Prominent human rights lawyer Dr Amin Mekki Medani, and lawyer and political opposition leader Farouk Abu Issa, remain in detention at an unknown location. The two men were arbitrarily arrested by the Sudanese authorities in early December.
The arbitrary and unlawful removal of the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain (photo) and Supreme Court judge Justice Muthasim Adnan, constitutes an assault on the independence of the judiciary, the ICJ said today.
Mr Chang Boyang, whose case ICJ raised in a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping in September calling for his release, has been released on bail.
Mr Boyang, a lawyer working among other things to promote the rights of persons with disabilities in China, had been arrested and charged for activities that should have been recognized to be well within the scope of his professional role and his freedom of expression and association. The ICJ was informed today that Chang Boyang was released on bail on 29 November.
In another update, the ICJ has also been informed that Beijing-based lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, whose case was also raised in the letter to President Xi Jinping, has had additional charges brought against him. He remains in detention while his case has been sent back to police for further investigation, which is in turn likely to prolong his pre-trial detention. His lawyer reportedly said that Pu has already been interrogated 60 to 70 times, with each session lasting more than 10 hours.
The ICJ has not received any reply to its letter of 1 September 2014 to Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The ICJ remains deeply concerned about the situation of lawyers who raise human rights issues or otherwise act on cases the Chinese government deems to be sensitive. Those held in detention should be immediately released, and all criminal proceedings based on lawyers’ due discharge of their professional functions, or exercise of freedom of expression, association or assembly, must be dropped.
The ICJ Practitioner’s Guide no 1 on independence of judges, lawyers and prosecutors is available here in a variety of languages, including Chinese.
A new ICJ report concludes that a comprehensive reform of the system judicial appointments and promotions, as well as of other aspects of the judicial system, is essential to ensure that the judiciary in Russia is independent and able to be an effective guardian of the Rule of Law.
Following a mission to the Russian Federation, the report examines issues of judicial selection, the appointment and promotion of judges, considers the institutional, procedural and practical aspects of judicial appointments and promotions.
The Supreme Court and the High Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation merger and a process of re-appointment of judges to the new Supreme Court, which was highly relevant to the mission’s more general concern with judicial appointments, are addressed in the report.
The report concluded that weaknesses in the judicial appointments process have contributed to shortcomings in the independence of the Russian judiciary, which the ICJ has highlighted in previous reports of 2010, the State of the Judiciary in Russia and of 2012 Securing Justice: the Disciplinary system for judges in the Russian Federation.
A gap between law and practice in the selection process and “extra procedural” influences and “shortcuts” used by those tasked with navigating the complex multistage process of selection and appointment of judges are mentioned among main problems in the procedure.
The report offers a number of specific recommendations regarding different aspects of the selection procedure, institutions that play a major role in the process and the judicial reform which needs to be undertaken.
The report was based on the findings of the Mission in May 2014, which met with a number of stakeholders in Moscow, including judges, independent experts and NGOs.
Two expert round-table discussions were held during the mission.
The round-table discussions were organized in cooperation with the Institute of Law and Public Policy and the Independent Council for Legal Expertise.
The Mission included Justice Azhar Cachalia, Judge of the South African Court of Appeal and Chair of the ICJ Executive Committee, Judge Jolien Schukking, Judge of the Administrative High Court for Trade and Industry of the Netherlands, Vidar Stromme, Chair of the ICJ-Norway, Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme, Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programme and Mari Gjefsen, member of the ICJ-Norway. The mission benefited from the advice of Justice Tamara Morshakova, ICJ Commissioner and former justice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
RUSSIA-Selecting the judges-News-2014-Rus (full text in PDF)
RUSSIA-Selecting the judges-Publications-Reports-2014-Eng (full text in PDF)
RUSSIA-Selecting the judges-Publications-Reports-2014-Rus (full text in PDF)
The ICJ today strongly condemned the decision by Prime Minister Najib Razak to retain and even strengthen the country’s 1948 Sedition Act despite having made a commitment in 2012 to repeal the Act.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed its concern that the Sedition Act has been used to stifle and criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression and to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, among others.
The ICJ considers the Act as it stands to be incompatible with international human rights standards and to be made still more repugnant by the politically loaded manner in which it is typically applied.
In early September, the ICJ denounced the use of sedition against two members of the legal profession, Dr. Azmi Sharom (photo) and N. Surendran for commenting on questions of law and public policy.
On 20 September 2014, Edmund Bon a prominent human rights and constitutional lawyer, was questioned by the police regarding comments made in a based on the decision of a Malaysian Federal Court.
On 30 September 2014, Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari, a law professor at the University of Selangor, was summoned for a police interview over comments made about the selection process of the new Chief Minister by the Sultan of Selangor.
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.
ICJ joins call to renew UN scrutiny on Eritrea and advance accountability for grave human rights violations
Nepal: Balen Government Should Bring Human Rights Reforms
Global experts warn of eroding judicial independence amidst the rise of authoritarianism around the world
Development of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention