Aug 3, 2017 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned by the Constituent Assembly elections held in Venezuela on 31 July and the violence that accompanied the process and left a number of people killed, injured or arbitrarily detained.
The ICJ considers that the election of a National Constituent Assembly (NCA) failed to comply with the Article 347 of the current Constitution, which provides the legal basis for convening of an NCA. In particular, a significant portion of the members of the NCA should be chosen in open and universal elections, but instead are to be selected from restricted social sectors.
Such arrangements undermine the right to direct, free, equal and secret elections recognized under international human rights standards, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“A Constitution which does not guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law and the validity of fundamental human rights and freedoms not only violates the international obligations of the Venezuelan State, but can also be used as a means of undermining the human rights of Venezuelans,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
The ICJ also calls for a prompt and independent investigation into alleged electoral fraud on the day of the poll.
The ICJ says that irrespective of its legitimacy, the new NCA must respect human rights and rule of law principles.
In particular, until the approval of a new Constitution, the NCA must respect the current Constitution of 1999, especially in terms of judicial independence, and protection of human rights.
Similarly, the new Constitution, which the NCA will draft, must also fully guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law, including the separation of powers, legislative autonomy, the independence of the judiciary, the subordination of military forces to the civil authority and the principle of legality and judicial control of executive actions.
The new Constitution also must fully guarantee the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It must enshrine the prohibition of trials of civilians by military courts, and ensure that states of emergency respect the requirements and guarantees of the Covenant International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international law and standards, the ICJ adds.
The ICJ also considers that the new Constitution, in addition to incorporating the human rights and fundamental freedoms already contained in the current Constitution, should add the express prohibition of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and other serious human rights violations.
Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
The ICJ is concerned with the passing of Constitutional Amendment no. 1 of 2017 by the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe on 25 July 2017.
The House of Assembly voted with over two-thirds majority for the amendment of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The amendment grants the President the right to appoint to office, the Judge President of the High Court, the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe.
Before this amendment the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) spearheaded the process of selection and appointment of judges with the President merely appointing from candidates recommended to him by the JSC.
The enactment of this Bill to law is likely to have a negative effect on the public’s perception of the judiciary. It also has the potential to affect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary.
“The amendment to the 2013 Constitution will negatively affect public confidence in the judiciary. Not only is this a departure from a position that was in line with international standards and best practices; the amendment is likely to have a ripple effect on the judiciary,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Director.
“In the short term the executive now has a carrot, which it can dangle in front of judicial officers. If a judge wants to be promoted to Judge President, Deputy Chief Justice or Chief they may have to align themselves with the thinking of the executive. Over time, given the central roles that these three office bearers play in the appointment process and thought leadership, Zimbabwe is likely to have a very executive minded bench,” he added.
To this end the ICJ calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed in the bill.
The procedure in section 180 of the constitution had distinguished Zimbabwe’s appointment procedures as exemplary in the region.
It is unfortunate that through this amendment the country has failed to consolidate this leadership position.
The amendment would be regressive and poses a real risk of undermining the essential role of the judiciary in securing the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe-Constitutional Amendment-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Jul 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt and apply procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) that are clear and comply with international human rights law and standards.
The statement came following a high-level mission to Tunisia from 12 to 15 July 2017 in which the ICJ engaged with senior judicial officials, including the President of the Cassation Court, members of the High Judicial Council, SCC judges, and other stakeholders.
An ICJ analysis, Procedures of the Specialized Criminal Chambers in light of international standards, was published at the end of the mission.
“While the Specialized Criminal Chambers have the potential to contribute to addressing impunity and deliver justice for victims in Tunisia, ambiguity about the procedures to be followed by these Chambers risks undermining their effectiveness,” warned Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
As detailed in the ICJ analysis, the lack of clarity comes in part from the 2013 transitional justice Law, which is seen by many stakeholders as setting up a special regime, separate from the existing criminal justice system.
There is fear that the SCC may decide not to apply the existing ordinary criminal procedures, while at the same time no detailed procedures specific to the SCC have yet been adopted.
The creation of such a gap would risk serious breaches of international standards of fairness and justice.
For example, the 2013 Law seems to give the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité, IVD) exclusive power to refer cases to the SCC.
However, no procedures specific to the SCC implement the rights of an accused to examine witnesses interviewed by the IVD or to access all documents and evidence collected by the IVD in order to prepare his or her defence, as required by international standards and the ordinary code of criminal procedure.
The 2013 Law also fails to clarify the role of prosecutors and investigating judges in addressing such cases, including by making their own determination in relation to charges, standard of proof, and whether these cases should be brought before the SCC.
