Mar 31, 2015 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today expressed concern at searches of lawyers’ homes and workplace by Kyrgyz investigators in the city of Osh.
The home of lawyer Valerian Vakhitov and the office of the human rights organization “Bir-Duyno-Kyrgyzstan” (photo) where lawyers Valerian Vakhitov and Khusanbay Saliyev worked, were searched and materials of the lawyers’ cases were seized. The ICJ considers that the searches are violations of the right to confidential communication between a lawyer and his or her client.
The confidentiality of lawyer-client communications and lawyers’ files is protected in international human rights law as part of the right to a fair trial, as well as the prohibition of arbitrary interference with correspondence, privacy and (in this case) home.
The searches followed the arrest of Umar Farooq, a US citizen and journalist who reportedly conducted research on inter-ethnic tensions in the Kyrgyz Republic, in particular near the border with Uzbekistan.
On 25 March 2015, he was arrested by officers of the State Committee of National Security (SCNS) and a number of items in his possession were seized including recordings containing “statements on religious topics and clips of military activities”, copies of charges filed against clients of the two lawyers, A.M. Yusupov and I.I. Salibayev, and the business cards of the two lawyers.
On 28 March, Umar Farooq was expelled from the Kyrgyz Republic on grounds of collection of information without accreditation.
The investigator sought a search warrant for the lawyers’ premises on the grounds that they could contain documents “necessary for the investigation” in criminal case No. 082-15-0236.
Warrants to search the NGO premises where the lawyers worked and to search the residence of Valerian Vakhitov, were issued in separate proceedings on 26 and 27 March by judges K.M. Matisakov and B.T. Satybaldiyev.
According to the search warrant issued by the Court, the search of Lawyer Vakhidov’s home was authorized taking into account the “the need for a full, objective, comprehensive resolution of the crime, obtaining evidence necessary for the investigation of the case, inevitability of the punishment for a crime committed and for the purposes of national security”.
The same reasons were given to authorize searches of the office of “Bir-Duyno-Kyrgyzstan” Investigators seized computers, memory sticks, dictaphones and disks with information on cases in which the lawyers represented clients.
Lawyer Vakhitov reported that among other documents, files relating to nine cases in which he represented individuals before the UN Treaty Bodies, including communication with the UN bodies, had been seized.
The ICJ notes that the State Committee of National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic officially stated, on 30 March, that the searches of work and residence places of lawyers were “legal and within the framework of the CPC of the KR [Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic]”.
On the same day, the Council of Advokatura, its main executive body, issued a statement calling on the Prosecutor General Indira Zholdubayeva “to take the strictest measures provided by law in regard to the officers of the State Committee of National Security which violated the guarantees of the independence of lawyers’ activity and integrity of lawyers”.
The ICJ considers that the searches are a clear violation of the law of the Kyrgyz Republic. According to Article 29 of the Law On Advokatura and Lawyers’ Activity the Kyrgyz Republic “requisitioning, seizure, examination, inspection, copying documents, collection and use of information related to legal assistance in a particular criminal case are allowed only in the case involving a lawyer as a defendant …”.
A criminal case against a lawyer may be initiated only by the Prosecutor General or her deputy (Article 29.3).
According to article 30 of the Law, information related to providing legal aid to clients is protected as lawyer-client privilege (…).
Read the full statement here:
Kyrgyzstan-Searches of lawyers-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Kyrgyzstan-Searches of lawyers-Advocacy-2015-RUS (Russian version in PDF)
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The conviction of the Maldives’ former president, Mohamed Nasheed, on terrorism charges after a grossly unfair trial marks a significant deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the country’s judiciary, said the ICJ.
On 13 March, Mr. Nasheed (photo) was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the dismissal and alleged unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Mr. Abdullah Mohamed, in 2012, when Mr. Nasheed was president.
He was convicted of an “act…of kidnapping or abduction of person(s) or of taking hostage(s)” under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990.
“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”
The case’s pre-trial phase and trial were marked by gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
Two of the judges on the three-judge bench testified as witnesses against Mr. Nasheed in the 2012 investigation; these statements were submitted as evidence in the present trial.
Mr. Nasheed’s defense team was not allowed to be present on his behalf during the first proceeding, nor was he given the opportunity to seek bail.
The defense team was repeatedly denied full access to prosecution evidence and witnesses or to regularly consult with Mr. Nasheed during the course of the trial.
When Mr. Nasheed’s defense team recused itself in protest of the lack of fairness, the court proceeded with the trial without legal representation present for Mr. Nasheed rather than granting him the opportunity to obtain new counsel. The defense was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses.
