Dec 21, 2023 | News
On 18 December 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) filed a submission to the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) on Tunisia’s implementation of the Committee’s 2020 concluding observations regarding the Constitutional Court and the use of counter-terrorism provisions in the context of the Committee’s follow-up procedure.
“Since July 2021, President Kais Said has systematically eroded all checks on his authority, including by curtailing the powers of the Constitutional Court under the 2022 Constitution and by instigating arbitrary prosecutions against those suspected of opposing his rule , including judges, journalists, human rights defenders, and political opponents,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA director. “The Tunisian authorities must abide by their obligations under international law, immediately reinstate a democratic constitutional order, and end the use of the criminal process and counter-terrorism measures to crackdown on dissent and free speech.”
In April 2022, pursuant to the Committees’ request to the State party to provide follow-up information on the implementation of its recommendations regarding the Constitutional Court, the state of emergency and counter-terrorism, and freedom of peaceful assembly and excessive use of force by the State’s agents, Tunisia submitted further information regarding its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as they pertain to the above-mentioned concerns. During the Committee’s 140th session between 4 and 28 March 2024, this information, and Tunisia’s implementation of the Committee’s recommendations on the same, will be reviewed.
The ICJ’s submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing human rights concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of ICCPR, which are not adequately addressed in the State’s submission of further information, including:
- Article 2(3). By failing to establish a Constitutional Court, and by severely limiting the independence and powers of the Constitutional Court under the new Constitution – should one ever be established – Tunisia has failed to provide recourse to resolve disputes about the constitutionality of the exceptional decrees promulgated by the President under the state of exception, including by removing the power of the legislature to challenge the constitutionality of such decrees in the new Constitution;
.
- Article 4(1) and (3). By failing to specify the nature of the public emergency that purportedly necessitated the suspension of the Constitution in July 2021 per article 80 of the 2014 Constitution on state of exception, and the corollary interference with ICCPR rights, and by failing to notify the derogation to these rights, Tunisia has failed to meet its obligations to prove and ensure that the exceptional measures adopted by the President were “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”;
.
- Article 9(1). By arbitrarily detaining perceived political opponents, lawyers or judges under counter-terrorism provisions without reliable evidence, Tunisia is unlawfully interfering with their right to liberty;
.
- Article 19 (1) and (3). By arbitrarily investigating and prosecuting members of the judiciary, political opponents and lawyers under counter-terrorism provisions, Tunisia is unlawfully interfering with their right to express their opinions both in their professional and personal capacity; and
.
- Article 14(1). Through interference in the appointment, career, disciplining and dismissal of judges, prosecutors and High Judicial Council members, the President has undermined the independence and impartiality of tribunals presiding over criminal investigations and prosecutions, including with respect to counter-terrorism proceedings against perceived political opponents and members of the judiciary.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Dec 20, 2023 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ condemned aspects of the agreement reached by the EU Member States and the European Parliament on the last five instruments from the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, stressing that it will effectively strip away core human rights and refugee protections for persons from vulnerable populations.
The ICJ calls on the EU and its Member States to adhere strictly to their international legal obligations, particularly under human rights law and refugee law, in implementing any new legislative measures.
The Pact, a major set of legislative proposals on the EU’s migration policy initially proposed by the European Commission in September 2020, aims to update the existing rules of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was renegotiated just a few years prior to this proposal.
« The agreement reached today between the co-legislators, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament sends a worrying signal on the state of EU’s commitment to human rights protection, » said Karolína Babická, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. « Although a final text of the legislative instruments is yet to be seen, the agreement waters down protection and safeguards for the rights of migrants and refugees, that oblige the EU Member States under international law. »
Based on the agreement reached today on the Asylum Procedures Regulation, applicants will not have access to free legal assistance, including in border procedures, as it will only be available for certain persons at the appeals stage, where for many it will be too late. Other points agreed include more fast-track procedures with fewer individual safeguards for the migrants and refugees in question. The Council and the European Parliament also agreed with the proposal of a fiction of “non-entry” to the territory, which is intended have the effect of removing migrants and refugees from the protective of spheres of the state on the grounds that they are not really in the country.
