Mar 29, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its grave concern at the 28 March 2016 conviction and sentencing of 17 Angolan activists to terms of imprisonment ranging from two years to more than eight years, for the peaceful exercise of their human rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression.
Following an unfair trial, they were found guilty of “preparatory actions of rebellion and association of evildoers” [malfeitores], based on having read and discussed reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship or being associated with others who did so.
The ICJ joins numerous civil society organizations in condemning the failure by the authorities in Angola to conduct the trial in a manner consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.
“Judicial persecution of opponents of the government in Angola must be stopped forthwith” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
“A worrisome trend and pattern is emerging where the authorities in Angola are increasingly using the law and legal system as an instrument of repression targeting critics of the government as well as human rights defenders,” he added.
The ICJ calls on the Angolan authorities to invalidate the conviction and sentences, and to take concrete measures to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring the independence of the judiciary and legal profession as well as fully implementing international human rights standards in the national legal system.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +27731318411 or +263777283249 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Background
Fifteen of the Accused were arrested in June 2015 and later joined by another two accused.
They were initially charged with rebellion and a conspiracy to mount a coup against the President for studying and discussing reading material on nonviolent means for resisting dictatorship.
The prosecution later dropped the second charge but added a charge of “criminal association” or “association with evildoers”.
The defense maintains that the state did not manage to prove anything beyond the fact that the accused discussed politics, which is allowed under the Angolan constitution.
No independent observers were allowed to attend the trial, raising serious concerns about the right to fair trial.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties to which Angola is a party, recognize freedom of expression and freedom of association as human rights, and prohibit governments from arbitrarily or otherwise illegitimately interfering with them.
Domingos da Cruz was sentenced to 8 years and six months; Luaty Beirão to 5 years and 6 months; Nuno Dala, Sedrick de Carvalho, Nito Alves, Inocêncio de Brito, Laurinda Gouveia, Fernando António Tomás “Nicola”, Afonso Matias “Mbanza Hamza”, Osvaldo Caholo, Arante Kivuvu, Albano Evaristo Bingo -Bingo, Nelson Dibango, Hitler Jessy Chivonde e José Gomes Hata were all sentenced to 4 years and 6 months); while Rosa Conde e Jeremias Benedito got 2 years and 3 months in jail.
Mar 28, 2016 | News
The ICJ today calls for the reversal of the Supreme Disciplinary Board’s decisions to force into retirement 47 judges following two separate, mass proceedings known as the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case”, which concern over 60 judges.
Today’s final decision in the “July 2013 Statement Case” forcibly removed 32 judges from their offices.
It comes after all of the 15 judges referred to disciplinary proceedings in the “Judges for Egypt” were forcibly removed from their offices last Monday.
In a third case on 7 March 2016, the Disciplinary Board removed from office Zakaria Abdel Aziz, a former President of the Judges Club (Egypt’s representative body of judges) and a leading advocate of judicial independence.
“The intensity of Egypt’s attacks against individual judges is reaching a frightening level,” said Said Benarbia.
“By removing judges from the office following mass, arbitrary and unfair disciplinary proceedings, the authorities are purging from the judiciary the very voices that have promoted its independence, and sending a chilling message to others who might challenge the ongoing crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms in Egypt,” he added.
The ICJ had previously raised concerns about fairness of these proceedings as well as the nature of the charges against the concerned judges.
In the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case,” the Disciplinary Board found that the judges had been involved in politics and were therefore “unfit” to carry out their functions.
Article 73 of Egypt’s Judicial Authority Law prohibits judges from engaging in “political activity”.
This prohibition was interpreted by the Disciplinary Board to include “discussing or commenting on legislative and governmental decisions as long as it does not pertain to a case that he [the judge] is looking into as part of his judicial function”.
The ICJ considers that the interpretation by the Disciplinary Board could result in arbitrary limitations to the judges’ right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, well beyond any restrictions that could possibly be justified as necessary to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Furthermore, these disciplinary proceedings have failed to meet international standards of fairness, the ICJ says.
