Oct 30, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to abide by the Constitution and its international obligations in peacefully resolving the current political crisis, and for all political leaders to commit to respect for human rights and the rule of law.
To this end, President Maithripala Sirisena (photo) should reconvene Parliament to end the constitutional crisis in line with the rule of law and democratic norms.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.
It is with grave concern that the ICJ has observed the unfolding of events in Sri Lanka since the evening of October 26, 2018.
Following the withdrawal of the United People’s Freedom Alliance from the National Unity Government, President Maithripala Sirisena, in an unexpected move, appointed Former President and Member of Parliament Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.
These actions have transpired in disregard of safeguards set out in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which limit the power of the President to remove the Prime Minister at will.
The Amendment spells out specific instances during which the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka ceases to hold office under the law.
The ICJ is concerned at the President’s move to prorogue Parliament until 16 November in what appears to be an effort to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. The move has exacerbated political tensions.
“The ICJ is alarmed that Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has yet to be held accountable for the well-documented human rights violations committed during his previous tenure, has been appointed Prime Minister – in apparent violation of the Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
Incidents of violence and the takeover of government-controlled media by supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa raise fears of an imminent return to the human rights violations and abusive practices which were widespread during his term.
ICJ also noted with concern ongoing crackdowns on the media and other attacks on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The ICJ stressed that the removal of the Prime Minister in violation of the law or constitutional provisions would constitute a violation of Sri Lanka’s commitments to the international community, set out in UN Human Rights Council resolutions in 2015 and 2017, to strengthen good governance and protect democratic institutions.
The ICJ also expressed concern that political instability, or the return of an unrepentant and unaccountable Mahinda Rajakpaksa to political power, would endanger progress made on fulfilling Sri Lanka’s commitments to press forward with transitional justice processes, and its legal obligations to ensure accountability for past human rights violations and abuses, as set out in both resolutions.
“The failure to address past abuses, and to fully implement UN Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1, has helped set the stage for the current political turmoil, and the possible return of an authoritarian figure who has proven his disrespect for human rights and the rule of law over and over,” said Frederick Rawski.
“The Human Rights Council will be watching closely to assess whether Sri Lanka is in breach of its commitments. Any serious threat to progress on human rights accountability will compel the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Oct 26, 2018 | News
At a media event in Bangkok, Thailand, today, the ICJ reiterated its call for Turkey to work with the United Nations to establish a special independent mechanism to carry out an investigation into the killing of Khashoggi with a view to identifying the perpetrators.
The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FFCT) in Bangkok hosted a special panel discussion entitled Death of a journalist – Fallout from the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, which was attended by approximately eighty journalists, diplomats and club members.
On the panel, Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor for Global Accountability, began by making two positive observations, namely that there exists a clear international legal framework which applies to cases of suspected unlawful deaths including extra-judicial executions and enforced disappearance; and that a considerable amount of information about Khashoggi’s fate appears to be available.
He set out the international legal framework that applies to violations of the right to life noting the state duty to conduct a prompt independent, impartial, effective and transparent investigation consistent with the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions and the revised 2016 Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death.
Kingsley Abbott noted that in nearly all cases where there is reasonable suspicion of unlawful death, an autopsy should be performed and called for Khashoggi’s body or remains to be produced.
Kate Vigneswaran, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Programme, discussed options for accountability in the MENA region, in particular in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
She noted that Saudi Arabia provided little to no opportunity for meaningful justice given executive and Royal Court control over the judiciary and prosecutors. She further highlighted Saudi Arabia’s targeting of critics exercising their right to freedom of expression through criminal prosecutions, abductions and enforced disappearances, and egregious fair trial rights violations in the criminal justice system. She went on to state that similar human rights violations in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates make them unlikely credible options for accountability.
She also noted some concerns about aspects of the justice system in Turkey and in that regard said it was too early to determine whether the conduct of investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators in that country would meet international standards.
Other speakers included Nadia abou el Magd, who has 30 years’ experience as a journalist and commentator covering the Middle East, working mainly for the Associated Press, and Dr. Muhammad Ilyas Yahprung from the Faculty of Political Science, Ramkhamheang University, who focuses on Muslim World Issues.
The panel was moderated by Anneliese Mcauliffe who has worked as a journalist across Asia and the Middle East for over two decades.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott
Kate Vigneswaran
Senior Legal Adviser
Middle East and North Africa Programme
Phone: +31624894664
Email: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Twitter: @KateVigneswaran
Oct 24, 2018 | News
The ICJ started its 60th anniversary in Geneva with an evening gala hosted by Ambassador Julian Braithwaite, at his residence on 18 October 2018. A moving speech by Sir Nicolas Bratza (photo), ICJ Commissioner and Executive Committee member, on the importance of the defence of the rule of law opened the evening.
It was followed by a magnificent concert by Menuhin Academy virtuoso, violinist Vasyl Zatsikha. A magical evening.
The speech of Sir Nicolas Bratza
“I feel very privileged to have been asked to say a few words by way of introduction to the speech of the Secretary General of the ICJ.
May I begin by expressing on behalf of us all the warmest thanks to the British Ambassador for hosting this very special celebration of the 60th anniversary of the ICJ in its home in Geneva.
Anniversaries are always important occasions and never more so than when they mark a milestone in the life of a remarkable organization that has throughout its existence worked tirelessly to safeguard the rule of law and human rights and that has done so, in particular, by protecting and defending the independence of judges and lawyers.
My association with the ICJ has been relatively brief but for many years I have admired its work from afar, as a member of the European Commission of Human Rights for five years and as a judge of the Strasbourg Court, for fourteen.
The Court and the ICJ share the common purpose – to protect the fundamental principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
Without the independent and impartiality of judges, both national and international, those principles would be meaningless and might as well have been written on water.
