Aug 22, 2019 | News
The ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to investigate the murder of lawyer Olexandr Ivanov, killed today with an automatic weapon near SIZO (Pre-trial Dentention Centre) №6 in Kropyvnytskyi.
The shooting was carried out from a car by unknown persons. The lawyer died on the spot. Another person injured in the incident was hospitalized in critical condition.
“The killing of lawyer Oleksandr Ivanov must be independently, promptly, and thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“Such crimes strip any legal reforms of their positive impact if lawyers’ life is always in danger when exercising their functions,” he added.
The police have confirmed the occurrence of the killing and initiated an investigation preliminarily qualified as intentional murder under article 115-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA) is planning to convene an emergency meeting of the Committee on Protection of Lawyers Rights and Professional Guarantees. The UNBA has also referred to the leadership of regional prosecution and police authorities to bring the case under personal control.
“During its recent mission to Ukraine the ICJ heard of cases of killings of lawyers and this case demonstrates that little progress has been achieved in addressing the security of lawyers in Ukraine,” said Shakirov.
Additional information:
International human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights to which Ukraine is a party, requires that states take steps to protect the life and physical integrity of persons who they know or ought to know are at real risk of violence.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (principle 16). The UN Basic Principles specify that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (principle 17).
Aug 22, 2019 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ joined 10 other international and Venezuelan human rights organizations to call the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish a Commission of Inquiry (COI) on human rights in Venezuela in its upcoming session in September.
The ICJ considers that an independent COI is necessary given the Venezuelan authorities have been unable or unwilling to pursue effective domestic accountability and the judicial and prosecutorial mechanisms lack independence and impartiality.
In recent years, the ICJ has documented in several reports the lack of judicial independence, the lack of accountability for those allegedly responsible for gross human rights violations, the abuse and misuse of the military jurisdiction, and wide ranging breakdown in the functioning of the rule of law.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her 2019 report has similarly stressed that wide ranging human rights violations had occurred in Venezuela evidenced by the excessive use of force by security forces, attacks on freedom of expression, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings, dismantling of checks and balances, and deprivations constituting violations of the right to food and health. In addition, a panel of independent international experts mandated by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), mentioned in 2018 “that reasonable grounds exist to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Venezuela”.
Commissions of Inquiry have been effectively established by the UN Human Rights Council to assess serious situations of human rights in several countries where there is a need to ensure proper human rights fact finding and ultimately accountability for widespread or systematic human rights violations. These include COIs for Syria, North Korea, Burundi, Yemen, Libya and Eritrea.
The ICJ and the other organizations have emphasized that the Commission of Inquiry that could be established for Venezuela “should be mandated to investigate reports of violations of international human rights law in Venezuela, including but not limited to violations associated with torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, violations of freedom of expression, violations of the right to life and enforced disappearances, as well as violations of the rights to health and food. It should be tasked with establishing the facts and circumstances of violations committed since at least 2014, mapping out patterns of violations and identifying those responsible and, where possible, the chain of command, with a view to contributing to full accountability for all violations including those that constitute crimes under international law (…)”.
Download:
Venezuela-COI final-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full Q&A document prepared by all 11 organizations in PDF)
Aug 5, 2019 | News
The ICJ today raised concerns that the proposed Zambian Constitutional Amendment Bill 2019 may negatively impact the independence of the judiciary in Zambia.
The proposed amendments to provisions regarding disciplinary measures and processes against judges and the composition of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are particularly concerning, according to a statement by a group of organisations including the ICJ.
“The ICJ implores the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure the alignment of all constitutional amendments with international human rights standards on the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the separation of powers,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The joint statement calls upon the President of Zambia and the Zambian legislature to ensure that the proposed constitutional changes are in line with international human rights standards.
According to such standards, individual judges ‘may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the constitution or the law’. Examples include ‘incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties’ and ‘physical or mental incapacity that prevents them from undertaking their judicial duties.’
Moreover, disciplinary proceedings regarding judicial officers must be held by an institution independent of the executive and the legislature to secure the independence of the judiciary.
Article 143 (a) of the Zambia Constitution currently provides that ‘a judge shall be removed from office on the following grounds: (a) a mental or physical disability that makes the judge incapable of performing judicial functions; (b) incompetence; (c) gross misconduct; or (d) bankruptcy.’
However, the Amendment Bill worryingly replaces subsection (a) and allows for removal when a judicial officer is ‘legally disqualified from performing judicial functions.’
Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not set out the circumstances or infractions that could lead to the ‘legal disqualification’ leaving the provision open to abuse and in violation of the principle of legal certainty and the rule of law.
“The amendment introduces unnecessary obscurity and vagueness to the Constitution, which, in turn, increases the risk of judges being removed on politically motivated grounds and threatens the rule of law,” Tsunga added.
Another worrying aspect of the proposed amendment is the suggested changes to Article 144 of the Constitution transferring the authority to determine whether judicial officers are removed from the Judicial Complaints Commission to a Tribunal Appointed by the President.
The amendment allows for the possibility of a Tribunal staffed by members of the executive and the legislature, further heightening concerns about threats to judicial independence.
“It is vital that the processes and procedures for the removal of judicial officers in Zambia are constrained in terms of tightly defined constitutional provisions, overseen by independent decision makers without improper influence by the executive and the legislature,” said Tsunga.
The full statement is available here.
The statement is signed by:
Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA)
Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Judges for Judges (J4J)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
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.