The Geneva-based organization previously highlighted procedural flaws in the proceedings against the judges such as failure to be notified properly, to be represented before the Board and to be provided with adequate time and facility to prepare a defense.
“The Egyptian authorities must reinstate all judges that have been removed from their office as a result of unfair and arbitrary proceedings”, said Benarbia.
“Furthermore, they must amend the Judicial Authority Law to ensure that disciplinary offences are clearly and precisely defined within the law; that the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly in a manner consistent with the dignity of the office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary does not constitute a disciplinary offence; and that the disciplinary procedure is fair and does not undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” he added.
Contact:
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which were adopted by the UN in 1985 and elaborate on states’ obligations under international law, include the following provisions:
- In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
- Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence. (…)
- A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.
- Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
- All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
- Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Egypt- removal of judges-press release-2016-ARA (full text, Arabic, in PDF)
Mar 28, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the release of human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev today after the Supreme Court reduced and suspended his sentence and ordered his immediate release.
Intigam Aliyev, a prominent human rights lawyer and the head of the NGO Legal Education Society, had been convicted on 22 April 2015 of tax avoidance, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of power and sentenced to seven and a half years of imprisonment by a Baku Court.
A number of credible human rights organizations and international observers who have closely followed the case have stated that they consider the charges he was tried on to have been politically motivated, and that the real reason for his prosecution and conviction was repression by the Government of critical voices in civil society.
In a closed hearing, the Supreme Court reduced his sentence to five years of imprisonment and suspended its execution, after a request to this effect was made by Azerbaijan’s Prosecutor General, Zakir Garalov.
This unusual initiative follows the rejection, on 24 February, by the same Supreme Court of Intigam Aliyev’s complaint against his sentence.
“While the release of Intigam Aliyev is a positive step, the ICJ remains concerned that this decision appears to leave the underlying conviction in place despite credible reports that the charges were politically motivated,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser.
“If, as these allegations would suggest, Intigam Aliyev was targeted for his work as a lawyer, this would clearly violate international standards on the independence of lawyers”, said Temur Shakirov, another ICJ Legal Adviser.
Contact
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, masimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Mar 21, 2016 | News
The Maldives must stop undermining the independence and integrity of the judiciary through arbitrary and politically motivated actions against judges, the ICJ said today.
“The ICJ visited the Maldives last month for the second time in a year, and we were dismayed to see that the Maldives government has continued to erode the rule of law and weaken the independence of the judiciary,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“The government must immediately stop targeting judges and other public officials with arbitrary criminal proceedings, threats, intimidation and harassment,” he added.
On 7 February, Magistrate Judge Ahmed Nihan was arrested, along with former Prosecutor General and former Criminal Court Judge Muhthaz Muhsin, in connection with an alleged ‘forged’ arrest warrant against President Yameen.
“The arrest of a judge for issuing a warrant, a function which is well within the ordinary powers and responsibilities of the judiciary, clearly violates basic principles of judicial independence,” Narayan further said. “The fact that the alleged warrant was against the President further suggests that Judge Nihan’s arrest was politically motivated.”
“Moreover, the severity of a charge of ‘terrorism’ for such an act, even if taken at face value, cannot reasonably be viewed as proportionate to the alleged offense,” he added.
On 16 March, more than a month after his arrest, Judge Nihan was charged under sections 4(a)(1)-(2) and 5(a)(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for attempting to unduly influence the state, attempting to create fear among the public, and attempting to forcefully disappear or hold a person hostage.
The Constitution of the Maldives does not provide immunity for the president from criminal accountability even while still in office.
The ICJ was also concerned to find during its visit that Maldivian authorities have continued to undermine the independence of the judiciary by using the threat of transfer or removal of judges as a tactic of political retribution, harassment and intimidation.
On 14 February, former Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed was abruptly transferred from the Criminal Court to the Family Court following a sudden and late night meeting of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without being given an opportunity to appear on his own behalf during the meeting.
While the JSC has given no reasons for its decision, lawyers, human rights defenders and former government officials with whom the ICJ spoke suggested that the transfer had been taken in retaliation for Judge Abdullah’s failure to remand former Prosecutor General Muhsin following his arrest.