« These are in breach of international human rights standards and rules on jurisdiction and will lead to more administrative detention, which effectively punishes those in most need of protection, » said Babická, « It appears that the instruments are intended to allow for border procedures with nearly no procedural safeguards, resulting in quick deportations. However, even in border zones or transit zones, the State’s human rights law obligations remain fully applicable. »
The asylum border procedure as agreed would apply to asylum seekers who are either “unlikely to be granted asylum”, whose claim is fraudulent or abusive, or who are considered a security risk. This provision undermines the key principle of refugee protection, ensuring an individual assessment of one’s asylum claim. Regardless of the general recognition rate, many individuals are still refugees in need of protection status due to circumstances of their individual case. Equally in assessing whether the application is fraudulent, abusive or potentially a security risk, an individualised assessment must be in place.
Indeed, it is difficult to assess any of the purported criteria without fair hearing based on equal protection and the rule of law.
A further problematic aspect includes the disparate treatment and safeguards for available for children below the age of twelve and those twelve and older. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is considered a person under the age of 18 must be afforded the protections due to them. Under these rules, older children would for instance not be exempted from border procedures.
The ICJ has previously warned about harmful provisions in the proposals regarding detention in the Screening and Asylum Procedures Regulation.
The Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management, replacing the current Dublin Regulation, will now exclude the possibility for applicants to be transferred to the Member State where they have a sibling or other family member with a legal residence. This provision seriously worsens the situation of asylum applicants in the EU CEAS so far, in breach of international legal standards, especially the right to family life.
Dec 4, 2023 | Events, News
The conclusion drawn at a workshop hosted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Thailand’s Ministry of Justice on 30 November and 1 December 2023, in Ayutthaya province, was that Thailand should step up efforts to provide real access to justice for victims of corporate human rights abuses involving Thai companies abroad. This is imperative to make sure that Thailand meets its international legal obligations and fulfills the commitment it made in adopting a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 2 (NAP), aimed at regulating the conduct of Thai companies abroad.
The workshop advanced a crucial component of the set of action points outlined in the NAP, engaging nearly 30 members from the justice sector, relevant authorities across various departments, academics, lawyers, and civil society actors.
“This workshop holds particular importance as it contributes to the global initiative aimed at addressing the lack of human rights regulation and the accountability of transnational corporations, a significant gap in human rights protection,” remarked Santiago A. Canton, ICJ’s Secretary-General in an opening statement.
“The state’s obligation to prevent human rights abuses committed by the companies it may influence does not stop at the border. The adoption of the Maastricht Principles in 2011 revealed evidence of State obligations to protect economic, social, and cultural rights beyond its borders, including in the context of corporate conduct, and this obligation binds the judiciary of the State. These principles have subsequently been confirmed by several jurisprudences of the UN treaty bodies,” said Sandra Epal Ratjen, ICJ’s UN Senior International Legal Adviser.
During the workshop, participants discussed existing challenges, covering areas such as corporate veils, conflicts of law, jurisdictional issues, statutes of limitations, and remedies.
“When an abuse occurs, the legal separation of corporate entities often allows parent companies and their representatives to evade responsibility for human rights abuses committed by them, leaving victims with no means to enforce compensation awards,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s Legal Adviser.
“Courts in the parent company’s home country may serve as an alternative forum for claims seeking remedy or reparation. However, affected foreign citizens generally encounter greater barriers than Thai citizens in accessing justice due to several reasons, including language barriers, lack of understanding of the Thai legal system, financial constraints, short statutes of limitation, and the unavailability of access to legal aid, local lawyers, and internal corporate documents,” added Srisod.
