Jan 30, 2020 | News
The “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed by the United States, and developed in the absence of any meaningful engagement with Palestinian representatives, is not a serious means to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, and all actors in the international community should reject it, the ICJ said today.
As presented, the Plan would pave the way for Israel to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and deny the Palestinians the internationally protected right to self-determination as well as the right to return of Palestinians. In addition, it seeks to legitimize the acquisition of land by force, all in violation of international law and the UN Charter.
On 28 January 2020, US President Donald Trump publicly announced the plan at the Whitehouse in Washington, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.
“The US plan is a political stunt that patently disregards international law and how the rights of Palestinians are recognized and protected under international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The ICJ emphasized that any claims of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on this plan would be null, void and of no effect.
The text of the US plan inaccurately asserts that Israel has “valid legal and historical claims over the West Bank” and notes that “[t]he State of Israel and the United States do not believe the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory.”
This position runs counter to numerous applicable UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 242, which required Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.
“Any settlement to the conflict between Israel and Palestine must be consistent with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” Benarbia added. “This requires negotiations on an equal footing between the parties, optimally with broad international engagement, not simply an intervention by a single State.”
Israeli settlements are established in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring its own population into the occupied territory.
Their eventual incorporation into Israel would amount to unlawful annexation, in contravention of the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force established by the UN Charter and international law.
The US plan posits that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel,” apportioning to the State of Palestine the areas of the city beyond the separation barrier. It also denies the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
Effectively making Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank permanent, the US plan further provides that Israel will maintain “overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine” and that the West Bank and Gaza should be fully demilitarized.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Dec 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.
The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.
Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.
Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.
The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.
The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.
Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict
The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.
Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.
Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.
Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.
Download
Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)
Nov 29, 2019 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, in Brussels, the ICJ held a roundtable discussion on the impact of counter-terrorism laws on specific groups, including children, and ethnic and religious groups.
The roundtable brought together 34 judges, lawyers, NGOs and other experts from countries including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Romania, and Spain to discuss how the rights of children and of ethnic and religious minorities can be best protected in applying counter-terrorism legislation in the courts, especially in light of the EU Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism.
This was the last of four roundtables held by the ICJ and its partner organizations between April and November 2019 in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE).”
The discussion in the first session of the roundtable addressed the disproportionate impact of counterterrorism laws on ethnic and religious groups. It focused on compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, through safeguards in legislation, in the judicial application of counter-terrorism laws, and in investigation and evidence gathering.
The second session of the roundtable addressed the particular impact of counter-terrorism legislation on children, including the challenges involved in protecting the human rights of children of “foreign fighters” and ensuring the primacy of their best interests in decisions on their return to EU countries. Participants also discussed protection of the human rights of returned children of “foreign fighters” both as victims of terrorism and where they are accused of crimes of terrorism.
See the agenda here.
This workshop was carried out with the financial support of the European Union and the Open Society Foundations. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ICJ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the Open Society Foundations.
Oct 19, 2019 | Events, News
On 18 October, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia and the ICJ held a a closed-door roundtable discussion in Madrid on the impact of the application of counter terrorism legislation on freedom of expression and association: implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism.
The discussion took place in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE) project”.
Judges, prosecutors and lawyers from 10 EU countries shared their practices and experiences in the implementation of the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism and the application of counter-terrorism legislation and its impact on freedom of expression and association, including humanitarian work within the different legal systems of the European Union (EU) Member States.
The discussion covered the offences of glorification of terrorism and apology for terrorism and its different implementation in various jurisdictions and how legal certainty and proportionality can be ensured. The roundtable further focused on the freedom of expression on-line and the impact of the application of counter-terrorism law on freedom of association and legitimate activities, including humanitarian assistance. These practices were be assessed in light of international human rights law principles in order to identify best practices that could be promoted throughout the EU.
This was a third out of four round-tables organized within this project between April and November 2019 by the ICJ and partners.
See the agenda here.
Sep 27, 2019 | News
On 27 September, the Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM) and the ICJ held a a closed-door roundtable discussion in the Hague on investigative procedures and procedural rights in counter terrorism: implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism. The discussion took place in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE) project”.
Judges, prosecutors and lawyers from 11 EU countries shared their practices and experiences in the application of the investigative procedures and procedural rights related to the prosecution of the criminal offences enshrined in the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism within the different legal systems of the European Union (EU).
The discussion focused on investigative powers, evidence gathering, pre-trial detention, cross border cooperation and the European Arrest Warrant. These practices were assessed in light of international human rights law principles in order to identify best practices that could be promoted throughout the EU.
This is the second out of four roundtables organized within this project between April and November 2019 by the ICJ and partners.
See the agenda here.
