Oct 26, 2020 | News
The ICJ and Lawyers Alert today called on the Nigerian authorities to undertake immediate independent and thorough investigations into credible allegations of extrajudicial killings by the military responding to mass protests against the SARS police unit.
Those responsible for criminal conduct must be brought to justice and held to account, the two organizations said.
The authorities must respect their international legal obligations under international law and cease the unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force in response to Nigerians’ lawful protest actions.
Protest actions have escalated over the last two weeks as Nigerians have staged a series of protests under the #EndSARS movement. Thousands of people joined the demonstrations, demanding an end to police brutality and corruption.
Reports confirm that more than 56 people have died over the two weeks of protest actions, including 38 protesters who were killed, on the 20 October alone, as a result of the Nigerian military opening fire on thousands of peaceful protesters.
“The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under international law, including the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Nigeria has acceded to. Nigeria’s brutal responses to the peaceful demonstrations, including the use of lethal force on force protestors, not only violates this right but also their right to life,” said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Regional Programme Director.
Lawyers Alert Executive Director Rommy Mom said: “The Nigerian government’s responses to the protests have undermined the rule of law. Groups and persons should not be afraid to approach the Judicial Panels of Inquiry to lay their grievance towards identification of culpable SARS officers for appropriate sanctions and the compensation of victims.” The organizations recall that under international law, the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials is permissible only when strictly necessary to protect life.
Police in the SARS unit are credibly alleged to be responsible for a widespread practice of torture and other serious human rights violations.
In addition to ending these violent attacks on protestors, the ICJ and Lawyers Alert call on the Nigerian government to address the demands of protestors and embark on comprehensive reform of the police, with emphasis on oversight functions, tethering oversight to civil society groups, the National Human Rights Commission and the constitutional oversight body of the Nigeria police.
“These protests have gained momentum outside Nigeria and have extended beyond the local borders to Ghana, United Kingdom and South Africa. The world’s attention is currently on Nigeria, as the global support for protestors rise amidst further police brutality. The Nigerian government must ensure that it respects and protects the human rights of all in accordance with its obligations under international law,” added Ramjathan-Keogh.
Background
Founded in 1992, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was mandated to “investigate cases involving armed robbery and kidnapping”. However, since its inception, there have been widespread complaints by Nigerians about the conduct of SARS This year Amnesty International issued a report, documenting at least 82 cases of torture, ill treatment and extra-judicial execution by SARS during the period of January 2017 and May 2020
In addition to the ICCPR, Nigeria is party to the UN Convention against Torture and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), which guarantees the right to life under Article 4 and the right to assemble freely with others under Article 11. These rights are also respectively protected under sections 33(1) and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
Article 6 of the ICCPR prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life.
Principle 9 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials affirm that:
Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, c: +27845148039, e: kaajal.keogh(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer, tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Homepage photo credit: Tshwanelo Mathwai
Oct 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the dismissal of eight judges and three prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) on 14 October 2020, for alleged membership of or connections with the Gülenist movement as a violation their right to a fair trial.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order. In case any further is to be taken, the cases should be re-examined under the ordinary dismissal procedures. The ICJ also urges the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
“This decision not only affects the rights of the judges and prosecutors at stake, but also the Turkish population as whole, which damages the functioning of a fair and independent justice system bound by the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it was not accompanied by any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
International law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.
As the ICJ demonstrated in the 2018 report Justice Suspended, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is itself not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency still apply, having been extended for three years by Law no. 7145.
“It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without a fair procedure, in disregard of international law,” added Massimo Frigo.
Background
On 14 October the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. The decision was issued in the Official Gazette on 30 October 2020. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously applied under the state of emergency legislation. More than 30 judges have so far been dismissed under this procedure since the end of the state of emergency.
One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorized to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145
The decision to dismiss the nine judges and two prosecutors was made on 14 October 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 20 October 2020. After recalling Law no 7145 that enables the dismissal of judges and prosecutors by the Board, the decision states that all defendants have asked to submit their written defences. The decision also indicates that this is not a criminal conviction. The decision is based on complaints received and refers to investigations on their social environment, criminal investigations and prosecutors conducted by judicial authorities in general on the Gülenist organisation/FETÖ, minutes of hearings, contents of the communication app Bylock, statements by witnesses and suspects. However, the decision does not include any reasoning relating to the individual situation of each judge or prosecutor.
International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Basic Principles state that a “charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.”
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Oct 6, 2020 | News
The Tunisian Parliament should amend or reject the revised Draft Organic Law No. 25-2015 on the protection of security forces scheduled for discussion in Parliament today, said the ICJ. The Law if adopted would reinforce impunity for violations committed by security forces and undermine the rule of law and human rights.
The revised Draft Law was approved by the Parliamentary Commission in July 2020, following unsuccessful attempts to adopt it in 2015 and 2017.
Article 7 of the Draft Law provides for the exoneration of security forces from criminal responsibility for using lethal force to repel attacks on a security building, when the force is necessary and proportional to the danger posed to the building. In 2017, the ICJ and other organizations urged Parliament to reject a prior draft which included the same provision.
“More than 10 years after the uprising, Tunisia’s security forces continue to enjoy impunity for decades of serious human rights violations,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“The Parliament should adopt all the effective measures at its disposal to end such impunity, not entrench it by allowing the use of lethal force when it’s not strictly necessary to protect lives.”
Article 7 of the Draft Law would preserve the operation of Law No. 69-04, which permits the use of firearms to defend property, “mitigate” a resistance, or stop a vehicle or other form of transport in the context of public meetings, processions, parades, public gatherings, and assemblies. It allows for the use of lethal force to disperse an unlawful gathering where other means of dispersal have failed.
