Oct 5, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Azerbaijan.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the UPR issues concerning:
- Azerbaijan’s legislation governing the legal profession;
- the situation of lawyers in practice;
- the lack independence of the legal profession;
- the role of the Bar Association with regard to attacks on lawyers;
- international human rights instruments.
With respect to each of the above-mentioned concerns, the ICJ calls upon the Working Group on the UPR and the Human Rights Council to make a number of recommendations to the authorities of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan-UPR-Advocacy-non-legal submissions-2017-ENG (download the submission)
Sep 28, 2017 | Advocacy, Uncategorized
The ICJ today called on the UN Human Rights Committee and a group of UN Special Procedure mandates to take urgent follow up action on Venezuela in light of the grave and ever deteriorating human rights situation in the country.
In a letter to the UN Human Rights Committee, the treaty body responsible for monitoring implementation by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ called for urgent action by the Committee, either through its established follow-up procedure and/or through requesting a special interim report. The Committee’s follow-up procedure was referenced in the Committee’s Concluding Observations on Venezuela’s fourth periodic report under the ICCPR. Special interim reports may be requested by the Committee under Article 40(1)(b) of the ICCPR.
The ICJ also called for urgent action to be taken by the following UN Special Procedure mandates: the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This group of Special Procedure mandates had on 4 August 2017 issued a joint statement on the human rights situation in Venezuela.
The ICJ’s letters draw attention to several critical areas of concern:
- The rapidly deteriorating human rights situation;
- The lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations;
- The lack of effective remedies and reparation for victims of human rights violations;
- The lack of independence of the judiciary;
- The institutional crisis arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice;
- The unconstitutional election of the new National Constituent Assembly;
- The dismissal of the former Attorney General;
- The recent establishment of a ‘Truth Commission’;
- The intended revision of Venezuela’s Constitution; and
- Venezuela’s failure to notify its state of emergency under the ICCPR.
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-HRCttee-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Human Rights Committee, in PDF)
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-SPs-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Special Procedure mandates, in PDF)
ICJ reports:
Venezuela: the Supreme Court of Justice has become an arm of an authoritarian executive
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Sep 12, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Venezuelan Supreme Court has ceased to act as an independent court upholding the rule of law, but has become an arm of an authoritarian executive, the ICJ said in a new report released today.
The ICJ report The Supreme Court of Justice: an instrument of executive power says that through a series of rulings issued since December 2015, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has progressively dismantled the rule of law, undermined human rights and failed to faithfully apply key elements of the country’s Constitution.
In rulings on 27 and 28 March 2017 (Sentencias 155 and 156), the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) delivered a blow to the rule of law, effectively claiming legislative powers for itself, depriving the National Assembly of its Constitutional powers and granting sweeping arbitrary powers to the executive, the ICJ notes.
“These decisions amount to a coup d’état against the Constitutional order and have ushered in a new reign of arbitrary rule,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
The report analyses SCJ jurisprudence issued since December 2015 in the light of international law and standards, rule of law principles and the Venezuelan Constitution, and in relation to the Constitutional functions and faculties of the legislative power, parliamentary oversight, states of emergency and the amnesty.
It finds that:
- The SCJ has been decisively co-opted by the Venezuelan executive;
- The Court’s members are mainly from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) and/or ex-Government officials; and
- It has become a political instrument increasingly used against the political and social opposition.
The report also says the Court has interpreted the Constitution in an arbitrary manner, omitting to analyse key Constitutional standards while granting a supra-Constitutional status to standards of lesser rank.
It has abrogated due process and judicial review and so stripped the National Assembly of its Constitutionally mandated functions with regard to legislative matters, parliamentary oversight, regulation and internal administration in order to benefit the government politically, the ICJ adds.
“The rulings have not been issued with impartiality on the basis of facts and in accordance with law, as required under rule of standards,” Zarifi said.
“They are in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan Constitution. The SCJ has issued its decisions based on political considerations and ideological and party loyalties to the executive power,” he added.
The report also outlines key recommendations on the administration of justice which various UN and Inter-American procedures and bodies have made to Venezuela going back a number of years.
None of these recommendations appear to have been taken into account by the Venezuelan authorities. These include reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which are binding on Venezuela as a matter of law.
