Mar 18, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined an oral statement on the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, as well as the threats they face, and the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered by the Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, read as follows:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released this week its report on the ‘Role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’. The report assesses more than 38,000 recommendations made between 2008 and 2014 for references to the legal profession.
The report’s key findings include:
UPR recommendations still insufficiently address the role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, or the threats they face, as extensively documented by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Significantly, these recommendations often make no reference to relevant UN standards.
Recommendations relating to the independence of judges are often too vague to be an effective response to the shortcomings of any given jurisdiction. Serious issues in the appointment and removal of judges are mostly ignored.
The independence of lawyers was considered in fewer than 100 of the 38,000 UPR recommendations.
Prosecutorial independence is addressed in less than 10 per cent of the recommendations calling upon States to effectively investigate or prosecute rights violations.
Guarantees for legal professionals’ rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association are barely addressed. This fails to reflect the key role that self-governing organisations of legal professionals should play in upholding human rights and the rule of law, the independence of the legal profession and law reform processes.
As international organisations of legal professionals, we foster the engagement of the legal profession in UN human rights mechanisms and in monitoring the implementation of UPR recommendations.
We call upon the Human Rights Council, as well as States, to ensure that in the third cycle of the UPR, the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors receives the heightened attention that it is due, as recognised by the UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers and the UN Guidelines on the role of prosecutors.”
The following organisations endorsed the statement:
- Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
- Commonwealth Lawyers Association
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
- International Commission of Jurists
- Judges for Judges
- Lawyers for Lawyers
- Southern Africa Litigation Centre
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC31-JointOralStatement-UPRLegalProfessions-2016
The IBAHRI report on ‘The role of the UPR in advancing human rights in the administration of justice’ is available at : http://tinyurl.com/gr525sq
Mar 17, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute to make an oral statement on judges & lawyers in Myanmar, during the consideration of its Universal Periodic Review outcome by the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the International Commission of Jurists welcome Myanmar’s decision to accept recommendations made at the Universal Periodic Review relating to the administration of justice and the independence of the legal profession and call on the Government of Myanmar to implement the recommendations which it has accepted ‘in principle’ to reform the Bar Council Act to allow for the Bar Council to become a truly independent and self-governing association.
In order to ‘guarantee in law and practice that lawyers and judges can perform their professional functions without improper interference and legally form and join self-governing associations’, we call for the right to join such associations to be enshrined in law, and that the right of the first Independent Lawyers’ Association of Myanmar (ILAM) to register as an association be respected;
In order to ‘define professional legal standards and disciplinary procedures in conformity with the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers’, we call upon the government of Myanmar to engage in a consultation process with the legal profession and other stakeholders in relation to the revision of the Bar Council Act. The government should also commit sufficient funds to allow for the funding of the system created by the new Legal Aid Law.
We are encouraged by and support efforts by the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union to draft and implement a Code of Judicial Ethics.
Finally, we urge the Government to improve legal education and continue legal professional development including with regard to international human rights law and the UN human rights mechanisms.
We are glad to provide support in the realisation of these recommendations and will look for collaboration with the Government to that end.”
Mar 14, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute in an oral statement during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation for human rights in Myanmar.The statement focussed on the situation of the legal profession and judiciary.
It is available to download in PDF format here: HRC31-Advocacy-OralStatement-SRMyanmar-2016
Feb 24, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to put an immediate end to their campaign to muzzle judges through unfair and arbitrary “unfitness” proceedings.
The Disciplinary Board, in hearings that tried dozens of judges at the same time, declared a total of 41 judges “unfit” for judicial office in 2015, forcing them into retirement.
The Supreme Disciplinary Board is currently reviewing these two cases.
The ICJ is concerned that many of the judges that have been subjected to these proceedings are leading advocates for judicial independence in Egypt and that the proceedings before both the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board were not fair.
Further, the cases stem from the judges’ exercise of freedom of association, belief, assembly and expression, and it appears that the Disciplinary Boards did not act in accordance with relevant international standards in this regard.
”Ending judges’ tenure following mass proceedings that are both arbitrary and unfair is inconsistent with Egypt’s obligations under international law,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“With these assaults on individual judges, the Egyptian authorities are ensuring that their ongoing, sustained crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms is extended to the very institution that is supposed to protect such rights and freedoms- the judiciary,” he added.
In the “July 2013 Statement Case”, 56 judges were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, following the Military seizure of power in July 2013, for endorsing a statement that called for the 2012 Constitution to be restored, for a dialogue between all stakeholders to be established within the framework of constitutional legitimacy, and for the right to peaceful demonstration to be respected.