Under international law, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force, the intentional use of lethal force must be reasonable, necessary and proportional, and is only permissible if strictly necessary to protect life from an imminent threat to life, not a threat to property.
In the context of non-violent assemblies, the use of force should be avoided and, where unavoidable, restricted to the minimum extent necessary against only those individuals posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
The Draft Law appears to preserve an exemption under article 42 of the Criminal Code and Article 46 of Law No. 82-70 on the Statute of Internal Security Forces of 6 August 1982. Article 42 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is not liable for crimes under the Criminal Code, including homicide, if their acts were carried out pursuant to other laws or orders from a competent authority. Article 46 of Law No. 82-70 limits this immunity in relation to orders given to officers of the Internal Security Forces by requiring the orders be given “by their superior in the framework of legality.” Under international law, superior orders cannot serve as a ground of defence to a crime of unlawful killing by a State agent, such as a member of a security force.
“The Tunisian Parliament should reject the Draft Law and conduct a complete review of all laws regulating the conduct of the security forces to ensure they meet standards necessary to protect the population from the excesses demonstrated in the past,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Senior Legal Adviser.
“Members of the Parliament should send a clear, unequivocal message that the impunity of the security forces can no longer be tolerated.”
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Tunisia-draft law security forces-News-2020-ARA (story in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 30, 2020 | Events, News
For decades, victims of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in Latin America have been demanding justice, truth, and reparations. Despite these efforts, impunity remains rampant. In some cases, victims have been waiting for justice for over four decades.
As a part of its strategy to promote accountability for serious human rights violations around the world, the ICJ, together with partners, is implementing a regional project to address justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru, supported by the European Union.
One of the results of the project has been to support the production of three case dossiers by the ICJ’s local partners.
In Colombia, to illustrate one of the patterns of extrajudicial killings, the Asociación de Red Defensores y Defensoras de Derechos Humanos (dhColombia) produced a document concerning three cases of extrajudicial killings committed during 2006 and 2008.
The report Una práctica sistemática ejecuciones extrajudiciales en el eje cafetero (2006-2008) presents the challenges the victims and their lawyers have faced when seeking responsibility for those crimes.
In Peru, the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) documented the enforced disappearances of university students and professors between 1989 to 1993, at the height of the internal conflict. In the report Los desaparecidos de la Universidad Nacional del Centro IDL describes the difficult legal path victims have faced in order to bring state agents suspected of committing crimes to justice.
In Guatemala, to highlight the manner in which enforced disappearances were committed against rural communities during the internal armed conflict, the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Guatemala (Famdegua) wrote about the enforced disappearance of more than 500 people in the region of the Veparaces. In the report Las desapariciones forzadas en la región de las Verapaces the story of five cases is presented.
These three reports contribute towards understanding the prevalence of these violations in Latin America, and the available options to tackle impunity.
On 30 September 2020, the ICJ will host a regional webinar to discuss the protection and guarantee of the rights of victims of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions in Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala and Peru.
The webinar will be broadcast live on the ICJ’s Facebook page, at 14 hours (Guatemala time)/15 hours (Colombia and Peru time)/ 17 hours (Chile and Argentina time).
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the Global Accountability Initiative, e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America and Regional Coordinator of the Project, e: carolina.villadiego@icj.org
Rocío Quintero M, Legal Adviser, Latin America, e: rocio.quintero@icj.org
Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On the International Safe Abortion Day, the ICJ held a webinar on the decriminalization of abortion in the Philippines and the Republic of Korea.
The webinar focused on the legal provisions criminalizing abortion and on women human rights defenders’ struggle to decriminalize abortion in the Philippines and in the Republic of Korea. In addition, the participants highlighted States’ legal obligation to guarantee access to legal, safe and affordable abortion and post abortion care for all persons under international human rights law and standards.
Ms. Clara Rita A. Padilla from the Philippines’ Safe Abortion Advocacy Network; Ms. Minhee Ryu, Co-counsel in the 2019 Korean Constitutional Court case on the country’s criminal ban on abortion; and Dr. Heisoo Shin, member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) participated as speakers.
“The law imposing penalties on women who have an abortion and those assisting them only endangered the lives of women forced to seek unsafe abortion,” said Ms. Padilla. “Today, the Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network introduced a draft bill, An Act Decriminalizing Induced Abortion to Save the Lives of Women, Girls, and Persons of Diverse Gender Identities, and we will continue advocating the repeal of the current discriminatory law against women and eliminate harmful stigma against women due to the restrictive abortion law and imposition of judgmental religious beliefs.”
Ms. Minhee Ryu talked about the women human rights defender’s movement in the Republic of Korea, including the work of the Joint Action for Reproductive Justice. She also highlighted the legal strategy to draw the Constitutional Court’s attention to the experience of girls, migrant women and women with disabilities in the context of the case that resulted in the Court holding that the criminalization of abortion was unconstitutional in April 2019.
“It is the core obligations of States to ensure the repeal of laws, policies and practices that criminalize, obstruct or undermine access by individuals or a particular group to sexual and reproductive health facilities and services,” said Dr. Heisoo Shin. “Denial of abortion often leads to maternal mortality and morbidity, which, in turn, constitute violations of the rights to life, dignity, autonomy, security, equality and non-discrimination, equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination, privacy, physical and mental health, and the right to freedom from ill-treatment.”
The participants agreed that international human rights law and standards, such as the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 on the right to life, and the CESCR’s General Comment 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health, are instrumental in worldwide efforts to ensure access to legal, safe and affordable abortion and in advocating for its complete decriminalization.
Contact
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