It was also suggested by those interviewed that a further motivation for the transfer was to ensure that Judge Abdullah could not indirectly influence the three-judge bench hearing the former Vice President’s criminal case in favor of the defendant. Judge Abdullah was reported to have close ties with both defendants.
In June 2015, Judge Azmiralda Zahir, one of only three female judges in the entire Maldivian judiciary and the only woman on the High Court, was arbitrarily and unexpectedly transferred by the Supreme Court from the Malé appellate bench to the southern regional bench, a transfer that amounts to a demotion, without formal notice or opportunity to challenge her transfer.
The Supreme Court has neither established clear criteria for its decision-making process in such matters nor informed Judge Zahir of the reasons for her transfer, of which she learned through media reports, despite repeated requests by her to both the Supreme Court as well as the JSC, the ICJ says.
“President Yameen’s government must quickly take genuine steps to restore the rule of law, strengthen the independence and integrity of the judiciary and restart the democratic transition process,” said Narayan.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Read also:
Maldives: political crisis erodes rule of law and human rights
Maldives: arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan further erodes judicial independence
Mar 21, 2016 | News
Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) must end its interference in the elections of the president and committee members of the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT), the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), said today.
The LCT in turn must ensure the elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
“International standards explicitly prohibit external interference in the elections of the executive body of a lawyers’ professional association by its members, and the association’s leadership must ensure that such elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner” said Matt Pollard, the Head of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. “Ensuring the independence and democratic representation of the legal profession is essential to safeguarding human rights and the rule of law, especially in the current circumstances of military rule in Thailand.”
On 29 February 2016, Mr Wichien Choobtaisong, a representative of the electoral group of the current LCT President, Mr. Dej-udom Krairit, wrote to the NCPO “seeking permission” to hold meetings and campaigns for the LCT’s regularly-scheduled elections, referring to the NCPO’s ban on political gatherings of more than five persons.
On 16 March 2016, the NCPO replied, stating that the elections “contradict” the ban on political gatherings, which “must apply equally to all groups and sectors in the interest of maintaining national security during the transition period,” and taking the position that that the elections must accordingly be postponed with the current committee continuing its term until elections are held. The NCPO’s reply also notes it received a letter from the LCT on 14 December 2015, which the ICJ and TLHR have not seen.
In its letter, the NCPO referred to NCPO Announcement 7/2014, which bans the political gathering of more than five persons (Announcement 7/2014 was later replaced by Order 3/2015). The ICJ reiterates that these arbitrary and unjustified orders and announcements should be repealed, and calls on the NCPO, in any event, to immediately withdraw its letter of 16 March, replacing it with written confirmation that the LCT elections will be able to proceed as scheduled, without external interference.
The LCT must then put in place procedures to ensure the elections proceed as scheduled and in a fair and impartial manner.
“Since the military took power, we have seen a marked increase in the number of individuals requiring legal aid for sensitive and political cases,” said Yaowalak Anuphan, the Head of TLHR and member of the LCT. “In this environment, it is even more essential that the Lawyers Council of Thailand is able to exercise its functions without external interference and that everyone has effective and equal access to the legal services of lawyers.”
Contacts
In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The Lawyers Council of Thailand was established in 1957. Its mandate and responsibilities are set out in the Lawyers Council Act 1985.
The objectives of the Council include maintaining the ethics of lawyers, promoting legal education and providing legal assistance.
It also registers lawyers and issues them with licenses to practice law in Thailand. Members of the Council elect the president and committee members every three years.
Article 24 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the UN in 1990, sets out that: “Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity.
The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”
Among other things, the UN Basic Principles also affirm that ensuring all persons have effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession is essential for adequate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
They note the vital role of professional associations of lawyers including in protecting their members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements. The Basic Principles specify that governments should respect and reflect the provisions of the Basic Principles in their national legislation and practice.
The UN Human Rights Committee has applied the Basic Principles as a necessary component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a State Party.
The UN Committee will review Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR at an upcoming meeting.
Thailand-ICJ and TLHR statment on LCT-News-press releasess-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
