Jun 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ has called on the Russian authorities to institute a prompt, independent and thorough investigation into the recent use of physical force against lawyers Natalia Magova, Diana Sipinova and Liudmila Kochesokova and detention of Diana Sipinova by officers of the Ministry of Interior in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic.
Those responsible should be held accountable, the ICJ stressed.
According to the lawyers and as corroborated by video recordings available online, they arrived in the Department of the Ministry of Interior in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic to represent their client Ratmir Jilokov, another lawyer who was detained on 20 May 2020, also following alleged violence against him by the police.
Despite the lawyers’ requests to have access to their client, they were not allowed to meet him. Instead, they were removed from the building of the Department of the Ministry of Interior with the use of physical force by several officers, which resulted in an altercation.
Moreover, Diana Sipinova was detained in the building of the Department for several hours. Both she and Ratmir Jilokov were later released.
“The use of physical force against the lawyers to prevent their meeting their client was clearly contrary to international human rights law and standards, including those on the role of lawyers,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The ICJ also raised concerns at the criminal proceedings against lawyer Diana Sipinova, following the incident of 21 May 2020, and Ratmir Jilokov, who was detained on 20 May 2020 apparently in connection with having tried to defend a client’s premises from what he considered to be an unlawful search by the authorities.
Both are accused of having used violence against police officers.
Reportedly, the criminal proceedings against Diana Sipinova and Ratmir Jilokov were instituted following their complaints of being subjected to physical attack by the officers of the Ministry of Interior of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic.
The ICJ highlights that as provided by the UN Principles on the Role of Lawyers, States must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference and that they do not suffer, or be threatened with prosecution for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
International human rights law further guarantees the right of a person deprived of liberty to meet with his or her lawyer.
The authorities should take effective measures to prevent such acts against lawyers in the future, and to ensure that lawyers are not prevented from representing their clients in accordance with law, the ICJ said.
The ICJ furthermore calls on the authorities to terminate the criminal investigations against the lawyers in connection with their attempts to meet with and defend their clients’ interests, and for any other action they have taken in relation to the representation of their clients that was in accordance with their professional duties, standards and ethics.
Background information:
Natalia Magova, Diana Sipinova and Liudmila Kochesokova are lawyers based in Kabardino-Balkaria Republic in the North Caucasus part of the Russian Federation.
According to the official website of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Kabardino-Balkaria, Diana Sipinova and Ratmir Jikolov are charged with the criminal offence provided for by Article 318.1 (use of violence which does not endanger life or health against the public officials in connection with the performance of their duties) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In particular, Diana Sipinova is charged with having used violence against officers of the department of the Ministry of Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic when she requested access to her client on 21 May 2020. Ratmir Jilokov is charged with having used violence against the police officers who arrived in the office of his client to conduct a search on 20 May 2020.
On 30 May 2020, the first instance court imposed the preventive measure for Diana Sipinova of prohibition of certain activities for two months.
Lawyer Ratmir Jilokov, who was detained on 20 May and released on 21 May 2020, claims that the officers who arrived in his client’s office for a search failed to provide him with any legal grounds or the document authorising the search, and that he was subjected to violence when he had challenged the unlawfulness of the officers’ actions. The first instance court imposed the preventive measure of prohibition of certain activities for two months in respect of him.
The Federal Chamber of Lawyers of Russian Federation expressed their support to the lawyers and criticized the interference with their professional functions and actively participated in the defence of the lawyers.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns at violence and intimidation against Russian lawyers.
Apr 22, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ based on the consultations with the participants of the Regional Forum of Lawyers held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, published recommendations on the Independence of Legal Profession and Role of Lawyers in Justice Systems of the Central Asian States.
The recommendations draw attention of State and non-State actors in the Central Asian countries to the urgency in ensuring in law and practice the independence of the lawyers’ professional associations and individual lawyers.
“Lawyers play a critical role in strengthening the rule of law and protection of human rights in the justice systems of all countries of the world, including in Central Asia,” Temur Shakirov, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser said.
“We hope that these recommendations, which are based on consultations and international law and standards on the role of lawyers, will contribute to strengthening the independence lawyers and Bar Associations in Central Asia”.
The recommendations, apart from the lawyers’ communities themselves, are addressed to national professional associations of lawyers, Parliaments, and Governments, and specifically Ministries of Justice that continue in some countries of Central Asia to exercise formal and informal influence over the national Bar Association, including by imposing control in regard to access to the profession and disciplinary proceedings.
