Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Events, News
On 2-3 December 2020, the ICJ will convene the 11th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, on the Role of Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems in Access to Justice, the Rule of Law and Human Rights.
The Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) through its Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
The 8th Forum, in 2017, the 9th Forum in 2018 in Bangkok, and the 10th Forum in 2020 in Nairobi, considered the role of indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems at the global level, as well as in the particular regional contexts of Asia and Africa.
Interim findings and recommendations were set out in the reports from the 8th, 9th and 10th Fora. The September 2019 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples following her participation in the 9th Forum addressed indigenous justice..
As a reference for the Forum discussions and to assist the broader range of stakeholders, the ICJ published, and has subsequently updated, a Compilation of International Sources on Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems, including relevant provisions of global and regional treaties, UN and other inter-governmental declarations, and the jurisprudence and recommendations of expert Committees and Special Procedures established by treaties and the UN Human Rights Council.
The culmination of the Geneva Forum process on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems will be the 11th Geneva Forum on 2 and 3 December 2020, followed by publication by ICJ of a final set of global recommendations.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 11th Geneva Forum will be convened online, with participants from around the world.
Participation in the Forum is by invitation only and the Forum discussions will not be broadcast.
The concept note for the Forum may be downloaded here (PDF): GF2020 Concept Note 27-10-2020
The programme for the Forum may be downloaded here (PDF): GF2020 Programme 21-10-2020
The list of participants (subject to final confirmation) can be downloaded here (PDF): Public list of Participants_2020 ICJ Geneva Forum
For more information contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org.
The 2020 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers is made possible by the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
Photo: Traditional leaders preside over a case in B-Court, Nyang Payam, Torit County, South Sudan. Photo Credit: UNDP South Sudan2016Angelique Reid ©2016 United Nations
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
Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and IHOP today put the spotlight the lack of independence of the judiciary and the abuse of criminal and anti-terrorism laws in Turkey, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement, made during the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Turkey, reads as follows:
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) welcome the acceptance by Turkey of recommendations to ensure the independence of the judiciary (recommendations 45.112, 45.113, 45.114, 45.115, 45.118, 45.120, 45.121, 45.124, 45.125, 45.126, 45.127, 45.128, 45.129, 45.132, 45.133).
The ICJ and IHOP however regret to report that, based on their research and experience, the statements by the Turkish Government that the recommendations on the independence of the judiciary have already been implemented is simply not correct.
On the contrary, during the state of emergency more than 4000 judges and prosecutors were dismissed, more than 2000 judges and prosecutors were detained, through arbitrary processes that did not meet international standards.
The judiciary in Turkey does not enjoy basic guarantees of institutional independence because its Council of Judges and Prosecutors is fully appointed by the Legislative and Executive powers contrary to international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ and IHOP further regret that Turkey only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendations to reform its penal and counter-terrorism legislation in line with international standards on freedom of expression (recommendations 45.90, 45.91, 45.92, 45.93, 45.94, 45.95, 45.96, 45.97, 45.98, 45.99, 45.100, 45.101, 45.102, 45.103, 45.104, 45.148, 45.158).
The statement by the Government that “legal amendments have already been adopted” and that these laws are in line with international standards is also fundamentally incorrect.
Anti-terrorism laws and other criminal offences continue to be abused to unjustifiably prosecute political opposition members, judges, lawyers, prosecutors and human rights defenders.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Turkey, ICJ calls on Turkish authorities to
- radically reform the governance of the judiciary to restore its independence in line with international standards;
- promptly finalize all criminal and administrative cases concerning former judges and prosecutors, respecting international standards of judicial independence;
- truly reform the country’s anti-terrorism law, and
- stop all arbitrary prosecution of human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and academics.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Sep 2, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made submissions to the Human Rights Committee, today, on Ukraine’s implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The ICJ broughtto the Committee’s attention some issues of concern pertaining to Ukraine’s compliance with and implementation of the ICCPR.
This submission highlights a number of concerns relating to the security and independence of lawyers in Ukraine, and their consequences for the protection of certain Covenant rights. In particular, this submission addresses:
- the institutional independence of the legal profession;
- security of lawyers and their right to life;
- restrictions on access to clients and the rights of the defence; and
- security of lawyers and access to justice in uncontrolled territories in Ukraine.
These concerns highlight Ukraine’s lack of compliance with its obligations under the Covenant, including in respect of the right to life under article 6 and the right to a fair trial under article 14, in particular, as well as under other Covenant rights, such as Ukraine’s obligations under articles 2, 7, 9, 10, and 17 of the ICCPR.
Ukraine-ICJ-Submission-CCPR-Advocacy-Non-Legal-Submissions-2020-ENG
