Mar 25, 2014 | News
The ICJ today strongly condemned the decision of the Criminal Court of Minya to convict 529 individuals and to sentence them to death.
The individuals were sentenced for “participating in an attack on a police station in Minya,” “murder of a police officer,” “attempted murder of two other officers,” “seizing weapons” and “damaging public property”.
The verdict comes against a backdrop of a continuing crackdown on individuals suspected of supporting the ousted President, Mohamed Morsi, or being members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization officially designated by the military and other transitional authorities as a terrorist organization.
The verdict followed a two-day trial that disregarded fundamental fair trial standards.
The first hearing lasted 30 minutes, while the second lasted one hour.
International law is clear: the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial violates the right to life.
The ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to extinguish the convictions resulting from this trial and ensure that those arrested, prosecuted and convicted for the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of association and assembly are immediately released.
“The Minya trial made an absolute mockery of justice, violating basic human rights, including the rights to life, to liberty, to be presumed innocent and to defence,” stated Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East & North Africa Program. “Even with Egypt’s long history of unfair trials and systematic politicization of the judiciary, the Minya trial sets a new low, and could be dangerous precedent for mass convictions following mass trials against government critics.”
The ICJ is deeply concerned that this trial is a part of a deliberate policy by the Egyptian authorities to use the courts and the Office of the Public Prosecutor to arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison opponents of the current authorities.
The ICJ is also concerned that this policy effectively shields from accountability police, security, and military officers responsible for human rights violations committed in the context of the crackdown that followed the ouster of President Morsi, including the killings of more than 1200 people, in particular during the dispersal of the Rabaa Al-Adawyia and Annahda pro-Morsi sit-ins on 14 August.
No effective investigation has yet been conducted into these killings, and the perpetrators remain unpunished.
“In times of crisis, judges and prosecutors must safeguard and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, not act as tools of repression by prosecuting and convicting individuals for the legitimate exercise of their rights” said Benarbia.
“The Egyptian authorities must respect the independence of judges and prosecutors and refrain from any undue, inappropriate or unwarranted interference in judicial matters,” Benarbia concluded.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, ICJ Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: 41 22 979 38 17, e-mail: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Mar 12, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in response to a report on armed drones presented to the Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, on 11 March 2014.
The ICJ expressed appreciation at the focus of the report on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations, and particularly with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that the single greatest obstacle to an evaluation of the impact of drone strikes is lack of transparency. Lack of transparency creates an accountability vacuum and prevents effective access to justice.
In addition to sources of a legal obligation of transparency, the ICJ refers to the Tshwane Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information.
The ICJ stressed that a number of attacks documented in the report occurred outside of the context of any armed conflict, and thus were fully subject to international human rights law with no role for the special and potentially more permissive rules of international human applicable in situations of armed conflict.
The ICJ agreed a number of points raised in the report of the Special Rapporteur were matters of controversy between states, but at the same time recalled that a lack of consensus did not necessarily mean that international law did not already provide definite answers to the issues.
The ICJ further suggested that principles and guidelines on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations should be based on legal analysis, framed from the perspective of ensuring States’ compliance with international law; and justice and redress for victims of human rights violations and/or violations under international humanitarian law.
Due to the very limited time allocated to non-governmental organisations during the Interactive Dialogue on the Report, the ICJ was not able actually to read out its oral statement, but is making it public and has communicated its contents to the Special Rapporteur.
The oral statement can be downloaded in PDF here: ICJ-HRC25-SRCT-OralStatement-Drones.
The Report by the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For further information please contact: Mr Alex Conte (alex.conte(a)icj.org), ICJ International Law and Protection Programmes
Feb 21, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organizations issued a public statement calling on Spanish lawmakers not to pass draft legislation that, if approved, would seriously limit Spanish courts’ ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes under international law.
The draft legislation, tabled in Parliament by the Popular Party (PP), provides that, for cases involving allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes not occurring on Spanish territory to be investigated and prosecuted in Spain, the suspect must either be a Spanish national or a foreigner habitually resident in Spain or a foreigner who is in Spain, whose extradition has been denied by Spanish authorities.
For case of torture and enforced disappearance, the proposed legislation requires that the suspect be a Spanish national or, alternatively, that the victim be a Spanish national at the time when the crime was committed and that the suspect be present in Spain when jurisdiction is assumed.
