Oct 16, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns the arbitrary detention and criminal prosecution of three lawyers who had been defending the prominent opposition figure, Alexei Navalny.
“These criminal proceedings, constituting persecution of lawyers, severely compromise the administration of justice in Russia and undermine the ability of all lawyers to defend their clients’ human rights and uphold the rule of law”, said Temur Shakirov, interim Director of ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
On 13 October 2023, Vadim Kobzev, Alexey Liptser and Igor Sergunin – who had been acting as Navalny’s defence lawyers — were arrested and detained at Basmanny District Court in Moscow on charges of purportedly participating in an “extremist community”, with a potential sentence of up to six years’ imprisonment if convicted. As such, the criminal proceedings against Vadim Kobzev, Alexey Liptser and Igor Sergunin amount to persecution.
The charges are reportedly based on accusations that the three lawyers facilitated Navalny’s communication with the outside world while in detention.
Moreover, another lawyer representing Navalny, Alexander Fedulov, apparently fearing being arrested, was forced to flee the country following the arrest of his three colleagues.
The arrest and detention of the three lawyers and Fedulov’s flight significantly disrupt Navalny’s ability to defend himself through the assistance of qualified, independent legal counsel of choice, and his ability to challenge the criminal convictions and sentences, which led to his detention since 2022 as a result of a series of criminal cases against him widely believed to be politically motivated.
“The detention of Navalny’s lawyers is likely to constitute part of a wider strategy to isolate him even further. Moreover, it sends a chilling message to anyone wishing to defend human rights and political activism”, said Shakirov. “This is contrary to the right of lawyers to practise their profession freely, and it denies Navalny his right to legal representation, a fair trial guarantee protected under international human rights law binding on the Russian Federation”.
The ICJ stresses that the harassment and arbitrary detention of lawyers contravene the Russian Federation’s obligations under international law, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. They affirm the crucial role of lawyers in upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights. It is crucial to ensure that lawyers can perform their legitimate professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference, as guaranteed under the Basic Principle on the Role of Lawyers.
“The ICJ calls on the Russian Federation: to immediately stop this flagrant violation of the guarantees afforded to lawyers under international human rights law; for an end to these persecutory criminal proceedings; for all charges against Vadim Kobzev, Alexey Liptser and Igor Sergunin to be dropped; and for them to be immediately released”, added Shakirov.
Furthermore, the ICJ urges the Russian authorities to cease the persecution and harassment of lawyers and to take steps to ensure a safe environment where lawyers can operate without fear of reprisal for their work.
Background:
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference and must not face sanctions for discharging their duties in accordance with professional standards and ethics (Principle 16). Furthermore, lawyers must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions. (Principle 18).
The UN Basic Principles also specify that lawyers like others have a right to freedom of expression and in particular the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights” (Principle 23)
The arrest of the three lawyers has prompted a call for a strike within the Russian legal community to demonstrate against the hostile environment within which lawyers in the Russian Federation operate, particularly those defending human rights and representing political activists.
Oct 16, 2023 | News
Judges and Prosecutors in Nepal have taken up the challenge to step up their efforts to ensure that victims and survivors of human rights violations are able effectively to access justice.
At a Judicial Dialogue convened by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Advocacy Forum Nepal (AFN) in collaboration with Judges Society Nepal (JSN) on 15 – 16 September 2023, judges and prosecutors from district and high courts in Gandaki Province in Nepal attended and assessed the challenges faced by victims and survivors in the context of the stalled transitional justice process which followed from the end of Nepal’s internal armed conflict in 2006.
The Government of Nepal has made repeated commitments to ensure access to justice and the Supreme Court of Nepal has affirmed that the authorities have firm legal obligations to act in the transitional justice process. Participants considered that there had been serious undue delay in the Nepalese TJ process over years, which have included ineffective commissions, non-implementation of court rulings and a failure to take into account the voices of victims of human rights violations. There was therefore a pressing need for judges and public prosecutors to play a more proactive role in order to address conflict-era gross violations delivering justice for the victims of the violations.
ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal Kalyan Shrestha, emphasized that it was indispensable to adhere to international and domestic human rights law, including the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. He expressed concern that adjudication of conflict-related cases had been significantly delayed, resulting in a prolonged wait for justice for the victims of human rights violations. Justice Shrestha also underscored the need for Nepal’s judiciary and public prosecutors to effectively fulfill their responsibilities and ensure justice for victims of human rights violations, in accordance with a well-developed body of jurisprudence on justice in the transitional context.
