Mar 21, 2019 | News
In a letter to Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Andrew Gilmour, the ICJ, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) call on the UN to address a clear case of intimidation and threat of reprisal by U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
In remarks to the press on 15 March 2019, Pompeo explicitly threatened to revoke or deny visas to International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel who attempt to investigate or prosecute alleged violations committed by American nationals or against citizens of U.S. allies.
The ASG is mandated to lead efforts within the UN system to end all intimidation and reprisals against those cooperating with the UN on human rights. In keeping with this mandate, the ACLU, ICJ and ISHR call on the ASG to take urgent action, including by publicly denouncing the comments, and urging U.S. representatives to refrain from adopting any legislation, policy or practice that has the effect of undermining unhindered access to and communication with the ICC and other international bodies.
The letter states that ‘The purpose of the visa restrictions is to block and deter legitimate criminal investigation into serious crimes under international law. Not only might they have a chilling effect on ICC personnel and others advocating for accountability, but they will set a dangerous precedent with serious implications on the overall fight for impunity, especially the right of victims and their legal representatives to seek justice and reparations without fear of retaliation.’
A similar communication has also been sent to three UN experts – the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The experts are similarly called on to publicly denounce the comments and send a formal communication to the U.S.
“The policy announced by Pompeo is part and parcel of a concerning attack by the current U.S. administration on multilateralism, international rule of law, and global and regional bodies mandated to monitor and investigate human rights violations and fight impunity,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
Pompeo’s announcement comes on the heels of threats made by U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton in a 10 September 2018 speech to the Federalist Society.
In that instance, Bolton explicitly threatened ICC judges, prosecutors, and personnel if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence forces in Afghanistan, as well as any company or state that assists the ICC.
“This is an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well-documented war crimes. It reeks of the very totalitarian practices that are characteristic of the worst human rights abusers, and is a blatant effort to intimidate and retaliate against judges, prosecutors, and advocates seeking justice for victims of serious human rights abuses,” said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program.
The letter cites Human Rights Council Resolution 36/21 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which reaffirm the right of everyone, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies.
“This latest attack by the US demands the strongest response from the UN, which until now has remained silent on the US’ bullying of the ICC,” said Madeleine Sinclair, Legal Counsel and New York Director of ISHR.
“Pompeo’s threats are a blatant violation of the right to cooperate with the ICC, undermine the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility, and amount to an attack on the international system itself,” she added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, International Commission of Jurists, e: sam.zarifi@icj.org ; t: +41 22 979 38 00
Abdullah Hasan, American Civil Liberties Union, e: ahasan@aclu.org, t: +1-646-905-8879
Madeleine Sinclair, International Service for Human Rights, e: m.sinclair@ishr.ch, t: +1-917-544-6148
Feb 15, 2019 | News
The International Court of Justice will hold public oral hearings in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) from 18 to 21 February 2019. Before they commence, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, detained and convicted by a Pakistani military court on charges of “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India has alleged that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), to which both States are parties.
Pakistan has argued, among other things, that the VCCR is not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the inherent nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism, and that a bilateral agreement on consular access, signed by India and Pakistan in 2008, overrides the obligations under the VCCR.
ICJ’s Q&A discusses the relevant facts and international standards related to the case, including: India’s allegations against Pakistan; Pakistan’s response to the allegations; the applicable laws; and the relief the International Court of Justice can order in such cases.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards. Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
Download the Q&A:
Pakistan-Jadhav case Q&A-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG
Feb 12, 2019 | News
As the trial of twelve Catalan separatist leaders begins before the Spanish Supreme Court today in Madrid, the ICJ warns that their trial on broadly defined offences of rebellion and, possibly, sedition unduly restricts rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association.
“The very broad definition of the offence of rebellion being applied in this case risks unnecessary and disproportionate interference with rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia regional Director.
The twelve political leaders – including high-ranking Catalan government officials – have been charged in connection with their part in the administration on 1 October 2017 of a referendum on Catalonian independence.
The referendum was conduced despite having been declared illegal by the Constitutional Court.
The voting process during the referendum was partially suppressed by the police, with credible reports of the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force in breach of Spain’s international law obligations.
“Interference with peaceful political expression and protest must be justified as strictly necessary and proportionate under international human rights law. Where peaceful protests or political actions, even if declared unlawul by the authorities, provoke an excessive response by the police, it is solely the police and other state authorities who should be held responsible for the violence,” Pillay said.
“It is crucial that the Supreme Court, in its consideration of these charges, takes full account of Spain’s obligations under international human rights law,” she added.
The ICJ is concerned that prosecutors, and the Supreme Court in admitting the indictment in the case, have ascribed an unduly broad meaning to the offence of “rebellion” under article 472 of the Criminal Code.
According to that article, the offence requires violent insurrection to subvert the constitutional order.
But the referendum organizers are not accused of using or advocating violence.
Rather, they are being tried on the basis that they should have foreseen the risk of intervention and the use of force by the police.
It is therefore alleged that the defendants were criminally responsible for the violence that ensued from their decision to carry on with the referendum, despite it being declared illegal.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the use of force by Spanish law enforcement authorities during the repression of the referendum of 1 October 2017 was “legitimate and, as such proportionate”, international observers have concluded that such use of force was excessive and disproportionate.
In accordance with international human rights law, the mere fact that the use of force is considered to be legal under national law, does not of itself mean that it can be considered to be necessary and proportionate.
The Supreme Court has further already accepted that, if the facts alleged by prosecutors are proven, they could amount to the offence of sedition, which is committed by those that that rise up publicly and in a tumultous way, by force or by unlawful means, to impede the implementation of laws or of authorities’ orders.