“Clarifying the procedures to be applied by the Specialized Criminal Chambers and ensuring their full compliance with international standards, including those relating to fair trial, are a prerequisite to fully establish the truth about human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that the proceedings are fair to the victims and accused,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ set out a list of recommendations with a view to assisting the Tunisian authorities in their efforts in achieving these objectives, including by:
- Amending article 42 of the 2013 Law and related provisions to clearly provide victims of gross human rights violations with direct access to the SCC, including when victims did not submit a file to the IVD;
- Amending provisions of the IVD Guides to ensure that the review process and the possibility to challenge IVD’s decisions will apply to decisions not to transfer a case to the SCC and that such review be based on objective criteria for considering gross human rights violations in line with international standards;
- Establishing specialized prosecution services, investigating judges, and judicial police in line with international standards and with adequate resources to work in coordination with the SCC;
- Clarifying the relationship between the SCC and other ordinary criminal chambers and civil and other courts;
- Amending the legal framework to clearly provide that cases investigated by the IVD are to be transferred to specialized prosecutors who are to carry out their functions as defined in the CCP and in line with international standards;
- Ensuring that the IVD’s investigative function complements the role of the specialized judicial institutions in charge of the investigation and prosecution; and
- Amending the CCP and ensuring that any related provision of any other procedures adopted for the SCC fully respect fair trial guarantees.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 642837354, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (full memo in English, PDF)
Tunisia-SCC procedures memo-News-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (full memo in Arabic, PDF)
Jun 28, 2017 | News
Government moves to amend the regulatory framework of the legal profession in Kazakhstan may undermine its independence and are contrary to the principle of self-regulation of the profession, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ called on the authorities of Kazakhstan to refrain from interference in the governance of the independent legal profession and step back to allow the collegia of lawyers to continue to take responsibility for such matters.
The ICJ stressed that any proposals for reform put forward by the governing bodies of the profession should be developed in consultation with and enjoy the consent of the members of advokatura in accordance with international law and standards on the independence of lawyers.
The ICJ was responding to proposals put forward by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev for reform of the legal profession in Kazakhstan.
In a statement to Parliament on 29 May 2017 (Report of the Minister of Justice on the issues of further development and reform of the institutes of notary and advokatura on 29 May 2017), the Minister outlined plans to:
- lower training and entrance fees to the profession “in order to simplify access to the profession”;
- broaden the powers of the Republican Collegium to regulate the disciplinary system for lawyers, in light of the Minister’s view that lawyers were avoiding disciplinary responsibility in many cases under the current system;
- require lawyers to undergo annual training followed by exams, which would be set not by the collegia themselves, but by universities or external training centres;
- require lawyers, in addition to the participation in state-funded legal aid scheme, to provide mandatory legal assistance without financial support from the Government, which the Minister described as “pro bono” service
The importance of an independent legal profession which is self-regulating is well recognized and accepted under international standards and by international authorities.
One of the means by which such independence may be guaranteed is the governance of the profession by an organization independent from the State or other national institutions.
International standards provide that it is an important function of the lawyer’s association “[t]o maintain the honour, dignity, integrity, competence, ethics, standards of conduct and discipline of the profession” (Singhvi Declaration, para.99).
In this context, comments by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev on the need to change the disciplinary system due to lawyers avoiding disciplinary responsibility “for violations committed” is of serious concern, the ICJ said.
While it is important that lawyers who act against the interests of their clients, or otherwise violate standards of lawyers’ ethics are subject to disciplinary responsibility, it is the function of the profession itself to decide on such matters. Disciplinary proceedings should never be used to undermine lawyers’ independence.
Lowering entrance fees for qualifying lawyers may be a positive measure that can enhance access to the profession for qualifying lawyers, in circumstances where such fees are inaccessibly high.
However the initiating and design of such proposals should not be in the hands of the executive, as this may limit the independence and effectiveness of the legal profession.
Financial sustainability of an independent legal profession largely depends on its members’ fees.
The advokatura should be able to regulate and finance its regular operations, including administration and training, the ICJ added.
As noted by the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in his report of 2009: “… the legal profession is best placed to determine admission requirements and procedures and should thus be responsible for administering examinations and granting professional certificates. This would further help in preserving its independence and self-governance, as advised in the Basic Principles.”
The ICJ is also concerned at suggestions that, as part of continuing legal education, lawyers will be subject to examinations by institutions outside the profession.
While it remains unclear what role or effect such examinations would have, the proposal raises concerns regarding the legal profession’s self-regulation and would risk undermining its independence, the ICJ said.
It should be recalled that, Kazakhstan is required take measures to remove obstacles to the independence of lawyers.
Regarding the proposals on so called ‘pro bono legal assistance’, while it is welcome when any State adopts measures to make legal aid more accessible, such measures should not place an unreasonable burden on lawyers to provide mandatory legal assistance.
The scheme proposed by the Minister for Justice whereby lawyers become responsible for providing legal services without financial compensation for their work is of concern, and appears unlikely to ensure a high quality of legal advice, the ICJ added.
It should be the role of the government to provide regular and sufficient funding for such services, ensuring that legal aid is available for indigent clients in line with international standards.
Kazakhstan-Interference legal profession-News-2017-RUS (Russian version, in PDF)
