Aug 28, 2015 | News
The Africa Regional Programme of the ICJ co-hosted the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum Annual Conference in Zimbabwe, held on 27-28 August 2015 under the theme “Guaranteeing the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa; Show casing Best Practice”.
The meeting was organized in conjunction with the Southern Africa Chief Justices’ Forum (SACJF) and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) of Zimbabwe.
This year it congregated 13 Chief Justices and 120 senior judges from East and Southern Africa.
The overall objective of the conference was to provide space for judiciaries in East and Southern Africa region to share achievements, best practices and innovations in justice delivery.
To this end, the conference sought to create a platform for judiciaries that had excelled in a variety of areas to showcase their achievements.
The programme was divided into three sub-themes, all of which had a direct relationship with the underlying theme of Fair Trial Rights in the Region.
The three sub thematic areas discussed were Appointment procedures, Judicial Training and Judicial Reform Each of the sessions was chaired by one of the Chief Justices, whose role it was to moderate the discussions and the speakers.
The panels had a presentation by a chief justice and experiences from another jurisdiction presented by a senior judge.
The presentations were then considered by discussants who were eminent academics.
Download the final declaration here:
Zimbabwe-SACJF ANNUAL CONFERENCE Declaration-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Aug 14, 2015 | News
Today, on the second anniversary of the killing by the armed and security forces of more than 1,000 individuals during the dispersal of the Rabaa’ Al-Adawyia and Al Nahda Square sit-ins, the ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to end its policy of impunity for serious human rights violations.
The authorities must conduct thorough, effective, independent and impartial investigations into protestor deaths with a view to holding to account all those responsible for unlawful killings and other human rights violations committed in the course of the demonstrations, the ICJ says.
“It is a measure of the total disregard for victims’ rights and the absolute impunity of the armed and security services that in the two years that have passed, no effective investigations in line with international standards have taken place and not a single person has been brought to justice for the mass killings of protestors,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The victims of human rights violations and their family members have been left without any effective remedies or reparation, including an acknowledgment by the Egyptian authorities of their responsibility for the hundreds of killings and injuries that day,” he added.
Although fact-finding initiatives were conducted by Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Human Rights Council and by a government-appointed commission, the ICJ considers these investigations to be deeply flawed and ineffective.
The ICJ says both had inadequate access to first hand or physical evidence from the scene, because they did not begin their work until weeks or months after the events took place; lacked the ability to compel State authorities to testify and provide evidence; failed to document the full extent of human rights violations that took place; and neither led to any form of criminal investigation, much less prosecution of those responsible for these violations.
Further, while the government-appointed commission found that over 700 people had been killed during the Rabaa’ and Nahda dispersals, the shambolic report it issued dedicated just 9 pages to these two dispersals, concluding summarily and without substantiation that the police had been justified in violently dispersing the protest and blaming primarily the organizers of the sit-ins as well as the protestors for the high death toll.
There are credible allegations that in dispersing these demonstrations the armed and security forces unlawfully resorted to excessive and disproportionate use of force, the ICJ adds.
“By turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations committed by the armed and security forces, and by shielding their members from any form of criminal accountability, the Egyptian authorities are fostering the structural impunity that prevails in Egypt instead of combatting it,” said Benarbia.
“To meet their obligations under international law, the authorities must dismantle such policies and practices and establish the truth about the sit-ins’ dispersal,” he added.
Under international law lethal force may never be used unless strictly necessary to protect life.
States are obliged to provide access to an effective remedy and reparation to victims of human right violations.
They are also required to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, with a view to holding criminally accountable persons responsible for serious human rights violations, particularly those involving a denial of the right to life.
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834; e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Impunity Rabaa Sq-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in pdf, ARABIC)
Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Jul 22, 2015 | News
El genocidio perpetrado contra población Ixil de Guatemala será debatido en el segundo juicio seguido en contra del ex Presidente de facto Efraín Ríos Montt y el ex Director de inteligencia José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez.
El juicio está por reiniciarse el 23 de julio. Lamentablemente, este segundo juicio ya se ha visto afectado por diferentes hechos, que a continuación describimos.
La recusación de la jueza Presidenta del Tribunal B de Mayor Riesgo, debido a la redacción de su tesis doctoral sobre el delito de Genocidio, no debió de haber sido aceptada por no existir una causa razonable, ya que dicho trabajo de tesis se relaciona con su formación académica especializada en justicia de transición.