“The ICJ calls on these institutions to adopting urgent and effective measures legal and policy measures to safeguarding lawyers’ ability to carry out their professional duties in an atmosphere free from any other improper interference, institutional or personal, in each of the countries of the Central Asian region,” Shakirov added.
Background:
On 9 November 2018, the ICJ facilitated the Regional Forum on the Independence in Justice Systems of the Central Asian States in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. This was the first regional event hosted by the Union of Lawyers of Tajikistan, a professional association of lawyers that was established in 2014. The Forum brought representatives of the National Bar Associations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The event was also supported by Legal Policy Research Centre (LPRC), a think tank from Almaty, Kazakhstan, that works on the reform of legal profession in the region.
The participants of the Forum highlighted the continuing and renewed attempts to undermine the independence of the professional associations of lawyers in countries of Central Asia, including targeted disbarment and harassment of individual lawyers for fulfilment of professional duties towards their clients. The participants also discussed the emerging practice of the establishment of specialized bodies for the protection of the rights of lawyers within the professional associations of lawyers to counter negative trends in Central Asian countries, affecting the legal profession.
Recommendations, in PDF: Central Asia-Recommendations-Advocacy-2020-ENG
Apr 9, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined other NGOs highlighting key human rights issues in the COVID-19 pandemic, at a virtual meeting of the UN Human Rights Council.
In the informal conversation, exceptionally organised by video-conference, the High Commissioner for Human Rights presented a statement, as did the President of the Council and a number of States, followed by several statements by NGOs.
The ICJ joined statements delivered by CIVICUS (on civil and political rights), ISHR (on the UN system response), and FORUM-Asia (on economic, social and cultural rights), on behalf of a large number of NGOs from around the world.
The statements focussed on, among other things:
- the obligations of States individually and collectively to mobilize the maximum available resources to respond to the pandemic and protect those at risk, including by respecting, protecting and fulfilling economic, social and cultural rights;
- the need to guard against abuse of emergency powers and undue restrictions on fundamental rights, including non-discrimination, freedom of expression and right to access information, the right to privacy, rights of persons deprived of liberty, and taking into account the situation of particularly-at-risk groups;
- the role of the Human Rights Council, Special Procedures and Secretary General to monitor, report on, and respond to human rights aspects of the pandemic and States’ responses, and ensuring that civil society continues to be able to participate in all relevant UN and other processes.
The full statements may be downloaded in PDF format here:
Civil and Political Rights: UN-JointStatement-COVID19CPR-2020-final
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: UN-JointStatement-COVID19ESCR-2020-final
United Nations Mechanisms: UN-JointStatement-COVID19UN-2020-final
Abbreviated versions were delivered in the dialogue, due to the limited time available.
In extensive and detailed closing remarks, the High Commissioner responded to many of the questions and observations made during the discussion, concluding, on the topic of access to justice in times of crisis, as follows (unofficial transcription):
“Courts become more important than ever to safeguard rights in times when major decisions with broad impact are being taken and implemented at great speed. In these circumstances, we have already seen the real risk for abuse of power, legal over-generalization and mistake. The courts must remain available to address these issues, if necessary of course by modifying their working methods. We have seen courts in many countries taking measures to ensure they remain accessible while protecting their staff and clients.”
A video recording of the event can be viewed here.
The High Commissioner’s specific remarks on access to justice can be accessed directly here.
Apr 6, 2020 | Feature articles, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
As of 8:00am CET this morning, the Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases tracker by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in the US recorded 169,049,480 confirmed cases of individuals who had contracted the COVID-19 disease in 192 countries, and 3,513,137 people who had succumbed to the virus. Read all the ICJ articles on the crisis.
Against this background, the aim of this blog is to highlight the necessity of ensuring the consistency of public health policies taken as part of the global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic with human rights law and standards.
As outlined in a prescient 2019 Lancet Commission report – The legal determinants of health: harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development – the law, and a firm commitment to the rule of law, play a critical role in the pursuit of global health with justice.
Ultimately, scientifically sound, evidence-based, human rights compliant, transparent and accountable public health policies and practices will also be more effective, as they will, in turn, elicit greater public support, including by prompting greater adherence to public health policy directives imposing restrictive measures on human rights.
As Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently affirmed, ‘COVID-19 is a test for our societies, and we are all learning and adapting as we respond to the virus. Human dignity and rights need to be front and centre in that effort, not an afterthought’.
China, where cases of COVID-19 were first documented, has been questioned from inside and outside for its response to the crisis, at first attempting to shut down information about the virus, leading to arrests and detentions. Outside China, while some COVID-19 health policies have been evidence-based, such as scaled-up, accurate testing for suspected cases, others are ineffective and overly broad, increasing stigmatization and misinformation.
Around the world, people of Asian descent have been subjected to xenophobia, stigmatization and racist attacks. Moreover, many States have now imposed extensive travel restrictions or even blanket travel bans; some have gone as far as using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to promote their xenophobic and anti-asylum agenda and have now shut down their borders to refugee claimants, thereby flouting the right of anyone to seek asylum from persecution in other countries.
In a frontal attack against women’s human rights, in Texas and Ohio, the authorities have moved to ban healthcare providers from performing abortions in most circumstances – purporting to do so to respond to the global COVID-19 crisis. There is also a world of false information on COVID-19. For instance, Indonesia’s health minister suggested that Islamic prayers shielded people from the virus.
To foster scientifically accurate, human rights compliant global health responses – including to events such as the COVID-19 pandemic – it is crucial to enhance dialogue between the public health and human rights sectors. A good place to start framing a productive exchange in this respect is to take a close and simultaneous look at the International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) – an agreement among 196 WHO Member States to work together for global health security – and to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Siracusa Principles), setting out criteria to determine the lawfulness of measures restricting or otherwise limiting human rights taken by States to respond to – among other things – public health emergencies.
International Health Regulations & Travel Restrictions
Article 3(1) of the IHR (2005), setting out the principles informing the regulations, recalls that, ‘[t]he implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’. And, perhaps tellingly, in Article 32, concerning the treatment of travellers, the IHR proclaim, among other things, that, ‘[i]n implementing health measures under these Regulations, States Parties shall treat travellers with respect for their dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
Notwithstanding the express human rights obligations enshrined in the IHR, current public policy responses to the ongoing crisis – and even public discourses around those responses – make very few, if any, direct references to human rights and, in fact, seem to be oblivious to the impact that measures taken and/or considered in the response to COVID-19 have on human rights.
But the IHR, as noted in a recent piece by Roojin Habibi et al, restrict ‘the measures countries can implement when addressing public health risks to those measures that are supported by science, commensurate with the risks involved, and anchored in human rights. The intention of the IHR is that countries should not take needless measures that harm people or that disincentivise countries from reporting new risks to international public health authorities’.
Siracusa Principles
The 1985 Siracusa Principles provide a good basis to flesh out what a human rights compliant public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic must entail. They detail criteria – by now firmly enshrined in international human rights law and standards – to determine the lawfulness of State measures restrictive of human rights.
According to the Siracusa Principles, for instance, when a State invokes public health as a ground for limiting certain rights, its actions ‘must be specifically aimed at preventing disease or injury or providing care for the sick or injured’. Even in circumstances when it is undeniable that a public health emergency may threaten the life of a nation, the Siracusa Principles reaffirm the obligation of States to ensure that any public health response to such an emergency be rooted in and compatible with human rights law and standards. Importantly, the Principles provide further interpretive guidance to States, proclaiming that restrictions on human rights may be justifiable only when they are:
- provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
- based on scientific evidence;
- directed toward a legitimate objective;
- strictly necessary in a democratic society;
- the least intrusive and restrictive means available;
- neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application;
- of limited duration; and
- subject to review.
The final condition – that State action be subject to review – is critical. Analogous requirements can be seen in other areas of international law. In the asylum and refugee context, for example, detention guidelines promulgated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees emphasize that confinement on health grounds beyond an initial medical check must be subject to judicial oversight. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment no. 35 makes clear that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ‘entitles anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention’ to take their case before a court to decide on ‘the lawfulness of detention’, enshrining the principle of habeas corpus.
The General Comment adds that this right also applies to house arrest, as a form of deprivation of liberty. Of course, whether involuntary home confinement constitutes deprivation of liberty – entitling those subjected to such a measure to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court – is a question of fact, depending, in turn, on the degree of the physical confinement imposed. Voluntarily choosing to stay at home in response to State authorities’ exhortation to do so, on the other hand, does not constitute deprivation of liberty.
