Oct 2, 2013 | Events
The ICJ today welcomed the launch of the OSCE/FBA Handbook for Monitoring Administrative Justice as a tool able to contribute to the open administration of justice.
Noting that trends throughout the world see administrative cases dealt with in a manner that lacks transparency and fails to comport with the open administration of justice, the ICJ expressed the hope that the tool will be used by practitioners and officials to make an impact on the ground. The ICJ pointed to several reasons why the open administration of justice, in all forms of proceedings, is important to human rights and the rule of law:
- As a starting point, it is widely recognised, including by the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on the right to a fair trial, that the open and transparent administration of justice is an important safeguard for the interests of both the individual and society at large.
- The conduct of administrative and other proceeds in an open and transparent manner helps to ensure the integrity of such proceedings and protect against potential abuse.
- Publicly accessible documentation, including timely and reasoned decisions, protects individuals from being subject to arbitrary decisions.
- Transparency and openness contributes to accountability by enabling parties to determine the viability of any appeal or review, including the possibility of taking a case to regional or international mechanisms.
- In all these ways, the open administration of justice also helps guarantee the right of individuals and society to access justice, including remedies and reparation.
The Handbook is a publication arising from a joint initiative of the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA) Rule of Law Unit and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Work began on the Handbook in May 2011. The ICJ participated in expert meetings on the development of the Handbook in 2011 and 2012.
OSCE/FBA Handbook for Monitoring Administrative Justice
Sep 12, 2013 | News
Yesterday, during the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ and TRIAL (Swiss Association against Impunity) jointly held a parallel event on promoting accountability through human rights mechanisms in Geneva.
The event was co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Switzerland, Estonia and Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
A corresponding report produced by ICJ and TRIAL was also launched at this event in two versions, one aimed at civil society and another aimed at States.
Panellists at this event included Ian Seiderman of the ICJ, Gabriella Citroni of TRIAL and Theo van Boven, former Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ICJ Honorary Commissioner.
Mona Rishmawi of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) chaired the event.
The main topic of this event was the ICJ-TRIAL report, which reviews the legal framework for promoting accountability and suggests possible action by civil society and States to engage with the human rights mechanisms in Geneva to better promote and achieve accountability for human rights violations.
The role of national mechanisms, such as national human rights institutions, working in cooperation with the UN mechanisms was also highlighted.
The report focuses specifically on the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the special procedures mechanisms.
OHCHR’s role was further emphasised in regards to sharing best practices as well as ensuring follow-up to issues of accountability as they come to the attention to the UN.
Sep 3, 2013 | News
The ICJ today expressed its serious concern at the continued detention of lawyer Zinaida Mukhtorova in a psychiatric facility.
In its statement, the ICJ expressed concern that this detention may amount to an act of harassment or reprisal for Zinaida Mukhtorova’s legitimate exercise of her professional functions. Furthermore, the ICJ is concerned at reports that her detention may have been extended today as a reprisal for her challenging the detention through the courts.
Sep 2, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called on the Bangladesh authorities to immediately withdraw the contempt of court notice issued against the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.
The charges are in response to well documented concerns by Human Rights Watch that the trial of Ghulam Azam (photo), former head of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami Azam’s trial was “deeply flawed” and failed to meet international fair trial standards.
“Silencing voices that highlight the shortcomings of the International Crimes Tribunal impede rather than advance the enormously important task of ensuring that those responsible for committing atrocities during Bangladesh’s war of liberation are brought to justice in a process that complies with international law and standards”, said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.
On 2 September 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh issued a show cause notice asking Human Rights Watch to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against it for its allegedly ‘biased’, ‘scandalous’ and ‘inaccurate’ statements about the ICT. Human Rights Watch has to respond within three weeks, or possibly face trial and conviction in absentia.
“Assessing the conduct of administration of justice in judicial proceedings, including where it entails criticism of judicial performance is an important means of ensuring accountability,” said Conte. “Judges and prosecutors should defend the right to freedom of expression, not use their discretionary powers to muzzle criticism”.
Contact:
Alex Conte, Director, International Law & Protection Programmes, t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Additional information:
The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct clarify that “since judicial independence does not render a judge free from public accountability, and legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability subject to law, a judge should generally avoid the use of the criminal law and contempt proceedings to restrict such criticism of the courts”.
The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government also stress that “criminal law and contempt proceedings should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions”.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.
The Declaration also highlights that human rights defenders have the right to “freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to hold opinions and draw public attention to the observance of human rights.
May 29, 2013 | Agendas, Events
On Tuesday 28 May 2013, the ICJ co-sponsored a parallel event with TRIAL and the Missions of Botswana, Costa Rica, Estonia and Switzerland during the Human Rights Council’s 23rd regular session held in Geneva.
The event, held in Room XXV of the Palais des Nations, addressed key issues concerning accountability and human rights. The event was chaired by Professor Paola Gaeta from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Panelists were Tiina Intelmann, President of the Assembly of the States Parties to the ICC Statute; Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai, Ambassador of Botswana; Ian Seiderman, Director of the ICJ’s Law and Policy Office; and Gabriella Citroni, Senior Legal Adviser at TRIAL (Swiss association against impunity).
Panelists agreed that accountability is intimately linked to the enjoyment of human rights. It was stated that – under State responsibility – States are, or should be, held responsible for acts involving any violation of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Accountability is thus not only about criminal justice, but also about ensuring reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Recommendations made under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism were seen as having been partly successful in bridging gaps, although there remains a lack of proper follow-up on the progress of implementation between UPR cycles. Panellists observed that States often fail to refer to standards enunciated by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the Special Procedures. Regarding the accountability of non-State actors for conduct involving human rights abuses and violations, the ‘Ruggie Principles’ were referred to as a representing good progress but still failing to be as comprehensive as they should be.
Concerning future steps by Human Rights Council mechanisms, panellists proposed that resolutions, statements and Special Procedures should more directly and frequently refer to accountability. The need for greater political pressure on the International Criminal Court was expressed, with the aim of supporting the domestic capacity of States parties to the Rome Statute. Concerning domestic capacity to strengthen accountability more generally, panellists and participants agreed on the need to improve linkages between the work of persons dealing with development and those working on accountability.
HR Council-Strengthening accountability-event-2013 (event flyer in pdf)
