Jul 9, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ filed a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of its review of Lebanon’s human rights record between January and February 2021.
Information provided in the submission was based on a number of recent ICJ publications, including on the independence of the judiciary; military courts; gender-based violence; and a forthcoming publication on the human rights of refugees and migrants in Lebanon.
In the submission, the ICJ drew the attention of the Working Group to the following concerns with respect to Lebanon:
- The independence of the judiciary and the use and jurisdiction of military courts;
- The obstacles that continue to impede women’s and girls’ access to justice for sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV); and
- The inadequate framework and practices undermining migrants’ and refugees’ rights.
The ICJ called on the Working Group and Human Rights Council to urge the Lebanese authorities to take the following actions:
With regard to the independence of the judiciary and the use and jurisdiction of military courts:
- End executive control and undue influence over the judiciary, including by divesting the Minister of Justice of any role in the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, secondment or any other aspects of the management of the career of judges;
- Ensure that the High Judicial Council is independent from the executive, including by amending its composition to ensure that the majority of members are judges elected by their peers, and that it is pluralistic, gender and minority representative, competent to decide on all issues relating to the career of judges, and empowered to uphold the independence of the judiciary;
- Ensure that military courts have no jurisdiction to try civilians, and that such jurisdiction is restricted to military personnel over alleged breaches of military discipline or ordinary crimes not involving the commission of human rights violations, to the exclusion of human rights violations and crimes under international law.
With regard to women’s access to justice for SGBV:
- Repeal all discriminatory provisions against women, particularly those in the Criminal Code, the Nationality Code and Personal Status Laws;
- Adopt a unified civil Personal Status Law for all religious groups, where all customs discriminating against women and girls are overridden in accordance with article 2(f) of CEDAW; and ensure that issues related to divorce, inheritance and custody are adjudicated before ordinary courts consistent with international standards;
- Amend Law No. 293/2014 on the protection of women and other family members from domestic violence (Law No. 293/14) and the Criminal Code to ensure that it criminalizes all forms of SGBV, including by properly defining rape as a type of sexual assault characterized by a physical invasion of a sexual nature without consent or under coercive circumstances, and ensure that marital and all other acts of rape be criminalized; and, to this end, abolish provisions of Law No. 293/14 providing for a religion-based claim to marital rights;
- Amend the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and Law No. 293/14 to include gender-sensitive investigations and evidence-gathering procedures in order to enable women to report violence against them, and take effective steps to address the social and practical factors that continue to impede women’s access to justice, such as gender-based stereotypes and prejudices that operate in society and in the justice system;
- Remove obstacles related to gender stereotypes, economic and social realities that continue to impede access to justice in SGBV cases, including by ensuring that where law enforcement officers fail to ensure an effective investigation into an incident of SGBV, their omissions be actionable as a breach of their duties and subject to disciplinary measures as appropriate;
- Provide routine capacity building training to justice sector actors on the application of international human rights law, including CEDAW and related jurisprudence.
With regard to the treatment of refugees and migrants:
- Become a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and pass legislation to adequately protect the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless people and migrants, in compliance with Lebanon’s international obligations;
- Amend the 1962 Law on the Entry, Stay in and Exit from Lebanon (Law 1962) to ensure full compliance with these obligations, and that people entitled to international protection, chiefly refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless individuals, are not penalized, automatically arrested or deported for their “illegal” entry and stay in the country;
- Ensure that no individual is deprived of their liberty solely on the grounds of their immigration status, and, to this end, amend articles 32 and 36 of Law 1962; until then, provide automatic, periodic judicial review of the lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of any immigration-related detention;
- Strictly comply with Lebanon’s non-refoulement obligations, including by ensuring that no individual is transferred to a country where they face a real risk of persecution or other forms of serious harm; that nobody is forcibly returned without an individualized, fair and effective procedure guaranteeing due process; and by establishing a moratorium on all removals to Syria.
Lebanon-UPR Submission-Advocacy-Non Legal submission-2020-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Jul 8, 2020 | News
Draft law reduces leading bar associations’ authority, leads to creation of rival groups, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said today. The Turkish government’s plan to allow for multiple bar associations appears calculated to divide the legal profession along political lines and diminish the biggest bar associations’ role as human rights watchdogs, they added.
The current bar associations have not been consulted, and 78 bars out of 80 signed a statement opposing the plan.
