Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to abandon a draft law which would dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as a means of retaliation for a decision adopted by the Court and in order to circumvent the decision.
The authorities should also refrain from any other actions, including harassment of judges, which undermine the independence of the Constitutional Court.
“This draft law constitutes a direct attack on the ability of the judiciary to exercise its functions independently. It is incompatible with basic principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and with international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“By the nature of their role, the judiciary, and especially constitutional courts may be required to decide on controversial matters. It is however essential that particularly in such cases, courts are able to operate without fear of retaliation or repression for the decisions they take,” she added.
The draft law on Restoring Public Confidence in the Constitutional Court, submitted by President Zelensky to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), aims to pronounce a decision of the Constitutional Court on anti-corruption legislation “void” and without legal consequences.
This runs contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution according to which “[d]ecisions and opinions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be binding, final and may not be challenged” (Article 151-2).
The draft law would terminate the mandate of the judges of the Constitutional Court, in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine as well as basic principles of independence of the judiciary, governing appointments, dismissal and security of tenure of judges.
The draft law provides that the powers of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in force at the time of the decision on the anti-corruption law would be terminated from the date of entry into force of the law.
According to the explanatory note to the Draft Law, one reason the adoption of the law would be justified is because there had not been a “proper substantiation” of its judgment on the anti-corruption law. The note alleges that Court’s decision was adopted in the private interests of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, that its proper substantiation was not provided and that it contradicts the principle of the rule of law and denies the European and Euro-Atlantic choice of the Ukrainian people. The ICJ considers these allegations are inappropriate as they directly interfere with the judicial function of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contrary to the national legislation and international law on the independence of the judiciary.
On 2 November 2020, Oleksandr Tupitsky, the President of the Constitutional Court was summoned for interrogation by the State Investigation Bureau in connection with allegations against him of committing crimes as part of an organized group. The ICJ fears that this may be a form of pressure in relation to the Constitution Court’s decision.
Following these incidents, the Constitutional Court has stopped working as four of the judges refuse to take part in its sessions. The Court therefore lacks the necessary quorum to operate.
The ICJ calls on Ukraine to withdraw the draft law, and to refrain from any further reprisals against judges for their decisions.
Download
Ukraine-draft law constitutional court-News-ENG-2020 (full statement with background information)
Nov 12, 2020 | News
The ICJ, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), the Defender Center for Human Rights (DCHR), Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) and the Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace (LWPP) have issued today a joint statement on the assassination of lawyer and political activist Hanan al-Barassi .
The undersigned human rights groups are appalled by the assassination of lawyer and political activist Hanan al-Barassi in Benghazi on 10 November 2020, and call on the competent authorities to launch an independent, impartial and effective investigation into the killing and bring those responsible to justice through fair trials.
On 10 November, a group of unknown armed men shot al-Barassi in Benghazi city centre in broad daylight. Al-Barassi was known for her political engagement and criticism of the human rights violations and abuses and corruption allegedly committed by authorities in Eastern Libya and their affiliated militias. Al-Barassi was active on social media, and often posted videos on Facebook in which she criticised the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF). Her last video was posted a few hours before her killing.
Al-Barassi’s murder follows a disturbing pattern in recent years of violent attacks against prominent women activists who are critical of the authorities and affiliated militias. In June 2014, gunmen assassinated prominent human rights activist and lawyer Salwa Bugaighis. This was followed by the killing of former Derna Congress member Fariha Al-Berkawi on 17 July 2014, and human rights activist Entisar El Hassari on 24 February 2015. Women’s rights defender and member of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Seham Sergiwa was abducted from her home by armed men on 17 July 2019, and her whereabouts remains unknown.
The failure of Libyan authorities to effectively investigate these attacks, despite public commitments to do so, has created an environment of impunity, in which women are frequently targeted, both online and offline, with threats, smear campaigns and violence for their political or human rights views. Al-Barassi’s assassination is also a stark demonstration of how online violence against women can carry over to have lethal consequences on the ground.
