Feb 18, 2020 | News
The ICJ and IBAHRI welcome today’s ruling by the Istanbul 30th Assize Court that acquitted all defendants in the Gezi Park case for lack of evidence. The ICJ and IBAHRI have been observing all hearings of the trial.
“Today’s decision is welcome,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ. “The factual and legal circumstances surrounding the case make clear that these defendants should have never been put to trial to begin with.”
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, IBAHRI Director, commented: “We have watched this trial closely, with senior lawyers attending the process as observers. It is a case that should never have been brought, for those who faced trial suffered untold anguish. But such injustice has become all too common in Turkey, where the rule of law and human rights have lost meaning. We live in hope this augurs a return to sanity and due process.”
These protests, commencing in May 2013, were an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being re-zoned, but soon grew into nationwide demonstrations.
Police quelled the protests in Taksim Square through the use of tear gas and water cannons.
The sixteen defendants in the present trial were charged under the following articles of the Turkish Criminal Code: Article 312 (an attempt to overthrow the Turkish government or an attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury), crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136 and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863.
The ruling follows a 2019 decision of the European Court of Human Rights brought by Turkish human rights defender Osman Kavala, one of the defendants in the present case.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Additional information
The defendants in the case are Osman Kavala, Ali Hakan Altinay, Ayse Mücella Yapici, Ayse Pinar Alabora, Can Dündar, Çigdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yilmaz, Handan Meltem Arikan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoglu, Inanç Ekmekci, Memet Ali Alabora, Mine Özerden, Serafettin Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Yigit Aksakoglu and Yigit Ali Ekmekçi.
Jan 30, 2020 | News
The “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed by the United States, and developed in the absence of any meaningful engagement with Palestinian representatives, is not a serious means to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, and all actors in the international community should reject it, the ICJ said today.
As presented, the Plan would pave the way for Israel to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and deny the Palestinians the internationally protected right to self-determination as well as the right to return of Palestinians. In addition, it seeks to legitimize the acquisition of land by force, all in violation of international law and the UN Charter.
On 28 January 2020, US President Donald Trump publicly announced the plan at the Whitehouse in Washington, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.
“The US plan is a political stunt that patently disregards international law and how the rights of Palestinians are recognized and protected under international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The ICJ emphasized that any claims of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on this plan would be null, void and of no effect.
The text of the US plan inaccurately asserts that Israel has “valid legal and historical claims over the West Bank” and notes that “[t]he State of Israel and the United States do not believe the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory.”
This position runs counter to numerous applicable UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 242, which required Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.
“Any settlement to the conflict between Israel and Palestine must be consistent with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” Benarbia added. “This requires negotiations on an equal footing between the parties, optimally with broad international engagement, not simply an intervention by a single State.”
Israeli settlements are established in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring its own population into the occupied territory.
Their eventual incorporation into Israel would amount to unlawful annexation, in contravention of the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force established by the UN Charter and international law.
The US plan posits that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel,” apportioning to the State of Palestine the areas of the city beyond the separation barrier. It also denies the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
Effectively making Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank permanent, the US plan further provides that Israel will maintain “overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine” and that the West Bank and Gaza should be fully demilitarized.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(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 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.
The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.
Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.
Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.
The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.
The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.
Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict
The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.
Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.
Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.
Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.
Download
Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)
Dec 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ calls on the Polish authorities to put an immediate end to unjustified disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”.
The ICJ considers that the disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz’ was initiated because of his questioning of the Polish government’s “reforms” that have severely eroded the independence of the judiciary in Poland.
“The disciplinary action taken against Judge Markiewicz for his criticism of the government’s attack on judicial independence violates international standards on the independence of the judiciary and should be ended immediately”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Judges have a right to freedom of expression and to form and take part in associations of judges. They have a particularly important role in speaking up to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which is undermined by arbitrary disciplinary proceedings such as those against Judge Markiewicz”, she added.
By order of the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner of the ordinary court judges, on 4 December, disciplinary proceedings alleging 55 instances of misconduct were initiated against Judge Krystian Markiewicz. These include: inciting disrespect for Poland’s legal order by questioning the independence and legality of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), and the constitutionality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; and calling for appeals to the Disciplinary Chamber to be suspended.
The disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz comes within a week of the decision to suspend with immediate effect district Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn, who, in presiding over an appeal, questioned the impartiality of the judge who had delivered the original verdict as a result of being elected by the National Council for the Judiciary. On 1 December 2019, the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia organized rallies in support of Judge Juszczyszyn.
The ICJ stresses that such actions taken against judges are inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the State to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. The ICJ calls for Judge Juszczyszyn to be immediately re-instated in his post.
On 4 December 2019, the labour law chamber of the Supreme Court, in implementation of a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the UE, held that the NCJ is not an impartial and independent body, and that the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court is not a “court” under EU or Polish law, thereby confirming the concerns raised by both Judge Juszczyszyn and Judge Markiewicz.
Background
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).
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.
