Feb 19, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
On 19 of February the ICJ submitted a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Telek and others v. Turkey.
In its intervention, the ICJ addresses two main questions considering the effectiveness of domestic remedies concerning passport cancellation as a consequence of dismissal under emergency decrees:
- Whether the State of Emergency Commission and/or judicial remedies subsequent to the decision of the Commission might constitute an effective remedy.
- Whether separate remedies for passport cancellation can provide effective relief for the applicants’ claims.
In that respect of mentioned systemic issues the ICJ presents the Court the observations concerning the capacity of the Turkish legal system to provide effective remedies for violations under the European Court of Human Rights, in light of its Convention obligations, in particular obligations under Article 13.
The ICJ submission includes analysis of the Turkish legal system based in part on an ICJ mission to Turkey undertaken in May 2018 that focused on the functioning of the State of Emergency Commission created by Legislative Decree no. 685.
Turkey-icj-Telek&Others-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-ENG (download the intervention in Telek and others v. Turkey).
Feb 15, 2019 | News
The International Court of Justice will hold public oral hearings in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) from 18 to 21 February 2019. Before they commence, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, detained and convicted by a Pakistani military court on charges of “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India has alleged that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), to which both States are parties.
Pakistan has argued, among other things, that the VCCR is not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the inherent nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism, and that a bilateral agreement on consular access, signed by India and Pakistan in 2008, overrides the obligations under the VCCR.
ICJ’s Q&A discusses the relevant facts and international standards related to the case, including: India’s allegations against Pakistan; Pakistan’s response to the allegations; the applicable laws; and the relief the International Court of Justice can order in such cases.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards. Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
Download the Q&A:
Pakistan-Jadhav case Q&A-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG
Feb 13, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Sudanese refugee activist Abdul Aziz Muhamat is the 2019 Martin Ennals Award Laureate. He was among three finalists, selected last October by a jury of ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, together with Marino Cordoba Berrio (Colombia) and Eren Keskin (Turkey).
“This award sheds light on the very cruel refugee policy of the Australian Government. It also brings international attention to the dangers and ill-treatment faced by refugees all over the world, including in countries that claim they uphold the Refugee Convention,” said Abdul Aziz Muhamat.
The 2019 laureate was fleeing war in Darfour. In October 2013, he was forcibly transferred to the island of Manus (Papua New Guinea), as part of Australia’s “offshore” refugee policy, when the boat he was on was intercepted by the authorities.
More than five years on, he is still stranded on the island, like hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers, and subject to deprivation, harassment, humiliation and violence.
“This young man was only 20 when he first arrived on Manus island. Since then, he never stopped raising his voice for those who have been stripped of their most basic rights together with him. He showed extraordinary tenacity and courage, always resisting peacefully even after a police officer shot him in the leg,” said Dick Oosting, Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation.
“The Australian Government must meet its international obligations and put an end to these inhumane practices,” he added.
Living conditions on Manus island have been denounced by human rights organizations.
“Men are dying, notably for lack of appropriate medical care. Some of them, including children, committed suicide. We need safety, we need freedom, we need hope. Opposing this cruel system helps preserve my self-esteem and my human dignity,” Abdul Aziz Muhamat said.
“I will continue to fight until all of us are safe and free,” he added.
The two other finalists of the 2019 Martin Ennals Award are Eren Kerskin (Turkey) and Marino Cordoba Berrio (Colombia).
A lawyer who has been engaged for over 30 years in advancing the rights of women, Kurds and LGBTI+ notably, Eren Kerskin was recently sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison for supporting the shuttered pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem.
She has been accused of denigrating the Nation and insulting the President in her chronicles.
“Freedom of expression and freedom of thought are severely punished in Turkey nowadays. The government tolerates no dissenting voices. I know that by resisting we can change the world. Thank you for not forgetting us. Your solidarity and support give me the courage to continue the struggle,” she said.
Marino Cordoba Berrio is a leading figure within the Afro-Colombian community, which has been repeatedly stripped of its rights and lands.
For two decades, he has been struggling for the rights of his ethnic and other marginalized groups, at the risk of his own life in a country where more than 400 social leaders and human rights defenders have been killed in the past two years.