“The Venezuelan authorities are in breach of its international obligation to cooperate in good faith with international human rights bodies and procedures,” Zarifi said.
Finally, the report concludes that the SCJ has undermined the rule of law by violating the principle of the separation of powers and infringing upon the Constitutional functions and autonomy of the legislative power.
As a consequence of its decisions based on the political interests of the executive power, the SCJ has lost the essential attributes of an authentic judicial power, such as independence, impartiality, autonomy and legitimacy.
“The SCJ has assumed the role of giving an appearance of judicial legitimacy to the arbitrary political actions of the executive thus abandoning the exercise of its Constitutional function as the guarantor of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Zarifi added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzman, ICJ South America Representative, t +57 311 481 8094 ; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Download the report:
Venezuela-Suprem Court-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Further readings:
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Sep 3, 2017 | News
On 2 and 3 September, the ICJ held a workshop on “the Rule of Law and Strengthening the Administration of Justice in the Context of Restorative Justice” for members of the Thai judiciary.
The workshop was held in Chiang Mai.
Twenty-two judges attended the workshop, with an observer from the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ).
The objective of the workshop was to discuss how to best apply international standards of restorative justice within Thailand’s justice system.
Restorative justice is based on the fundamental principle that criminal behavior not only violates the law, but also injures victims and the community.
A restorative process is any process in which the victim and the offender and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community members affected by a crime participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, with the help of a facilitator.
Frederick Rawski, Regional Director of ICJ Asia and the Pacific, recognized in his opening statement that implementation of restorative justice, including constructive non-custodial sentencing and measures, could assist in combating the problem of overcrowding in detention facilities in the North of Thailand, particularly with respect to drug-dependent offenders.
The workshop made reference to the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, which was adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 2002.
Speakers at the Workshop included Chief Justice Somnuk Panich from Office of the Chief Justice Region V, who formally opened the workshop, Judge Dr. Dol Bunnag, Presiding Judge of Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, who summarized the landscape of restorative justice in Thailand, and Judge Sir David James Carruthers from New Zealand, an international expert on restorative justice in New Zealand.
ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott moderated the two-day workshop.
The ICJ ended the workshop with a statement reiterating its commitment towards working with Thailand’s judiciary to strengthen the rule of law and administration of justice in Thailand.
Sep 1, 2017 | News
Today the Supreme Court of Kenya took the unprecedented step of voiding the presidential elections held on 8 August 2017 citing the failure by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to adhere to constitutionally mandated processes.
The ICJ commends the Supreme Court of Kenya for adjudication of a sensitive case at a high professional standards amidst a charged political atmosphere.
The ICJ in partnership with the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum (AJJF) sent a mission of three distinguished judges to observe the proceedings during the presidential petition in Kenya.
The delegation consisted of Retired Chief Justice Earnest Sakala (Zambia), Justice Dingake (Botswana) and Justice Chinhengo (Zimbabwe).
The mission’s observations will be publicized in due course.
Kenya held national elections on 8 August 2017 administered by the IEBC.
The IEBC subsequently announced that Uhuru Kenyatta had won the elections with a 54% majority.
The opposition National Super Alliance Coalition led by Raila Odinga filed an election petition alleging serious irregularities in the tabulation and transmission of the results of the elections and asking the court to nullify the results and order fresh elections.
The Supreme Court heard the election petitition culminating in the decision that was handed down today.
According to the observers, the court conducted the hearing in a manner consistent with the rule of law and that adhered to the Kenyan Constitution and international principles of a fair trial.
The Court gave acted fully as a competent, independent and impartial judicial body.
“The decision taken by the Supreme Court today is precedent setting. It places a cost on the election management body for apparently failing to adhere to constitutional imperatives and the normative framework governing the conduct of elections,” said Arnold Tsunga, Africa Director of the ICJ.
“Elections are a high stakes subject in Kenya, as elsewhere in the world. Previous elections have shown that violence and multiple human rights violations increase during the election period. We therefore encourage the political leaders in Kenya to accept the court’s verdict and to encourage their supporters to exercise maximum restraint and tolerance as the country braces itself for fresh elections,” he added.
Finally the ICJ urges the authorities in Kenya and the IEBC to quickly comply with and implement the court’s judgement.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Director for Africa, t: +27716405926 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
