Jul 24, 2018 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
In a briefing paper published today, the ICJ called on the parties to the conflict in Yemen to take immediate and effective measures to ensure the protection of the civilian population, including against human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations.
Serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Yemen include direct and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and the impediment of access to humanitarian relief of the civilian population.
Gross human rights violations and abuses include widespread instances of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ has called for persons responsible for such violations to be held to account.
“All parties to the conflict in Yemen have acted in blatant disregard of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“The top priority is to end these violations and in particular to protect the civilian population,” he added.
In its briefing paper, the ICJ analyses international law violations committed in the conduct of hostilities and against persons deprived of their liberty.
The Saudi Arabia-led coalition and the Houthis are allegedly responsible for direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including local markets, food storage sites, water installations and medical facilities.
The United Arab Emirates, the internationally recognized government of Yemen and the Houthis have allegedly engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ briefing paper also examines the potential legal implications of the blockade imposed by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition on Yemen and the sieges laid by the Houthis against several towns and localities, which impede the civilian population to access humanitarian relief.
The ICJ briefing paper further assesses the potential responsibility of third States for transferring arms to the parties to the conflict.
Under numerous instruments, including the Arms Trade Treaty, States are prohibited from selling arms to the parties to an armed conflict whenever a risk exists that the end-user could commit international law violations.
Arms transfers may even engage the exporting States’ international responsibility for aiding or assisting in the commission of such violations.
“Victims must have access to effective legal remedies and be provided with adequate reparation,” Benarbia said.
“The international community must state loud and clear that impunity is not an option. The Security Council should refer the situation in Yemen to the International Criminal Court and third States should consider, where feasible, the exercise of universal jurisdiction to prosecute relevant crimes under international law,” he added.
Contact
Vito Todeschini, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216-71-962-287; e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Yemen-War briefing-News-web story-2018-ENG (full story with background information, English, PDF)
Yemen-War impact on populations-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ENG (Analysis Brief in English, PDF)
Yemen-War briefing-News-web story-2018-ARA (full story with background information, Arabic, PDF)
Yemen-War impact on populations-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ARA (Analysis Brief in Arabic, PDF)
Apr 10, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned a threatening statement made by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte attacking Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of the Philippines Supreme Court.
The ICJ said that the President’s remarks constituted an assault not just on the Chief Justice, but on the independence of the judiciary in the country.
The ICJ urged President Duterte to respect judicial independence and not to exert political pressure on any government official or agency to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
In a press conference on 9 April 2018, President Duterte told reporters: “I’m putting you on notice that I’m your enemy and you have to be out of the Supreme Court.”
He also called on the House of Representatives to expedite impeachment proceedings presently underway against Chief Justice Sereno.
“It is absolutely unacceptable for President Duterte to make such a statement not only because it constitutes direct intimidation of the Chief Justice, but the chilling effect it may have on other independent judges who carry out their professional duties,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ.
“By expressing his personal feelings against the Chief Justice and by directing the House of Representatives to accelerate the impeachment proceedings, the President is actively influencing and interfering with the functions of other co-equal branches of government,” Gil added.
The ICJ reminds President Duterte that as enunciated in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[i]t is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”
The Principles affirm that the judiciary must be able to carry out its work “without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
The ICJ strongly urges President Duterte to retract his comments and to refrain in the future from making any statements attacking individual judges or in any way interfering with the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org.
Background
In September 2017, two impeachment complaints against the Chief Justice were filed before the Committee of Justice of the House of Representatives, the Lower House of Congress.
The Committee of Justice approved only one of the complaints, which is scheduled to be put before the plenary of the House of Representatives in May 2018 when Congress resumes its session.
If it obtains one-third vote of all members in the House of Representatives, the articles of impeachment will be transmitted to the Senate, which is the Upper House of Congress.
Any impeachable officer may be removed from office by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate sitting as the impeachment court.
Some of the points raised in the approved impeachment complaint are the Chief Justice’s failure to report certain income in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), allegations of use of public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle, and manipulation of judicial appointments for personal and political reasons, among others.