“Historically, we have suffered from political, economic and social exclusion. To seek and obtain justice for my people is crucial for our survival,” he said.
“Under the peace agreement and thanks to our efforts, ethnic groups’ rights are recognized and so is the need to protect them. It’s high time for the government of Colombia to meet its commitments and put an end to the escalating violence affecting our communities,” he added.
The Martin Ennals Award for human rights defenders is given out since 1994. It honours individuals who have shown outstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, despite the risks involved.
This award aims at shedding light on their situation and their work. It provides them with international recognition and protection, as well as financial support to pursue their activities.
The three finalists were honoured today during a ceremony organized by the City of Geneva.
The jury of the Martin Ennals Award comprises ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations: the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, FIDH, Human Rights First, International Service For Human Rights, Brot für die Welt, Front Line Defenders, the World Organization Against Torture and HURIDOCS.
Contact:
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Watch video of MEA Laureate 2019:
Watch the whole MEA 2019 Ceremony in Geneva:
Feb 12, 2019 | News
Today in Bogotá, Colombia, ICJ and its partners launched a new 30-month project under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative entitled, Promoting justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru.
The aim of the project is to promote the accountability of perpetrators and access to effective remedies and reparation for victims and their families in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru – and Latin America more broadly – through effective, accountable and inclusive laws, institutions and practices that also reduce the risk of future violations
The ICJ’s partners include the Asociacion de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Guatemala (FAMDEGUA), Asociación Red de defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos (dhColombia), Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense (EAAF), Equipo Peruano de Antropología Forense (EPAF), Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala (FAFG), and the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL).
Christof Heyns, Director of the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa and Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Pretoria – and a former Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – also joins the project as special adviser.
In carrying out the project the ICJ will conduct general studies on obstacles to impunity in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, as well as specific documentation of emblematic cases of serious human rights violations. The ICJ will also produce a practitioners’ guide for use by civil society, victims and their representatives on the investigation and prosecution of potentially unlawful death, and a regional guide for forensic experts on the investigation and prosecution of potentially unlawful death. In connection with the project the IJC intends to conduct strategic litigation, trial observations and capacity building activities involving judges, prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, civil society, victim groups and forensic experts.
The project is supported by the EU European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Contacts:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Rocío Quintero, Legal Adviser, Latin America, email: rocio.quintero(a)icj.org
Feb 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ is concerned that the dismissal of 17 judges and prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors on 10 January, for alleged membership of or connections with the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation” (FETÖ) did not respect their right to a fair trial.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it lacks any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
The ICJ points out that 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.
Furthermore, the ICJ recalls its conclusions in the 2018 report Justice Suspended that, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since last July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency were extended for 3 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 respect for the right to a fair procedure, in disregard of international standards.
Considering that the Council of State has not delivered a single decision about dismissed judges and prosecutors during the state of emergency, in more than two years now, it seems likely that it would take at least two years before the recent decision of the CJP is reviewed by an independent judicial authority. Until then, absent further action by the CJP, the reasons for the dismissals will not be known by the purged judges and prosecutors, or by the general public.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order and re-examine the cases under the ordinary dismissal procedures and on the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
Finally, the ICJ expresses concern at the conviction of the former head of the judges’ organisation YARSAV, Mr Murat Arslan, for alleged membership of FETÖ. There are credible reports of violations of the right to a fair trial in the proceedings, including four changes of judges during the proceedings, often without reasons given and without re-examination of witnesses, significant limitations to the defence access to evidence before trial and use of witnesses with undisclosed identity. The ICJ considers that these allegations of violations of the right to a fair trial should be thoroughly re-examined in appeal before an independent court and in full respect of Mr Arslan’s fair trial rights.
Background
On 10 January, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use for the first time 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. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously existed under the state of emergency legislation.
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 authorised 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.
Based on this amendment, on 10 January 2019 the Council of Judges and Prosecutors took its first decision (Decision No. 2019/1) by dismissing 17 judges and prosecutors (6 Public prosecutors, 3 Members of Administrative Court, 7 judges of of Tax Court) based on the allegation of membership to FETÖ.
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
