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
Jan 14, 2019 | News
Today the ICJ condemned the conviction of prominent Egyptian political activist Ahmed Douma and called for his immediate removal from solitary confinement and release from prison.
Ahmed Douma, political activist and founding member of the now banned 6 April pro-democracy movement established in 2008, was convicted by the South Cairo Criminal Court on Wednesday 9 January 2019.
The conviction, resulting in a sentence of 15 years in a maximum security prison and a six million Egyptian pounds (US$335,000) fine, followed a re-trial on charges under the Penal Code and Law No. 10 of 1914 on Illegal Assembly including using force and violence against military and police officers, disrupting traffic, participating in an illegal assembly for such purposes, burning the Egyptian Scientific Institute, vandalizing public property, and possessing Molotov Cocktails and rocks to vandalize public property.
The charges relate to his involvement in a three-week sit-in protest outside the Cairo Cabinet Offices in November and December 2011 against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’ decision to appoint Kamal Al Ganzouri as Prime Minister, and calling for a civilian government during the post-revolution transition period. The protest erupted in clashes between military forces and protestors on 16 December 2011, which lead to the death of 18 protestors by live ammunition, injury of more than 1900 others and property damage. Douma and 268 others were charged with all offences without distinction.
Ahmed Douma has been held in solitary confinement since late 2013 in connection with his conviction in another case.
Before handing down the sentence, Judge Mohamed Shereen Fahmy stated the country was “plagued by the intellectually defeated and the socially […] lost in the maze of life, seeking a position through which they can establish themselves as national symbols, liars, deceivers, and accomplices, […] who one would expect to be the homeland’s protectors, but in reality, they are its worst foes.”
“The harsh sentence is a clear message to all political activists that any political activity or dissent will not be tolerated under Egypt’s military dictatorship,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s MENA Programme. “Judge Fahmy’s statement demonstrates he was never independent and impartial, but was implementing the political will of the al-Sisi led government. The Egyptian regime’s politicization of the judiciary means those with opposing views are unlikely to have a fair trial.”
On 22 December 2013, a Cairo Misdemeanor Court convicted Ahmed Douma in another case, along with two other political activists and founding members of the 6 April movement, Ahmed Maher and Mohamed Adel, for “illegally organizing a protest” under Law No. 107 of 2013 on the Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations. They were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined 50,000 Egyptian pounds (US$7,239) each.
Since that conviction, Douma has been detained in solitary confinement, with minimal time outside his cell each day. Prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited under international law.
“The Egyptian Authorities are subjecting a political activist to severe ill-treatment in reprisal for his participation and his role in the pro-democracy uprisings of January 2011 and as a warning to others to take heed of what will happen should you dare to express your views. Ahmed Douma’s solitary confinement for more than five years is a breach of Egypt’s obligations under international law,” said Said Benarbia.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Release Ahmed Douma-News-Web Story-2019-ENG Full press release (English, PDF)
Egypt-Release Ahmed Douma-News-Web Story-2019-ARA Full press release (Arabic, PDF)
Dec 12, 2018 | Events, News
On 12 December 2018, the ICJ co-organized a panel discussion at Bangkok Art and Culture Center (BACC) in Thailand marking the 6th anniversary of the evident enforced disappearance of prominent Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone.
The panel discussion was co-organized with the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and Forum Asia.
On 15 December 2012, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage taken by police cameras near a police checkpoint in Vientiane, Lao PDR, appeared to show that Sombath Somphone was abducted at the checkpoint by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, agents of the State. He has not been seen since.
Six years after his abduction, Laotian authorities have repeatedly failed to provide meaningful information as to his fate or whereabouts, or conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation towards determining his fate. The last police report on his case was issued on 8 June 2013.
In light of the 6th anniversary, the panel discussion considered what further steps could be taken to continue advocacy on his case and spoke about regional implications and responses.
The panelists were:
- Ng Shui-Meng, Wife of Sombath Somphone;
- Edmund Bon, Lawyer, Malaysia’s Representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights;
- Premrudee Daoroung, Project SEVANA’s South-East Asia Coordinator;
- Charles Santiago, Malaysian Member of Parliament.
The panel was moderated by the Andrea Giorgetta from the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
Dec 10, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Today, 10 December 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Developed as a universal standard setting out the rights to be enjoyed by everyone, the elaboration of the UDHR was one of the first actions undertaken by the newly established UN in carrying out its human rights mandate.
The UN Charter, forged after the ravages of the Second World War, places advancement of human rights as a core purpose and principle of the UN.
