Libya: ICJ engages judges and prosecutors on fair trial guarantees and lawyers on international justice procedures

Libya: ICJ engages judges and prosecutors on fair trial guarantees and lawyers on international justice procedures

On 28‒31 October 2018, the ICJ hosted two seminars for 30 judges and prosecutors and 26 lawyers from Libya.

The events were co-organized with the Libyan Network for Legal Aid and commenced with opening remarks by ICJ Commissioner, Justice Kalthoum Kennou of Tunisia.

The first seminar on 28‒29 October on “Fair Trial Guarantees in Libya in light of International Standards” aimed to deepen the understanding of Libyan judges and prosecutors of the application of international law and standards regarding fair trials.

The seminar covered pre-trial rights, such as the right to liberty, to effective legal counsel and to be brought promptly before a judge, and rights at trial, such as the right to defend oneself in person, to call and examine witnesses and to an appeal.

International fair trial standards were considered in light of Libyan domestic law and cases, including case 630/2012 involving 37 Ghaddafi-era officials.

The second seminar on 30‒31 October on “The Law and Procedure to File a Submission before the International Criminal Court” aimed to increase Libyan lawyers’ understanding of how to properly file a successful submission to the Office of the Prosecutor.

The Seminar covered the structure and functioning of the ICC, the jurisdictional and admissibility requirements, and the standards for collection and admissibility of evidence.

The Seminar further discussed the roles of NGOs, lawyers and victims in ICC proceedings, providing practical guidance on how and when to file a communication under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Speakers included judges and prosecutors from international courts and tribunals as well as ICJ staff.

 

 

 

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context

On 21 October, the ICJ, together with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), organized a lawyers’ meeting in Bangkok on the admissibility of evidence in the context of application of special security laws in Thailand.

Attendees included 30 human rights lawyers, paralegal officers, documentation officers, human rights defenders and journalists from Bangkok and other regions in Thailand.

The objectives of the meeting were:

  • To discuss about the challenges that lawyers currently face regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, both in law and in practice, in the context of existing special security laws. These laws include the Martial Law, Emergency Decree, and the Internal Security Act that are applied in the southern border provinces, and certain repressive National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Orders that are applied nationwide;
  • To discuss how to address the adverse effects on human rights and the administration of justice as a consequence of the implementation of these laws and how lawyers, members of civil society, and other stakeholders, at national and international levels, may work together to address such challenges; and
  • To gather recommendations from participants and discuss future advocacy strategies to tackle identified challenges.

The ICJ’s Legal Memorandum on Hearsay Evidence and International Fair Trial Standards was used as one of the main reference materials during the meeting.

A main recommendation of the Workshop, echoed the ICJ’s assessment in the Legal Memorandum, namely that Thailand should review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards to ensure safeguards required to protect individuals from unfair trials.

 Read also

Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards

Poland: Respect EU Court of Justice interim order and maintain Supreme Court judges in office

Poland: Respect EU Court of Justice interim order and maintain Supreme Court judges in office

The ICJ welcomes the interim measures prescribed today by the Court of Justice of the EU as a necessary step in stemming the evident erosion of the rule of law in Poland.

The Court provisionally ordered Poland to preserve the composition of its Supreme Court of 3 April 2018, before a law forcing into retirement a third of the Court’s members entered into force.

The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to comply with the EU Court order by maintaining in office the Supreme Court judges .

“In accordance with today’s court’s order, Polish authorities should immediately rescind all measures taken since April 2018 that modify the composition of the Supreme Court. They are obliged to do this under EU law as it is binding on Polish authorities and by the fundamental principle of the rule of law that decisions of the judiciary must be respected and implemented.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

On 10 October, President Andrzej Duda appointed 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July. The ICJ condemned this act of the President of Poland because it contravened an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the EU Court. Critically, the mass and forced retirement of sitting judges before the end of the established terms of tenure undermines their security of tenure, a key principle regarding the independence of the judiciary.

Background

The independence of the judiciary in Poland has been systematically undermined by the Polish executive and legislative authorities.

Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.

The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.

In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018. Today’s decision by the Court of Justice granted this interim measures request.

At the same time, the Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.

An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.

 

Russian Federation: criminal proceedings against lawyer raise concerns

Russian Federation: criminal proceedings against lawyer raise concerns

Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.

The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.

Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.

He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”.  Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.

On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.

On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.

According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.

The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.

The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.

“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.

Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.

The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.

Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG

Translate »