Apr 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today warned that proposed amendments to Turkey’s Constitution to be voted on in the referendum of 16 April could irremediably compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The amendments would introduce significant changes to the institutional framework governing the Turkish judiciary, with far reaching consequences for the separation of powers.
The ICJ is concerned that the proposed constitutional amendments, if approved, would enshrine in Turkish Constitution measures that would be severely damaging the rule of law in Turkey for the long term.
The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental components of the rule of law.
Under the proposals, the President of the Republic would be empowered to appoint six out of thirteen members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, including four ordinary members as well as the Minister of Justice, (who would act as President of the Council) and the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
The remaining seven members would be appointed by the National Assembly.
None of the members of the Council would be appointed by judges or public prosecutors.
The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is the institution entrusted with the appointment, transfer, promotion, discipline and dismissal of judges and public prosecutors in Turkey.
It is the role of such a Council to act as a guardian of judicial independence and to protect the judiciary from interference by the executive and legislative powers.
The proposed Constitutional amendments are clearly contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary, which affirm that at least half of the members of a judicial council should be judges elected by their peers.
The amendments, if passed in the forthcoming referendum, would be enacted in a context where judicial independence has already been severely compromised.
Under the State of Emergency in place since the attempted coup of July 2016, approximately one fifth of the judiciary has been arbitrarily dismissed, and thousands of prosecutors and lawyers have been detained.
As the ICJ has previously highlighted, such measures have had a devastating effect on the independence of the judiciary at every level, compromising the courts’ ability to provide fair trials or an effective remedy for violations of human rights.
The ICJ understands that Turkey faced a serious threat to its democratic institutions in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Nonetheless, it stresses that measures meant to meet this threat must be undertaken within the framework of the rule of law and the country’s human rights obligations.
The ICJ reiterates its call on the Turkish authorities to lift the State of Emergency and the derogations from its international human rights law obligations that it has made as a matter of high priority.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
An ICJ briefing paper of June 2016, the Turkey: the Judicial System in Peril , raised concern at measures eroding the independence of the judiciary, prosecution, and legal profession in Turkey, with serious consequences for protection of human rights.
The Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, states:
- Not less than half the members of [councils for the judiciary] should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
Under international human rights law Turkey may derogate from certain human rights during a justified state of emergency only to the extent that derogating measures are strictly necessary to meet a current threat to the life of the nation.
Certain human rights, including freedom from torture, the right to life, and certain essential elements of the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy may never be restricted, even in an emergency situation.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
Mar 30, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, to refrain from signing into law amendments to the law that regulates the country’s High Judicial Council (HJC). The amendments were adopted on Tuesday 28 March 2017 by the People’s Representatives Assembly.
The ICJ also urged the Head of the Cabinet, Youssef Chahed, to act, as a matter of highest priority, on the nominations by the Instance Provisoire de la Justice Judiciaire (IPJJ) with a view to filling the positions of the First President of the Cassation Court and its General Prosecutor.
The ICJ expressed concern that the amendments revising the country’s 2016 HJC law would weaken the effective functioning of the judiciary and the administration of justice in several respects
- The amendments would strip the IPJJ President of the authority to convene the HJC’s first meeting and instead provide the President of the Parliament with such power. This would constitute an inappropriate interference of the legislative branch into the management of the judiciary in clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence.
- The amendments would explicitly exclude any possibility of challenge or judicial review of such action of the President of the Parliament. The ICJ considers that the judiciary must be able to review such decisions to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily or outside the law.
- The amendments would also reduce the quorum required for the validity of HJC meetings from one-half to one-third of its members. This could lead to situations where non-judicial members of the HJC have the power to take decisions over the judiciary, in contravention of international standards.
“Instead of using legislative tactics and procedures to weaken the independence and the effective functioning of the HJC, the Tunisian Head of Cabinet should act on the IPJJ’s nominations to fill the positions of the President and the Prosecutor General of the Cassation Court as a matter of urgency, and ensure that until the HJC is properly established, the IPJJ continues to fully exercise its competencies in overseeing and managing the judiciary,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) Programme.
Indeed, irrespective of the amendments, the ICJ recalls that article 148(8) of the Constitution clearly states that the IPJJ is to carry out its mandate until the seats on the HJC have been filled. This is further affirmed under article 74 of the 2016 HJC Law and article 19 of the 2013 IPJJ Law. Both of these laws make the end of the exercise of the IPJJ’s functions dependent on two conditions, namely that the HJC be fully composed and established.
The ICJ considers that the delay in acting on the IPJJ nominations of senior judges risks undermining the effective functioning of the judiciary, as well as adversely affecting the functioning of other institutions that are essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Tunisia. The adopted amendments are no answer to this problem.
“The ongoing crisis is political and not judicial,” Benarbia said.
“Solving it does not require the introduction of legislative amendments that erode the rule of law and judicial independence, but rather the compliance with existing laws and the Constitution,” he added.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa Programme, t: +33 6 42837354, e: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Background
The amendments were introduced and adopted amid a continuing crisis and functional paralysis of the judiciary that also impact on the effective functioning of other State institutions, including the body in charge of reviewing the conformity of laws with the Constitution.
In particular, two key positions have been left vacant as neither the First President of the Cassation Court, nor its General Prosecutor, have been appointed, and both of these positions also serve as ex officio members of the HJC.
In October 2016, elections were organized to choose the members of the HJC. A swearing-in ceremony before the President of the Republic followed in 14 December 2016, in which not all the HJC Members participated.
In November 2016, the IPJJ proposed candidates including to fill these two positions. Under the Tunisian Law, the Head of the Cabinet must confirm these nominations.
