Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Aug 2, 2015 | News
From 31 July to 2 August 2015 the ICJ supported a training and induction workshop for the Zimbabwe National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in Harare, with over 200 participants.
The public prosecutors came from the Eastern Division comprising of Midlands, Manicaland and Masvingo provinces.
The objective of the training and induction workshop was to appraise the prosecutors of the changes brought about by the Constitution, international and regional standards in the conducting of prosecutorial duties, their independence and accountability.
The presentations also focused on the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act as the main guiding framework for public prosecutors which has been significantly altered with the assumption of a new Constitution in respect of fair trial rights.
The NPA and the public prosecutors required a platform to collectively familiarize themselves with the changes and conducting of their duties guided by national, international and regional standards.
For purposes of infusing best regional and international practices, presentations included international principles and standards for prosecutors under United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Prosecutors; the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa; the relationship of the NPA and other arms such as the Judicial Service Commission and the Police.
An array of resources persons were invited and included Justice Chinembiri Bhunu, from the Judicial Service Commission, Virginia Mabiza, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Andrew Chigovera, former Attorney General of Zimbabwe, former Commissioner on the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and Dr. Tarisai Mutangi, law lecturer Midlands State University.
As a new establishment under the Constitution, the NPA explored the available and needed continuous professional development for prosecutors to fully equip them for their mandate.
The Principal of the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (a partner of the ICJ), Mr. Shana, presented on the opportunities for continuous professional development for prosecutors for acquaintance with new legal developments.
The training follows additional support that ICJ made to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) under a European Union (EU) funded agreement to develop a strategic plan for the NPA in respect of which a strategic planning workshop was held from 6 to 8 July 2015,
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Jul 29, 2015 | News
They held bilateral talks at the Constitutional Hill in Johannesburg, discussing matters of mutual interest including possible collaboration in the building of strong, independent, impartial and accountable judicial institutions on the African continent.
They also agreed in principle on the importance of establishing a platform of systematic and sustained dialogue by judicial leaders in Africa on challenges that emerge from time to time that pose threats to judicial independence.
A few country specific situations on threats to judicial independence were discussed as well.
The ICJ Secretary General is in Southern Africa where he has met several judicial leaders including Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku of Zimbabwe, Justice Rita Makarau the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission in Zimbabwe and Justice Azhar Cachalia of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa who is also the Chair of the Executive Committee of the ICJ.
He will be in Swaziland on Thursday and Friday before winding up his visit to the region on the 2nd August 2015.
Jul 28, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its serious concerns about the trial, conviction and sentencing to death of Saif al Islam Gadhafi, Abdallah al Senussi, as well as seven officials of the Gadhafi regime by the Tripoli Criminal Court.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the trial of the officials of the Gadhafi regime failed to scrupulously respect the guarantees of fair trial as required by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Libya is a state party.
The imposition of the death penalty following such an unfair trial violates the right to life.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“Libyan authorities must comply with their obligations under international law, refrain from implementing the death sentences against Saif al Islam and 8 former Libyan officials, and ensure that all defendants are retried before an independent and impartial tribunal and in full compliance with international fair trial standards,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the MENA programme at the ICJ.
“The trial is a lost opportunity to make a break from decades of unfair trials in Libya. It is also a missed opportunity to establish the truth about the legacy of alleged gross human rights violations committed during the 40-year reign of Moammar Gadhafi, including summary executions, enforced disappearances, torture and other ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention,” Benarbia added.
Fair trial violations included severe limitations on the defendants’ rights to access a lawyer, to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and to be represented and communicate with a lawyer of their own choosing, the ICJ says.
23 other defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from life imprisonment to 5 years.
The charges against the officials included: “murdering and bombarding civilians during the 2011 revolution,” “inciting, participating and assisting in the murder of Libyans,” “recruiting mercenaries and establishing brigades and then providing them with weapons, uniforms and money to fight the protesters.”
Some defendants, including Saif al Islam Gadhafi, who continues to be held in militia custody in Zintan, were not present during the trial, though were connected by video link at times.
The ICJ is also concerned that the defendants’ rights to appeal are limited in numerous ways.
Convictions by the Tripoli Criminal Court will be reviewed before the cassation chamber of the Supreme Court.
