Oct 11, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ observed a hearing in the case of Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender in Kyrgyzstan, convicted in 2011 of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred, after an unfair trial, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Azimzhan Askarov is appealing against his conviction following a decision of the UN Human Rights Committee.
The Chuy Court began the appeal hearing in the case on 4 October, following the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee that Azimzhan Askarov’s arrest, detention and trial violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, the prohibition on arbitrary detention, and the right to fair trial.
As a result, the Supreme Court ordered a reconsideration of the case earlier this year.
At today’s hearing a witness who was Askarov’s former cellmate confessed that he beat Askarov up in detention, which is the first time that direct testimony about Askarov’s torture or other ill-treatment has been presented to the Court.
Previously such allegations were refuted by the prosecution.
The next hearing is scheduled for 18 October. The ICJ will continue monitoring the case in future hearings.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Dmitry Nurumov, e: dmitry.nurumov(a)icj.org
Background
Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender, was convicted of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2011.
The charges concerned allegations of his participation in a murder of Myktybek Sulayamanov, a police officer, during the 2010 ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan.
The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011.
Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.
In March 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision in regard to Askarov’s complaint and found violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a further reconsideration of the case on appeal.
The Chuy Regional Court is currently considering the case.
kyrgyzstan-askarov-trial-obs-news-web-story-2016-rus (full story in Russian, PDF)
Oct 7, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expressed its serious concerns over the convictions on charges of incitement and extremism of Tajikistan lawyers Buzurgmehr Yorov and Nuriddin Makhkamov, and their sentencing to 23 and 21 years in prison respectively.
“These convictions, which continue a recent pattern of persecution of lawyers in the country, will contribute to the already poor climate for the independence of the legal profession in Tajikistan,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ’s Europe and CIS Programme.
“The ICJ calls on the Government of Tajikistan to ensure that the two lawyers are able to appeal their convictions through a fair process before an independent court,” she added. “It should ensure that criminal prosecution is not used by the executive as a means to limit lawyers in the exercise of their professional duty, and that lawyers do not suffer any reprisals due to their identification with their clients’ causes.”
On 6 October, the two lawyers were sentenced by the Dushanbe City Court on a number of charges, which included incitement to feud, calls for a violent change of the constitutional order and extremist activity.
They were also banned from working as lawyers for five years after serving their sentences.
Buzurgmehr Yorov, head of the Sipar Collegium of Lawyers, was arrested on 28 September 2015. Nuriddin Makhkamov, a lawyer of the same Collegium, was taken into police custody on 22 October 2015.
Both lawyers represented members of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT) at the time of their arrests.
At the trial, which was closed to the public, with only relatives allowed to attend, the lawyers denied their guilt and argued that the case was politically motivated and related to their defence of IPRT members.
Buzurgmehr Yorov was reported to have testified during the trial that he took up the case not because of a sympathy for the IRPT but because of his professional duty as a lawyer.
These convictions raise significant concerns under international human rights law and international standards on the role of lawyers.
It is a fundamental principle, necessary for the right to fair trial and recognized in international standards on the role of lawyers, that lawyers should never be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their professional functions.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers further require governments to ensure that lawyers “are able to preform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” (Principle 16).
The case also gives rise to concerns regarding respect for the right to a fair trial protected by Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Tajikistan is a party.
“These attacks continue a wave of arrests and charges against lawyers in Tajikistan,” said Pillay.
“They create a chilling effect on the proper exercise of professional duties by other members of the legal profession, endangering the right to a fair trial and undermining the justice system,” she added. “The ICJ therefore calls on the Government to take urgent measures to prevent further such attacks on lawyers.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe and CIS Programme, t: +32 2 734 84 46; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and CIS Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 32; e: temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Additional Information:
Buzurgmehr Yorov was arrested on 28 September 2015 and initially changed with fraud. Other charges were added later during his pre-trial detention. He was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment on charges of incitement to national, racial, local or religious feud (Article 189 of the Criminal Code (CC)), fraud (Article 247 of the CC), public calls to a violent change of the constitutional order (Article 307 of the CC), public calls to conduct extremist activity (Article 3071 of the CC), forgery, production or sale of forged documents, state awards, stamps, forms (Article 340 of the CC).
Nuriddin Makhkamov was arrested on 22 October 2015. He was initially charged with fraud. Further charges were added during his pre-trial detention. He was convicted on charges including incitement to national, racial, local or religious feud (Article 189 of the CC), fraud (Article 247 of the CC), public calls to a violent change of the constitutional order (Article 307 of the CC), public calls to conduct extremist activity (Article 3071 of the CC).
The IRPT was found to be a terrorist organization by the Supreme Court of Tajikistan in 2015 and banned. Its leaders received long prison sentences in closed trials on charges of terrorism, extremism and attempts to overthrow the constitutional order.
A number of other prominent lawyers have been arrested and convicted in Tajikistan since 2014. Some have been released, others remain in detention, including Shukhrat Kudratov, the lawyer of the former Minister of Energy Zaid Saidov, convicted on fraud and bribery charges in 2015.
tajikistan-yorov-makhkamov-news-web-story-2016-rus (full text in Russian, PDF)
Sep 26, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ, in cooperation with the Institute of Law and Public Policy (ILPP) held a round table discussion “Independence, effectiveness and quality of justice: comparative perspectives” in Moscow.
Judges from Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Russian and German legal scholars took part in the event.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Tamara Morschakova moderated the seminar.
Assessing the independence of judges, quality of judgements and enforcement of judgements were discussed among other topics.
The agenda of the event an be downloaded here.
Sep 22, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke to continuing concerns for human rights and the rule of law in Swaziland, during discussion at the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of Swaziland’s Universal Periodic Review.
The statement read as follows:
The ICJ is concerned by the lack of implementation of recommendations accepted by the Government of Swaziland during the first UPR cycle.
The Swazi Government undertook to take concrete and immediate measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. However judges continue to be appointed on the basis of corrupt patronage. The current Chief Justice and another Supreme Court judge are generally perceived to have been appointed on the basis of their traditional roles as former headman and chief, respectively, in the absence of any formal or transparent merit-based recruitment process.
Swaziland still has not ratified key international instruments, including the Rome Statute, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which they accepted during the last cycle.
The police have continued to ban and disrupt peaceful protests, relying on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act and Public Order Act. Human rights defenders and political activists continue to be arrested and charged with criminal offences for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Swaziland has not enacted into law the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, or any other law guaranteeing gender equality.
For these reasons, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Swaziland to accept and fully and promptly implement UPR recommendations from this cycle relevant to:
- Ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Ratifying and domesticating the international instruments they accepted at the last cycle;
- Aligning national laws with international standards to guarantee freedom of expression, association and assembly;
- Enacting the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill into legislation.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-upr-swaziland-2016
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.
The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.
On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.
The petition had 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.
On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.
The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.
The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”
On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.
The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.
On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.
The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.
On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.
Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.
These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.
Read mor
botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
