May 1, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ begins its third International Human Rights Training Programme for Lawyers from Central Asia.
The objective of this programme is to train Central Asian lawyers on application of international human rights law in criminal proceedings.
In the course of the programme, the participants will learn how to use international human rights law in national courts and to make effective use of international human rights mechanisms.
Leading international experts and practitioners will share their insights with the participants of the training programme on how to interpret key concepts of international human rights law and apply them in practice, both nationally and internationally.
The training programme is built around the study of the relevant international jurisprudence on the right to fair trial, right to liberty, freedom from torture and other ill-treatment, and associated rights, including cases originating from Central Asian region considered by UN treaty bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee.
“Lawyers are on the frontline of implementing international human rights law in practice, and this remains an enormous challenge in Central Asia,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS Programme.
“The programme presents a unique opportunity for lawyers from the region to meet key experts in international human rights law, officials from the UN Secretariat and other lawyers from the ICJ network, and to develop practical expertise on how to apply international human rights law in the defence of their clients,” she added.
In the course of the training programme, the participants will attend one of the meetings during the 60th session of the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) that will take place in Geneva on 18 April–12 May 2017.
The 25 participants have been selected through a rigorous process from among 150 applications from across the region, which testifies to the growing interest of lawyers from the region in applying international human rights standards in their practice.
The ICJ is grateful to the European Union for its support of this initiative.
Download training materials in Russian:
Central Asia-Arbitrary arrest and detention-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-CIS lawyers training-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-Master file caselaw-GTP-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-NRefpresMFICJ-CIS training-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-PIL and HRL_Sassoli-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-PPT Right to life-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-Torture Pollard-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Apr 26, 2017 | News
Mohamed Zaree (Egypt, photo), FreeThe5KH (Cambodia) and Karla Avelar (El Salvador) will compete for this prestigious award given to human rights defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk. The ICJ is member of the MEA Jury.
Selected by the International Human Rights Community (members of the jury are the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, International Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights and HURIDOCS), the final nominees for the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) are known:
- Mohamed Zaree is the Egypt Country Director for the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), responsible for CIHRS’s legal research, media outreach and national advocacy. CIHRS’s work was influential in the Arab world particularly Egypt, which resulted in death threats to its director. This forced the CIHRS executive director and regional staff to move abroad to continue their work. Mohamed chose to stay and is now banned from travel. He is a legal scholar coordinating research to challenge laws designed to limit NGOs activities working on human rights, such as freedom of expression and assembly. He is widely seen a unifying figure bringing together the human rights community in Egypt to advocate with a common approach.
- FreeThe5KH are five Human Rights Defenders who have been in pre-trial detention for almost one year. This is linked to their work with the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC). International bodies like the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and UN Special Rapporteurs have repeatedly called for their immediate and unconditional release, and a stop to judicial harassment of human rights defenders in Cambodia based on their legitimate human rights work. This comes in the context of an increasingly severe crackdown on civil society and the political opposition in Cambodia.
- Karla Avelar, a transgender woman in El Salvador, grew up on the streets of San Salvador, suffering discrimination, violence, exploitation, and rape. She was imprisoned when she defended herself, and then regularly abused by fellow prisoners with the knowledge and even participation of the prison authorities. With three others, she founded COMCAVIS TRANS, which was created to represent, defend, and promote the human rights of LGBTI persons, with a focus on those living with HIV, as she does. She works to change legislation and the authorities’ practices, by holding them publicly to account.
Mohammed Zaree said: “Our hopes were high following the Egyptian revolution in 2011; we don’t know how the situation has instead deteriorated to such an extent. Today, we are battling human rights violations that are worse than before 2011, and challenging the normalization and acceptance of these atrocities.”
“Killing almost 1000 citizens in few hours, arresting almost 40,000 others, innocents dying in Egyptian prisons; is not the norm and we will not allow it to become so. We human rights defenders are fighting these abuses at risk of indefinite imprisonment,” he added.
