Feb 13, 2020 | News
The ICJ convened two workshops in Guatemala City from 11 to 13 February for more than 30 lawyers and more than 30 representatives of victims’ organizations on the international law and standards that apply to the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.
The workshops were conducted as part of the project under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative entitled, Promoting justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, and supported by the EU European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The project promotes accountability of perpetrators and access to effective remedies and reparation for victims and their families in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
The workshop for lawyers was inaugurated by the President of the Board of Lawyers of Guatemala, Ovidio Orellana. The workshop with representatives of victims organizations was inaugurated by the Chief of Cooperation of the European Union Alberto Cortezón.
Participants in the workshops emphasized that the Guatemalan public authorities must respect and effectively impolement the the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, and that there was a need to reinforce advocacy strategies for the respect of the Protocol by the Guatemalan Human Rights Institutions.
The Presidential Commission on Human Rights (COPREDEH) and the Ombudsman´s Office participated during the workshop with victims’ organizations. They committed themselves to take the necessary actions to incorporate into their work the principles and content of the Minnesota Protocol, as a complementary tool to other conventions and binding law.
Contacts:
Ramón Cadena, Regional Director of ICJ’s Central America Office, email: ramon.cadena@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, email: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America, and Regional Coordinator of the Project, email: carolina.villadiego@icj.org
Feb 7, 2020 | News
The ICJ expresses concern at today’s physical assault of a lawyer and a journalist, who arrived in Grozny to take part in the trial of blogger Islam Nukhanov.
The ICJ called on the authorities of the Russian Federation and its Chechen local authorities to investigate the attack and ensure that those responsible be brought to justice.
On 6 February, at around 22.00 lawyer Marina Dubrovina (photo) and Yelena Milashina, a journalist of Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper, were beaten up by a group of young women in the lobby of the “Kontinent” Hotel in Grozny, Chechnya.
Both women suffered injuries to the face and body. Dubrovina and Milashina had come to Grozny to observe the trial of Islam Nukhanov, a blogger from the town of Kogalzm in the Tumen Oblast of the Russian Federation, charged with possession of a weapon, who has been detained by Chechen police since November 2019 after he posted a video on YouTube, with footage allegedly taken near the residence of the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov.
On 7 February, neither Dubrovina nor Milashina was admitted to the courtroom where Nukhanov was tried, due to the public and the media reportedly being excluded from the hearing.
The ICJ urges the federal and local authorities of the Russian Federation, to investigate the attack against Dubrovina and Milashina in a prompt and independent manner.
Measures should be taken to ensure that lawyers, especially when exercising their professional duties, are protected against such attacks.
Furthermore, Islam Nukhanov’s trial should be held in public, unless and until the authorities demonstrate that the circumstances of his trial require that the public and the media be excluded from it, consistent with relevant international fair trial standards.
Background
Islam Nukhanov, 27, is a blogger of Chechen origin was apprehended on 1 November 2019 in Grozny after he posted a video clip where he filmed streets and houses in Grozny, allegedly, near the residence of the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. Since his apprehension, Nukhanov has been in detention.
In 2018, the ICJ expressed concern at allegations that the arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, the head of the Chechen branch of the Russian human rights organisation Memorial, was carried out as retaliation for his human rights activity.
In 2016, the ICJ expressed concern at the reported resignations of federal judges in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation following apparent pressure by the acting Head of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who had suggested that resignation would be the “most correct decision of their lives”
The ICJ is concerned at the regular attacks on lawyers and human rights defenders in Chechnya, which are systemic and may have the purpose of intimidating those who wish to defend human rights in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities”.
Dec 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ called today on the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) to drop a draft law that would put judges at risk of disciplinary action for their interpretation and application of the law, including EU and international law.
The draft law would also mean that judges would face disciplinary penalties for legitimate criticism of judicial reforms.
“The Polish Parliament should reject these proposals which would place intolerable constraints on judges in interpreting and applying the law and would undermine their freedom to speak out on vital issues of judicial independence,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Elements of the proposals appear designed to prevent judges from fulfilling their obligation under the EU treaties to apply EU law, which is an attack on the independent exercise of their judicial function” she added.