Furthermore, any State action must comply with the rule of law and should respect the separation of powers. Neither the executive nor public health authorities should be immune from having their actions legitimately scrutinized by other branches of the State, namely, the legislature and the judiciary. Checks and balances are necessary to ensure respect for human rights and for democratic legitimacy.
In conclusion, both the IHR (2005) and the Siracusa Principles remind us of the fact that State responses to global public health emergencies cannot be unfettered, and must comply with States’ human rights obligations. Public responses to health emergencies and human rights need not be in conflict – indeed, grounding States’ public health measures in the human rights framework provides the most effective way to advance global health with justice.
The Lancet Commission report suggests one way to further identify human rights and rule of law compliant measures in the current and future global public health policy response. The report calls for a partnership between ‘legal and health experts to create an independent standing commission on global health and the law’ that would propose ‘evidence-based legal interventions for addressing major global health challenges, reforms of the global health architecture and international law, and strategies to build and strengthen global and national health law capacities’.
We should heed that call.
(Article written by Sam Zarifi and Kate Powers)
Read also
Indonesia: trans women face discrimination in access to Covid-19 vaccines
Nepal: seeking a rights-based approach to healthcare
European Union and India: leaders should use meeting to demonstrate commitment to defending rights and combating Covid-19 pandemic
The unvaccinated: equality not charity in Southern Africa – new ICJ report
Indian government fails to protect right to life and health in second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic
Journalists and media platforms at increased risk in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic
Venezuela: lack of access to safe water aggravates the COVID-19 pandemic
Covid-19: applying human rights standards to ensure corporate accountability in the context of COVID-19 vaccine access
Vaccine patents: healthy or harmful?
ICJ calls on States to ensure human rights compliant access to COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)
Peru: the COVID-19 vaccine demands international and national solidarity
Harmonizing global health law and human rights law to develop rights-based approaches to global health emergencies
The ICJ and ZimRights ask for urgent intervention on access to COVID-19 vaccines from African Commission Mechanism
ICJ urges the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to call on States to comply with their obligations to ensure equitable access to vaccines for all
The ICJ recommends that the African Union acknowledge COVID-19 vaccines are a “public good”
ICJ Covid-19 end of year compassion appeal
Indonesia: ICJ addresses open letter to COVID-19 Mitigation Task Force calling for special measures to protect women workers in its pandemic response
Women facing health risks and gender-based violence in Venezuela
Sri Lanka: Mahara prison killings must be properly investigated and urgent measures taken to protect detainees from COVID-19
COVID-19: ICJ publishes global guidance on the use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings
Nepal: ICJ briefing paper outlines shortcomings in protecting the right to health during COVID-19 pandemic
Thailand: need to protect the right to health of the most marginalized highlighted in public seminar on human rights and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Sri Lanka: vulnerable groups pay the price for militarization of COVID-19 response
Lesotho: ICJ Webinar highlights COVID-19 adverse pandemic impacts on the right to equal education of children with disabilities
At UN, ICJ highlights human rights approach to COVID-19
New ICJ global report shows that the right to health must be central to State responses to COVID-19
Central Asia: ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure access to justice during the COVID-19 pandemic
Tajikistan: online workshop on access to justice in the times of COVID-19
India: ICJ Commissioner Justice Ajit Prakash Shah discusses the responsibility of the Courts in upholding human rights during COVID-19 pandemic
EU: the impact of COVID-19 on human rights of migrants and refugees
Israel: ensure full compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – new briefing paper
COVID-19: ICJ calls on African States to protect women from escalating sexual and gender based violence
ICJ briefing paper on the impact of anti-COVID-19 pandemic measures on access to justice in CIS countries
Facebook, Twitter and social media in times of COVID 19 and #BlackLivesMatter
Rights of judicial proceedings’ participants must be protected in Tunisia following COVID-19 lockdown
ICJ Covid-19 Emergency Appeal: donate now!