Justice Ishwor Khatiwada of the Supreme Court of Nepal reviewed the status of human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Nepal. More than a thousand cases related to conflict-era human rights violations have been pending at different courts, and there was no law that restricts courts/judges from deciding the cases of human rights violations from conflict. The Government of Nepal had been refusing victims of conflict access to regular justice system arguing that they will be provided justice by transitional justice mechanisms. However, these promised TJ mechanisms had not been established even more than a decade and a half after signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), making commitments to create these mechanisms.
Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal highlighted that jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court mandated a robust role of the judiciary in assessing the implementation of its jurisprudence.
Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, provided insights into the global context of transitional justice and discussed the challenges, lessons learned, and good practices.
High Court Judge Tek Prasad Dhungana, General Secretary of Judges Society Nepal presented the objectives of the dialogue, which was chaired by Mr. Baburam Regmi, Acting President of Judges Society Nepal and former High Court Judge and facilitated by Kathmandu District Court judge Raju Kumar Khatiwada.
Contact:
Dr Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +9779851048475, e: mandira.sharma@icj.org
Kashiram Dhungana, ICJ Legal Adviser, Nepal, t: +9779851226964, e: kashiram.dhungana@icj.org
Oct 10, 2023 | News
The prosecution of the rights defender and businessman Osman Kavala and four codefendants in connection with mass protests a decade ago has been unfair and essentially a political show trial from the beginning, a group of nine non-governmental organizations including the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today, ahead of an October 12 urgent debate calling for Kavala’s release at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The five have been punished for the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
On September 28, 2023, Turkey’s Court of Cassation, its top appeals court, upheld the convictions, notwithstanding that the European Court of Human Rights has previously found no basis for detention or trial, and ordered Kavala’s immediate release.
“By ignoring these judgments and Turkey’s human rights obligations, the Court of Cassation is doubling down on the deep injustice of this case that dramatically demonstrates how far Turkey has deviated from the rule of law,” said Helen Duffy of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The trial has not only led to grave violations of the rights of Kavala and the others, but it provided a chilling example of how Turkey’s justice system has become a tool of political repression.”
Although President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish government officials repeatedly state that Turkish courts are independent, the trial of Kavala and his codefendants exposes those claims for the falsehood they are, and demonstrates how in key cases of interest to the president, prosecutors and courts blatantly do his bidding.
Kavala was sentenced to life in prison without parole, convicted of attempting to overthrow the government on false allegations that he organized and financed the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests against a government urban development project. Four codefendants – Çiğdem Mater, Can Atalay, Mine Özerden and Tayfun Kahraman – received 18-year sentences for allegedly aiding Kavala, while the court quashed the 18-year sentences of Mücella Yapıcı, Hakan Altınay and Yiğit Ekmekçi, and ordered Yapıcı and Altınay’s release pending retrial.
“This trial cynically opened six years after the Gezi Park protests with the malevolent intent of casting them as the outcome of a grand conspiracy by one man, Osman Kavala,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “To achieve this the prosecution and the courts blatantly had to ignore all the evidence of spontaneous mass protests in which the vast majority of protesters committed no violence and exercised their lawful rights to freedom of expression and assembly.”
The Court of Cassation’s 78-page verdict simply reiterates the prosecution’s allegations in the February 2019 indictment, though the European Court of Human Rights ruled twice that the indictment offered insufficient evidence to justify Kavala’s detention, prosecution or conviction, and by inference, the other defendants’.
Notably, in a striking rebuke to the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, and Turkey’s human rights obligations, the Court of Cassation makes no reference to the repeated findings against Turkey in this case. In December 2019, the European Court ordered Kavala’s immediate release, and in February 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the body responsible for overseeing implementation of European Court judgments, took the almost unprecedented step of triggering infringement proceedings against Turkey for its refusal to comply.
This led to a second European Court of Human Rights judgment condemning Turkey’s failure to carry out the first, and the failure of the Turkish court convicting Kavala and others on April 25, 2022, to recognize the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment. The Court of Cassation decision doubled down on that rejection of the European Court’s role, with no mention of that judgment.
