Jun 13, 2016 | Events
Who judges the judges?
Accountability for judicial corruption and judicial complicity
Side Event Tuesday 14 June 2016, 14:00 – 16:00
Room XXIII, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the International Bar Association (IBA) organised a side event to the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council, on the topic of accountability for judicial corruption and judicial involvement in human rights violations.
The well-attended event considered the need for judicial accountability, and different options for effective mechanisms and procedures of accountability. Recommendations for ordinary situations were complemented with reflections on circumstances of transitions where the judiciary have been deeply implicated in the violations of the previous regime, as well as particular challenges in developing countries.
At the event the ICJ launched its new Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the IBA presented the recent report of its Judicial Integrity Initiative on Judicial systems and Corruption. Print copies of both publications were distributed.
A panel discussion also featured the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, as well as Thulani Maseko, a lawyer from Swaziland who was subjected to prolonged arbitrary detention and imprisonment by judges in Swaziland, for speaking publicly about judicial misconduct in the country.
Speakers:
- Mónica Pinto Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
- Thulani Maseko Lawyer, Swaziland
- Jane Ellis, Director, Legal & Policy Research Unit, International Bar Association
- Matt Pollard, Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, International Commission of Jurists
In addition to the ICJ and IBA, side event co-sponsors included:
- The Permanent Mission of Hungary to the UN
- Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
- Commonwealth Lawyers Association
- Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges), Netherlands
- International Legal Assistance Consortium
The ICJ Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the research and consultations on which it is based, was made possible with the financial support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
For more information, please contact Matt Pollard.
ICJ Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability
The ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability aims to help practitioners ensure accountability for serious judicial misconduct, such as corruption or complicity in human rights violations, while preserving the independence of the judiciary.
It focuses on international standards on accountability mechanisms and procedures, illustrated by practical examples. It addresses not only the accountability of individual judges, and the accountability of judiciary as an institution, but also State responsibility under international law, particularly in relation to harm caused to victims of violations by judges.
The Guide was greatly informed by discussions among eminent judges and lawyers from around the world, convened by the ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, in Tunisia in October 2015 , and in Geneva in December 2015.
Among the topics covered by the new ICJ Guide are:
- The obligation to ensure an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary.
- The forms of judicial accountability, including:
- Remedy and reparation for victims,
- The responsibility of the State,
- Removal from office, disciplinary sanctions, and other administrative measures,
- Criminal responsibility, and
- The right to the truth.
- The structure and elements of accountability bodies, such as:
- Review of decisions through appeal or judicial review,
- Judicial councils,
- The ordinary courts,
- Parliamentary procedures,
- Ad hoc tribunals,
- Anti-corruption bodies,
- Civil society monitoring and reporting,
- National human rights institutions,
- Professional associations,
- International accountability mechanisms.
- Procedural issues, including:
- Necessary powers for accountability mechanisms,
- Procedural rights of the judge,
- Procedural rights of complainants and victims,
- Publicity and transparency,
- Procedures for lifting judicial immunity,
- Temporary suspension during proceedings, and
- Selective enforcement for improper purposes.
- Mechanisms in exceptional circumstances, such as transitions from undemocratic or authoritarian regimes, including:
- Truth commissions,
- Vetting, and
- Mass removal and re-application.
- Particular challenges in relation to developing countries.
May 31, 2016 | News
Myanmar’s Supreme Court engages in 2nd High Level Dialogue with the ICJ on Drafting and Implementing a New Judicial Code of Ethics and Accountability.
The ICJ, the United Nations Development Program and the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union (OSCU) held a High Level Dialogue on “Implementing a Code of Judicial Ethics” in Nay Pyi Taw on 30-31 May 2016.
This dialogue followed a commitment by the OSCU to draft a code and to ensure it is informed by and implemented in accordance with international best practice. The OSCU’s Judicial Ethics Review Committee, Supreme Court and High Court Judges and other senior court administrators participated in the dialogue.
Building on the previous dialogue’s focus on the contents of a code of ethics, the participants and their international counterparts from the ICJ and UNDP discussed international standards for accountability and implementation mechanisms to accompany a code of ethics.
In opening the dialogue, the Honourable Supreme Court Justice of the Union, U Mya Thien explained that the new code reflected international standards and would enhance public trust and promote accountability in the Judiciary.
In his opening remarks, ICJ Commissioner and Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, Azhar Cachalia, explained the importance of the code as a basis for legitimacy and independence.
He stressed that the judiciary must become accountable to the public.
