Jul 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the raids on 11 July by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the homes and offices of Anand Grover and Indira Jaising, two lawyers prominent for frequently challenging the Indian government’s failures to respect and promote the rights of all people in India.
Grover and Jaising are both Supreme Court lawyers and co-founders of the Lawyers Collective, a non-governmental organization.
These raids were reportedly conducted pursuant to CBI’s registration of criminal charges into alleged violations of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), a much criticized law frequently used to target human rights defenders and critics of the Indian government.
“This raid seems designed to harass and intimidate two tireless advocates of Constitutional and international rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary-General of the ICJ.
“The Indian government must immediately cease harassment of the Lawyers Collective and its founders Anand Grover and Indira Jaising,” he added.
The CBI raids appears to be based on a 2016 Ministry of Home Affairs report, now under appeal in the Bombay High Court, and without any material change in circumstances since its release.
The raid has also been conducted notwithstanding a National Human Rights Commission statement seeking a status report from the CBI by 21 July 2019 to ensure that the investigation is “non-discriminatory and to avoid arbitrariness”.
The attack is emblematic of a broader pattern of official threats to and harassment of Indian civil society in general, and the Lawyers Collective in particular.
Lawyers Collective’s FCRA license was cancelled in November 2016, a decision that is under appeal in the Bombay High Court. The action relied upon overly broad and vague legal provisions of the FCRA that violate India’s legal obligation to respect and protect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
“The repeated use of the FCRA to target civil society including Lawyers Collective has had a devastating chilling effect on public comment about the government,” said Zarifi.
“The law should be repealed, or substantially amended to include safeguards against arbitrary use of its provisions, and to protect freedom of expression and association,” he added.
The ICJ supports the 2016 call by three United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the Indian Government to repeal FCRA, which decried the FCRA’s use to “silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government”.
Jul 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ called today on the Italian Government to reject the incendiary statements issued by Matteo Salvini, Vice-President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Interior, calling for the “reform” of the judiciary after a court issued a judgement with which he did not agree.
On 2 and 3 July, Minister Salvini issued a series of press statements and tweets that accused a judge in Agrigento of having made a “political judgment” for having ordered the release of the captain of the rescue boat SeaWatch3, Carola Rackete.
She is alleged to have rammed a boat of the law enforcement officers of the Guardia di Finanza in an effort to rescue 53 migrants stranded at sea for more than two weeks.
Minister Salvini followed his complaints with a direct request “to reform the judiciary, select and promote those who administer it in Italy and change the criteria of appointment, because this is not the justice that is useful for a country that wants to grow.”
“The declarations by Minister Salvini are unbecoming of a representative of an Executive and constitute a direct threat to the independence of the Italian judiciary” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programme.
“Calling for a reform of the system of appointments and dismissal of judges in the wake of pernicious accusations of “politicization” are a clear threat to the independence of the judiciary and to any judge that would rule against the wishes of Mr Salvini,” he added.
“The Italian Government should publicly reject the threats by Matteo Salvini and ensure that any justice reform is fully in compliance with international and national constitutional standards on the independence of the judiciary”, said Frigo.
The ICJ emphasizes that international standards on the independence of the judiciary forbid such inappropriate interference with judicial process by the exective.
In that connection, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which includes Italy, has affirmed that “[i]f commenting on judges’ decisions, the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary. They should also avoid actions which may call into question their willingness to abide by judges’ decisions, other than stating their intention to appeal.”
On Twitter, Mr Salvini has also issued declarations that undermine the right to presumption of innocence under articles 14.2 ICCPR and 6.2 ICCPR by calling Carola Rackete an “outlaw” and a “criminal” before and after the ruling of the judge on release.
The ICJ has informed the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the situation.
Background
On 2 July 2019, the judge for preliminary investigations (Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari – G.I.P.) of Agrigento, Sicily, Italy – i.e. the judge competent under Italian criminal procedure law to decide on the lawfulness of one’s pre-trial detention – ruled that the detention of Carola Rackete, captain of the boat SeaWatch3, was unlawful and ordered her immediate release.
The judge based her decision on the Italian Constitution that dictates the primacy of international law standards over national law. Following this principle, she found that the criminal offences of which Carola Rackete was charged could not stand.
She was accused of disregarding the orders of the Italian law enforcement officers (Guardia di Finanza) not to disembark at Lampedusa (Sicily) harbour and to have hit with her boat the boat of the Guardia di Finanza that was standing between the SeaWatch3 and the point of disembarkment. Carola Rackete held that she was acting upon her duty to rescue and disembark the people on her boat and that there was urgency to do so.
With regard to the criminal charge of “resistance or violence against a military vessel” (article 1100 of the Navigation Code), the judge found it inapplicable because the boat concerned could not be considered a “military vessel”. On the merits of the criminal offence of “resistance to a public officer under article 337 of the Criminal Code, the judge ruled that the clause of exclusion of criminal responsibility of “implementation of a duty” provided by law (article 51 Criminal Code) did apply and therefore that Carola Rackete could not hold any criminal responsibility. The duty to implement was identified as the duty of rescue at sea that international maritime law foresees for all captains of maritime vessels.
The judge ruled that such duty has primacy in Italian law and further found that the legal provision under which the Minister of Interior, Matteo Salvini, ordered the prohibition of disembarkment on Lampedusa (article 11-ter of d.lgs. 286/98, introduced by Law Decree 53/2019, the so-called “Salvini Decree-bis”) had to respect international law as envisaged by the provision itself.
Carola Rackete remains under investigation for facilitation of irregular migration under a separate criminal proceeding.
