Jan 25, 2017 | News
The ICJ President Professor Sir Nigel Rodley passed away today in Colchester (UK) at the age of 75, following a short illness.
Elected President of the ICJ in 2012, he was serving his third term as such. He had been first elected to the Commission in 2003 and re-elected in 2008 and 2013. He served as a member of the Executive Committee from 2004-2006.
He was also a Council member of JUSTICE, the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists.
Professor Sir Nigel Rodley was a towering figure in the area of international human rights, playing many roles as an educator, as an academic, as an activist and as an advocate.
He established and expanded the first human rights law department at Amnesty International in the 1970s and 1980s, leading the organization’s work on the development and promotion on international legal standards.
He spent eight years, from 1993 to 2001, as the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture, visiting dozens of countries and working tenaciously toward the eradication of torture worldwide.
From 2001 to 2016 he served on the UN Human Rights Committee, including a period as it Chairman, where he often served as the intellectual author of the Committee’s most prominent accomplishments.
Thousands of students of international human rights law – many of today’s leading human rights defenders – were mentored by him at the University of Essex.
He published extensively in the human rights field, and was one of the world’s leading experts on the question of torture and the treatment of prisoners under international law.
“Sir Nigel was a stalwart of the human rights movement and his firm commitment to the promotion of human rights and rule of law has had a deep and lasting impact that will continue in his absence,” said Wilder Tayler, the ICJ Secretary General.
Nov 17, 2016 | Events, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The 7th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, 17-18 November 2016, brought together judges, lawyers, and refugee and migration experts from around the world, as well as UN agencies to discuss the role of judges and lawyers in situations of large-scale movement of refugees and migrants.
Participants reflected on practical, policy, and legal challenges posed by contemporary movements of refugees and migrants, perceived as exceptional in terms of their scale and speed. Particular situations to be considered include those in Europe (with people coming primarily from and through North Africa and the Middle East, including from Syria, Eritrea, Iraq and Afghanistan); in the Americas (including people coming to the United States of America from Central and South America); in Asia (including in relation to the Rohingya across Southeast Asia, and in relation to practices involving Australia and the Pacific); and within and from parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
In most of these situations, the legal protections available and the respective roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in securing these protections has been a matter of debate.
Authorities world-wide have faced the challenge of ensuring that in all circumstances people have access to fair and effective procedures in relation to key decisions about their rights and interests, such as: determinations of a person’s entitlement to international protection, including determinations as to refugee status; decisions about detention or criminal proceedings based on one’s entry or presence in the country; and decisions about expulsion or onward transfer.
In some cases governments have departed radically from ordinary procedures. The framework of “crisis” or “emergency” has been increasingly invoked, sometimes to reduce judicial protections and guarantees and access to justice.
Forum participants were invited to analyze relevant legal and policy frameworks and practices at the national, regional and universal levels, and to make recommendations about the particular role of judges and lawyers in such situations, including relative to the executive and legislative branches of government.
During the Forum, the forty distinguished judges and lawyers from around the world reaffirmed the essential role of judges and lawyers in securing the rule of law and human rights in relation to large movements of refugees and migrants.
The Forum concluded with substantial agreement and reaffirmation of the essential role that judges and lawyers must be enabled to play, and must fulfil in practice, if the rights of refugees and migrants and the rule of law are to be secured, including in the context of large movements.
Participants exchanged challenges and solutions, and deliberated on a wide range of issues, including:
- on methods for best assessing evidence and credibility;
- on means for overcoming the legal, policy, and practical challenges when judges and lawyers face large numbers of claims and cases;
- on reforms to better enable immigration judges to meet basic standards of independence and impartiality;
- on the need for judiciaries and legal professions to ensure practitioners receive appropriate training and better access to information about international standards and reliable information about country situations;
- on the importance of effective access to competent legal advice and representation, including free of charge when necessary, for refugees and migrants to be able to exercise their rights and for judges to be able to decide cases in an efficient and just manner;
- on ways of supporting judges who courageously exercise their independence to uphold the rule of law and human rights, including in the face of interference or reprisal from the executive or legislative branches of government, or intense media criticism or majoritarian pressure;
- on ensuring that refugees and migrants who are victims of crime or victims of human rights violations are able to have effective access to justice and effective remedy, without discrimination arising from their status;
- on the importance of ensuring that legal processes are sensitive to the particular situation of women and children migrants, and migrants in detention.
The main output of the Forum, published in May 2017, is the ICJ Principles on the role of judges and lawyers in relation to refugees and migrants.
