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
Sep 1, 2017 | News
On 1 September, the ICJ, in collaboration with Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law and Chiang Mai University’s Center for Ethnic Studies and Development under its Faculty of Social Science, conducted a workshop on how effectively to conduct trial observation.
Participants in the Workshop included undergraduate and postgraduate students and lecturers from Chiang Mai University, lawyers and representatives from Thai civil society organizations.
The workshop was held at Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law campus.
The objective of the workshop was to provide participants with an overview of international law and standards governing right to a fair trial and due process in the administration of criminal justice.
The workshop used the ICJ’s Practitioners Guide No. 5, the Trial Observation Manual for Criminal Proceedings, as the basis of training.
The workshop trained participants on practical preparation techniques before undertaking trial observations, critical elements of trial observations, drafting of trial observation reports, general international legal standards governing fair trials, international legal standards applicable to arrest and pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings and international legal standards applicable to trial proceedings.
The speakers at the workshop were Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, Southeast Asia and Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate National Legal Adviser, Thailand.
Aug 15, 2017 | Advocacy
Tep Vanny, one of Cambodia’s most prominent land activists and human rights defenders, will have spent one year in prison on 15 August for defending her community and exercising her human rights.
The ICJ and other human rights organizations condemn her arbitrary imprisonment and call for her convictions to be overturned, for all ongoing politically motivated and unsubstantiated charges against her to be dropped, and for her immediate release from prison.
Tep Vanny has fought tirelessly to protect the rights of members of the Boeung Kak Lake community, following their forced eviction from their homes in Phnom Penh.
More recently, she played a leading role in the so-called ‘Black Monday” campaign, challenging the arbitrary pre-trial detention of five human rights defenders, Lim Mony, Ny Sokha, Yi Soksan, Nay Vanda, and Ny Chakrya (the “Freethe5KH” detainees).
On 22 August 2016, following her arrest at a protest calling for the release of the five, she was convicted of ‘insulting of a public official’, and sentenced to six days in prison.
However, instead of releasing her based on time served, the authorities reactivated dormant charges dating back to a 2013 protest and kept her in detention.
“It is clear that the authorities are using the courts to lock me up, silence my freedom of expression and break my spirit,” said Tep Vanny. “They want to stop me from advocating and seeking a solution for the remaining people from Boeung Kak Lake as well as other campaigns to demand justice in our society.”
On 19 September 2016, Tep Vanny was sentenced, along with three other Boeung Kak Lake community activists, to six months imprisonment for “insulting and obstructing public officials” in a reactivated case related to a 2011 peaceful protest calling for a resolution to the Boeung Kak Lake land dispute, despite the absence of credible inculpatory evidence.
This conviction has since been upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 February 2017.
On 23 February 2017, following proceedings which fell short of fair trial standards, Tep Vanny was convicted of “intentional violence with aggravating circumstances”, sentenced to a further 30 months in prison and fined more than 14 million riel (about US $3,500 – or twice the annual minimum wage in Cambodia) for having peacefully participated in protests calling for the release of her fellow activist Yorm Bopha, back in 2013.
While the #FreeThe5KH human rights defenders were released on bail on 29 June 2017, after having spent 427 days in arbitrary detention, Tep Vanny remains in prison.
She is currently on trial in a third reactivated case, facing charges of “public insult” and “death threats” brought by another member of the Boeung Kak Lake community, despite the complaint having been dropped by the community member.
On 8 August 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld her February 2017 conviction.
Cambodia-Joint Statement Tep Vanny-Advocacy-2017-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Cambodia-Joint Statement Tep Vanny-Advocacy-2017-KHM (full statement in Khmer, PDF)
Cambodia-Infographic TV Case Overview-Advocacy-2017-KHM (Infographic in Khmer, PDF)