Jul 4, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports, Trial observation reports
In a legal opinion issued today analyzing the retrial of the Kyrgyz human rights defender Azimjan Askarov, which followed the UN Human Rights Committee finding of multiple human rights violations in his first trial, the ICJ concludes that these violations have not been remedied by the retrial.
In particular, the ICJ finds that the retrial did not effectively examine allegations of the torture of Askarov in detention. It failed to conduct new investigations, hear new witnesses or question the elements on which the initial conviction was based. As a result, the retrial did not respect the presumption of innocence or comply with the requirements of a fair trial.
As a consequence, Azimjan Askarov’s conviction should be quashed and he should be released, the ICJ said.
“This analysis shows that despite years of court hearings, Azimjan Askarov has never been afforded a fair trial or an effective investigation into his allegations that he was tortured. We call on the Kyrgyz authorities to act on these findings and to quash his conviction and release him from detention. Without this, the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee will remain unimplemented ” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Director.
An investigation into allegations of torture and other violations of Askarov’s human rights should be launched, the ICJ concluded, and he should be accorded full reparations for violations of his human rights.
Background
Azimjan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender in the Kyrgyz Republic, was convicted on 15 September 2010 of complicity in the murder of a law enforcement officer, attempted complicity in hostage-taking, illegal possession of firearms, incitement of interethnic hatred, and organization of riots.
The ICJ has followed his case since the initial trial and Askarov’s eventual conviction – and identified multiple violations of his human rights in detention, trial and conviction in 2010.
In 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) adopted Views in which it found violations of Askarov’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The HRC decided that Kyrgyzstan was to make full reparation to Askarov; take appropriate steps to immediately release him; quash his conviction and, if necessary, conduct a new trial in due compliance with fair trial guarantees.
Following the HRC decision, the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic remanded the case of Azimjan Askarov for retrial to the Chuy Regional Court due to new circumstances. The retrial took place from 4 October 2016 to 24 January 2017. The retrial proceeded without quashing the defendant’s conviction but with “resumption” of the proceedings in the case.
The ICJ legal opinion is based on the findings from the observation of a number of hearings before the Chuy Regional Court and analysis of documents in the case. It assesses the proceedings in light of Kyrgyzstan’s domestic law as well as relevant international law and standards. The opinoin is signed on behalf of the ICJ by ICJ Commissioners Justice Azhar Cachalia, Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa; Justice Nicolas Bratza, former President of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The full text of the legal opinion is available below.
In English: Kyrgyzstan-Askarov report II-Publications-Reports-Trial observation report-2019-ENG
In Russian: Kyrgyzstan-Askarov report II-Publications-Reports-Trial observation reports-2019-RUS
Jul 3, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted rising threats to the rule of law in Europe, specifically mentioning Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and Kazakhstan in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) adopted a Declaration on Reinforcing the Rule of Law last March at its 19th World Congress in Tunis.
The Tunis Declaration (link) stresses that not only are human rights and the Rule of Law indispensable to the betterment of the human condition, but to address such contemporary challenges as catastrophic climate change and the effects of digital technology.
Against these standards, however, the ICJ is concerned at the increasing and serious threats to the Rule of Law and those who defend it around the world, including across Europe.
In Poland, the attacks on the judiciary continue under the guise of disciplinary proceedings against judges who took recourse to EU institutions to defend the Rule of Law.
Hungarian authorities, while pausing their reforms of administrative courts, have not abandoned unjustified restrictions on the judiciary’s independence and on civil society.
Finally, in Turkey, the judiciary continues to have no guarantees in law to guarantee its independent functioning.
Across Central Asia, lawyers may face disciplinary or criminal persecution for discharging their profession independently. For example, in Kazakhstan, Sergey Sizintsev was disbarred on arbitrary grounds for criticizing a problematic reform of the legal profession.
The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments of extreme concern.
Jun 25, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports
Colombia’s transitional justice tribunal, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP in its Spanish acronym) has made progress in fighting impunity, but can do more to address the needs and demands of victims of the country’s long civil war, the ICJ said in a report released in Bogota today.
The report Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz: análisis a un año de su entrada en funcionamiento (available only in Spanish) will be presented by a high-level mission composed of the President of the ICJ, Prof Robert Goldman (former President of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), the Vice President of the ICJ, Carlos Ayala (former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), and ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier, former judge of the Court of Cassation of France.
The commissioners will meet with different Colombian authorities including the President of Colombia, Iván Duque Márquez, and the President of the JEP, Patricia Linares Prieto.
They will also meet with victims and other members of civil society.
The JEP is charged with prosecuting and punishing gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the country’s civil war.
The JEP was established by the Peace Agreement entered into between the Colombian government and the former armed group FARC-EP, on November 24 of 2016.
“The JEP has made progress in guaranteeing victims’ rights and fighting impunity for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law,” said Prof Robert Goldman, ICJ’s President.
“But the JEP must do more to strengthen the effective participation of victims in its procedures, as well as to guarantee victims’ rights to justice and full reparation in compliance with international standards,” he added.
Accordingly, the report identifies ways by which the JEP can achieve these goals.
The ICJ also expresses concern about security threats faced by human rights defenders and victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP. The ICJ urges the JEP and other Colombian public authorities to adopt effective measures to guarantee their safety.
The ICJ also considers it is necessary to ensure respect for the judicial independence of the JEP against external pressures to ensure the proper performance of its functions.
The report describes the findings of a mission carried out by ICJ Commissioners Carlos Ayala, Wilder Tayler and Philippe Texier in January 2019. The report includes an analysis of the main actions and decisions taken by the JEP as well as relevant decisions of other public authorities. It reflects developments up to June 7, 2019.