Where these conditions are not met, the proposal would allow Spanish courts to hear cases for those crimes for which prosecution is required by international treaties where the suspect is a foreigner on Spanish soil, so long as Spain has received and denied an extradition request.
The ICJ and other organizations stressed in their statement that if enacted, this legislation would close the doors of Spanish courts to certain victims of gross human rights violations who are unlikely otherwise to be able to obtain justice, particularly within their own jurisdictions.
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-eng (download the joint statement in English)
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-SPA (download the joint statement in Spanish)
Feb 17, 2014 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at a ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court which denies full accountability of Italian officials in the case of the 2003 unlawful rendition, enforced disappearance and torture of Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar.
In a ruling making no mention of the international human rights law obligations of Italy, the Court agreed with the contention of the Italian Government that it may protect from disclosure and use in court what it considers to be “secrets of state” even if to do so would prevent the revelation of the truth about serious crimes and human rights violations and the holding of those responsible to account.
The Court ruled that, under the Italian Constitution and the law on secrets of state, it is the sole prerogative of the President of the Council of Ministers, exercising “a wide discretionary power”, to establish the width of application of the secret of state doctrine.
The Court affirmed that such decisions cannot be questioned by ordinary courts.
A number of Italian and United States intelligence agents, including the former Director of the Italian Military Secret Service, Nicolò Pollari, had been found guilty of criminal offences in connection with the rendition.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling is likely to effectively annul the convictions of the top Italian secret agents involved in the rendition.
“This ruling constitutes a serious blow to the fight against impunity for some of the most serious crimes under international law”, said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser for the Europe Programme. “It disregards fundamental pillars of international human rights law, including the right to truth and the duty to investigate, prosecute and ensure accountability for gross violations of human rights”.
“The doctrine of “secret of state” must never be used as a means to cover up responsibility for crimes under international law or gross violations of human rights,” Frigo added. “The United States, which is primarily responsible, deplorably has abdicated its responsibility to meaningfully investigate and hold officials to account for gross human rights violations in its rendition and secret detention programme. Italy, by contrast, had been the only country in which the courts had imposed convictions for the US-led renditions. After this judgment, there is a real risk that the Italian complicity in this crime will never be fully ascertained and accounted for.”
The ICJ is concerned at reports that time limits for the conclusion of criminal proceedings in this case could expire in two months, despite the fact that, under international standards, limitation periods should not be imposed in respect of serious of crimes such as torture and enforced disappearance.
The expiry may foreclose any further investigation or criminal trial on Italian involvement in this rendition, which should occur irrespective the obstacles caused by the secret of state doctrine.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that successive Italian governments since 2007 have either proposed or refused to withdraw government applications before the Constitutional Court affirming that the executive prerogative on secret of state takes precedence over the fight against impunity.
The ICJ considers that the law and practice regarding the “secret of state” must be reformed to be into compliance with Italy’s duty to investigate crimes under international law and gross human rights violations.
While States may protected a limited amount of information when strictly necessary for legitimate national security purposes, they may not do so with respect to information concerning gross violations of human rights.
Background
Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was been kidnapped in 2003 in the streets of Milan by CIA operatives and subject to rendition to Egypt where he had been subject to enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.
The case of Abu Omar was one of at least 136 known cases in the rendition and secret detention carried out since 2001 by the United States, with the participation of some 54 other States, which typically involved multiple human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention.
The Constitutional Court judgment effectively reversed the ruling of the Court of Cassation that ordered the reopening of the trial against the former Director of the Italian Military Secret Service, Nicolò Pollari, his deputy, Marci Mancini, and other Italian military secret services operatives for their alleged complicity in the operation.
The Court of Cassation had held that the doctrine of “secret of state”, which barred their conviction, would not apply to them, because the Italian secret services have no authority to conduct such illegal operations and they had therefore effectively acted in private capacity.
Following that judgment, the Court of Appeal convicted, among others, for complicity in the kidnapping Nicolò Pollari to ten years of imprisonment and Marco Mancini to nine years.
The Court of Cassation upheld in absentia the convictions and sentences of 23 US agents involved for the offence of kidnapping.
On 5 April 2013, the President of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, granted a pardon for US Colonel Joseph L. Romano III, who had been convicted by Italian courts of the offence of complicity with the US in kidnapping for his role in the rendition of the Milan cleric Abu Omar in 2003.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