Proposals from the participants included amending laws to shift the burden of proof, especially when critical facts or documents necessary to resolve a claim reside exclusively within the knowledge of the corporate defendant. This involves considering the potential influence parent companies exert over their subsidiaries in relevant actions. Other recommendations involved extending the statute of limitations for cases involving victims of transnational corporate human rights abuses, acknowledging the existence of corporate veils under Thai law, strengthening the enforcement of foreign judgments against parent companies in Thailand.
Effective measures aimed at ensuring remedies could include requiring businesses to obtain insurance coverage or establishing preventive remedial funds for Thai businesses before embarking on overseas investment. The eligibility criteria of existing funds and grievance mechanisms could be widened within Thailand to explicitly allow affected persons outside the country access to such remedies and mechanisms. There were also suggestions to explicitly broaden the scope of duties of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) to investigate and reconcile abuses occurring abroad.
Further recommendations included establishing standards for remedies with a human-centered approach and exploring the implementation of social sanction measures.
Participants considered how best to implement measures through bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Board of Investment (BOI), whose representatives attended the Workshop. This encompassed proposals for sustainable disclosure of corporate information to both the SEC and BOI. Additionally, there were suggestions to strengthen the BOI’s role or assign a permanent mandate to the NAP Committee for overseeing Thai investments abroad. Participants also explored the idea of incorporating human rights challenges faced in foreign investment as mandatory disclosure points in the SEC’s One-Report, which listed companies are required to submit annually. Furthermore, there were discussions regarding the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) assuming a more influential role in regulating transnational corporations.
Background
Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 2 (2023-2027) outlines various activities within the Action Plan on Cross Border Investment and Multinational Enterprises.
Its Action Point 1.3 designates the Ministry of Justice, supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General, with the responsibility of conducting a study. This study aims to offer recommendations for amending laws or establishing measures aimed at ensuring access to the justice system and effective civil, criminal, and administrative remedies for communities, both locally and overseas, affected by the operations of Thai companies or state enterprises abroad.
This workshop was the second of its kind. The first meeting was conducted on 10 and 11 September 2022 by the ICJ and Thailand’s Ministry of Justice.
Speakers at the Workshop included:
- Darunee Paisanpanichkul, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University
- Ruangsak Suwaree, Director-General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Sandra Epal Ratjen, Senior International Legal Adviser and UN Representative, ICJ
- Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, ICJ
- Santiago A. Canton, Secretary-General, ICJ
- Sayamol Kaiyoorawong, National Human Rights Commissioner of Thailand
- Teerachai Sanjaroenkijthaworn, Co-ordinator, Extra-Territorial Obligation Watch Coalition
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Further reading
Thailand: Barriers persist in access to justice for victims of human rights abuses involving Thai transnational corporations abroad – ICJ report
Nov 28, 2023 | Cases, News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Berlin, November 28, 2023 – A German court in the city of Celle is expected to deliver a verdict on November 30, 2023, in the first trial in Germany for crimes committed in The Gambia, Gambian and international civil society groups said today in releasing a question and answer document about the trial.
The groups are: the African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the Gambian Center for Victims of Human Rights Violations, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Rose Lokissim Association, the Solo Sandeng Foundation, and TRIAL International.
This trial is possible because Germany recognizes universal jurisdiction over certain serious crimes under international law, allowing for the investigation and prosecution of these crimes no matter where they were committed and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or victims.
The trial concerns Bai L., an alleged member of the “Junglers,” a paramilitary unit also known as the “Patrol Team,” which was set up by then-president Yahya Jammeh in the mid-1990s. Jammeh’s 22-year rule was marked by systematic oppression and widespread human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence against actual and perceived opponents.
