Feb 23, 2018 | News
As the assault on the rule of law and human rights under the state of emergency in the Maldives continues, the ICJ expressed concerned about government reprisals taken against lawyers for performing their legitimate professional functions.
The ICJ urged the Maldivian authorities to stop obstructing the work of lawyers and respect the independence of the legal profession.
The ICJ called on the government to immediately lift the state of emergency, revoke the “suspension” of human rights protections, release judges of the Supreme Court and persons detained for political reasons, and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
On 22 February, the Department of Judicial Administration, the administrative arm of the Maldivian judiciary, suspended lawyer Hussain Shameem for an indefinite period of time, citing an ongoing investigation against him.
“No lawyer should be subject to persecution for carrying out their professional duties. Lawyers like Hussain Shameem are indispensable in ensuring human rights protection and upholding the rule of law in the Maldives, especially during a state of emergency,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
The decision to suspend Shameem came only days after the Maldivian police launched an investigation against him for “obstruction of justice” and “obstruction of the administration of law and other government function”.
Hussain Shameem is representing members of the political opposition who are in detention, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and parliamentarian Faris Maumoon.
Before his suspension, Hussain Shameem had made public statements asserting that the declaration emergency declared by the Government on 5 February 2018 was unconstitutional.
He had also highlighted the poor conditions of detention of his clients.
The ICJ has learned that the police confiscated the mobile phones of another two lawyers, Mahfooz Saeed and Moosa Siraj.
Like Shameem, they were representing individuals arrested and detained during the state of emergency, including Justice Ali Hameed, who was part of the Supreme Court bench that recently issued a judgment directing the release of members of the opposition.
The police have also informed lawyers taking up cases during the state of emergency that they can only meet their clients for 30 minutes, which is an arbitrary and unlawful restriction on the fair trial rights of accused persons.
Under international standards, including 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.
International standards also provide that 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.
“The government’s actions against these lawyers, who are just doing their job of protecting their clients’ rights, has a chilling effect on other lawyers in the country as it sends a message that any exercise of their professional responsibilities perceived as contrary to wishes of the governments will not be tolerated,” added Rawski.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information: the state of emergency
On 5 February, the Government of the Maldives had declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections. The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.
On 20 February, the Parliament extended the state of emergency for another thirty days, citing the ongoing constitutional crisis. The extension appears to have been taken in violation of Maldivian law and the Constitution as the number of parliamentarians required for such an extension was not present during the vote.
The constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to privacy. Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures – including the criminal procedure code – have also been suspended.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, allows for States only to derogate from full protection of only a limited number of human rights during declared “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.” No rights can be entirely suspended. Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent strictly necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
Feb 16, 2018 | News
The ICJ strongly condemns the attack against the Deputy Prosecutor for Human Rights, Sonia Elizabeth Montes Valenzuela, carried out on 15 February by unknown gunmen in the central Zone 1 of Guatemala City.
Sonia Montes was on her way to work at the Public Prosecutors Office when two gunmen on motorbikes drove past and fired six bullets into the car.
Fortunately both Sonia Montes and her driver, Néstor Valdes Antonio, were unharmed.
“This is a vile attack against the justice system in Guatemala and the whole human rights movement in the country. These types of attacks seek to destabilize democracy and the rule of law,” Ramón Cadena, the ICJ Director stated.
“We call on President Jimmy Morales to carry out a full and impartial investigation in order to identify the material and moral authors of these acts,” he added.
The ICJ also expresses its solidarity with the families of the victims of the attack and with the Attorney General, Thelma Aldana, and the Commissioner of the International Commission against Impunity (CICIG), Iván Velásquez.
The Public Prosecutors’ Office and the CICIG are working tirelessly to investigate crimes and to end impunity and corruption in Guatemala.
Feb 14, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has set out key principles and sources on judicial councils and other national mechanisms for selecting, appointing, promoting, transferring, suspending or removing judges, in a submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.The submission was made in response to a call by the Special Rapporteur for input to a report he will present at the June 2018 session of the Human Rights Council.
The ICJ submission highlights that judicial councils are a proven means of safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring judicial accountability. It recommends that, even in countries where judicial independence and accountability have traditionally been secured by other means, consideration should be given to the establishment of a judicial council.
The submission stresses that judicial councils must be fully independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, and notes several key safeguards to help secure such independence.
The ICJ recommends that such judicial councils should in principle be responsible for all decisions relating to the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, suspension and removal of judges.
The submission also highlights the need for diversity of membership of such councils to ensure its representativeness of the society the judiciary is to serve, that it reflects a cross-section of the judiciary as a whole, and that it has the experience and expertise needed to be effective.