Turkey’s European and international allies, both unilaterally and through intergovernmental organizations, including the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the United Nations, should address this injustice as a matter of urgency. They should treat the case as a priority human rights matter in their mutual relations with Turkey, and push for the swift and full implementation of the European Court’s’ judgments, including for the defendants’ immediate release.
They should firmly condemn the abuse of criminal law against activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others in politically motivated cases. Robust efforts are essential to ensure that Turkey respects and abides by its human rights obligations and rule of law principles, which are currently being flouted with impunity.
In turning a blind eye to the Strasbourg court’s rulings, the Court of Cassation is also ignoring its constitutional obligation to ensure that Turkey adheres to binding decisions of the European Court, which take precedence over rulings in Turkey’s domestic courts.
“In direct contravention of its legal obligations under international law, the Court of Cassation has chosen to maintain convictions despite the European Court of Human Rights judgment ordering Kavala’s immediate release,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Director (ad interim). “By failing to adhere to its obligations, the Court of Cassation sets a precedent, eroding confidence in the legal system’s ability to act as an independent and impartial institution, separate from political influence and committed to upholding human rights and the rule of law.”
The Court’s Flawed Reasoning
In its September 29 decision, the Court of Cassation relies on a chronology of events from the February 2019 indictment that the prosecution argues constituted the preparation for the Gezi protests. This included making a short video with a group of actors in 2011 called “Rise up Istanbul,” production of a play in Istanbul about a dictator, which ran from 2012-13, and the 2012 establishment of the civil society platform, Taksim Solidarity, focused on the highly contested plan to develop Taksim Square and Gezi Park. The court fails to show any causality between these lawful activities and any crime or to provide any evidence that these activities showed that Kavala and the other defendants were involved in a conspiracy.
The court decision makes reference to the protests and popular uprisings in various Middle Eastern countries that predated the Gezi protests and came to be known as the Arab Spring, and nonviolent civil disobedience movements such as OTPOR in Serbia a decade earlier, without showing their relevance to the case.
The decision names civil society organizations and alleges they “supported and directed” the Gezi Park protests without providing any credible evidence. Chief among them are the Open Society Foundations, set up by the US financer and philanthropist George Soros, and the affiliated but independent (and now dissolved) philanthropic foundation in Turkey (Açık Toplum Vakfı). Kavala was a founding member of the group, and Altınay served for a period well before the Gezi Park protests as director of the board.
The court repeats a conspiracy theory, informed by antisemitic tropes, from the original indictment that Soros’s organizations aimed to overthrow governments in various countries by encouraging uprisings, and that the Turkish Open Society Foundation and Kavala were involved in this process under the guise of innocent-looking philanthropic activities.
Kavala’s own civil society group, Anadolu Kültür A.Ş., which supports the arts, was also named. The other defendants were linked to Kavala through their participation in that organization: film producer Çiğdem Mater, employed as an advisor, Mine Özerden, a member of the board, and Yiğit Ekmekçi, deputy head of the board. Taksim Solidarity is named as the group in which three defendants – lawyer Can Atalay, city planner Tayfun Kahraman and architect Mücella Yapıcı – participated actively.
The Court of Cassation endorses the indictment’s inclusion of Kavala’s contacts with bodies such as the European Commission, members of the European Parliament, diplomats, diplomatic missions and international human rights groups, as evidence of alleged efforts to influence international opinion against the Turkish government.
A section on the alleged protest financing cites the Open Society Foundations’ funding of the Turkish Open Society and Anadolu Kültür, but it omits that a formal investigation into the funding cited in the indictment (the MASAK report) found no evidence of unaccounted for money transfers. Instead, the court relies on examples drawn from wiretapped conversations, of Kavala once bringing people camped in the park a few bread rolls, talking about obtaining a plastic table for use in the park, and where to buy masks and goggles to protect from police tear gas.
The court decision also allows as admissible evidence a mass of random wiretapped conversations between the defendants and others that were illegally obtained. Far from revealing any criminal activity, the conversations show that the defendants were lawfully engaged in civil society organizations and nonviolent activism, and were exercising their rights to free speech, association, and assembly. Such activities are strictly protected under international law, including treaties to which Turkey is a party such as the European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in Turkey’s own laws.