ICJ webinar highlights difficulties in responding to gender based violence during the Covid-19 pandemic (watch below)
The right to water in India and the COVID-19 crisis – ICJ Briefing Paper
In solidarity with the stateless
Kazakhstan: online conference on law and human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic exposes India’s housing crisis – ICJ Briefing Paper
COVID-19: NGOs emphasize role of independent UN human rights experts
COVID-19: Myanmar’s ongoing Internet shutdown and hostilities threaten right to health
Judiciaries during COVID-19: South American experience
South Africa: ICJ calls on authorities immediately ensure the end of all evictions and protect the livelihoods of all
India on the brink of Hunger Crisis during COVID-19 Pandemic, warns ICJ Briefing Paper
Philippines: upholding human rights during a state of public health emergency
European Union: ICJ joins call for urgent EU response to Hungary’s COVID-19 emergency law
COVID-19: Indian authorities must act immediately to protect internal migrant workers stranded under intolerable conditions
Amid COVID-19 crisis, Polish parliament must reject regressive proposals on sexual and reproductive rights
Myanmar: Government must lift online restrictions in conflict-affected areas to ensure access to information during COVID-19 pandemic
ICJ joins in highlighting COVID-19 human rights issues at Human Rights Council
European governments must ensure safe and timely access to abortion care during the COVID-19 pandemic
Colombia: COVID-19 policies should include conflict-related measures, especially for human rights defenders
Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law
ICJ Guidance on the Courts and COVID-19
South Africa: authorities must work urgently to curb gender-based violence under lockdown
State measures to address COVID-19 must be gender responsive
COVID-19: the ICJ publishes a briefing paper on promoting non-citizens’ right to work in South Africa
New Zealand: unprecedented lockdown should be carefully monitored
Guatemala: the ICJ urges the Government to protect the rights of indigenous people against COVID-19
You can’t fight the virus when you live in poverty
COVID-19: Use of digital surveillance technologies must be human rights compliant
Southeast Asia: States must respect and protect rights in combating misinformation online relating to COVID-19
Turkey : ICJ urges extension of alternatives to detention for prison population amid COVID-19 crisis
COVID-19 pandemic: Zimbabwe must act urgently to protect the right to health of inhabitants
South Africa: authorities must take immediate measures to protect social and economic rights before nationwide lockdown commences
Thailand: measures under the Emergency Decree to address the COVID-19 outbreak must conform to international law
COVID-19: urgent measures must be taken by MENA governments to protect the prison population
Hungary : Parliament should not pass COVID-19 permanent emergency powers Bill
Read ICJ legal blogs on OpinioJuris
The COVID-19 measures impact on the rights of migrants and refugees in the EU: access to the right to seek asylum and reception and living conditions
The Right to Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory during the COVID-19 Pandemic
The right to social security: navigating the narrow passage between virus suppression and economy resuscitation
A Radical Shift in Libyan and International Priorities is Necessary to Protect Health and Save Lives in Libya (+ Arabic version)
Gender Based Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic and economic, social and cultural rights
The Right to Health of Venezuelans in Colombia: From Policy to Practice (Part 2)
The Right to Health of Venezuelans in Colombia: From Principle to Policy (Part 1)
COVID-19 Symposium: The Use of Criminal Sanctions in COVID-19 Responses – Enforcement of Public Health Measures, Part II
COVID-19 Symposium: The Use of Criminal Sanctions in COVID-19 Responses – Exposure and Transmission, Part I
COVID-19 Symposium: The Courts and Coronavirus (Part II)
COVID-19 Symposium: The Courts and Coronavirus (Part I)
COVID-19 Symposium: COVID-19 Responses and State Obligations Concerning the Right to Health (Part 2)
COVID-19 Symposium: COVID-19 Responses and State Obligations Concerning the Right to Health (Part 1)
Watch video interviews
Frederick Rawski, Director of ICJ’s Asia & Pacific Programme talks with ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Ajit Prakash Shah about the role of the Indian judiciary as “protector of Indian people” in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic.
ICJ Director of Media & Communications Olivier van Bogaert talks with ICJ President Robert Goldman about the COVID-19 situation in the USA and its impact on human right and the rule of law. They also discuss the killing of George Floyd.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with ICJ Vice-President Radmila Dragicevic Dicic about the COVID-19 situation in Serbia:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with prominent judge of the Tribunal of Milan, Martina Flamini about Italy, the European country that has been first hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.
ICJ Director of Media & Communications Olivier van Bogaert talks with ICJ Commissioner Belisário dos Santos Júnior about the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and the health, political and judicial crisis that it triggered.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with prominent human rights lawyer Zia Oloumi about France’s Rule of Law and Human Rights during COVID-19:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Khanyo Farisè about the gendered impact of COVID-19 in Southern Africa.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Poland with prominent human rights lawyer, Maria Ejchart-Dubois:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Kazakhstan with ICJ Legal Consultant Dmitriy Nurumov.