Alternatively, this official may request new nominations from the IPJJ until agreement is reached, as provided for in article 12 and 14 of the IPJJ Law No.13 of 2013. So far, the Head of the Cabinet has failed to act on the IPJJ’s nominations and uncertainty prevails as to whether the HJC has been properly established.
Under the Tunisian Constitution and laws, the President of the Cassation Court is also the President of the Instance Provisoire de Contrôle de la Constitutionnalité des Projets de Loi, the body in charge of assessing the conformity of laws with the Constitution during the transition period.
When established, the HJC will be charged with appointing four members of the Constitutional Court.
Tunisia-Statement new HJC Law-News-Web stories-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 30, 2017 | News
The ICJ expressed its hope today that an arrangement reached between four judges of the High Court and Botswanan President Ian Khama along with Chief Justice Dibotelo would serve to restore the effective functioning of the High Court and its critical role in the administration of justice.
The settlement resulted in Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe withdrawing a petition and letter they had written complaining about what they considered to be a range of deficiencies in the justice system, as well as a failure of leadership in judicial administration.
The President and executive, for its part, discontinued pursing allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute against the judges and disestablished the impeachment tribunal that had been set up to try them.
The ICJ had previously expressed its concern about the process of the impeachment of the judges and the impact of the impeachment proceedings on judicial independence and impartiality in Botswana.
The ICJ was also concerned that impeachment proceedings would not accord with the principles of the right to fair trial.
“This settlement paves the way for the four judges to resume their normal duties,” said Arnold Tsunga Director of the ICJ.
“The Botswana executive and judicial officials charged with administration of the justice can now focus their attention on addressing the very real challenges facing the justice system in the country,” Tsunga added.
The ICJ reminds the Botswana authorities of their duty to guarantee the independence, impartiality and accountability of the judiciary under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, treaties to which Botswana is a party.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716405926or +263 777 283 249; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background
The ICJ recalls that the four judges were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The suspension was precipitated by a signed petition directed to the Chief Justice. In the petition the judges objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.
The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.
The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.
Mar 28, 2017 | News
Legislation adopted today by the Pakistani Parliament allowing civilians to be tried by military tribunals in secret proceedings is a serious blow to human rights and rule of law in the country, the ICJ said.
“The nationwide concern at a number of recent attacks in the country seems to have once again been misdirected toward a seriously flawed counter terrorism strategy that weakens the rule of law and the struggle for justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“Pakistan must reject this counter productive strategy and instead strengthen its judicial process and law enforcement in line with its domestic law and international obligations,” he added.
The Pakistani Parliament voted to amend the 1973 Constitution and the Army Act, 1952, to again allow military tribunals to try civilians who allegedly belong to “a terrorist group or organization misusing the name of religion or a sect” and are suspected of committing a number of offences, including: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has also documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts from January 2015 to January 2017, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
“Militarizing the judicial process will not lead to justice and it will not effectively counter terrorism; this is the lesson from around the world,” Zarifi said. “It has not proven to do so in Pakistan in the past, and there is nothing to indicate that it will do so now.”
“Instead, secret military trials of civilians that flout even basic fair trial guarantees will further erode the rule of law and weaken the government’s role in providing justice and protecting the rights of people in Pakistan,” he added.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017.
Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 21 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging.
The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty under any circumstances as a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Mar 23, 2017 | News
Cambodia should continue to investigate the killing of prominent political commentator Kem Ley in order to address key aspects of the case that appear to have been inadequately investigated, said the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch today.
On 23 March 2017, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court found Oeuth Ang guilty of the premeditated murder of Kem Ley on 10 July 2016 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Prior to the half-day trial, which took place on 1 March 2017, the authorities released almost no information about the investigation.
“The trial revealed that the investigation appeared to be deficient in several important respects,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser who observed the trial.
“Until there is an independent, impartial and effective investigation to establish whether anyone else was involved in the killing, the victims of this serious crime, including Kem Ley’s wife and children, will be unable to obtain justice,” he added.
Even the very identity of the defendant was at issue. At trial, Oeuth Ang maintained he is 39-years-old, unmarried, and named “Chuob Samlab” – which translates in English as “Meet to Kill” – from Banteay Meanchey province.
However, the prosecutor submitted that based on the fingerprint on the ID card of Oeuth Ang, he is satisfied that the defendant is in fact Oeuth Ang, married, born in 1972, from Siem Reap province.
“The proceedings may have established that Oeuth Ang pulled the trigger, but the investigation does not seem to have considered whether someone else loaded the gun,” said Champa Patel, the Amnesty International Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “It is clear that the authorities want to close the book on this case and move on but failures in the investigation of this heinous act can only serve to compound the injustice already suffered by the family of Kem Ley”.
The hearing commenced at 8:40 and concluded at 13:00. After Oeuth Ang gave evidence, ten witnesses gave oral testimony including two Caltex workers, seven officials who were involved in the investigation in different capacities, and a doctor who examined Kem Ley’s body at the scene of death.
Official reports and the statements of several witnesses were also read into evidence, and the prosecution played eight videos from different locations, including one captured by a closed circuit television (CCTV) camera inside the Caltex station where Kem Ley was killed.
Kem Ley’s widow, who was named as a civil party, did not appear at the trial but her civil party statement was read into evidence.
“The authorities’ failure to investigate so many clear gaps in the defendant’s story and the court’s unwillingness to examine them suggest that a quick conviction rather than uncovering all involved was the main concern,” said Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Kem Ley’s family have been outspoken in their disbelief that Oeuth Ang was solely responsible for the murder, and the trial’s conduct lends credence to their skepticism.”
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 ; email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Cambodia-KemLey Verdict-News-Press releases-2017-ENG (full story, in PDF)
