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)
May 21, 2013 | News
El fallo emitido por la Corte de Constitucionalidad constituye un retroceso en la búsqueda de Justicia en Guatemala por las graves violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas durante el conflicto armado interno, dijó la CIJ.
Es importante recordar que ya en diciembre de 2007, dos de los actuales magistrados de la Corte de Constitucionalidad también otorgaron un amparo al militar retirado General Ríos Montt, evitando su extradición a España. El día de ayer, la CC vuelve a amparar al militar retirado, esta vez para afectar gravemente el derecho de acceso a la justicia de las víctimas del Pueblo Ixil y provocar más impunidad en Guatemala.
Con este fallo, la Corte de Constitucionalidad envía un mensaje equivocado a la población guatemalteca y le da más poder a los victimarios. Sin embargo, la CIJ reconoce que tanto el Magistrado Chacón como la Magistrada Porras, emitieron un voto disidente, apartándose así de la decisión mayoritaria de los magistrados Molina Barreto, Maldonado Aguirre y Pérez Aguilera.
El amparo que la Corte de Constitucionalidad otorgó el día de ayer, lejos de respaldar la justicia, avala las acciones del abogado defensor Francisco García Gudiel, quien faltó a la ética profesional al aceptar la defensa de Ríos Montt, aún sabiendo que la Ley del Organismo Judicial en su artículo 201 literal a) le prohibía “actuar en los juicios en que el juez tuviere que excusarse o pudiera ser recusado a causa de la intervención del profesional.”
Ramón Cadena, Director de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas para Centroamérica expresó: «Nuevamente la Corte de Constitucionalidad está provocando el incumplimiento de la obligación internacional del Estado de Guatemala de juzgar y castigar a los responsables de crímenes gravísimos como el genocidio, crímenes de guerra y crímenes de lesa humanidad. Con dicho fallo, las víctimas del Pueblo Ixil han sido burladas y su derecho de acceso a la justicia ha sido nuevamente negado.»
Otros artículos:
La CIJ expresa su preocupación ante la posibilidad de que juicio por Genocidio y Delito contra los Deberes de Humanidad sea anulado
La CIJ celebra triunfo de la justicia sobre la impunidad
NOTE:
You can find a comprehensive background on the Rios Montt trial in English here
May 17, 2013 | News
On 16 May, the ICJ and Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges) observed an appeal hearing at the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in a case against the dismissal of Judge Miroslava Todorova.
Judge Todorova, who had been serving on the Sofia City Court, is known for critical commentary on the problems in the judiciary in Bulgaria. In this hearing, the Prosecutor’s Office supported Judge Todorova’s appeal against her dismissal, but the Court has not yet issued its decision.
The ICJ previously raised concerns over Judge Todorova’s dismissal from her position of judge and as Chair of the Bulgarian Judges Association, in July 2012. The ICJ was particularly concerned at the disproportionate sanctions for delay of several reasoned cases, which is a problematic, but usual, practice among judges in Bulgaria.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the fact that the proceedings took place some six years after the limitation period ended. Further questions arose as to the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the body which both initiated the proceedings and conducted the hearing, and its independence in this case.
The trial observation mission consisted of Professor Doctor Günter Witzsch (Germany), who observed the trial on behalf of the ICJ, and Judge Janneke Bockwinkel (the Netherlands, on behalf of Judges for Judges). The ICJ and Judges for Judges will continue to follow the case of the dismissal of Judge Miroslava Todorova and will issue a detailed report following the issuing of the decision by the SAC.
For further information
Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
