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.
Feb 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Maldivian Government’s assault on the Supreme Court and its judges and the suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency.
“President Yameen and his Government have dealt a grave blow to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in the Maldives,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The actions by the government are a wildly unjustifiable and disproportionate response to the decision of the Supreme Court”, he added.
On 5 February, the Maldivian Government 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.
The Government, however, refused to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment, which resulted in the outbreak of protests in the country.
The national defense forces also reportedly entered the premises of the Supreme Court and arrested at least two senior judges, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.
“Summarily suspending basic rights protections and arresting judges whose decisions the President disagrees with is itself a display of sweeping lawlessness in the country,” Seiderman said.
According to the President’s office, the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court order resulted in “disruption of the functions of the executive power, disruption of the functions of the state institutions…and infringement of national security and public interest.”
According to an unofficial translation of the emergency decree received by the ICJ, 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; the right to privacy; and the right to obtain remedy from the courts.
Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures have also been suspended.
In addition, laws providing certain immunities to judges and the right of judges to be informed if any action is taken against them have also been suspended.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ notes that international law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
“Maldivian authorities have not even come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Seiderman said.
The ICJ urges the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court, implement the ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, T: +41 22 979 38 37 ; e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@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.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Jan 22, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian Parliament to adopt a Draft Law on the appointment of women to the judiciary and to eliminate longstanding discrimination against their appointment as judges.
The Draft Law was introduced by member of the Parliament (MP) Nadia Henry this month and is supported by another 60 MPs.
The Speaker of Parliament has referred it to the legislative committee for review.
“Ensuring women’s full and equal participation in Egypt’s judiciary is necessary for a fair legal system reflective of the community it serves,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“It’s also necessary to end decades of discriminatory practices that have meant only a handful of women judges have ever been appointed despite explicit guarantees of equality in the Constitution,” he added.
Article 11 of the Constitution requires the State to ensure the “achievement of equality between women and men in all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,” including the right of “holding public and senior management offices in the state and their appointment in judicial bodies and authorities without discrimination”.
Women were first appointed to judicial office in 2007. Between 2007 and 2017 there were less than 67 female judges across Egypt, for a population of more than 100 million.
This significant under-representation of women is entrenched in a widespread discriminatory view, including within the judiciary itself, that working as a judge in court was an inappropriate profession for women.
“The Draft Law is significant first step towards challenging these discriminatory views and harmful practices. The Authorities must not only adopt it, they must also adopt other urgent, practical and structural measures to fully guarantee the rights of women to have equal access to judicial office and ensure their equal representation in the judiciary,” Benarbia added.
Background
The first article of the draft law places an obligation on all judicial bodies to appoint women to judicial offices and ensure that the conditions of their appointment are consistent with those that are applicable to men.
In its second article, the draft law nullifies any law that infringes on the obligation set forth in Article 1. Article 3 of the draft law invalidates any procedures in relation to the appointment of judges if such procedures do not comply with the Article 1 of the draft law.
Article 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that, “In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status…”.
The Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, key human rights treaties to which Egypt has been party since the early 1980s, also explicitly prohibit discrimination against women, including in relation to access to public office such as judicial appointments.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-women judges-news-2018-ARA
Jan 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the executions of 22 civilians during the past month, following death penalty cases before military courts in which fair trial guarantees appear to have been flagrantly violated.
The Egyptian authorities should establish an immediate moratorium and halt all pending executions with a view towards the total and permanent abolition of the death penalty, the ICJ added.
“The executions of these civilians constitute blatant, egregious violations of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Carrying them out based on military trials, which furthermore failed to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards, amounts to the arbitrary deprivation of life,” he added.
Based on information provided by the defendants’ lawyers and families, Egyptian NGOs have reported a litany of fair trial violations that marred these proceedings.
These included the case of a defendant who was convicted following one trial session, in the absence of his counsel.
It also included instances involving enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, some of which were documented in the prosecution reports.
In one case the defendants’ lawyers filed a motion to “review the case” under article 448 of the Code Criminal Procedure which should normally suspend the carrying out of any sentence of execution.
The executions were nevertheless carried out on 9 January, before the Military Court’s review, which was due on 28 February 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have brushed aside the most basic legal safeguards on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty,” Benarbia said.
“Because they cannot ensure respect of fair trial rights, they must impose an immediate moratorium on executions.”
Under international standards, proceedings in death penalty cases must conform to the highest standards of judicial independence, competence and impartiality, and must strictly comply with all fair trial rights.
The ICJ has previously documented how the Egyptian judiciary fails to conform to these standards.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Executions-News-2018-ARA (Arabic translation in PDF)
Background
International standards recognize the particular concerns with judicial independence and impartiality that arise in relation to the trial of civilians by military courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to military personnel in cases of strictly military offences, i.e. alleged breaches of military discipline.
The above-mentioned cases involved civilians and allegations of ordinary offenses, including theft, rape, and murder (including murder of military officers).
Particularly in these circumstances, there could be no justification for these cases to have been adjudicated before military courts and the ICJ considers that this factor in itself renders the executions in violation of the right to life.
The ICJ furthermore opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation to the right to life and to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The cases in question were: Case No. 411/2013 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (15 executions in 26 December 2017), case No. 22/2015 before Tanta Criminal Military Court (4 executions in 2 January 2018) and case No. 93/2011 before the Ismailiya Criminal Military Court (3 executions in 9 January 2018).
Jan 15, 2018 | News
The ICJ is concerned at allegations that the recent arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, the head of the Chechen branch of the Russian human rights organisation Memorial, were carried out as retaliation for his human rights activity.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the more recent reports that family members of Oyub Titiev have had to leave Chechnya for security reasons following threats.
The ICJ calls on the Russian federal and local authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and independent investigation into allegations that criminal charges against Oyub Titiev have been fabricated by police.
Oyub Titiev should be immediately released pending the outcome of this investigation, and measures should be taken to protect his security and that of his family.
On 9 January 2018, at 10.30, according to an official statement of the Ministry of Interior of Chechnya, Oyub Titiev’s car was stopped near Kurchaloy town to check his documents.
During a search of his car, a plastic bag with approximately 180 grams of a substance identified as marijuana was allegedly found.
Titiyev was charged with possession of a large quantity of narcotics under article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, he has stated that the narcotics were planted and has filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate an investigation into these allegations.
Oyub Titiev, the head of Memorial in Chechnya, is one of very few human rights defenders who continue their work in Chechnya despite significant obstacles and threats.
He took over this position following the murder of the former head of Memorial in Chechnya, Natalya Estemirova in 2009.
In accordance with Article 2(a) of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), human rights defenders have a right to conduct human rights work individually and in association with others.
Under the same Declaration, States have a duty to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of everyone against any violence, threats, retaliation, adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate activities as a human rights defender.
Threats of violence and the falsification of evidence by public officials constitute crimes under the Russian Criminal Code. Reliance in criminal proceedings on evidence falsely planted by the police or other State actors would violate international human rights law including fair trial guarantees under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.
Attacks on human rights defenders working in an extremely difficult human rights environment such as that of Chechnya, or attacks on their family members, have a chilling effect on work to defend human rights there. If further such attacks are to be prevented, individuals responsible for them must be brought to justice through a fair procedure, the ICJ stressed.