The decision rejects parliamentary immunity from prosecution for one of the defendants, Atalay, a lawyer and activist who won a seat in the May 2023 parliamentary elections on behalf of the Workers’ Party of Turkey. The Court of Cassation decided that he was not protected by parliamentary immunity under article 83 of Turkey’s Constitution in relation to this case confirming its own July 13 decision on the matter, and upheld his conviction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Cassation rejects the case law of the Constitutional Court, given under identical conditions, in judgments related to other jailed parliament members, Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu and Leyla Güven, which held that they do have immunity and that arresting, prosecuting, and detaining them constitute very serious violations of that immunity.
The nongovernmental organizations who signed the statement are:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Human Rights Watch
- European Democratic Lawyers (AED)
- European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH)
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- PEN International
- Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
Oct 10, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns the direct attacks against civilians in Israel, including deliberate killings of hundreds of civilians, the taking of hostages and the launching of indiscriminate rockets against civilians and civilian objects, perpetrated by Palestinian armed groups since 7 October 2023.
“I abhor the deliberate targeting of civilians and hostage-taking, and condemn the horrific escalation of violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” said Santiago Canton, ICJ Secretary General. “These atrocities are crimes under international law and must stop immediately. Civilians held hostages should be released.”
The ICJ also condemns Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes against buildings in densely populated areas in Gaza, which have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and the measures of collective punishment taken against civilians in Gaza, including a total siege on food, water, electricity and fuel.
“I urge the Israeli authorities to refrain from engaging in indiscriminate retaliations or any form of collective punishment against civilians and from using starvation as a method of warfare,” said Canton.
The ICJ calls on all parties to the conflict to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians caught up in the hostilities and for accountability for the crimes under international law that have been perpetrated.
The attack led by Palestinian armed groups began on 7 October 2023, with thousands of indiscriminate rockets fired on Israel as well as incursions in Israel of armed combatants shooting civilians en masse and taking hostages to Gaza.
Israel retaliated with attacks against the Gaza strip through waves of airstrikes targeting several residential buildings and a mosque.
The death toll reported as of this morning, 10 October, was of at least 900 Israelis and at least 700 Palestinians, with more than 2,600 Israelis and 3,700 Palestinians injured.
While Israel has already cut off electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza, on 9 October the Israeli Defence Minister announced a complete siege of Gaza, including food and water, adding “we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” On the same day, Hamas threatened to execute an Israeli captive for every Israeli bombing of a civilian building without warning.
Background
Israel has imposed an air, land and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip since 2007.
The ICJ has documented Israel’s systematic human rights violations against the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian territory, such as forced evictions and displacement, restrictions on freedom of movement and arbitrary deprivations of life and liberty.
The ICJ has further documented attacks by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza strip in violation of the prohibition against deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians, including as a result of the launch by Palestinian armed groups of thousands of indiscriminate rockets into Israel.
In February 2023, the ICJ called on the Israeli authorities to stop all actions amounting to the war crime of collective punishment of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including house and property demolitions, arbitrary revocation of residency and citizenship rights and forcible deportation of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The ICJ recalls that willful killing, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation and taking of hostages committed against civilians and members of armed forces placed hors de combat, as well as extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, are grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute and customary international law. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects and intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions, as well as measures of collective punishment against protected persons, also amount to war crimes.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia(at)icj(dot)org
Oct 2, 2023
Today, a coalition of international and Egyptian NGOs has submitted a detailed legal analysis to the UN Committee against Torture concluding that the Egyptian authorities’ use of torture is so widespread and systematic as to amount to a crime against humanity under customary international law.
The legal analysis forms the basis of the report, “Torture in Egypt: A Crime Against Humanity”, written by REDRESS in collaboration with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF), Dignity, the Committee for Justice (CFJ) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). It was submitted to the Committee against Torture ahead of its review of Egypt’s record under the UN Convention against Torture that will take place on 14 and 15 November.
The legal analysis concludes that the nature of torture in Egypt qualifies as a crime against humanity under customary international law, by which Egypt is bound, due to:
- A pattern in the methods of torture used by the Egyptian authorities, including beatings, electrical shocks, sexual violence, such as forced anal examinations and “virginity tests”, the denial of access to medical care and treatment, lack of family contact, and other acts that cause severe pain and suffering.