Over the past 70 years, the UN and regional human rights systems have taken the UDHR as the benchmark in developing the impressive normative architecture that constitutes the present day basis of international human rights law and standards.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) was founded in 1952, only four years after the UDHR, with a mission to advance the rule of law and legal protection of human rights. Most of the international legal human framework at that time had still not yet been developed. The founding members of the ICJ believed that the lofty human rights principles enunciated in the UDHR needed to be transformed into hard and enforceable legal obligations incumbent on all States. From its founding, the ICJ worked to develop treaties and other standards aimed to make the enjoyment of human rights real for people, and not merely aspirational.
According to Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ, “The ICJ’s biggest contribution to the international legal framework is still to bring together jurists from around the world to defend the rule of law and the universality of human rights at the global and local level.”
“Many now established global legal instruments have the fingerprints of the ICJ all over them. Crucial regional frameworks in the African, European, and American regions were developed with the deep and sustained involvement of the ICJ, as were the creation of the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Court,” said Sam Zarifi.
The UDHR has not only inspired the work of human rights defenders, but has also been foundational for the general acceptance of the notion of human rights around the world.
From 1948 until the end of the twentieth century, there has generally been a continuous upward trajectory towards the advancement of human rights, even if there have been many pitfalls along the way.
The notion that people have rights is now universally accepted and known by people. At the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993, all States of the world not only reaffirmed their commitment to the UDHR, but also agreed that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.”
Over the years, there have certainly been major shortcomings in the push to achieve the realization of the human rights for all.
Some of the extreme examples include armed conflicts replete with crimes against humanity, war crimes and even genocide, followed by a failure to hold perpetrators accountable.
And there remains extreme poverty in parts of the world marked by a thorough neglect of economic and social rights.
Despite these shortfalls in implementation, it remains the case that human rights have been accepted as a key component in addressing humanity’s problems in the 70 years since the adoption of the UDHR.
“Over the years, more and more States have ratified human rights treaties, more States have incorporated human rights in their domestic law, and more courts have started to enforce human rights. At the grass roots law level, more organizations have demanded human rights as an entitlement and not just as an aspiration,” explains Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director of the ICJ.
Despite, this long term trend in advancement of human rights, there are warning signs that progress is slowing and in some places has even reversed particularly in the past decade.
“We are now seeing a very strong pushback against human rights proclaimed in the UDHR from countries around the world,” says Ian Seiderman.
“Some of the pressures have come from the security angle, where even States that previously championed rights insist that rights protection must cede to security interest. More recently there has been a rise in populist authoritarian governments that don’t even pay lip service to human rights anymore. And many States have also turned their backs on the commitment to protect the most marginalized and vulnerable, such as refugees and migrants,” he adds.
Roberta Clarke, Chair of the ICJ Executive Committee:
At the normative level, there remains the notable gap in the international legal protection from transnational corporations and other business that abuse human rights and the reticence of many States to participate in good faith in the efforts at the UN to close this gap with a new business and human rights treaty.
This backlash has only redoubled the ICJ’s commitment to fight for the values originally imagined by the writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The ICJ and its individual Commissioners remain heavily involved in the development of human rights standards and their implementation based on the UDHR and a part of the larger human rights movement.
The ICJ continues to work to adopt human rights law to changing conditions in the modern world, develops the human rights capacities of lawyers and judges in all parts of the world, undertakes legal advocacy internationally and in many countries, and provides legal tools for human rights practitioners.
Robert Goldman, ICJ President:
On the 70th anniversary of the UDHR, it is critically important to recall why the UDHR was established in the first place, especially in light of the current regression of human rights development around the world.
The preamble of the UDHR reminds us that “ disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.”
But more critically, it also insists that addressing these and other acts of inhuman rights require that human rights be protected by the rule of law.
This will be the ICJ’s continuing mission.
Nov 28, 2018 | News
The Egyptian authorities must drop the charges against nine detainees arrested on 1 November 2018 and immediately and unconditionally release them and at least 31 others arrested and in some cases “disappeared” since late October 2018, or otherwise charge them with a recognizable crime consistent with international law, the ICJ said today.
Those arrested in the present sweeps include human rights defenders (HRDs), lawyers, and political activists and persons otherwise providing support to political detainees. Reports indicate that at least some of those detained are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The ICJ is concerned that many if not all of these detainees are being held solely for political reasons.
On Wednesday 21 November, nine detainees held since 1 November 2018—Hoda Abdel Moneim, Mohamed Abu Hurayra, Bahaa Auda, Aisha Al Shater, Ahmed El Hodeiby, Mohamed El Hodeiby, Somaya Nassef, Marwa Madbouly and Ibrahim Atta—were interrogated by the State Security Prosecution, who ordered they be held in pre-trial detention for 15 days.
According to information available to the ICJ, the prosecution charged the nine with joining and funding a terrorist organization and incitement to harm the national economy under Egypt’s Counter-Terrorism Law No. 94/2015 (Case No. 1552/ 2018).
