May 8, 2019 | News
The recommendations published today follow the Conference on the Independence of the Legal profession held by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Council of Europe (CoE) Office in Baku and the Azerbaijan Bar Association (ABA) in Baku, on 15-16 November 2018.
The Conference created much-needed space for a dialogue on the issue of independence of lawyers in Azerbaijan with both national and international stakeholders, as lawyers from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan shared their experiences and good practices in addressing challenges to the independence of lawyers. Drawing on the discussions at the Conference, and taking into account key findings of the ICJ report of 2016 “Defenceless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” as well as more recent legislative and administrative developments, the ICJ makes recommendations aimed at strengthening the role and independence of lawyers and improving access to justice in Azerbaijan. The recommendations are informed by international law and standards on the role of lawyers and cover four main aspects: adequacy of the number of lawyers to ensure access to justice; the examination procedure for qualification as a lawyer; professional ethics of lawyers and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
Click to read the recommendations
Apr 10, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ and the CORE Coalition welcomed the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court to allow a complaint to proceed against Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), alleging serious harm from extraction activities in Zambia.
The damage to health and livelihood was allegedly caused to local communities living in the Chingola District by the discharge of toxic waste from the Nchanga Mine operated by KCM.
The companies challenged the jurisdiction of the UK courts to hear the complaint for negligence and breach of statutory duty, saying there was no case against them arguable in a UK court and, in relation to KCM, that Zambia was the proper forum where any case would have to be heard.
The judgment, confirming the decision of lower courts, dismissed the appeal by the companies, allowing the case to now proceed to trial on the merits. The ICJ and CORE Coalition acted as interveners in the case.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision will make it possible for the Zambian claimants to find justice, even so long after events took place,” said ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Carlos Lopez.
“The ruling makes clear that, from available evidence at this stage, it is arguable in trial that a parent company like Vendanta owes a duty of care in relation to people living in the vicinity of their subsidiaries and this decision will have important implications to similar cases concerning parent company duties around the world,” said Lopez.
Although access to justice for alleged victims harm from subsidiaries of parent companies has been elusive, the UK Supreme Court clarified that the principles applicable to these cases were “not novel at all.”
“Many other victims face insurmountable hurdles in their efforts to hold companies to account. The case is a reminder of the urgent need for legislation to require companies to take action to prevent human rights abuses, and to make it easier to hold them to account when they fail to do so,” said Marilyn Croser, Director of CORE.
The judgment regarded published material in which Vedanta fairly asserted assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards of environmental control over activities of its subsidiaries. The Court said that this was “sufficient on their own to show that it is well arguable that a sufficient level of intervention by Vedanta in the conduct of operations at the Mine may be demonstrable at trial.”
Today’s Supreme Court judgment also made clear that Zambian courts could not be necessarily relied on to address claims against KCM and that there was a real risk that the claimants would not obtain “substantial justice” in Zambia.
Contact:
Marilyn Croser, Director CORE Coalition, t: + 44 203 752 5712
Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ, t: + 41 22 9793816
Apr 10, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the parties to the conflict in Libya to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law to protect affected people, particularly the civilian population.
The ICJ also called on the UN Security Council to urge the parties to respect international law.
The gravity of hostilities led UNSMIL to postpone the UN-sponsored Libyan National Conference aimed at finding a solution to the ongoing political deadlock late yesterday. The Conference was planned to commence on 14 April in Ghadames.
“The postponement of the political dialogue is a major setback for peace and the rule of law in Libya, and for the Libyan population,” said Kate Vigneswaran, the ICJ’s Senior Legal Advisor for the Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Civilians taking no part in the fighting have already suffered the brunt of hostilities between the warring parties in Libya. Those who remain, including the thousands of migrants held in arbitrary detention, are at grave risk,” she added.
IHL requires parties to the conflict to respect the principles of distinction and proportionality and take precautionary measures to avoid, or in any event minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
“The parties must ensure that not only civilians but civilian objects are protected, and that measures are taken to ensure they don’t become collateral casualties,” said Kate Vigneswaran.
“International actors should continue to push for a political solution to the situation in Libya based on the rule of law and incorporating human rights protections to avoid further suffering,” she added.
On April 7, the UN Security Council reportedly discussed the situation in Libya but could not find the necessary consensus to issue an official statement.