The full submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: Global-UN-SRIJL-JudicialCouncils-2018
Most of the sources cited in the submission are available here.
Related and more detailed guidance is available in the ICJ’s 2016 Practitioners’ Guide no. 13 on Judicial Accountability, as well as the 2007 Practitioners’ Guide no. 1 on Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
More information about the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For more information about the ICJ and judicial councils and similar mechanisms, contact Matt Pollard (matt.pollard(at)icj.org)
Feb 13, 2018 | Advocacy
The ICJ, together with other NGOs, has expressed serious concerns about the current wording of the draft Copenhagen Declaration on the future of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system, which has been proposed by the Danish government.
In a joint response to the first draft of the Copenhagen Declaration, the group of NGOs welcomed the willingness of the Danish government to engage with civil society in developing the Declaration, which is to be finalised at an intergovernmental conference in Copenhagen in April 2018.
However the NGOs expressed concerns that some of the language of the Declaration appears to diminish the role of the European Court of Human Rights, and risks fragmenting the European human rights protection system as well as undermining the independence of the Court. The NGOs emphasised that:
- The Declaration should affirm the need to respect and preserve the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, and should omit any language or proposals that put the independence of the Court at risk;
- Effective human rights protection at the national level must be subject to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights;
- Greater emphasis should be given to the role of civil society in implementing the ECHR at the national level, and this should be taken into account in developing proposals for more effective implementation;
- The universality of human rights protection should be respected, and the text should be worded to highlight the importance of all human rights in all situations across all of the Council of Europe states;
- The Declaration must not call into question the Court’s authority to review human rights cases concerning asylum and immigration, or those arising from international conflicts;
- Governments should not be given further opportunities to influence the Court, nor should the Declaration provide a pretext for states to exert political pressure on the Court;
- Council of Europe States should not only implement the European Convention on Human Rights, but also act promptly to execute judgments of the European Court;
- National processes for the selection and election of European Court judges should be further strengthened.
Europe-JointNGO-Response-Copenhagen-Declaration-Advocacy-2018-ENG (Full document in PDF)
Feb 7, 2018 | News
The judgment yesterday by three Supreme judges of a rump Supreme Court that overturned order of the full Supreme Court to release nine members of opposition political parties lacks legitimacy, the ICJ said today.
On 1 February, the Supreme Court had ordered the release of nine members of the opposition parties, who had been convicted for or charged with a wide range of offences, and held the cases required “retrial and judgments pursuant to the law”.
The petitioners had alleged the criminal proceedings against them were based on “political motivations” and were in violation of the Constitution of the Maldives and its international human rights obligations.
Instead of implementing the judgment, the Government responded by declaring a state of emergency and suspending a range of human rights protections.
On the night of 5 February, the national defense forces and the police forcefully entered the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice held members of the forces in contempt of court, after which they dragged the Chief Justice out of the Court premises.
The Chief Justice and Justice Ali Hameed were later arrested on charges of corruption and “obstructing administration of law or other government function”.
On 6 February 2018, the remaining three judges of the Supreme Court overturned parts of the 1 February judgment, including the directions to release members of the opposition parties, “in light of the concerns raised by the President.”
“The judgment by three judges on Tuesday, reversing an order by the full court, lacks legitimacy. By unlawfully arresting two members of the Court, including the Chief Justice, the Government has effectively stripped the Supreme Court of all its independence and impartiality,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The arrest of judges Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed for carrying out their proper and legitimate judicial functions would have sent a clear message to the remaining judges that any exercise of independence that was contrary to wishes of the governments would not be tolerated,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ also highlighted that conduct of the remaining judges of the Supreme Court suggests a risk that they themselves could become complicit in ongoing human rights violations.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the health of Justice Ali Hameed, who was taken to the hospital on Tuesday night and is feared to be in critical condition.
His family has reportedly been denied access to him.
The ICJ has also learned that Justice Ali Hameed’s family members have been detained and are being denied access to lawyers.
There are also credible reports that suggest Justice Ali Hameed is being detained in very small cells with poor ventilation that get very hot because of direct sun exposure for prolonged periods – which could be a possible cause of his health condition.
“The detention of judges and their family members and their possible ill-treatment smacks of retribution, which is prohibited under Maldivian and international law,” said Seiderman.
The ICJ urged the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court and all other political prisoners, implement the 1 February ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman(at)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(at)icj.org
Additional information
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.
Furthermore, international standards provide that all complaints against judges in their judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure; they shall have the right to a fair hearing; and they shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