Such atrocities are prevalent in Libya today. The pattern of violence including enforced disappearances and assassinations of activists, human rights defenders, judges and journalists across the country is alarming, and will only continue in the absence of any effective, independent and impartial investigations. Addressing these crimes by holding the perpetrators to account must be a priority, including within any political process.
Al-Barassi’s killing has taken place as the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) continues talks aimed at ending the conflict and preparing for national elections, underscoring the importance of ensuring accountability and justice in the country. There can be no meaningful democratic transition in Libya until the basic security and human rights of the population are guaranteed.
Given the absence of any real commitment to effectively investigating ongoing crimes under international law being committed in Libya, the newly established Independent Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Libya must be urgently provided with the necessary resources to begin its investigations and preserve evidence without delay. We urge the Libyan authorities to fully cooperate with the FFM, and UN Member States to swiftly provide the needed support and adequate resources.
Signatories
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- Defender Center for Human Rights (DCHR)
- Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL)
- Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace (LWPP)
Find the Joint Statement in Arabic and English here:
Lybia-Hanan_Albarassi -JointStatement-2020-ARA
Lybia-Hanan_Albarassi -JointStatement-2020-ENG
Nov 2, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in a key case challenging the independence of the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of Poland’s Supreme Court.
In the case of Reczkowicz and Others v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights will consider whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court of Poland may be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” in order to satisfy the requirements of the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In its third party intervention, the International Commission of Jurists has submitted that a court cannot be considered as independent whenever the body that has appointed its members lacks guarantees of independence from the executive and legislative powers as enshrined in standards of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including that at least half of its members be judges elected by their peers.
It further concluded that a court composed by judges appointed by a non-independent body or via a non-independent procedure will not be capable of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 ECHR.
Poland- ECtHR-Reczkowicz and Others v Poland – TPI – ICJ – 2020 -ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 28, 2020 | News
On Friday, 30 October 2020, the Military Court of Suriname (“Krijgsraad”) is expected to resume the appeal process against Suriname’s former president Desi Bouterse. The ICJ will maintain its longstanding monitoring of this trial, which began in 2012.
As of 2020, the trial monitoring exercise will be led by Godfrey Smith SC who is a Senior Counsel, former Attorney General of Belize, and a former High Court judge and acting Justice of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.
The Court has announced that the general public will not be permitted to attend the hearing due to the COVID-19 measures.
While Suriname has a general obligation to ensure that trials are public, some restriction on public attendance of a trial maybe appropriate and even necessary to protect public health.
However, the authorities retain a duty to make accommodation for public access to the proceedings, for example by making the proceedings available through video transmission. In this respect, it is critical that efforts be made to ensure transparency, both in the process and in the outcome of the hearing.
Background to the 2020 Hearing
Desi Bouterse was sentenced on 29 November 2019 to 20 years in prison while he was still president of the country. He was found guilty of planning and ordering the murder of 15 political prisoners on 8 December 1982 at the military barracks of Fort Zeelandia. No arrest warrant has ever been issued in relation to either the charge, the conviction or the sentence.
The appeals process started on 22 January 2020. However, after one of the judges fell ill, the case was postponed to 31 March 2020. The merits of the case have not yet been heard.
As with many pending matters in Suriname, the trial was postponed several times due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ICJ maintains that the judicial process should run its course with due impartiality, independence and fairness to all parties concerned, and insists that the principles of the rule of law be respected by all.
The ICJ reminds the authorities of the State’s obligation to ensure a fair trial by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal as guaranteed under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Suriname is a party. It also recalls the obligation to ensure accountability for gross human rights violations, including the extrajudicial killings of which Desi Bouterse is accused.
Contact:
Godfrey Smith SC, ICJ monitor of the trial of former President Bouterse, t: 501-610-3114, e: godfrey(a)byronsmithlaw.com
Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
