Nov 2, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists renews its call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip following the most recent Israeli attacks on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza on 31 October and 1 November 2023.
According to the Gaza Health Ministry, the two strikes killed at least 195 people. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) claimed that the 31 October airstrike targeted and killed Ibrahim Biari, a claim Hamas denied. The IDF further claimed that Biari was one of the Hamas commanders responsible for the 7 October attacks in Israel.
Intentionally directing an attack against civilians or civilian objects or intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause disproportionate civilian harm is a war crime. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern that these attacks may be “disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes”.
Gaza’s Health Ministry maintains that the number of Palestinians killed since 7 October has surpassed 9,000 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern that more than 3,500 children have been killed.
The ICJ considers that an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire by all sides, and an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip, including direct, indirect and disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, are necessary to stop further loss of civilian life.
According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, there is already clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in Israel and Gaza since 7 October.
In this regard, the ICJ notes the visit by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan KC, to the Rafah Crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border on 29 October 2023 and, in particular, commends his commitment to investigate the ongoing attacks, and his call for all further attacks to cease immediately. The Prosecutor confirmed that his Office has an ongoing investigation with jurisdiction over the Palestine situation, including current events in Gaza.
In light of the above, the ICJ considers that, only an immediate ceasefire will prevent war crimes, and prevent the risk of crimes against humanity and genocide.
The ICJ calls upon Palestinian armed groups to adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law, including by releasing all hostages in their custody, and urges the IDF, particularly its military advocate generals, to ensure full respect for international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org
Katherine Iliopoulos, Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: katherine.iliopoulos@icj.org
Oct 19, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns the strike on al-Ahli hospital in the Gaza Strip on 17 October 2023, which according to the Palestinian Health Ministry killed more than 500 Palestinian civilians, mainly women and children, and injured hundreds more.
“Civilians and hospitals must be protected at all times”, said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s MENA Programme. “Intentional attacks on hospitals may amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law and must cease immediately”, added Benarbia.
Palestinian sources have said that the massacre was caused by an Israeli air strike. The Israeli Defence Forces have denied any responsibility, claiming that it was caused by a failed rocket launch by Palestinian armed groups.
Under the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law, States have an obligation to investigate war crimes with a view to bringing alleged perpetrators to justice.
The ICJ calls on the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to allocate the necessary resources to respond to the escalating situation in Israel and Gaza with a view to investigating and establishing criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law committed by both parties.
According to the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, the ICC has jurisdiction over potential war crimes committed by Palestinian armed groups in Israel and Israelis in the Gaza Strip, even though Israel is not a State party. In 2015, Palestine acceded to the ICC Statute. In 2021, the Court ruled that its jurisdiction “in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
On 12 October the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ordered the entire population of northern Gaza, that is, more than 1 million people, to evacuate to southern Gaza within 24 hours in advance of a likely military ground offensive.
On 14 October, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly condemned Israel’s repeated orders for the evacuation of 22 hospitals in the Gaza strip, and called on Israeli authorities to protect health facilities, health workers, patients and civilians.
“The Israeli evacuation order was issued in the absence of safe passage or a safe destination. It may amount to a transfer of parts of the population of the occupied territory, a war crime under the ICC Statute and a serious violation of international humanitarian law”, said Benarbia.
Under international humanitarian law, hospitals and other medical facilities are considered to be protected civilian objects. Unless they are used for military purposes, they shall be protected at all times and may not be the object of attack.
Under international humanitarian law, all parties to an armed conflict have an obligation to distinguish between military and civilian targets and to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from attacks and from the effects of military operations. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, including those perpetrated using weapons that are indiscriminate by nature, amount to breaches of international humanitarian law. Intentionally directing attacks against civilians amounts to war crimes under the under the Statute of the ICC and customary international law.
Furthermore, the ICJ is deeply concerned by reports of the use of white phosphorus by Israel in other military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.
“Israel must refrain from using white phosphorus, and any other means and methods of warfare that are inherently indiscriminate or that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”, added Benarbia.
White phosphorus has the potential to cause civilian harm due to the severe burns it causes and its lingering long-term effects on survivors. While it is not per se a prohibited weapon under international humanitarian law, its use in densely populated areas, such as the Gaza Strip, is prohibited as it violates the international humanitarian law requirement that parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life.
The ICJ also condemns the continued detention by Palestinian armed groups of approximately 200 hostages.
“Hostage-taking is prohibited under international humanitarian law, and those detained must be released immediately”, said Benarbia.
The ICJ also reiterates calls by the United Nations Secretary General, WHO and others for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to enable humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia(at)icj(dot)org
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.