German prosecutors accuse Bai L. of being a Junglers driver involved in the attempted murder of Ousman Sillah, a lawyer; the murder of Deyda Hydara, a journalist; the attempted murder of Ida Jagne and Nian Sarang Jobe, who worked with the independent newspaper Hydara; and the murder of a former Gambian soldier, Dawda Nyassi
The verdict in the Bai L. case represents a major step in the search for justice for years of abuses committed under Jammeh’s rule in The Gambia, the groups said. The Bai L. trial reinforces the role that governments like Germany can play in advancing justice for atrocities committed abroad under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Civil society groups will hold a news conference online on Thursday, November 30 after the verdict is issued – scheduled for 3:30 pm CET – at the following link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81236784593?pwd=tvLgbtT3I8N9rF2Db2XTIRyH3Kn1gv.1
To read the question-and-answer document, please see the attached PDF:
Questions and Answers on first German trial for serious crimes
For more information, please contact:
For Reporters Without Borders, in Dakar, Sadibou Marong (English, French): +221-70-960-40-92 (mobile); or smarong@rsf.org. Twitter: @cheikhsadbu
For TRIAL International, in Geneva, Babaka Mputu (English, French, German): +41-775-07-04-56 (mobile); or media@trialinternational.org. Twitter: @Trial
For Human Rights Watch, in New York, Elise Keppler (English, French): +1-917-687-8576 (mobile); or kepplee@hrw.org. Twitter: @EliseKeppler
For Solo Sandeng Foundation, in Germany, Fatoumatta Sandeng (English, German, Mandinka, Wollof): +49-163-174-7519 (mobile); or solosandengfoundation@gmail.com. Twitter: @solosandengfound
For ANEKED, in New York, Nana-Jo Ndow (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese): +1-929-684-5734 (mobile); or nanajo.ndow@aneked.org. @theANEKED
For Reporters Without Borders, in Berlin, Nicola Bier (German, English, French, Spanish, Italian): +49-160-9957-6073 (mobile); or nicola.bier@reporter-ohne-grenzen.de. Twitter: @ReporterOG
Lawyer for Baba Hydara and Omar and Modou Nyassi, in Celle, Patrick Kroker (German, English, French): +49-170-813-6258 (mobile); or info@patrickkroker.net. Twitter: @pkroker2
For International Commission of Jurists, in New York, Reed Brody (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese): +1-917-388-6745 (mobile); or reedbrody@gmail.com. Twitter: @reedbrody
Nov 3, 2023 | News
Former Deputies and Mayors Face Prosecution and Prolonged Incarceration for Political Speech.
The Turkish government should abide by international law and implement the binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by immediately releasing politicians Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ, who formerly co-chaired the opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), four rights organizations said today.
The four nongovernmental organizations—Human Rights Watch, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights—made their call on the seventh anniversary of the politicians’ wrongful imprisonment.
“The seventh anniversary of the unlawful incarceration of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ is a stark reminder of the Erdoğan presidency’s willingness to use detention for political ends to silence democratically elected opposition politicians representing millions of Kurdish and leftist voters in Turkey,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “In defying the binding ECtHR judgments ordering the politicians’ release, Turkey is flagrantly violating its legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and international law more broadly.”
On November 4, 2016, months after being stripped of their parliamentary immunity, Demirtaş, Yüksekdağ and eight fellow members of parliament from the HDP were arbitrarily detained and placed in pretrial detention, with four others incarcerated over the following five months. At the time, the HDP held 10.7 percent of seats in Turkey’s parliament and was backed by over five million voters. While the 12 other deputies whose cases are covered in the ECtHR judgments are no longer in detention, Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ remain incarcerated.
All the former parliamentarians have been repeatedly prosecuted in individual proceedings based exclusively on their exercise of their right to freedom of expression, protected under international law. This included their political speeches and activities, which did not involve or advocate violence. When a mass trial was opened against them in 2021, many of those ongoing individual case files were merged. The vague and wide-reaching accusations against them in this trial include allegations of “undermining the unity and territorial integrity of the State” (separatism) and even “murder.” These accusations relate to their support for protests that mainly took place in cities in southeast Turkey between October 6 and 8, 2014. The politicians have been held responsible for all offences allegedly committed over the course of these protests, which were organized against the brutal siege of the Kurdish-majority northern Syrian town of Kobane by the extremist armed group Islamic State (also known as ISIS). During the protests, 37 people reportedly died.