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch have published a question and answer document explaining the draft law, scheduled for a vote in parliament in the coming days. The document outlines the government-led effort to reduce the influence of leading bar associations, reflecting the executive’s growing dissatisfaction with the bar associations’ public reporting on Turkey’s crisis for human rights and the rule of law.
“Turkey’s prominent bar associations play a key role in defending fair trial rights and scrutinizing human rights at a time when flagrant violation of rights is the norm in Turkey,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“The government move to create multiple bars and dramatically cut leading bars’ representation at the national level is a clear divide-and-rule tactic to diminish the bar associations’ authority and watchdog role,” he added.
The proposed amendments provide that in provinces with over 5,000 lawyers, a group of at least 2,000 lawyers can establish alternative bar associations.
In big cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, several bar associations could be established. The amendments would also greatly reduce the representation of the largest bar associations at the national level within the Union of Turkish Bars, the Ankara-based umbrella body with significant financial resources it controls and distributes to provincial bars.
The fact that the vast majority of elected legal profession representatives oppose the move and that the likely impact will be to greatly diminish the authority of leading provincial bars that have been critical of certain government initiatives demonstrates that the aim of the proposed change is to shield the government from justified criticism, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
Drastically cutting the number of delegates from large bar associations representing thousands of lawyers to the national Union of Turkish Bar Associations would reduce the influence of the large bar associations in electing the national group’s president and participating meaningfully in other decision-making functions.
A provincial bar association with fewer than 100 lawyers, such as Ardahan in northeastern Turkey, for example, would be represented by 4 delegates, compared with 3 at present.
But a bar association such as Izmir in western Turkey, with over 9,500 lawyers, which sends 35 delegates, would be entitled to only 5. Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir Bar, which represent 55 percent of the lawyers in Turkey, would be entitled to only 7 percent of all delegates within the national union.
The atmosphere of conflict in which the draft law has been introduced, its timing, and the lack of consultation with the bar associations themselves provides credible grounds for great concern and skepticism over the government’s motives, the groups said.
Over the past year, Turkey’s presidency and government have made public statements strongly criticizing leading bar associations in response to the bars’ legitimate expression of concerns about Turkey’s rule of law crisis and executive interference in the justice system.
The government has reacted strongly against the bars’ scrutiny of its failure to uphold human rights obligations through bar association publication of reports on torture, enforced disappearances, and other rights abuses ignored by the authorities.
For these reasons, the government’s proposed amendments are clearly designed to achieve a political purpose unrelated to an effort to advance or strengthen standards in the legal profession, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
The government’s move is politically divisive and will contribute to undermining the appearance of independence and impartiality in the justice system.
“The government should immediately withdraw the current proposed amendment and embark on a process of full consultation with bar associations,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The government’s plan as it stands will only deepen mistrust in Turkey’s justice system as lacking independence by dividing the legal profession along political lines. This could have disastrous long-term consequences for upholding the role and function of lawyers and for fair trial rights.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32-2-734-84-46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-79-749-99-49 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org ; Twitter: @maxfrigo
Download
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-ENG (Q & A, in PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-News-Press releases-2020-TUR (Story in Turkish, PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-TUR (Q & A in Turkish, PDF)
Jun 26, 2020 | Cases, News
The ICJ today welcomed the judgment by the Court in the case of Bagirov v. Azerbaijan. It found that the suspension from legal practice and subsequent disbarment of Khalid Bagirov violated his rights to freedom of expression and to respect for private life under Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Khalid Bagirov’s suspension from the practice of law was based on his public criticism of ill-treatment by the police, following the wide media coverage of the death of an individual in police custody. Later he represented the victim as a lawyer in the proceedings.
His subsequent disbarment arose from his remarks about a judge made in the courtroom when representing his client in another high-profile case.
The ICJ intervened in this case as a third party, providing an evaluation of the State’s obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression of lawyers in light of international standards on independence of the lawyers and the consequences of disciplinary proceedings for lawyers’ rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.
The ICJ calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to fully and promptly implement the judgment, including by taking steps to restore Khalid Bagirov as a member of the Azerbaijan Bar Association.
“Khalid Bagirov must now be reinstated as a lawyer and be allowed to resume his legal practice in Azerbaijan,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“But in addition, this judgment shows that measures need to be taken to address the systemic problem of unjustified disbarments of lawyers who seek to defend human rights in Azerbaijan. Reforms are needed to ensure that the disciplinary process is independent and fair and that penalties are proportionate.”