The main award of the human rights movement, and as such labelled as the Nobel Price for human rights, the Martin Ennals Award aims to protect human rights defenders through increased visibility.
The Award will be presented on 10 October 2017 at a ceremony hosted by the City of Geneva.
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Michael Khambatta, Director, Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208 ; e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org
Background information
Egypt-MEA Finalists 2017 MZaree Bio-2017-ENG (Mohammed Zaree bio, in PDF)
Cambodia-MEA 2017 Finalists FreeThe5KH Bio-2017-ENG (FreeThe5KH backgrounder, in PDF)
Salvador-MEA 2017 Finalists KAvelar Bio-2017-ENG (Karla Avelar bio, in PDF)
Apr 20, 2017 | News
Nepali authorities should immediately take effective steps to enforce the landmark Kavre district court murder verdict for the 2004 torture and killing of teenage Maina Sunuwar, the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch said today.
On 16 April 2017, the Kavre district court sentenced three army officers to life imprisonment for the murder of Maina Sunuwar, a 15-year-old girl (photo) who was tortured in army custody and died as a result in February 2004.
Maina’s killing took place during the decade-long armed conflict between the Maoists and government forces that ended in 2006.
A court martial in 2005 found that Maina had died in army custody, convicted the three officers of torture and murder, but only sentenced the three perpetrators to six months’ imprisonment for minor offences, and promptly released them on grounds that they had already served the six months while confined to army barracks during the period of investigation.
“These convictions are an important development in Nepal’s slow-paced justice system’s ability to deal with grave conflict-era human rights abuses,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Secretary General.
“What we need now is for the government to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and enforce them,” he added.
The trial before the Kavre district court took place in the absence of any of the four accused, despite repeated court summonses, including an arrest warrant, to notify them of the charges and compel them to appear in court.
The three accused army officers who were convicted of Maina Sunuwar’s murder, Bobi Khatri, Amit Pun and Sunil Adhikari, are no longer in the army and are believed to have fled abroad after the court martial proceedings.
The fourth accused, who was acquitted, Major Niranjan Basnet, is still in the army and was repatriated to Nepal from a UN peacekeeping assignment in Chad in 2009 due to the indictment against him.
Maina Sunuwar’s case has become emblematic of the shortcomings in Nepal’s justice system that have repeatedly frustrated efforts of Nepali conflict victims to secure justice for wartime abuses.
Maina Sunuwar’s mother first filed a report with the police in November 2005.
Since then, there have been numerous procedural and political hurdles, and a lack of cooperation by the military as it sought to protect its own.
An arrest warrant issued in 2008 was never enforced by Nepali authorities, with the police telling the court they were unable to trace them.
“Maina Sunuwar’s case was a true test case for the Nepal criminal justice system, but the government has a habit of simply ignoring court orders,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “This is the first sign of hope for victims after more than ten years since the end of the conflict—and now we need to see all those convicted of murder behind bars.”
The human rights organizations expressed concern that the government might refuse to seek to take measures to enforce the Kavre court’s verdict given its prior record on this and thousands of other conflict-era cases.
In a disturbing example, the police have yet to implement a 13 April 2017 Supreme Court order to arrest Bal Krishna Dhungel, a Maoist politician convicted of a 1998 murder.
Dhungel has yet to serve out his life sentence handed down by the courts.
The court gave the police a week to execute its order and present Dhungel before it.
“The Kavre district court has done its job, reaffirming the independence of the judiciary from political and military pressure, and holding perpetrators of serious crimes committed during the conflict to account,” said Biraj Patnaik, Amnesty International South Asia Regional Office Director. “Now the authorities must do their job by breaking with the practice of successive past governments that ignore and undermine the courts’ decisions. We expect the government to promptly implement this week’s ruling.”
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior International Legal Adviser, e: Nikhil.narayan@icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretery General, e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
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)
