Nov 28, 2019 | Cases, News
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judge Jan Grzęda.
Judge Grzęda’s mandate as a member of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) was prematurely terminated by legislation that entered into force in 2018. Under this law, the mandates of the judicial members of the NCJ appointed under previous legislation were automatically brought to an end once new members were appointed.
Judge Grzęda applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that he had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of his mandate and had been denied an effective remedy for the violations of his rights.
In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence and self-governance, including as regards the role national councils for the judiciary, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the role of the NCJ in safeguarding judicial independence in Poland, and recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Read the full intervention text here.
Apr 17, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and other NGOs jointly intervened before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a case against Spain on the denial of entry of asylum seekers in the enclave of Melilla.
The ICJ, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the AIRE Centre, Amnesty International and the Dutch Refugee Council argued that the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits refusal of entry, and/or return of a person to face serious violations of human rights, including of the right to life, the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or flagrant denial of justice and of the right to liberty.
They submitted that these refusals of entry are also contrary to the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and the prohibition on non-refoulement found in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).
The joint interventions presents the argument that, for these prohibitions to be practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory, Contracting Parties must have in place effective systems for identifying people within their jurisdiction who are entitled to benefit from the prohibition on refusing entry.
Spain-ICJ&others-AmicusBrief-ND&NT-ECtHR-GC-legalsubmission-2018 (download the thirty party intervention)
Oct 9, 2017 | Events, News
The ICJ, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and Amnesty International invite you today to an event to discuss challenges in prevention of, and accountability for, violations of human rights in the US-led rendition system, and in transfers of suspects in the CIS region.
Join us for a moderated discussion marking the U.S. launch of the International Commission of Jurists’ report, Transnational Injustices: National Security Transfers and International Law.
Panelists will discuss the ongoing practice of states unlawfully rendering people accused of terrorism, particularly in Russia and Central Asia, and explore the extent to which the impact of the CIA’s notorious extraordinary renditions can still be felt today.
When: Monday, October 16, 2017 – 12:45 pm to 2:15 pm
Where: Lester Pollack Colloquium Room – Furman Hall, 9th Floor, NYU School of Law – 245 Sullivan Street, New York City
RSVP here
Refreshments will be served
Speakers:
- Sam Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General, ICJ
- Róisín Pillay, European and CIS Programme Director, ICJ
- Margaret Satterthwaite, JD ’99, Professor of Clinical Law, NYU School of Law
Moderated by Julia Hall, Expert on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, Amnesty International
A flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
Oct 3, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
On 2 October, the ICJ and Amnesty International submitted an intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case Ecodefence and others v the Russian Federation, Application no. 9988/13 and 48 other applications, which concern labeling NGOs as foreign agents.
In this submission, the applicants provided the Court with an analysis, based on international law sources, of:
a) the scope of application of rights to freedom of expression and association guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) to restrictions on the activity of non-governmental organisations (NGOs);
b) application of the principle of legality to such restrictions;
c) the legitimacy of the aim, necessity and proportionality of measures regulating NGOs, including restrictions on funding, burdensome reporting requirements, sanctions and the stigmatizing effect of labelling NGOs as “foreign agents”; and
d) the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 18 of the ECHR, particularly the question of interferences used for purposes other than those which fall under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
The submission addresses the obligations of State parties to the ECHR with account taken of the other international law obligations, such as those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as other relevant standards under international law.
Russia-ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Ecodefence-legalsubmissions-2017-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Mar 9, 2017 | News
Amnesty International and the ICJ regret the decision of Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to further delay the passage of essential legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations call on the Thai government to cease its stalling measures and instead prioritize the amendment of the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Draft Act) in order to bring it into line with international law. The government should then ensure its passage into law without undue delay.
On 28 February, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that it had been informed that the NLA would not enact the Draft Act. The following day, an NLA official speaking to BBC Thai confirmed that the draft would be “returned [to the Thai Cabinet] for more consultations… with Interior officials, police authorities, the national security sector, military authorities and prosecutors.”
The Draft Act is the result of years of effort by government authorities, including by Ministry of Justice officials who consulted with our organizations and took account of many of our recommendations in elaborating it. The draft was approved by Thailand’s Cabinet in May 2016.
The recent decision by the NLA has indefinitely delayed the enactment of this important piece of legislation, which would represent a significant step towards preventing torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
The slow-tracking of this law in the face of all the commitments Thailand has made over the years right up to last year is extremely disappointing, especially for the victims of torture and enforced disappearances who have struggled to obtain justice in the absence of a clear legal framework.
The most recent version of the Draft Act addresses many existing gaps in Thailand’s current legal framework and could support Thailand’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. However, further amendments are needed to address significant shortcomings in the Draft Act.
In particular, the Draft Act omits key elements from the definitions of torture and enforced disappearances, does not criminalize acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and fails to define enforced disappearance as a continuing crime. Additionally, the Draft Act does not extend criminal liability beyond the direct commission of the act and fails to unequivocally bar the use as evidence in court proceedings of statements obtained by torture.
Thailand should make it a top priority to address these and other concerns and to enact the law as soon as possible. The urgent need to amend and enact the Draft Act is underscored by recent reports alleging the use of torture and other ill-treatment by state security forces and the continued failure to hold accountable perpetrators of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.
Our organizations remain committed to providing any necessary assistance to the Thai government in amending the Draft Act or otherwise acting to prevent torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.
Background
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and has signed, but not ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The expert UN bodies overseeing the implementation of these treaties have consistently called upon states parties to criminalise torture and enforced disappearance as specific crimes.
On 13 and 14 March 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR.
In Thailand’s 15 November 2016 reply to the Committee’s List of Issues,[1] it noted that it was in the process of passing the Draft Law which would “provide clear definition and set up specific offence on torture to be in line with the terms set forth under CAT” and “serve as an implementing legislation for ICPPED.”
It also noted that the Draft Act “aims to strengthen the prevention, suppression, and prosecution mechanism and to ensure remedy for victims as well as address the problem of misuse, and abuses of power by government authorities with regard to torture and enforced disappearances.”
It concluded by noting that “[o]n 24 May 2016, the Cabinet approved the draft Act in principle. The draft has been reviewed by the Council of State and is currently waiting to be submitted to the legislative branch for consideration.”
[1] Human Rights Committee, “Replies of Thailand to the List of Issues,” U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/THA/Q/2/Add.1, para 51.
Thailand-Joint Statement-Torture Legislation-News-2017-ENG (Press release in PDF)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, Tel: +66 94 470 1345, E-mail: Kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