According to the AFP, the Russian Federation blocked a statement that would have called on Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar, head of the House of Representatives backed Libyan National Army, to stop military operations, on all the parties to de-escalate and for “those who undermine Libya’s peace and security to be held to account.”
“The Security Council should adopt a resolution calling for the protection of civilians and accountability for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Member States should desist from exercising their veto powers to block resolutions intended to ensure compliance with international law,” said Vigneswaran.
Reportedly, at least 27 people have been killed, including two doctors and two other civilians, 80 have been injured, and more than 2,800 persons have been displaced as a result of the fighting. The only functioning airport in Tripoli (above photo), the hub of the fighting, was closed Monday after being hit by an airstrike by the Libyan National Army (LNA).
Read this article in Arabic
Contact:
Kate Vigneswaran, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +31624894664, e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Apr 1, 2019 | News
As military courts in Pakistan once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must bring reforms to strengthen the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks and other serious crime must be brought to justice fair trials before competent, independent and impartial courts as required under international law, the ICJ added.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly – even four years after military courts were empowered to try civilians – there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively and fairly handle terrorism-related cases,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The 23rd Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act, 1952, lapsed on 30 March 2019, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expired. So far, the Government has failed to get support from opposition parties for a constitutional amendment to once again extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians.
“The Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to Pakistan’s obligations to protect human rights,” Rawski said.
“Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials, and bringing perpetrators to account without imposing the death penalty.”
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 617 people for terrorism-related offences, out of which 346 people have been sentenced to death and 271 people have been given prison sentences. At least 56 people have been hanged. Only four people have been acquitted.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences in January 2015 through the 21st Amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals was a key part of the Government’s 20-point National Action Plan, adopted following the attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014. NAP envisioned military courts to be a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions”.
Despite promises that military courts were only temporary, after the expiration of the 21st Amendment, on 31 March 2017, Parliament enacted the 23rd Amendment and amendments to the Army Act to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians. The amendments were given retrospective effect from 7 January 2017, and were due to lapse two years after their date of “commencement”. The expanded jurisdiction of military courts lapsed on 30 March 2019 (even though earlier reports suggested the amendments would expire on 6 January 2019) — two years after the date of “operation” of the 23rd Amendment).
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a form cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and an arbitrary denial of the right to life. The ICJ recalls that the UN General Assembly has by overwhelming majorities repeatedly called on all states the retain the death penalty to place a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition. Pakistan previously had such a moratorium from 2008 to 2014.
Mar 31, 2019 | News
From 29 to 31 March 2019, the ICJ co-hosted a workshop in Ayutthaya province for authorities from Thailand on Human Rights, Investigation Techniques and Forensic Examination of Evidence. The event focused on how such investigations should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law and standards.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The participants included 35 criminal investigators, public prosecutors, representatives of the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI), the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS), the Ministry of Defense, the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Office of the Narcotics Control Board.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser for Global Redress and Accountability at the ICJ and a member of the Working Group in revising the Minnesota Protocol, presented a summary of the international human rights legal framework applicable to the investigation of unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance.
He also introduced an outline of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which was launched in Thailand on 25 May 2017.
The Protocol formed the core of the materials used at the workshop. He also addressed the use of telecommunication evidence as evidence at trial.
Other speakers included:
- Amornrat Lekwichai, Senior Professional Level Forensic Scientist from the CIFS, who addressed the use of telecommunication and digital evidence in criminal cases towards establishing the identity of suspects;
- Pornthip Rojanasunan, Adviser with the CIFS and a member of the Advisory Panel in revising the Minnesota Protocol, who spoke on forensic pathology and the need for independent autopsies in an independent and impartial investigative process;
- Badar Farrukh, Human Rights Officer from OHCHR, who addressed witness interviews and witness protection;
- Angkhana Neelapaijit, National Human Rights Commissioner and spouse of lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, a victim of enforced disappearance; and
- Somchai Homlaor, a leading Thai human rights lawyer and member of several independent fact-finding commissions, who raised concerns about challenges for accountability for human rights abuses in Thailand’s criminal justice.
This workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts to ensure the domestic implementation of international law and standards on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ has held several Workshops on the same topic including:
Regional Workshops
National Workshops
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser for Global Redress and Accountability, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Office, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