The evidence against the politicians, on the basis of which Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ are currently detained, consists of two social media postings supporting protests over the Kobane siege sent from the HDP Twitter account, together with the politicians’ nonviolent political speeches, lawful activities, and witness statements against them added to the case file years later that raise serious questions of credibility.
The ECtHR determined in three judgments—two pertaining to Demirtaş in November 2018 and December 2020, and one to Yüksekdağ and 12 others in October 2022—that their detention on the basis of speeches and social media postings was a politically motivated move to silence them, “stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate, the very core of the concept of a democratic society.” The court found that their rights to liberty, to freedom of expression, and to be elected had been violated. The facts forming the basis on which Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ are detained and were prosecuted for in the 2021 mass trial are substantially the same as those contained in the proceedings which the ECtHR found to be insufficient grounds for their detention.
“Despite the European Court ruling that the grounds to justify Yüksekdağ and Demirtaş’s detention were insufficient, the Ankara public prosecutor in April 2023 requested their conviction on numerous alleged offences concerning their political speech, which may result in their life imprisonment without parole,” said Temur Shakirov, interim director of the International Commission of Jurists’ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “This underscores the ultimate political motives behind the ongoing case targeting the two and reinforces doubts about the fair administration of justice in the country.”
After Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ’s detentions in November 2016, Turkey held a landmark referendum and several crucial election campaigns. The April 16, 2017 constitutional referendum introduced a system of governance concentrating power in the hands of the president. It was followed by the June 24, 2018 presidential election in which Demirtaş ran as a candidate from his prison cell against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the March 31, 2019 local elections, and, most recently, the May 14-28, 2023 parliamentary and presidential elections.
“With two prominent figures of the opposition in detention, the country has been deprived of a significant measure of meaningful democratic debate and fair elections around these crucial campaigns,” said Reyhan Yalçındağ, vice president of the International Federation for Human Rights. “With the March 2024 local elections fast approaching, the Committee of Ministers and the other Council of Europe bodies need to use all available means to ensure the end of the continuing violations of Demirtaş’s and Yüksekdağ’s rights, including their rights to participation in public affairs, which is also a violation of the rights of millions of voters.”
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, responsible for overseeing member states’ implementation of ECtHR judgements, has issued six decisions and two resolutions calling on Turkey to release Demirtaş from detention. At its December 5-7 session this year, the Committee of Ministers will for the third time examine Turkey’s failure to implement the judgment pertaining to Yüksekdağ and release her from detention.
The four nongovernmental organizations have made a joint submission to the Committee of Ministers asking it to issue a decision in December calling for the release of Yüksekdağ.
“Turkey has ignored the Committee’s numerous decisions and interim resolutions calling for Demirtaş’s immediate release. This refusal to comply with Turkey’s international obligations has been repeated in the case of Yüksekdağ,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, director of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The Committee must intensify its scrutiny against Turkey in relation to these cases without further delay, and this must include the triggering of infringement proceedings, in line with the route rightly followed in the case of the imprisoned rights defender Osman Kavala.”
Eighteen other elected former party officials and mayors from the HDP and an affiliated party, the Democratic Regions Party, are also currently detained. Among them is the prominent former elected mayor of Diyarbakır, Gültan Kışanak, detained since October 25, 2016, and Sebahat Tuncel, former co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party, detained on November 6, 2016. Kışanak’s pretrial detention has exceeded the legal limit of seven years under Turkish law, notwithstanding that seven years’ pretrial detention is a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The detentions of the politicians are blatantly arbitrary and politically motivated, and those imprisoned should be immediately released, the organizations said.
Press release in Turkish: Turkey Demirtas and Yuksekdag press release TURKISH
