Mar 20, 2014 | News
The ICJ today called on the Ukrainian authorities to discontinue criminal prosecutions and dismissals of Constitutional Court judges.
These measures, which came at a time of crisis in the country, were taken due to disagreement with a ruling made by the judges in 2010.
The measures interfere with the independence of the judiciary, and are inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers and respect for the rule of law.
Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General underscored that “In times of crisis the stability and continuity of the judiciary is essential. Judges should not be subject to arbitrary removal, individually or collectively, by the executive, legislative or judicial branches”.
On 24 February 2014, the Verkhovna Rada, the Parliament of Ukraine, adopted a resolution according to which twelve of the eighteen judges of the Constitutional Court were to be dismissed by the institutions which appointed them.
Five of the judges were dismissed by the Rada itself. The Rada recommended that the Acting President and the Congress of Judges consider dismissing the other seven judges.
On 13 March, the Parliament appointed four new judges of the Constitutional Court.
The grounds for dismissals were breaching the oath of a judge.
Moreover, in accordance with the resolution, the Prosecutor General was assigned by the Parliament to initiate criminal proceedings against those judges who were “guilty of adopting the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 30 September 2010 No 20-rp/2010”, which overturned the adoption of the Constitution of 2004.
The Parliament’s resolution against the justices of the Constitutional Court followed the Ukrainian political crisis, which reached its peak on 22 February 2014 after three months of protests and violent clashes, and resulted in a change of government.
“The ICJ is deeply concerned at the dismissal and criminal prosecution of Ukrainian Constitutional Court judges on grounds of their interpretation of the law in judicial decisions” said Wilder Tayler.
“These measures are inconsistent with respect for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. It is precisely at moments of transition or crisis, such as Ukraine is now experiencing, that upholding the rule of law and the separation of powers is most critical. Any disciplinary action against judges must respect the independence of the judiciary, be based on established standards of judicial conduct and be taken only following a fair procedure in which the rights of the judge concerned, including to a defence, are respected.”
The ICJ stressed that action taken against the judges of the Constitutional Court is inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the government of Ukraine to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary.
This duty, a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and a fundamental aspect of the principle of separation of powers of the three branches of government, is enshrined in both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international human rights treaties to which the State is a party.
Furthermore, Article 1 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarifies that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This requires that judges have jurisdiction over issues of a judicial nature and that judicial decisions by courts must not be subject to revision (Principle 4).
Judges must have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office (Principle 12) and can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
The European Court of Human Rights found, in the recent case of Volkov v Ukraine, that dismissal of a judge of the Ukraine Supreme Court through a parliamentary procedure violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since there had been insufficient examination of the merits of the case, and it had not been heard by a tribunal established by law.
Contacts:
Róisin Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, t + 32 273 48 46, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, t + 41 22 979 38 32, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Ukraine-dismissal and criminal prosecution of judges-news-2014 (Statement, PDF)
Mar 7, 2014 | News, Publications, Reports
A new ICJ report criticizes the Thai Government’s failure to take the steps necessary to establish the fate and whereabouts of missing lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, saying it illustrates the challenges of achieving justice in cases of serious human violations in Thailand.
In the report, Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand, the ICJ documents the tortuous legal history of the case.
It highlights several key problems, such as poor use of forensic evidence, failure to follow and develop leads, unduly restrictive interpretation of national and international law, and above all, a lack of political will to resolve a case that remains emblematic of the culture of impunity in Thailand.
“Over the past 10 years, this case has taken many unexpected turns, including the disappearance of a prime suspect, admissions of Somchai’s death from officials while the courts have rejected such a finding, and most recently, a statement from the Department of Special Investigations that it had lost, and then found, the case files,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The Royal Thai Government has not exhausted all potential areas of inquiry and it must continue this investigation. There is no statute of limitations on an enforced disappearance and Somchai’s case is not forgotten in Thailand or around the world.”
Somchai, a lawyer and human rights defender, was stopped at a Bangkok roadside on March 12, 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since.
At the time, Somchai was defending clients from Thailand’s restive southern provinces who were accused of attacking a military base as part of the ongoing insurgency in the region. Somchai had alleged police tortured the Muslim suspects.
Ten years later, Somchai’s wife, Angkhana Neelapaijit, and her family are no closer to knowing the truth about what happened to him.
“Somchai’s enforced disappearance, and the failure of the Royal Thai government to provide accountability or even basic information about his fate are emblematic of the challenges of achieving justice in cases of serious human rights violations in Thailand,” said Zarifi. “Enforced disappearance is not only a serious human rights violation but also a crime under international law.”
Thailand signed, but has not yet ratified, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance in January 2012. Pending the ratification, Thailand must desist from any acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the convention, which places an obligation on State Parties to make enforced disappearance a criminal offence and treat family members of a ‘disappeared’ person as victims in their own right.
The ICJ has followed Somchai’s case closely and worked with Angkhana Neelapaijit since 2004.
“The Royal Thai government’s failure to shed any more light on the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, despite providing compensation for his family and finding him to be ‘disappeared’, contradicts multiple past declarations of its commitment to seeking justice, or at least truth, including by several former Prime Ministers, Attorneys General, and officials,” the report says.
“It also contradicts official commitments before the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2008.”
