 law on transitional justice, the IVD initially had a four-year term, with the possibility of renewal for a single additional year, on the basis of a reasoned decision by the IVD.
The 2013 law provided that the IVD’s decision on renewal should be submitted to the Parliament.
The law is however silent as to whether the submission of the IVD decision was simply a matter of notification, or required approval of Parliament to be effective.
In any event, 68 members of the Parliament voted on 26 March against extending the term of the IVD for another year.
Under its bylaws, for decisions of Parliament to be valid they must be adopted by at least 72 of its members.
The apparent lack of quorum for the Parliament’s 26 March decision has only introduced more uncertainty and confusion, further complicating the position for the IVD and others, including most notably the victims themselves.
On 24 May 2018, the IVD and the Minister in charge of relations with constitutional bodies, civil society and human rights issued a joint statement reiterating Tunisia’s commitments to the transitional justice process as provided by the Constitution.
In the statement, the IVD was requested to transfer all cases concerning serious human rights violations to the SCC, to establish criteria on the basis of which reparation for victims will be provided, to establish compensation criteria for the Victims Fund, and to send the final report to the President of the Republic, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Government.
Tunisia-IVD Parliament-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