In its judgment of 25 June 2020, the Court held under Article 10 of the Convention that the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of Khalid Bagirov’s disbarment were not relevant and sufficient, and that the sanction imposed on him was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having highlighted that “the disbarment cannot but be regarded as a harsh sanction, capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel”.
In relation to Article 8 ECHR, the Court further noted that “…in a series of cases it has noted a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists and human rights defenders … Against this background, the Court underlines that, notwithstanding the duties, in particular, with respect to their conduct, with which all lawyers must comply, the alleged need in a democratic society for a sanction of disbarment of a lawyer in circumstances such as this would need to be supported by particularly weighty reasons” which had not been established in this case.
In respect of the suspension of the lawyer, the Government contended that the interference with Mr Bagirov’s rights to private life and freedom of expression had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Court found that, he was not the victim’s lawyer when he made the impugned statements about the police, furthermore, the Court mentioned that it did not find any provision of domestic law preventing a lawyer from calling for peaceful protests against police brutality for the purpose of preventing violence.
The Court further found that while Mr Bagirov’s remarks, about a judge’s lack of capacity, were capable of being offensive, the sanction imposed on him did not struck a fair balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the need to protect his rights to private life and freedom of expression.
In this connection, the Court stated that inter alia, Mr Bagirov had confined himself to making a statement in a courtroom as a lawyer, in the context of his objections to the shortcomings of the proceedings.
Background
In addition to its intervention in Bhagirov v Azerbaijan, the ICJ has also intervened as a third party in other cases of lawyers from Azerbaijan (Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 6477/08 and 10414/08, § 54, 19 April 2018).
In 2019, the ICJ published recommendations to the Azerbaijan Bar Association on the role and independence of Lawyers,
In 2016, the ICJ published a mission report Defenceless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan
Jun 9, 2020 | News
As of 9 June, at least ten prominent lawyers have been arrested and criminally charged in Zimbabwe.
Among them, Advocate Thabani Mpofu (photo), Advocate Choice Damiso, Mr Tapiwa Makanza and Mr Joshua Chirambwe have been arrested and charged with the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
These lawyers are alleged to have falsified information in the papers filed in a legal matter in which they were representing a citizen, who was challenging the legality of President Mnangagwa’s decision to appoint Mr Kumbirai Hodzi as the Prosecutor General.
Mr Dumisani Dube was arrested on similar charges but his charges arise from a different case.
Mr Patrick Tererai was charged with disorderly conduct after he demanded access to his client who had been detained at a police station.
The ICJ notes that the criminal charges laid against all the six lawyers are linked to the performance of their duties as legal practitioners.
The ICJ reminds the Government of Zimbabwe of its domestic and international obligations pertaining to the right to fair trial and protection of the independence of lawyers, as underscored in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa
These elaborate standards relevant to the right to a fair trial including under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Of particular significance is Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles which states that “Governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference;…. and [lawyers] shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”
In addition, Principle 20 provides that “Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.” Similar provisions are included in Part I of the African Principles and Guidelines.
A lawyer would not generally be immune from criminal proceedings where allegations of perjury or intentionally providing false information to a court were well-founded.
In relation to this recent group of cases, the Law Society of Zimbabwe has expressed the concern that the arrests appear calculated to hinder the members of the profession from undertaking their professional duties.
In this context, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that the right to fair trial for these lawyers is fully respected and that the criminal charges brought against these lawyers are not abused to subvert the independence of the legal profession.
“The arrest of ten lawyers within one week on criminal allegations arising from the performance of their duties as legal practitioners is a cause of concern. The state must ensure that these cases are handled fairly and that the criminal justice system is not abused to harass and intimidate lawyers who represent clients who are perceived as political opposition to the sitting government,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
Of late, Advocate Thabani Mpofu has represented opposition leader Mr Nelson Chamisa in a series of cases. These include the presidential election petition and the cases in which Mr Chamisa’s rise to the leadership of the opposition party has been challenged.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +263 77 728 3248, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today raised concern at the threat of criminal proceedings against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions. The ICJ called on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court not to lift his immunity at its 9th June hearing.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with for his actions in delivering his ruling in public, which is in accordance with national law”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “His immunity must be maintained and the ‘Muzzle Act’ that allowed for these abusive prosecutions should be immediately scrapped.”
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which gave competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“As highlighted by the recent ruling of the EU Court of Justice, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on issues pertaining to the disciplinary or criminal responsibility of judges, including a waiver of their immunity,” Massimo Frigo added.
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver will be examined on the 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 22 979 38 00