The Principles complement ICJ’s 2011 (updated 2014) Practitioners’ Guide No 6 on Migration and International Human Rights Law, and Practitioners Guide No 11 on Refugee Status Claims Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (2016).
The 2016 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers was made possible with the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
The ICJ is also grateful to the Swiss Confederation, and the Centre d’Accueil Genève Internationale (CAGI), for their in-kind support.
The Programme for the 2016 Forum can be downloaded in PDF format here:
en-programme-2016gf-09-11-2016
esp-programme-2016gf-09-11-2016
The List of Participants can be downloaded in PDF format here: participants-2016gf-09-11-2016
Information about the Geneva Forum from past years is available by clicking here.
The final output of the 2015 Geneva Forum was the publication of ICJ Practitioners Guide No. 13, on Judicial Accountability, available in PDF format by clicking here.
For further details, please contact Matt Pollard, senior legal adviser, matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Voices from the Geneva Forum 2016: Sanji Monageng
Voices from the Geneva Forum 2016: Guy Goodwin-Gill
Voices from the Geneva Forum 2016: Maya Sahli-Fahdel (in French)
Voices from the Geneva Forum 2016: Mónica Oehler Toca (in Spanish)
Information about related ICJ work on refugees and migrants can be accessed by clicking the links below:
ICJ and others call on the EU to protect refugee and migrant children’s rights (November 2016)
Nov 11, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned efforts by a group of States led by the African Group of the UN Members States to halt the work of the UN Independent Expert charged with protecting people from discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).
The organization said that the move constituted an unwarranted interference with the independence and capacity of the Human Rights Council to discharge its mandate for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without discrimination.
On 3 November 2016 Botswana on behalf of the African Group introduced a draft resolution before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York questioning the authority for the mandate of the Independent Expert Vitit Muntarbhorn (photo) and deferring action indefinitely on confirming the mandate’s establishment.
The ICJ is calling on the African Group to withdraw its draft resolution.
If a vote on the resolution does go ahead, the ICJ said that States must resoundingly reject it and send a signal to the world that the rights of all persons must be protected on an equal basis and that the UN Human Rights Council is capable of acting to secure such protection.
The ICJ considers that adoption of the resolution would represent a dramatic setback to the Human Rights Council’s efforts to tackle violence and discrimination based on SOGI.
Each year, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly considers the Human Rights Council’s annual report.
This year, that report contains Human Rights Council resolution 32/2 on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Human Rights Council’s adoption of resolution 32/2 on 30 June 2016 made history by establishing the first-ever mandate of an Independent Expert of the Human Rights Council on protection against violence and discrimination based on SOGI.
In September this year the Human Rights Council appointed Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn of Thailand to discharge this mandate.
Since then, Prof. Muntarbhorn has duly taken up his position and has begun fulfilling this work.
The draft resolution that the African Group has tabled at the Third Committee questions the basis in international law for the establishment of the Independent Expert’s mandate on SOGI and seeks to defer action on Human Rights Council resolution 32/2 indefinitely.
Since the Human Rights Council was set up in 2006, none of its resolutions mandating the establishment of a Special Procedure has ever been challenged by the General Assembly.
The ICJ considers that the adoption of the African Group’s resolution would set an extremely detrimental and regressive precedent by blocking the Human Rights Council from carrying out its own mandate.
It would undermine the UN’s preeminent human rights body’s overall authority by sapping its independence and ability to fulfil its mandate for the promotion and human rights for all without discrimination as it sees fit.
Contact
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative, t: +41 22 979 38 23 ; e: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Read also
What is the Future of the SOGI Mandate and What Does it Mean for the UN Human Rights Council?
Oct 13, 2016 | News, Publications
The ICJ published today a Russian translation of its Practitioners Guide no. 6 on Migration and International Human Rights Law.
This updated edition of the Practitioners Guide analyses the protection afforded to migrants by international law and the means to implement it at national and international levels.
The ICJ Guide synthesizes and clarifies international standards on key issues, in particular:
- the rights and procedures connected to the way migrants enter a country and their status in the country of destination;
- human rights and refugee law constraints on expulsion;
- the human rights and refugee law rights linked to expulsion procedures;
- the rights and guarantees for administrative detention of migrants;
- rights connected to work and labour; and
- rights to education, to the highest attainable standard of health, to adequate housing, to water, to food, and to social security.
universal-pg-6-migration-publications-practitionners-guides-series-2016-rus (full guide in Russian, PDF)