The ICJ considers the statement to have been made consistent with the judges’ right to freedom of expression and association, exercised in a manner that preserved the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
However, on 14 March 2015, the Disciplinary Board found that 31 of the 56 judges were not fit to hold judicial office and in effect removed them from office by forcing them into retirement.
The Board found there was not sufficient evidence that the other 25 judges had in fact endorsed the statement.
The ICJ is concerned that the procedures and hearings before the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board have not satisfied international standards of fairness.
In many instances, judges were not adequately notified of the dates of the hearings or of the courtrooms where such hearings took place.
In Egypt, judges facing disciplinary hearings are entitled to have another judge represent them; however, many of the judges were not permitted by Board officials to bring their representative to the hearings, without any reason being given for barring the representative, or because no representative could be secured as a result of fear of reprisals.
Further, many judges were not provided with adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.
In another case, the “Judges for Egypt Case”, each judge had limited time to make his case before the Board during the hearings, though they were granted the right to submit at the final hearing written pleadings of no more than two pages .
At the final hearing in the case, while the judges waited all day in the Board’s premises, the hearing was held in the absence of all but one of them.
Furthermore, the Board refused to collect the written pleadings without giving any reasons.
On 22 February 2016, after protesting against the adjournment of his hearing, Judge Amir Awad was arrested and placed under detention for four days by the office of the prosecutor.
He is charged with insulting a public employee and forcibly entering his office.
“Both cases have been tainted by failures to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The Egyptian authorities must nullify all decisions to remove judges resulting from these proceedings and put an immediate end to all forms of intimidation against and persecution of judges,” Benarbia 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
Egypt-Attacks against judges-News-Web Stories-2016-ENG (full story in PDF, English)
Egypt-Attacks against judges- Press Release -2016- ARA (full story in PDF, Arabic)
Feb 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called for the reversal of last Thursday’s decision removing Judge Mohamed Al-Haini from office with suspension of his pension rights.
Judge Al-Haini, together with his colleague Amal Homani, was referred to the High Judicial Council by the Minister of Justice on unwarranted allegations of “violating the duty of discretion” and “expressing opinions of a political nature” following social media comments and media articles written by the judges in which they criticized the government’s Draft Laws on the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire and on the Statute for Judges.
The ICJ stresses that it is entirely appropriate for a judge to comment on matters of public interest that go to the organization and governance of the legal profession.
The ICJ, as well as Moroccan professional associations of judges and civil society organizations, has previously called on the Moroccan authorities to revise these same two draft laws to fully comply with international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ is concerned both at the unfair and arbitrary nature of the proceedings against Judge Al-Haini. He was only granted two hearings before the High Judicial Council’s decision to dismiss him was taken.
Furthermore, several flaws in the proceedings curtailed Judge Al-Haini’s right to defense.
In particular, the High Judicial Council refused to strike the Minister of Justice from the disciplinary panel.
The Minister clearly had a conflict of interest, given his role in initiating the proceedings against the two judges.
As a result, Judge Al-Haini’s defense team withdrew from the case in protest.
At the second hearing the proceedings were carried out in the absence of any defense counsel.
“Despite recurring breaches of due and fair process standards, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Al-Haini continued leading to the harshest disciplinary sanction possible in violation of principles governing the independence of the judiciary,” said Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
According to international standards members of the judiciary facing disciplinary proceedings have the right to an independent and impartial authority or court with all the guarantees of a fair trial.
The ICJ is further concerned that under the current legal framework in Morocco, the decisions of the High Judicial Council are not subject to any form of review.
This is clearly inconsistent with international standards that require that any disciplinary decision should be subject to an independent review.
“The absence of any possibility to challenge the decision of dismissal deprives Judge Al-Haini of a safeguard against the improper use of disciplinary proceedings, which is clearly the case here,” Boutruche warned.
The ICJ had previously called on the Moroccan authorities to end the unwarranted and arbitrary disciplinary proceedings against Judges Al-Haini and Homani.
The ICJ stressed that members of the judiciary, like other persons, enjoy the rights to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly in consonance with the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
“This decision should be nullified and the proceedings against the two judges themselves should be terminated,” Boutruche added.
“This case is a stark reminder of the need for the Moroccan authorities to revise the two draft laws, that were adopted last Wednesday by the parliament, to properly strengthen the judicial independence and create a truly independent Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire in line with international standards,” he concluded.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +961 70 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Morocco-Al Haini Dismissal-Web Story-2016 (full web story in PDF, Arabic)