Lawyers representing the detainees were not permitted to access the case files, nor were they allowed to speak with the defendants in private. One of the detainees interrogated on 21 November was also interrogated on 19 November 2018 without the presence of a lawyer. It is unclear when the State Security Prosecution ordered their pre-trial detention.
At least three other detainees also appear to have been interrogated on 24 November 2018, including Ahmed Saad, Ahmed Ma’touk and Sahar Hathout. No information is known about whether an order for their pre-trial detention has been issued.
“These arbitrary arrests and trumped up charges are yet another example of the relentless assault by the military and government on the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association and to take part in political activity,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director. “Targeting anyone having any connection to opposition groups under the government’s ‘war on terrorism’ erodes the rule of law in Egypt, undermines human rights, and means there’s now very little, if any, room to carry out human rights work.”
According to public reports, at least 31 others were arrested by Egyptian authorities in raids in late October or early November 2018. Despite repeated calls on the authorities to provide information regarding their location, their whereabouts remain unknown, raising serious concerns for their health and safety. After human rights lawyer Hoda Abdel Moneim—one of the nine now charged—was held incommunicado for 21 days, her family issued a statement expressing concern about her “dire [physical and psychological] health condition.”
It is well established that the Egyptian authorities engage in the widespread and systematic use of torture. Although Egypt’s Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code require that detainees be held in official places of detention with judicial oversight and prohibit torture and other mistreatment, these safeguards have proven ineffective in practice.
The United Nations Committee Against Torture previously reported on the torture of hundreds of people disappeared by the Egyptian authorities. The ICJ is concerned about the high probability that these detainees have been tortured.
“The authorities should unconditionally and immediately release those arrested solely for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, bring any others immediately before a judge to review whether there is any lawful basis for their detention and for any charges brought, and ensure that all those deprived of their liberty are protected against torture and other ill-treatment,” said Said Benarbia.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Among those arrested in late October and early November 2018 were human rights lawyer and former spokesperson of the ECRF, Mohammed Abu Hureira, and his wife, Aisha al-Shater, daughter of imprisoned deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khairat al-Shater, as well as human rights lawyer Hoda Abdelmoniem, a former member of the National Council for Human Rights, who was arrested at her home after it was raided without warrant. At least eight of the 40 arrested are women. Reports from local human rights lawyers and organizations suggest that the number of persons arrested and arbitrarily detained could be higher.
The arrests are part of Egypt’s orchestrated crackdown on human rights work, in which human rights defenders and critics are arbitrarily arrested and detained, subjected to enforced disappearance, prosecuted in unfair trials, and sometimes sentenced to death. Two other members of the ECRF, including its Executive Director, were arrested in March 2018 and forcibly disappeared in September after an Egyptian Court ordered their release. Following the latest arrests, the ECRF—which documents enforced disappearances and Egypt’s increasing application of the death penalty—suspended its operations in protest.
On 10 September 2018, the Cairo Criminal Court convicted 739 defendants for their participation in the Raba’a Al Adaweyya square protests in August 2013 after a grossly unfair trial, sentencing 75 defendants to death and 658 defendants to life or five to 15 years’ imprisonment.
On 24 April 2018, following an unfair trial, the Cairo military court convicted former judge and former head of the Central Auditing Authority, Hisham Geneina, to five years in prison for “publishing false information harmful to the national security.”
The arrests place Egypt in breach of its international legal obligations, including under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 9 of the ICCPR protects freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and imposes an obligation on States to ensure a number of protections in respect of detention.
These include the requirement that detainees be brought promptly before a judge so their detention can be reviewed; have the right independently to challenge the lawfulness of their detention; and have the right to access legal counsel. Article 14 of the ICCPR also requires states to ensure detainees have access to legal counsel. Judicial oversight of detention is particularly necessary to protect detainees from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the ICCPR also protect the rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of association and to participate in public affairs. Articles 5-8 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders similarly protects such rights exercised by HRDs and Article 12 requires states to protect HRDs from violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action for the lawful exercise of such rights.
Under Egyptian Law, Article 56 of the Constitution and Articles 41-42 of the Criminal Procedure Code require that detainees be held in official places of detention and subject to judicial supervision, including judicial power to inspect places of detention and review each detainee’s case. Articles 51-52 and 55 of the Constitution, Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 126 of the Penal Code prohibit torture and other mistreatment.
In June 2018, the ICJ expressed its concerns about Egypt’s repeated renewals of the State of Emergency since April 2017, and the use of the state of emergency to suppress the activities of and persecute students, human rights defenders, political activists, union members and those suspected of opposing the government.
Egypt-November Arrests-News-Web Story-2018-ARA (PDF in Arabic)