Mr. Nasheed now has the right to appeal the conviction, but his right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.
In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe.
The ICJ has previously documented the politicization of the judiciary and the polarized political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterized by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past (See Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition (February 2011)).
“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicized along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” Zarifi said. “The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”
The ICJ urged Maldivian authorities to ensure Mr. Nasheed’s defense team full access and adequate opportunity to prepare an effective appeal, and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.
The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
Background information can be downloaded here:
Maldives-Background Brief Nasheed Trial-Advocacy-Anylysis brief-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Mar 20, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Nauru.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group issues concerning:
- The independence of the judiciary; and,
- International human rights treaty status and reporting obligations.
Nauru-UPR-Advocacy-2015-ENG
Mar 18, 2015 | Non-legal submissions
The Colombian Commission of Jurists, an affiliate of the ICJ, made an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council today, addressing threats to the independence of the judiciary in Bolivia.
The statement came in the discusson of Bolivia’s review by the Council universal periodic review procedure, in which Bolivia accepted recommendations on judicial independence, including to “guarantee the full independence of the judiciary system, in accordance with…international standards.”
In response, the ICJ and Colombian Commission of Jurists highlighted the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought by the Legislative Assembly against three judges of the Constitutional Court at the end of last year. The proceedings were based solely on the disagreement of the political branches with an interim order issued by the Court in a case challenging the constitutionality of a new law to regulate notaries.
In the so-called “trial” conducted by the Legislative Assembly in December, Assembly Members’ statements demonstrated a manifest lack of impartiality. The Assembly extensively and arbitrarily limited the rights of the judges to present evidence and witnesses in their defence.
In the result, one judge was arbitrarily removed from office in January, and another resigned under the pressure. The Assembly also referred both of these women for criminal prosecution. Proceedings against a third judge were suspended only for health reasons.
As the Government had announced that it will seek radical reform of the judicial system during 2015. In light of recent events, the two organisations asked:
- How will Bolivia ensure that reforms are consistent with universal and regional standards on the role and independence of the judiciary?
- What role will Bolivian and international civil society and legal experts have in developing the reforms?
- Will reforms ensure a judicial selection procedure that is based on objective criteria and truly independent of the executive and legislative branches of government?
- Will consideration be given to transferring responsibility for discipline and removal procedures to a new independent and impartial body, with real guarantees of fairness, and clearly defined grounds for removal that exclude disagreement with rulings?
Ireland had also raised concern about independence and effectiveness of the judiciary in its oral statement.
The delegation of Bolivia mentioned in its opening statement its intention to convene a forum on judical reforms and put reforms to a referendum, but did not provie any details other than that various sectors of Bolivian society would be involved. During the opportunity given at the end of the session to respond to the questions from states and NGOs, the delegation of Bolivia chose not to address these issues.
Read also Bolivia: ICJ condemns removal and forced resignation of Constitutional Court judges by Legislative Assembly and links therein.
The full written statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: Bolivia-HRC28-UPR-Advocacy-non legal submission-2015-ENG
Mar 16, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest and detention of Malaysian Member of Parliament and daughter of imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Nurul Izzah Anwar, under section 4(1) of the colonial-era 1948 Sedition Act.
The arrest, which took place around 3.30pm at Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur, appears to be linked to a speech she gave in Parliament on 10 March 2015 that reportedly criticized the judges in her father’s sodomy II case.
It was reported that Nurul Izzah (photo) was at the police station today to provide statements for her involvement in a demonstration on 14 February, as well as her parliamentary speech.
She managed to complete part of her statement, but was arrested before she could provide a statement on the alleged seditious speech.
Nurul Izzah has yet to be formally charged and it is unclear as to whether the detention is in relation to a specific section of her speech or to the entire speech.
“The Malaysian authorities must stop the continued use of the offence of sedition to arbitrarily detain and stifle freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
On 10 February 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to convict and sentence Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Since then, a cartoonist has been charged under the Sedition Act, while several opposition politicians and lawmakers have been investigated for allegedly making seditious comments on the Federal Court’s decision.
The ICJ has previously denounced the use of the Sedition Act and repeatedly called for its abolition of the Act as its vague and overbroad provisions are incompatible with international human rights standards.
Nurul Izzah will reportedly remain in prison for the night and will have her remand hearing first thing in the morning on 17 March 2015.
The ICJ will continue to monitor her case.
The ICJ also calls on the Government of Malaysia to immediately release of Nurul Izzah and reiterates its call for the repeal of the Sedition Act.
Background
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director of Asia and the Pacific, mobile: +668 07819002 or email: email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