- The methodical use of torture, both physical and psychological, as a political tool to stifle dissent and for discriminatory purposes by the Egyptian authorities.
- Widely available documentation of the prevalence of torture in Egypt, including decisions from regional and UN human rights bodies, NGOs and media reports, that establish that the highest spheres of State power know or should know that torture is being used widely against dissenters and others in Egypt. The report shows that State officials must have taken measures knowing that they were being committed as part of an attack against civilian dissenters, to advance a State policy.
The report documents how members of the National Security Agency and the National Police are directly responsible as perpetrators of systematic torture. Also implicated in torture are members of the Military Intelligence and General Intelligence Agencies. In addition, the judiciary and State prosecution services, including the Supreme State Security Prosecution directly contribute to these crimes by enabling an environment that facilitates the commission of torture and other ill-treatment.
The report argues that acts of torture in Egypt are part of a State policy enabled by Egypt’s emergency laws, “counter-terrorism” laws and policies, and the rampant impunity for the violations committed by State security and law enforcement officers.
Egypt’s history of torture stretches back four decades, going back to former President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year authoritarian regime, which normalised the use of torture and arbitrary detention under the guise of fighting terrorism. However, when he was deposed by a popular uprising in 2011, and replaced by Egypt’s first democratically elected president, President Mohammad Morsi, Morsi and his party, the Muslim Brotherhood, continued the use of torture against protestors. Military commander Abdel Fattah el-Sisi then carried on using systematic torture as a tool of repression against political dissidents and activists after coming to power through a coup in 2013.
The report notes that, in the last few years, there has been a spike in the targeting of activists and human rights defenders, who are tortured by police officers and security forces while in incommunicado detention before official charges are filed against them. Some minorities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, are also subject to torture because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
The report cites many cases, such as that of the lawyer Ibrahim Metwally, who was arrested in 2017 at Cairo International Airport when he was travelling to Geneva to speak about the enforced disappearance of his son before the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. He was then himself subjected to enforced disappearance, as well as torture and other ill-treatment, by NSA officers. Another case is the case of detained activist Alaa Abdel Fattah, whose lawyer Mohamed Al-Baker was arrested in 2019 while representing him before the Supreme State Security Prosecution. Al-Baker was subjected to ill-treatment and sentenced to four years in prison for “spreading false news using a social networking site,” before being released under a presidential pardon in July 2023.
Egypt is the only country to have been the subject of two inquiries by the Committee against Torture following receipt by the Committee of reliable information indicating that torture was being systematically practiced in the country. Both concluded, in 1996 and 2017, that the practice of torture was widespread and systematic in Egypt. In an unprecedented move in 2021, 31 States at the UN Human Rights Council expressed deep concern about Egypt’s application of “counter-terrorism” legislation against human rights defenders and others. In April 2023, the UN Human Rights Committee reiterated its concern on this same issue.
As the brutal crackdown on civil society continues to intensify in Egypt, the report calls on the Egyptian government to urgently act to end the systematic use of torture, to hold those responsible to account, and to repair the harm inflicted on victims, including by enacting law and policy reforms. In addition, the report urges the UN Human Rights Council to establish an investigative body, such as a Commission of Inquiry or a Fact-Finding Mission, or a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Egypt, tasked with monitoring, investigating and establishing the facts and circumstances of torture as a crime against humanity in Egypt, as well as other violations of human rights. The evidence collected by such a body would facilitate accountability efforts. All States should also ensure that perpetrators of torture in Egypt are held to account, including through universal jurisdiction cases, civil claims, sanctions, and other available avenues for accountability.
Rupert Skilbeck, Director of REDRESS, said:
“For decades, the Egyptian authorities have been given free rein to abuse their citizens through arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture. Torture is dismissed as merely isolated acts of misconduct instead of being seen for what it really is: a deliberate attack on Egypt’s citizens that is a crime against humanity. It is time to hold accountable those who perpetrate, tolerate, and cover up torture, including those in authority who turn a blind eye.”
Mohamed Lofty, Executive Director of ECRF, said:
“Through successive regimes, the Egyptian government has employed torture as a political tool to curtail dissent. Human rights defenders, minorities, journalists, academics, and opposition politicians have been disproportionately targeted as threats to the regime. State policy and laws, and rampant impunity, have perpetuated this cycle of torture.”