The ICJ’s report calls on the Royal Thai government to prioritize and advance the investigation into Somchai’s disappearance in a manner that conforms to its international obligations. It also recommends that Thailand:
–Ratify the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance;
–Enact legislation that makes enforced disappearance a specific crime in Thai domestic law, together with penalties that recognize its extreme seriousness;
–Amend existing Thai law to conform to the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance, as well as the State’s obligations, including with respect to effective remedy and reparation, under the ICCPR and CAT;
–Provide Angkhana Neelapaijit and her family with effective remedy and full reparation, in particular knowledge and clarification of the facts leading to the enforced disappearance and the progress and results of the Department of Special Investigations, and;
–Address the recommendations the ICJ made to the DSI in its letter of February 4, 2014 with respect to its investigation.
CONTACT
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Download the full report in PDF:
Ten Years Without Truth- Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand – report – 2014
Thailand-Ten Years Without Truth-Publications-Reports-2014-THAI
Feb 21, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organizations issued a public statement calling on Spanish lawmakers not to pass draft legislation that, if approved, would seriously limit Spanish courts’ ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes under international law.
The draft legislation, tabled in Parliament by the Popular Party (PP), provides that, for cases involving allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes not occurring on Spanish territory to be investigated and prosecuted in Spain, the suspect must either be a Spanish national or a foreigner habitually resident in Spain or a foreigner who is in Spain, whose extradition has been denied by Spanish authorities.
For case of torture and enforced disappearance, the proposed legislation requires that the suspect be a Spanish national or, alternatively, that the victim be a Spanish national at the time when the crime was committed and that the suspect be present in Spain when jurisdiction is assumed.
Where these conditions are not met, the proposal would allow Spanish courts to hear cases for those crimes for which prosecution is required by international treaties where the suspect is a foreigner on Spanish soil, so long as Spain has received and denied an extradition request.
The ICJ and other organizations stressed in their statement that if enacted, this legislation would close the doors of Spanish courts to certain victims of gross human rights violations who are unlikely otherwise to be able to obtain justice, particularly within their own jurisdictions.
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-eng (download the joint statement in English)
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-SPA (download the joint statement in Spanish)
Jan 23, 2014 | News
The ICJ criticized the Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s decision to deny bail to 23 people who were arrested and detained earlier this month following protests by garment factory workers seeking a higher minimum wage.
The detainees’ lawyers told the ICJ that the court denied bail for the first nine detainees, arrested on 2 January 2014, in order to “guarantee their presence for further legal proceedings”, “to preserve public order” and “to prevent instability that results from the commission of crimes”.
The remaining 13 detainees, arrested on 3 January 2014, were denied bail in order to “end crime”, “prevent new crime” and “ensure detainees are available for trial”.
The decision to deny bail to the 22 detainees followed the Court’s decision on 13 January 2014 to deny bail to Vorn Pao, President of the Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA).
Considering his application separately from the others, the court, similarly, provided the same reasons as in the case of the first nine detainees.
“International law is clear that pre-trial detention could only be exercised in exceptional situations, and avoided if suitable alternatives are possible,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The reasons presented by the Court don’t justify holding these activists in prison right now.”
All 23 of those whose bail applications have been denied have been charged with causing intentional violence and damage to property. Three face additional charges for violent resistance against a public official, as well as a traffic offence.
They were arrested as part of the government’s response to striking garment workers and demonstrators protesting the 28-year-rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen (photo).
Security forces shot and killed at least four protesters on 3 January. The government has banned further protests.
Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a party, guarantees the right to liberty. It states, “It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial”. Such guarantees include bail.
“There are alternatives to the detention, such as bail or other conditions the court could impose on these 23 detained activists if the Court is concerned, on the basis of substantiated and objective grounds that there is a risk that each of them will abscond before the trial or interfere with the investigation,” said Zarifi. “In the absence of such proof and the serious consideration of alternatives the continued pre-trial detention of each of the 23 individuals would amount to arbitrary detention under international human rights standards.”
Vorn Pao’s lawyers filed an appeal on 14 January 2014 and the Court is expected to issue a decision on his appeal by 3 February 2014.
According to the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, Vorn Pao appears weak and continues to suffer pain from the head injuries he sustained.
Lawyers for the other 22 detainees have also expressed their intention to appeal the Court’s decision to deny them bail.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Dec 19, 2013 | News
The ICJ deplores the death sentences handed down by the People’s Court of Hanoi on December 17 to two former shipping executives and urges the government of Viet Nam to desist from carrying out the planned executions.
Viet Nam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines) former chairman Duong Chi Dung and former general director Mai Van Phuc were found guilty of embezzling nearly USD $1 million from the state-owned company and sentenced to death.
“The announced death sentences fly in the face of encouraging human rights developments in Viet Nam, such as the State’s signing the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in November,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s regional director for Asia and the Pacific. “This is a major setback at a time when it appeared Viet Nam was making progress towards ending capital punishment.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Following the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in 2009, Viet Nam agreed to revise its legislation on the death penalty in line with the country’s international obligations.
Since then it has reduced the number of crimes punishable by death, and changed its method of administering the sentence from firing squad to injection by lethal substance.
It is estimated that more than 600 people remain on death row in the country. Most were convicted on drug-related offences.
“At present, approximately two thirds of the world’s countries have already either abolished capital punishment or have moratoriums on executions,” said Zarifi. “It is regrettable that Viet Nam has chosen to exclude itself from this global trend.”
The ICJ calls on the Government of Viet Nam to immediately put in place a moratorium on its practice, with a view to abolishing the death penalty, as demanded by the United Nations General Assembly in repeated resolutions on the question.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