“Myanmar has an historic opportunity to make decisions that will shape the judiciary for generations to come,” he said.
During the dialogue, the UNDP’s Elodie Beth outlined research on regional judicial accountability and its lessons for Myanmar.
Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director shared experience and international standards on implementing a code of ethics Zarifi explained that “in order for it to be effective, the Supreme Court must establish mechanisms and institutions to hold judges accountable to the code of ethics.”
All participants agreed that implementing a proper code of ethics would strengthen the accountability and independence of Myanmar’s judiciary.
Both the UNDP and the ICJ congratulated the OSCU for following its Strategic Plan for 2015-2018 and engaging in a dialogue designed to further this process.
Both expressed willingness to continue working with Myanmar’s judiciary on the issues of judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights.
May 30, 2016 | News
The ICJ commends the victims of the former Chadian president Hissene Habre for their relentless pursuit of justice that resulted in Habre’s conviction of crimes against humanity.
Today Hissene Habre (photo) was convicted for the murders, summary executions and torture of over 40,000 people, which were committed during his rule from 1982-1990 until he was deposed by the current president Idriss Deby Itno.
For over two decades victims and survivors groups have been campaigning with human rights organizations for an end to the lack of accountability and impunity that enabled Habre to spend years in exile before prosecution.
Speaking after the handing down of the judgement by the Extraordinary African Chambers, Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, reminded the African Union of the “need to enhance effectiveness of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to ensure that crimes against humanity can be addressed in a timely way that ensures the provision of remedies to victims of human rights violations.”
Further, Tayler urged other countries that have housed war criminals to reconsider their attitude towards international human rights and criminal law, and to ensure that international jurisdiction and prosecution requirements to end impunity are met.
In conclusion, the Secretary General, expressed his hope that “this event mark the beginning of the end of the African continent being perceived as an epicentre of impunity.”
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
May 30, 2016 | News
The ongoing criminal trial in the Loei Provincial Court, where a verdict is awaited tomorrow, is an important test of Thailand’s commitment to hold those responsible for criminal offences against human rights defenders to account, the ICJ and Protection International said today.
On 31 May, the Loei Provincial Court will render its verdict following the trial of retired Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak, and his son, Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Col Poramin Pomnak, on criminal charges related to their alleged participation in a violent attack by a group of over 100 armed men against members of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group (KRBKG) in Nanonbong village in Loei and other villagers.
The victims were assaulted and held captive for over seven hours during the attack in the evening of 15 May 2014.
More than 20 people were injured, with seven requiring hospitalization for serious injuries.
KRBKG is a community-based group protesting what they allege is the damaging impact of mining operations on their health and their environment.
Most of KRBKG’s activities have focused on stopping the operations of the Phuthapfa gold mine operated by Thai company, Tungkum Ltd., situated in Loei Province.
“This case has become emblematic of the human rights abuses faced by human rights defenders trying to protect their communities in Thailand,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Many people are looking at this case to see whether the Thai government will follow through on its commitment to protect human rights defenders.”
The attack on Nanonbong village occurred after KRBKG and local residents barricaded the road to the gold mine, which passes through the village.
During the attack, the barricade was destroyed and at least 13 trucks were reportedly seen transporting materials from the mine site.
Partly based on the villagers’ testimony that Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were involved in the 15 May violence, the two were indicted on several charges, including offences of ‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’ and ‘false imprisonment’ (or illegal deprivation of liberty), under articles 295 and 309 of the Thai Criminal Code.
“Given credible reports that a group of over 100 armed men were involved, the ICJ is concerned that only two people have been indicted for the attack, and we are therefore calling on the Thai authorities to re-open investigations and ensure all those responsible are held to account and redress is provided for the victims concerned,” Zarifi added.
The case against Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak comes against a background of disputes between KRBKG and Tungkum Ltd.
The company filed at least 19 criminal and civil lawsuits against 33 members of KRBKG and other villagers in the past seven years.
One of those cases includes claims of criminal defamation against a 15-year old girl who allegedly made negative statements about the company’s activities on a television program.
Members of KRBKG have joined as plaintiffs in the criminal case and are demanding compensation from the two defendants.