The chamber only examines the proper application of the law by the lower courts and does not review the merits of the case.
In accordance with Libya’s obligations under international law, including the ICCPR, the defendants have the right to have their convictions and sentences reviewed by an independent higher tribunal.
Such review must concern both the legal and material aspects of the defendants’ convictions and sentences.
The ICJ is concerned that political and security instability in Libya continues to undermine the ability of the judiciary to function and administer justice independently and impartially.
In reviewing the situation in the context of the Saif al Islam Gadhafi case, the International Criminal Court (ICC), expressed concern about the inability of the judicial and governmental authorities to obtain testimony or to provide witness protection.
It found that Libya was unable to conduct a fair prosecution and trial of Gadhafi.
The ICC issued a warrant for his arrest to answer allegation of crimes against humanity.
The ICJ calls on the Libyan authorities to annul the unfair proceedings; to fully cooperate with, and surrender Saif al Islam Gadhafi to the ICC; and to ensure the fair re-trial of the other accused.
Contact:
Doireann Ansbro, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 71 841 701, e: doireann.ansbro(a)icj.org
Libya-Saif Gadhafi sentence-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text of press releases in Arabic, PDF)
Photo: Ahmed Jadallah / Reuters
Jul 22, 2015 | News
El genocidio perpetrado contra población Ixil de Guatemala será debatido en el segundo juicio seguido en contra del ex Presidente de facto Efraín Ríos Montt y el ex Director de inteligencia José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez.
El juicio está por reiniciarse el 23 de julio. Lamentablemente, este segundo juicio ya se ha visto afectado por diferentes hechos, que a continuación describimos.
La recusación de la jueza Presidenta del Tribunal B de Mayor Riesgo, debido a la redacción de su tesis doctoral sobre el delito de Genocidio, no debió de haber sido aceptada por no existir una causa razonable, ya que dicho trabajo de tesis se relaciona con su formación académica especializada en justicia de transición.
Posteriormente, la jueza fue sustituida por un juez que ha evidenciado relaciones de amistad a través de las redes sociales con uno de los abogados defensores del acusado Ríos Montt (photo).
Nuevamente la defensa busca que por lo menos un juez “amigo” integre el tribunal. A ello se suma el hecho de que recientemente el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Forenses (INACIF) emitió un informe que hace referencia al supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt.
La CIJ de la manera más enérgica expresa que estos actos son parte de una estrategia que tiene como propósito eludir la acción de la justicia.
La CIJ considera que ello constituye una violación al derecho de las víctimas al acceso a la justicia y contra el derecho a un juicio justo, libre de intromisiones de todo actor externo.
La CIJ se permite recordar al Poder Judicial que el combate a la impunidad de acuerdo con los estándares internacionales la justicia debe obedecer a tres imperativos: juzgar y sancionar a los responsables de graves crímenes, como el genocidio; satisfacer el derecho de las víctimas a conocer lo sucedido y obtener reparación integral; y fortalecer la independencia de las autoridades judiciales.
El supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt podría ser solo una simulación, para evitar que sea nuevamente llevado a juicio.
Al respecto, la CIJ denuncia las acciones violatorias del debido proceso realizadas una vez más, por la jueza Carol Patricia Flores, quien ordenó se le practicasen exámenes médicos a Ríos Montt, para averiguar acerca de su estado de salud físico y mental.
Esta orden de la jueza Flores es ilegal, debido a que el proceso ya se encontraba a cargo del tribunal de Sentencia Penal B de Mayor Riesgo y ella carecía de competencia para ordenar tal medida.
La CIJ insta a los jueces a ejercer su poder de contralores del proceso penal, rechazando todos los actos de litigio de mala fe que sean promovidos por la defensa de los procesados.
Se requiere que los jueces a cargo del juicio se encuentren libres de toda presión externa que pueda intimidarlos en su función.
Para garantizar su independencia deben contar con el apoyo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, quien debe velar por su seguridad y por el desarrollo del proceso en un marco de respeto.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América, expresó: “Otra vez estamos ante una serie de medidas dilatorias, que demuestran que existen jueces que se prestan a promover la impunidad de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos.”