Posteriormente, la jueza fue sustituida por un juez que ha evidenciado relaciones de amistad a través de las redes sociales con uno de los abogados defensores del acusado Ríos Montt (photo).
Nuevamente la defensa busca que por lo menos un juez “amigo” integre el tribunal. A ello se suma el hecho de que recientemente el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Forenses (INACIF) emitió un informe que hace referencia al supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt.
La CIJ de la manera más enérgica expresa que estos actos son parte de una estrategia que tiene como propósito eludir la acción de la justicia.
La CIJ considera que ello constituye una violación al derecho de las víctimas al acceso a la justicia y contra el derecho a un juicio justo, libre de intromisiones de todo actor externo.
La CIJ se permite recordar al Poder Judicial que el combate a la impunidad de acuerdo con los estándares internacionales la justicia debe obedecer a tres imperativos: juzgar y sancionar a los responsables de graves crímenes, como el genocidio; satisfacer el derecho de las víctimas a conocer lo sucedido y obtener reparación integral; y fortalecer la independencia de las autoridades judiciales.
El supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt podría ser solo una simulación, para evitar que sea nuevamente llevado a juicio.
Al respecto, la CIJ denuncia las acciones violatorias del debido proceso realizadas una vez más, por la jueza Carol Patricia Flores, quien ordenó se le practicasen exámenes médicos a Ríos Montt, para averiguar acerca de su estado de salud físico y mental.
Esta orden de la jueza Flores es ilegal, debido a que el proceso ya se encontraba a cargo del tribunal de Sentencia Penal B de Mayor Riesgo y ella carecía de competencia para ordenar tal medida.
La CIJ insta a los jueces a ejercer su poder de contralores del proceso penal, rechazando todos los actos de litigio de mala fe que sean promovidos por la defensa de los procesados.
Se requiere que los jueces a cargo del juicio se encuentren libres de toda presión externa que pueda intimidarlos en su función.
Para garantizar su independencia deben contar con el apoyo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, quien debe velar por su seguridad y por el desarrollo del proceso en un marco de respeto.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América, expresó: “Otra vez estamos ante una serie de medidas dilatorias, que demuestran que existen jueces que se prestan a promover la impunidad de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos.”
Jul 22, 2015 | News
Cambodian authorities must immediately quash the convictions for insurrection handed down to eleven opposition party activists on 21 July, the ICJ said today.
The Phnom Penh Municipal Court sentenced the National Rescue Party (CNRP) activists to between seven and 20 years in prison following an unfair trial.
“These men were grossly over-charged with insurrection in the first place,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser.
“The fact they have now been handed down disproportionately severe sentences following an unfair trial only serves to underscore that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place in violation of Cambodia’s international obligations,” he added.
The charges arose out of their participation in a demonstration on 15 July 2014 against the closure of Phnom Penh’s designated protest site, Freedom Park, that became violent after “public-order” para-police attempted to break up the protest and were attacked by some people in the crowd.
According to information provided to the ICJ, all but one of the accused’s nine lawyers either boycotted or were unable to attend Tuesday’s suddenly-scheduled hearing in protest against a decision by the Court on Monday to fast track the trial.
When the Court unexpectedly called for closing arguments, the accused requested their lawyers to be present, which was denied.
According to observers, no credible evidence was produced during the trial connecting the eleven to the violence and the verdicts were read out after only 15 minutes of deliberation.
“In the event that fresh charges are brought, they must be consummate with the seriousness of the alleged offending, based on reliable evidence, and be adjudicated upon at a trial that scrupulously respects international fair trial standards in accordance with Cambodia’s international obligations,” Abbott said.
Background
Three men – Meach Sovannara, Oeur Narith, and Khin Chamreun – were convicted of participating in and leading an insurrectionary movement and were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Eight men – Sum Puthy, Neang Sokhun, San Kimheng, Tep Narin, San Seihak, An Batham, Ouk Pich Samnang, and Ke Khim – were convicted of participating in an insurrectionary movement and were sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
Tuesday’s verdicts are inconsistent with international law and standards including article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a State Party, which states that everyone has the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser, Asia & Pacific Programme, t: + 662 6198477, + 662 6198478 Ext. 203 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
