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)
Nov 17, 2018 | News
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of Zimbabwe with the support of the ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 16 to 17 November 2018 in Harare to train magistrates designated to the anti-corruption court. 56 Magistrates (39 males 17 females) attended the Workshop.
Speaking during the workshop the Honourable Chief Justice, Luke Malaba encouraged the magistrates to work diligently to “flash out” corrupt elements from society.
He lamented that the current court practice seems to merely launder accused persons through constant remands which eventually lead to failed cases resulting in impunity for corruption in the country.
He pointed out that corruption is a threat to the rule of law urging the judiciary to be conscientious in dealing with corruption cases.
The workshop is part of a broader justice sector intervention by the JSC with the support of the ICJ, through generous funding provided by the European Union (EU) targeting combating corruption in the legal system.
The two-day training meeting looked at equipping 56 magistrates with the skills and knowledge to adjudicate cases of white-collar crime.
The training covered international best practices in the setting up of such courts, substantive law on corruption and practical court administration issues.
Besides the quality of the investigations, the effectiveness of the anti-corruption courts will also depend on the integrity and competency of the officers appointed to preside over them.
This workshop is one of a number of initiatives that the JSC are effecting with the support of the ICJ and the EU to contribute to a reduction in the levels of corruption and strengthen the ability of the justice system to resolve corruption and resource diversion cases in Zimbabwe.
Contact
Brian Penduka on brian.penduka(a)icj.org or +263772274307
Oct 31, 2018 | News
The ICJ and the Swiss Section of the ICJ called today on Swiss people to seriously consider the adverse implications, if adopted, of the popular initiative called the “Swiss law instead of foreign judges – initiative for self-determination” by its proponents. On 25 November 2018, Swiss citizens will be called to vote on this initiative.
The campaign against the initiative has identified it as an “anti-human rights” referendum.
“The initiative, if approved, would have the effect of making it very difficult for people in Switzerland to access Swiss courts to vindicate their human rights,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“Swiss people would lose important defences against abuses by the State or private entities,” he added.
Unlike the title suggests the scope of the initiative is directed against international law in general (except for very few existing peremptory norms) which includes international multilateral treaties or bilateral commercial and administrative agreements.
The initiative would therefore fly in the fact of a fundamental legal principle essential to the rule of law, namely that individual States cannot use their national arrangements as an excuse to avoid their international legal obligations.
“Switzerland, as home to numerous international law-making institutions, has a long and distinguished history of championing international law. Adoption of this initiative would be a blow to the country’s reputation and leadership in this area,” said Massimo Frigo.
“The role accorded to international law by the Swiss Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court is essential to uphold reliability of Switzerland as party to international treaties, its role as central actor and generator in many fields of law including international trade, but also legal certainty in Switzerland”, said Professor Marco Sassoli, board member of the Swiss Section of the ICJ and ICJ Commissioner.
“Much of the economic and diplomatic success of Switzerland is based on its faithful adherence and promotion of international law. Essential Swiss values such as its neutrality or its commitment to the protection of war victims are based upon international law,” said Professor Sassoli.
Contrary to its title the initiative is not directed against “foreign judges” but against the practice of Swiss judges, those of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and neglects that the self-determination of peoples leads to their direct submission to international law and that the conclusion of treaties is an expression of and not contrary to the sovereignty of the State.
The text of this initiative if approved could lead to the erosion of primacy of international law among the sources of law in Switzerland.
The ICJ and ICJ-Swiss Section join the several NGOs, trade unions, economic actors, political parties and people of Switzerland that want to secure their rights and those of everyone in Switzerland and appeal to the voters before casting their vote to seriously consider the above arguments and not to decide based upon mere slogans such as “self-determination”, “democracy” or “foreign judges”.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
PDF available in Italian: Switzerland-25 November Referendum-News-Press Release-2018-ITA
PDF available in German: Switzerland-25 November Referendum-News-Press Release-2018-GER
Oct 31, 2018 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Asia Noreen (Asia Bibi) of blasphemy charges under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Asia bibi had been on death row since 2010, when a trial court convicted her of “defaming the Prophet Muhammad” and sentenced her to death. The Lahore High Court had upheld her conviction and confirmed her death sentence in 2014.
“All eyes were on the Supreme Court to respond to Asia bibi’s final plea for justice and undo the blatant wrongs done to her and her family for eight long years,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“It is heartening to see that despite threats and external pressures, the SC fulfilled its role to protect human rights in this case.”
Certain Islamist groups have frequently held demonstrations calling for Asia bibi and other blasphemy accused to be hanged. After the Supreme Court announced its decision to acquit Asia bibi, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan took to the streets condemning the decision.
“The Government should take notice of this pattern of threats and reprisals in blasphemy cases and ensure that judges and lawyers are given adequate security to perform their duties independently, impartially and without any external influence,” said Rawski.
Reasons for Asia bibi’s acquittal include an unexplained delay in the registration of the criminal complaint; material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; wrongful reliance on Asia bibi’s extra-judicial “confession”; and failure to take into account the circumstances of the blasphemy allegations, including a “quarrel”, possibly about Asia bibi’s faith.
The Supreme Court also noted that the context indicates the charges could have arisen from a “false allegation” of blasphemy, echoing concerns also raised by the ICJ that the blasphemy laws in Pakistan have typcially become an instrument of personal vendettas and malicious motivations.
Asia bibi’s appeal was the first blasphemy case being heard by the Supreme Court since 2002. The Court has so far not upheld any convictions for blasphemy under section 295-C of the Penal Code (defamation of the Prophet Muhammad), though dozens of people have been convicted by trial courts and a number of appeals are pending before various appellate forums.
The ICJ has documented in detail systematic and widespread fair trial violations in proceedings related to blasphemy offences in Pakistan.
Courts in Pakistan have noted on multiple occasions that people accused of blasphemy suffer ‘beyond proportion or repair’ in the absence of adequate safeguards against misapplication or misuse of such blasphemy laws.
The ICJ underscores that laws that criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression are non-compliant with international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a party. This includes the criminalization of expression in relation to religion.
The ICJ opposed the death penalty in all circumstances and considers that it constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In November 2015, the ICJ published a report documenting in detail systematic and widespread violations of the right to a fair trial in proceedings related to blasphemy offences in Pakistan, particularly in trial courts. The report confirmed concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that individuals accused of blasphemy ‘suffer beyond proportion or repair’ in the absence of adequate safeguards.
The ICJ also made a number of recommendations to the Pakistani executive, legislative and judicial branches to address violations caused by application of the blasphemy laws, whether due to the legislative provisions themselves or at the investigative, prosecutorial, procedural, administrative and judicial levels highlighted in the report, including to ensure that those accused of blasphemy have a fair chance at defending themselves.
In a briefing paper published in October 2016, the ICJ assessed the fair trial violations in Asia bibi’s trial and appellate hearing. The ICJ found glaring omissions both in the appraisal of evidence as well as the application of laws that brought her conviction into question.