The Chief Justice maintains she correctly filed her SALNs. She also further claims that the other allegations in the impeachment complaint are baseless or mere fabrications.
In March 2018, the Philippines’ Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the Chief Justice’s appointment due to her alleged failure to fully disclose her wealth. Oral arguments on this petition were made on 10 April 2018.
Mar 1, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the 37th session of the Human Rights Council takes place on Friday, 2 march, 15:00-16:30, room XI of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by the Civic Space Initiative (CSI) and co-sponsored by the ICJ.
In recent years, the use of exceptional national security and emergency powers to combat terrorism has become increasingly common.
The international instruments recognize that respect for human rights and rule of law are the basis of the fight against terrorism.
However, counterterrorism measures and emergency powers have increasingly resulted in or been used to restrict fundamental freedoms, including the rights to assembly, association and expression.
In this context, it is necessary for states and civil society to increase their understanding of the relationship between entrenched emergency powers and sustained human rights violations and to further elaborate guidelines and good practices that will return respect for human rights to the center of state efforts to combat terrorism.
This event aims to elevate attention and further explore the pernicious effects of states of emergency and emergency powers on human rights and fundamental freedoms with particular attention to the rights of freedom of association, assembly, and expression. It will also address how states of emergency often facilitate targeting and undermining the work of human rights defenders.
Speakers:
- Professor Fionnuala Ni Aolain, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
- Kerem Altiparmak, Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science
- Yared Hailemariam, Director, Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia
- Lisa Oldring, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Sonia Tanic, Representative to the United Nations, International Federation for Human Rights
Moderator:
- Nicholas Miller, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
Coffee/croissants served at 14:45
For more information contact: nmiller@icnl.org, vanja@ecnl.org
The event will be livestreamed on the @CIVICUS Facebook page
Universal – Counterrorism and Civic Space – News – Events – 2018 – News (Event flyer in PDF)
Feb 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Maldivian Government’s assault on the Supreme Court and its judges and the suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency.
“President Yameen and his Government have dealt a grave blow to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in the Maldives,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The actions by the government are a wildly unjustifiable and disproportionate response to the decision of the Supreme Court”, he added.
On 5 February, the Maldivian Government declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections.
The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.
The Government, however, refused to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment, which resulted in the outbreak of protests in the country.
The national defense forces also reportedly entered the premises of the Supreme Court and arrested at least two senior judges, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.
“Summarily suspending basic rights protections and arresting judges whose decisions the President disagrees with is itself a display of sweeping lawlessness in the country,” Seiderman said.
According to the President’s office, the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court order resulted in “disruption of the functions of the executive power, disruption of the functions of the state institutions…and infringement of national security and public interest.”
According to an unofficial translation of the emergency decree received by the ICJ, the constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; the right to privacy; and the right to obtain remedy from the courts.
Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures have also been suspended.
In addition, laws providing certain immunities to judges and the right of judges to be informed if any action is taken against them have also been suspended.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ notes that international law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
“Maldivian authorities have not even come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Seiderman said.
The ICJ urges the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court, implement the ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, T: +41 22 979 38 37 ; e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Additional information
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Jan 30, 2018 | Agendas, Events
The ICJ invites you to an event to discuss challenges in prevention of, and accountability for, violations of human rights in renditions and other transfers of suspects, including through past European complicity in US-led renditions, and in ongoing transfers of suspects in the CIS region.
Join us for a discussion marking the EU launch of the International Commission of Jurists’ report, Transnational Injustices: National Security Transfers and International Law. The event is kindly hosted by Ana Gomez and Eva Joly, MEPs.
Panelists will discuss the ongoing practice of states unlawfully rendering people accused of terrorism, accountability for violations of human rights in past renditions, and how the EU institutions and EU Member States should address these.
When: Tuesday 30 January 16.00 – 18.00
Where: Room A5G305, European Parliament, Brussels
RSVP to: anamaria.gomes@europarl.europa.eu
Speakers include:
- Ana Gomes, Member of the European Parliament
- Eva Joly, Member of the European Parliament
- Róisín Pillay, International Commission of Jurists
- Natacha Kazachkine, Open Society European Policy Institute
A flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