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Tim Fish Hodgson about how COVID-19 has impacted socio-economic rights in South Africa:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks about Uzbekistan with ICJ Legal Consultant Dilfuza Kurolova.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with Turkish lawyer and ICJ Legal Consultant Kerem Altiparmak:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks to ICJ Legal Adviser Justice Mavedzenge about COVID-19 and human rights issues in Zimbabwe:
ICJ Communications Officer Shaazia Ebrahim talks to Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ Africa Programme:
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser for Latin America, about COVID-19 and human rights issues in Colombia:
ICJ Commissioner Justice Kalyan Shreshta talks about the COVID-19 situation in Nepal:
Which answers from economic and social rights to the COVID-19 pandemic? ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo (Europe Programme) talks with ICJ Legal Adviser Tim Fish Hodgson (Africa Programme)
Follow webinars
The ICJ brought together first responders from Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa to discuss how they were responding to #GBV during the #COVID19 pandemic.
Additional links
Nina Sun and ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Livio Zilli talk about Criminalization & COVID-19: Public Health and Human Rights Implications
Apr 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ welcomes the decision by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe to invalidate the enactment of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 in Gonese and Anor v Parliament of Zimbabwe and 4 Ors. The judgment restores important Constitutional guarantees for the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe adopted a new Constitution in 2013 and one of the progressive elements of this Constitution was its provisions regulating the appointment of judicial leaders such as the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Judge President of the High Court. These judicial leaders perform important administrative functions with a huge impact on access to justice for the public.
For example, the Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and therefore, presides over processes to select and recommend candidates for judicial appointment.
The Judge President is responsible for case allocation in the High Court and therefore, selects judges to sit on cases. It is important that the procedures for appointing these judicial leaders be transparent and independent of executive control in order to maintain the independence and impartiality of judges as well as promote public confidence in the judiciary.
The 2013 Constitution ensured this by prescribing procedures which accorded the executive a constrained role in the selection and appointment of these judicial leaders.
For example, the process of selecting these office bearers was to be led by an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which would publicly advertise the vacancies, shortlist candidates, conduct interviews that are open to the public and recommend candidates for appointment by the President. The President was required to appoint only from the shortlist submitted by the JSC.
In 2017, the then-President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe signed into law a constitutional amendment bill which sought to change these provisions and give the President the authority to select and appoint these judicial leaders without conducting public interviews and without being constrained or restricted to the shortlist provided by the JSC.
The enactment of this constitutional amendment bill was challenged in the Constitutional Court on grounds that the amendment had been adopted and enacted into law without following due process.
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court concluded that, “It is declared that the passing of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 by the Senate on 01 August 2017 was inconsistent with the provisions of s 328(5) of the Constitution, to the extent that the affirmative votes did not reach the minimum threshold of two-thirds of the membership of the House. Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 is declared invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The declaration of invalidity shall have effect from the date of this order but is suspended for a period of one hundred and eighty days, subject to the provisions of paragraph 1(b).”
The Court directed the Senate to conduct a vote in accordance with the procedure for amending the Constitution prescribed by s 328(5) of the Constitution within one hundred and eighty days of the order given. Failure to do so will render the declaration of invalidity of Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) of 2017 final, said the Court.
Commenting on this judgment, ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga said: “This is a positive judgment which underscores the vital principle of legality, particularly that changes to the Constitution must be processed and enacted in strict accordance with the laid out procedures. Respect for the Constitution, and ensuring the independence of the judiciary, are fundamental elements of the rule of law; both are advanced by this judgment.”
The decision by the Constitutional Court comes at a time when the Parliament of Zimbabwe has gazetted further proposed changes to the Constitution, which amongst other things seek to give the executive a stronger role in the selection and appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court.
These proposed changes would undermine judicial independence and undercut public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Further, these proposed changes are contrary to international and African standards. For instance, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary enjoin member states to ensure that “Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives.”
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa further provide that, “The process for appointments to judicial bodies shall be transparent and accountable and the establishment of an independent body for this purpose is encouraged.” The ICJ therefore, calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to proceed with these proposed changes to the Constitution.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, t: +26377728 3248; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