Background
Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were formally indicted on the following charges of the Thai Penal Code: articles 295 (‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’) and 296 (sentencing for bodily harm), 309 (‘false imprisonment’ or ‘illegal confinement’) and 310 (sentencing for false imprisonment), 358 (‘offence of mischief’ or ‘damage to property’) 371 (‘offence of bearing arms’), 376 (‘offence of discharging a firearm’), 391 (sentencing for acts of violence not amounting to bodily harm) taken together with articles 32, 33, (‘forfeiture of property used in the commission of an offence’) 83, 84, (principals and accomplices, accessories or conspirators) 91, (articles 90 and 91 set out provisions for sentencing when an act constitutes multiple offences. Sentences can be awarded for each offence consecutively, but with a maximum time as prescribed by article 91); and articles 4, 7, 8bis, 72, 72bis of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act B.E.2490 (1947); article 3 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act (No.3) B.E.2501 (1958); No. 3, 6, 7 of the Order of the Announcement of the National Administrative Reform Council no.44 dated 21 October 1976.
Thailand has a legal obligation to protect all human rights defenders from retaliation for the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights. On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 126 other States at the UN General Assembly in adopting one of the latest UN resolutions on human rights defenders. General Assembly resolution 70/161 recognizes the importance of States’ protection of human rights defenders, in particular from being prosecuted for peaceful activities and against other threats, harassment and intimidation; and encourages States to investigate allegations of intimidation and reprisals, and to bring perpetrators to justice.
Thailand-Loei case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
May 13, 2016 | News
Nepal’s leading political parties should not bargain away justice for victims of serious human rights abuses as part of an agreement to form a new coalition government, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International said today.
A new agreement between the ruling parties threatens to entrench impunity for those who planned and carried out killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and other crimes in Nepal’s civil war, just as the country’s long delayed transitional justice process is finally about to get under way.
On May 5, 2016, presumably in a bid to retain the support of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) for the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) coalition government of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, the two ruling coalition partners agreed to a nine-point deal containing provisions that aim to shield perpetrators of abuses in Nepal’s decade-long civil war.
Provision 7, which directs the authorities to withdraw all wartime cases before the courts and to provide amnesty to alleged perpetrators, is particularly problematic.
“This political deal between the ruling parties is extremely damaging to the credibility of an already deeply politicized and flawed transitional justice process in the eyes of Nepal’s victims,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“Moreover, it flies in the face of Nepal’s international human rights obligations and the rulings of its own Supreme Court by trying to wash away the crimes of the conflict by attempting to coopt pending criminal cases and provide blanket amnesty to alleged perpetrators,” he added.
The Supreme Court of Nepal has in several instances reaffirmed the principle under international law that amnesties are impermissible for serious international crimes.
However, Nepal authorities have consistently ignored the orders from the country’s highest court.
Nepal has an obligation under international law to investigate and, where sufficient evidence exists, prosecute crimes under international law, including torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both treaties to which Nepal is a party – require states to ensure the right to an effective remedy and reparation for victims of human rights violations.
“The political deal by the ruling parties to grant amnesty to those responsible for conflict-era human rights abuses is a callous attempt to disregard Nepal’s international treaty obligations by violating victims’ right to an effective remedy,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Nepal’s political deal jeopardizes the war victims’ last best hope for justice and accountability.”
The applicability of this international obligation under Nepali law was reaffirmed by the Nepal Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in the Suman Adhikari case, striking down provisions of the Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014 (TRC Act) that it ruled were inconsistent with international law and ordering the government to amend the TRC Act, the May 2014 legislation creating the two transitional justice mechanisms, the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (COID) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The Supreme Court ruled in the same decision that criminal cases already before the judiciary could not be transferred to the two commissions, confirming that the judiciary and not the commissions had the authority to determine the criminality of conflict-era human rights violations.
“Nepal’s ruling parties cannot bargain away victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation by using the commissions as a substitute for their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute human rights abuses through the criminal justice system,” said Champa Patel, South Asia Regional Office Director at Amnesty International.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, along with Nepali civil society, victims’ groups, the United Nations, and the international diplomatic community, have consistently called for the Nepal government to amend the TRC Act in line with Nepal’s international obligations as well as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, in order to ensure a credible transitional justice process that safeguards victims’ rights and conforms to rule of law principles.
In a flagrant display of deliberate disregard for the rule of law, however, the ruling parties’ deal to amend the TRC Act by attempting to reinforce the same amnesty provision that has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court ignores both the country’s international legal obligations and the binding judgments of its own apex court, and further threatens the prospects for post-war justice and accountability in Nepal.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International therefore call upon the Nepal government to take immediate and effective steps to safeguard victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation through a credible transitional justice process that is free of any political interference or any forms of pressure or intimidation.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66-807-819-002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977-981-318-7821 (mobile); e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