“Vague, broadly defined offences of sedition or rebellion risk violation of the principle of legality, as well as arbitrary and disproportionate interference with human rights,” said Róisín Pillay.
“In a highly sensitive and politicised case such as that of the Catalonian referendum, they would set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of peaceful independence movements and political dissent, not only in Spain but internationally,” she added.
Several of the accused have already been held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods, further exacerbating the severity of the interference with rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and casting doubt on the proportionality of the response.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
The 12 people on trial in connection with the October 2017 referendum include Oriol Junqueras (photo), former Catalan vice-president; Carme Forcadell, former Catalan parliament speaker; eight former ministers in the Catalan government – Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Santi Vila, Meritxel Borràs, Dolors Bassa, Josep Rull, Carles Mundó -; Jordi Sànchez the former leader of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC); and Jordi Cuixart, former head of the independence organisation Òmnium Cultural.
The trial, which begins on 12 February in the Supreme Court in Madrid, is expected to last for several months.
Spain has obligations to protect freedom of expression, including political expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 21 and 22 ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on freedom of expression has affirmed that: “extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3 of article 19 ICCPR, which requires that restrictions on freedom of expression be provided for by law and must be necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as national security or public order .) Rights to participate in public life are protected under Article 25 ICCPR.
Feb 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, to retract his recent pronouncement that executions would resume in the country notwithstanding a moratorium on capital punishment that has lasted 43 years. The last execution was carried out in Sri Lanka in 1976.
“Resuming executions would be an egregious violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, a serious threat to human rights in the country, and it would be inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
Speaking in Parliament last week, President Sirisena vowed to resume executions of those convicted of “drug offences” as early as within the next two months.
The ICJ considers any resumption of executions in Sri Lanka as constituting a violation of international law and an appalling disregard for the international human rights system as a whole.
“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity,” Fredrick Rawski added.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances – as it constitutes a violation of the right to life and its imposition constitutes per se cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
The Human Rights Committee, the Treaty Body supervising the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Sri Lanka is bound, has recently made clear in its General Comment 36 on Right to life that, “it is contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 [of the ICCPR, which enshrines the right to life] for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty”, and that, “States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future. The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”
Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for “drug offenses” is incompatible with the Covenant.
The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe a an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.
It must be noted that Sri Lanka voted in favor of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution. This commitment should not be reversed, but upheld in practice instead, the ICJ says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reject the resumption of executions and to do away with the death penalty once and for all. Instead of planning on resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards, such as formulating policies and legislation that address the underlying social and economic causes of criminality, which are also vital to ensuring stability and the rule of law.
The ICJ also urges Sri Lanka to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
Feb 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern over amendments to Egypt’s 2014 Constitution proposed by the House of Representatives yesterday, which could increase President el-Sisi’s control over the judiciary, extend his rule for 15 more years, expand the jurisdiction of military courts’ to prosecute civilians and broaden the military’s powers.
The amendments were proposed by one-fifth of the House of Representatives on 4 February, and reported to Parliament by its General Committee yesterday.
“The proposed amendments are a flagrant assault on the independence of the judiciary, and would expand the powers of presidency and further facilitate el-Sisi’s subordination of judicial and prosecutorial authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The amendments would grant the President authority to choose the Supreme Constitutional Court’s (SCC) President and its new members, chairs of all other judicial authorities, and the Public Prosecutor.
The President would also have authority to select the Chair and members of the Commissioners Authority, a judicial board that provides advisory opinions to judges on legal issues in cases pending before the SCC.
The General Committee’s report states the amendments are to “unify the mechanism of appointment” of these institutions.
The amendments would also establish a “High Council for Joint Judicial Affairs” chaired by the President to manage all common matters relating to the judiciary.
The amendment to Article 140 of the Constitution would extend presidential terms from four to six years.
Another “needed transitional article” would reportedly also permit President el-Sisi to run for re-election for another two terms, which, combined, could permit him to stay in office until 2034.
Article 140 of the Constitution currently imposes a two-term limit, and Article 226 prohibits amendments to “texts pertaining to the re-election of the president of the Republic…unless the amendment brings more guarantees.”
“This is an attempt to undermine constitutional safeguards aimed at protecting the right of the Egyptian people to freely choose their government and to take part in the conduct of public affairs,” said Benarbia.
“In accepting these amendments, the Parliament would abdicate its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law,” he added.
Further amendments include the “redrafting and deepening the role of the Armed Forces” by expanding its mandate to include broad terms such as “safeguarding the constitution and democracy” and “preserving the basic elements of the state and its civilian character.”
The jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians for “direct assault[s]” against military facilities, objects and personnel would also be expanded by the removing the requirement that the assaults be “direct.”
The amendment would make permanent a temporary constitutional provision requiring the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—a military body—to approve the appointment of the Minister of Defense.
“The amendments effectively place the military above the law and the Constitution,” said Said Benarbia.
“They pave the way for the further entrenchment of the military in civilian affairs, which has already led to significant violations of civilian rights to participate in political life and express opinions critical of the regime,” he added.
Under international law, the jurisdiction of military courts must be limited to holding military personnel accountable for alleged violations of military discipline. No civilian should be prosecuted before military courts.
The amendments, which are still subject to parliamentary discussion and drafting by parliamentary committee, must eventually be approved in a two-thirds vote, and then by a majority in a referendum.
The ICJ expressed its concerns about the process for adoption of the 2014 Constitution, and its capacity to serve as a basis for the establishment of the rule of law in Egypt.
The ICJ made recommendations aimed at facilitating public participation in the legislative process in accordance with international standards and at ensuring constitutional provisions were consistent with international human rights law.
These concerns remain valid today.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ENG (full story with background infomation, in PDF)
Egypt-Constitution Statement-News-2019-ARA (full story in Arabic, in PDF)