Under the proposals, judges would face disciplinary action and possible dismissal for refusing to apply a legal provision, unless it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal.
This proposal appears to be a direct reaction to a recent decision of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court which, applying a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, held that the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber was not an independent court. The Labour Chamber found that that the Disciplinary Chamber is not independent since its judges are appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ). Following a recent constitutional reform, the NCJ is composed predominantly of members elected by Parliament and the executive, contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
New disciplinary offences for judges under the draft law would also include questioning the status of Polish judges, and “political engagement”. Judges would be prohibited from questioning the status of Polish courts or tribunals or constitutional organs. Futhermore, the draft law would prevent judges’ associations from adopting resolutions “expressing hostility towards other powers of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”.
These provisions would hamper judges’ capacity to criticize reforms which have led to questionable judicial appointments by the NCJ and have seriously damaged the independence of the judiciary as a whole. International human rights law and international standards on the judiciary recognise that judges have a right to freedom of expression and that they have a particularly important role in contributing to discussions on issues of the functioning of the judicial system and the rule of law.
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges 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 UN Basic Principles, also affirm the freedom of expression and association of judges (Principle 8) in line with protections under international human rights law, and their right to form and join associations of judges to represent their interests (Principle 9).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
The ICJ has documented, and the UN Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers has affirmed, that the right of judges to freedom of expression is particularly protected when in situations where the rule of law or constitutional order is under threat, they speak out in defence of the independence of the judiciary.
Contacts:
Róisín Pillay, Director for Europe and Central Asia Proramme, t: +32 2 734 84 46; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Dec 10, 2019 | News
The ICJ mourns the loss of Professor Pedro Nikken, former President and Commissioner of the ICJ. Prof Nikken was elected ICJ President in January 2011, succeeding Mary Robinson (2008-2010) and followed by Nigel Rodley (2012-2017).
“Pedro Nikken left a tremendous legacy of respect for the rule of law and defense of human rights in his homeland of Venezuela, across Latin America and around the world,” said Prof Robert Goldman, the ICJ’s President.
“ Like so many others, I have lost a cherished friend and mentor whose company I will greatly miss,” he added.
Prof Nikken was a former Judge (1979-1989) and President (1983-1985) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. He served as UN Independent Expert on El Salvador from 1992 to 1995 and from 1990-1992 he served as Legal Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on El Salvador’s peace process.
In 1995 he served as Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General to Burundi. He is former Dean and Professor (emeritus) at the Law School of the Universidad Central de Venezuela.
He was also former President and Permanent Counselor of the InterAmerican Institute of Human Rights. He was a Member (Chair N° 9) of the Venezuelan National Academy of Political and Social Sciences.
“Prof Nikken helped drive the ICJ’s work in pursuit of justice and accountability, particularly through regional human rights systems such as the Inter American Court of Human Rights, even as various governments tried to weaken the process and evade responsibility,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General.
“Pedro was indefatigable as a human rights defender and unsurpassed in the quality of his legal analysis, a rare combination of qualities that made him a role model for several generations of human rights lawyers around the world,” he added.
Pedro Nikken was born in Caracas, Venezuela in 1945. He graduated in 1968 from the Andres Bello Catholic University and obtained a diploma of higher studies in law at the Pentheon-Assas University (Paris II) and a doctorate in law from the University of Carabobo.
Dec 10, 2019 | News
Part of the active ‘International Cooperation Initiative’ between the ICJ and the Geneva Bar Association, a full house conference, attended by Geneva Lawyers, took place tonight at the Palais de Justice of Geneva. The theme was the criminalization of helping migrants for humanitarian motives.
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme presented this complex issue with regard to the existing protocols of European directives and the reluctance of EU states to respect them.
The conference Le délit de solidarité en droit Suisse, européen et mondial was the first of many collaborations to come on subjects of common interest between the ICJ and the Geneva legal community.