With the alarming growth of populism in countries across the world, the threats to the independence of the judiciary are regrettably as real today as they have been at any time.
In the international Court of which I was a member, judges are nominated by the States from which they are drawn.
But they are in no sense representatives of those States and are not infrequently faced with having to decide cases, sometimes cases of acute sensitivity, against their own countries.
The pressures on judges of the Court are often intense and there are notorious examples where the courage shown by a judge in maintaining his or her rigorous independence has come at a cost, the judge being punished by not being renominated by the State, by returning to the country at the end of their mandate without employment or means of livelihood, or by being unable to return safely to their home at all.
But if the position of the international judge is difficult enough, that of the national judge in certain States, including member States of the Council of Europe, is far worse, their independence and security, both physical and professional, being under constant threat.
In the 1990s and in the early years of this century, the signs were promising. One was able to witness a slow but steady improvement in adherence to the rule of law on the part of new democracies.
This was in no small measure due to the work of organizations such as the ICJ which, through its writings, seminars and training of judges and lawyers worldwide, did so much to strengthen and support judicial independence and to expose the most flagrant examples of abuse and undermining of that independence.
I regret to say that in more recent years the landscape has become much darker, with open and insidious attacks on members of the judiciary, the arbitrary removal of judges from their posts and measures taken to curtail the powers of judges and courts or to undermine their authority and independence.
In my official visits to member States as President of the Strasbourg Court, I met several judges who voiced their deep concern about the steps being taken both by the legislature and the executive to compromise their independence and to diminish their authority. It is not only in the new democracies that such a phenomenon has become apparent.
There has been a growing trend in many parts of Europe to undermine the standing and authority of the judiciary by outspoken attacks on judges for unpopular decisions, by members of the executive, by parliamentarians and by the media.
It is these challenges to judicial independence and to the rule of law that make the role of the ICJ and the continued support of the diplomatic community not only more relevant but more vital than they have ever been.
It is with pride and pleasure that I wish the ICJ a very happy anniversary on this its first 60 years of life in this great city.
But I combine this with a fervent hope that, with the support of us all, the ICJ is able to continue its extraordinary work for the next 60 years and far beyond. The protection of the rule of law and human rights depend on it.”
Oct 23, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
At an event at the city’s Palais Eynard, prominent ICJ Commissioners discussed the supremacy of the Rule of Law and also why it is important to be in Geneva. Watch the video.
The Executive Committee (ExCo), representing the whole Commission of Jurists, participated in the event.
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, opened the event by reiterating the importance for the ICJ to be headquartered in Geneva, not only for the UN and international community but also for the city’s and canton’s legal and human rights community.
“It is absolutely clear that we live at a moment in the world when lawyers, judges, jurists are under attack and it is important for the legal community across the world, regardless of borders, regardless of languages, regardless of legal systems, to come together to defend the notion of the rule of law and defend the security and well-being of lawyers and jurists around the world.”
Carlos Ayala, ICJ’s Vice-President, said the ICJ was a unique organization working in the field of the Rule of Law, not as an isolated notion but within the framework of Human Rights and democracy.
He explained how the ICJ is structured and working around the world and insisted on the impact the ICJ is having through its activities.
He said that the organization’s legal outputs were used to have an impact on the overall human rights situations, cases, court decisions, and in training judges, lawyers, prosecutors and others.
Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, also ICJ’s Vice-President, insisted on how it is important to share experiences about human rights issues and finding solutions to protect different rights.
She gave her personal example of being a judge in former Yugoslavia and Serbia to show how with tenacity and courage one can help establish an independent judiciary even in some of the hardest situations.
She testified how she was helped by the ICJ and Switzerland in her fight for justice.
“If you fight for independence of judges and lawyers in your country, you fight for judges and lawyers everywhere,” she added.
Dame Silvia Cartwright, ICJ Commissioner and ExCo member from New Zealand, was the first woman appointed to the High Court in New Zealand and she was also Governor General of New Zealand.
She said that she was privileged to come from a country that has always promoted and protected the Rule of Law but that unfortunately many recent examples showed that this endorsement could change overnight.
Very active in the fight for women’s rights she said how through her professional work she realized the terrible impact that the Khmer Rouge’s regime in Cambodia and civil war in Sri Lanka had on women.
“Generally speaking I’m quite pessimistic because I think we have reached another stage of the cycle that seems to occur every couple of generations where we are heading towards a more fascist world. So this is the time when human rights must be protected when we must fight to maintain the norms we have struggled for so long,” she said.
Watch the full event here:
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/335212527229422/
Oct 21, 2018 | News
On 21 October, the ICJ, together with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), organized a lawyers’ meeting in Bangkok on the admissibility of evidence in the context of application of special security laws in Thailand.
Attendees included 30 human rights lawyers, paralegal officers, documentation officers, human rights defenders and journalists from Bangkok and other regions in Thailand.
The objectives of the meeting were:
- To discuss about the challenges that lawyers currently face regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, both in law and in practice, in the context of existing special security laws. These laws include the Martial Law, Emergency Decree, and the Internal Security Act that are applied in the southern border provinces, and certain repressive National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Orders that are applied nationwide;
- To discuss how to address the adverse effects on human rights and the administration of justice as a consequence of the implementation of these laws and how lawyers, members of civil society, and other stakeholders, at national and international levels, may work together to address such challenges; and
- To gather recommendations from participants and discuss future advocacy strategies to tackle identified challenges.
The ICJ’s Legal Memorandum on Hearsay Evidence and International Fair Trial Standards was used as one of the main reference materials during the meeting.
A main recommendation of the Workshop, echoed the ICJ’s assessment in the Legal Memorandum, namely that Thailand should review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards to ensure safeguards required to protect individuals from unfair trials.
Read also
Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards
