The Polish government should immediately reinstate two judges removed from their posts in line with the newly released judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
La CIJ, en un informe que presentó hoy, afirmó que el Poder Judicial de Venezuela se ha convertido en una herramienta para que el Poder Ejecutivo controle políticamente al país, en lugar de ser un mecanismo de defensa del Estado de derecho en el país.
El informe Jueces en la cuerda floja de 58 páginas, documenta el deterioro de la independencia judicial en Venezuela debido al control y la influencia política sobre el Poder Judicial, y debido al rol que ha desempeñado el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ) en el quebrantamiento de la independencia de los jueces en todo el país.
“La justicia es un derecho humano y es un derecho fundamental para la protección de otros derechos. Sin las garantías esenciales de independencia e imparcialidad de los jueces, no tenemos justicia. Hoy, en Venezuela, el derecho a la justicia no está garantizado, en la medida en que no tenemos un sistema de jueces independientes e imparciales”, dijo Carlos Ayala, vicepresidente de la CIJ.
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, controlado desde hace mucho tiempo por el Poder Ejecutivo, ha gestionado el colapso del Estado de derecho en el país, ya que más del 85% de los jueces ocupan cargos provisionales, están sometidos a presiones políticas, y reciben presiones directas para que emitan decisiones judiciales en favor del gobierno y en contra de personas defensoras de derechos humanos y disidentes políticos.
“La captura política del TSJ ha colocado a los jueces en la cuerda floja en Venezuela, haciéndolos incapaces de defender el Estado de derecho, proveer la rendición de cuentas por las numerosas y graves violaciones de derechos humanos que ocurren en el país, y proteger los derechos del pueblo venezolano”, dijo Sam Zarifi, Secretario General de la CIJ.
De esta manera, la CIJ ha recomendado a Venezuela despolitizar el Poder Judicial en general y en particular el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. El informe también establece una serie de recomendaciones específicas para lograr estos objetivos, en particular:
Asimismo, la CIJ ha hecho un llamado a las autoridades venezolanas para que cumplan con el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y los estándares internacionales relacionados con la independencia judicial, así como con las decisiones y recomendaciones de diferentes órganos del Sistema de Naciones Unidas y del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, y para que permitan el acceso al país de procedimientos y mecanismos internacionales de derechos humanos que contribuyan a la rendición de cuentas y al restablecimiento del Estado de derecho.
La CIJ también insta al Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU a mantener un mecanismo adecuado para la rendición de cuentas de las graves violaciones de derechos humanos ocurridas en el país, hasta que los fiscales, los tribunales y las cortes venezolanas sean capaces de investigar, procesar y juzgar eficazmente dichas violaciones con independencia e imparcialidad.
Contacto
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, Asesora Legal para América Latina de la CIJ. email: carolina.villadiego@icj.org
Venezuela-Judges on the tightrope-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2021-SPA
Venezuela’s judiciary has become a tool for political control of the country by the Executive branch rather than a defender of the rule of law, said the ICJ in a report launched today.
The 55-page report Judges on the Tightrope documents the undermining of judicial independence in the country, due to the political control or influence on the judiciary, and because of the role the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) has played in undermining the independence of judges around the country.
“Justice is a human right and it is a fundamental right for the protection of other rights. Without the essential guarantees of the independence and impartiality of judges, we do not have justice. In Venezuela today, the right to justice is not guaranteed, to the extent that we do not have a system of independent and impartial judges,” said Carlos Ayala, ICJ’s vice president.
Venezuela’s Supreme Court of Justice, long controlled by the country’s Executive branch, has overseen a collapse of the rule of law in the country, with some 85 percent of judges holding provisional posts that subject them to political pressure, and courts receiving direct pressure to return verdicts in support of the government and against human right defenders and critics of the government.
“The political takeover of the SJC has placed judges on a tightrope in Venezuela, rendering them unable to defend the rule of law, to provide accountability for the many gross human rights violations in the country, or to protect the rights of the Venezuelan people”, said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
The ICJ recommended Venezuela to depoliticize the judiciary in general, and specifically the Supreme Court of Justice. In addition, the report sets a series of specific recommendations to achieve these goals, in particular by:
The ICJ called on Venezuelan authorities to comply with international human rights law and international standards related to judicial independence, as well as with the decisions and recommendations that different bodies in the United Nations and Inter-American Human Rights System have made, and allow access to the country for international human rights procedures and mechanisms that will contribute to accountability and the restoration of the rule of law.
The ICJ also urged the UN Human Rights Council to maintain a mechanism to address proper accountability for gross human rights violations until the Venezuelan prosecutors, courts and tribunals are capable of effectively investigating, prosecuting and judging with independence and impartiality those violations.
Contact
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, Latin American Legal and Policy Adviser, email: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Download
Venezuela-Judges on the tightrope-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2021-ENG
On 19-20 June, the ICJ, in partnership with the Tunisian Association of Judges (AMT), organised a workshop on ‘Legal reasoning and judgment drafting in the cases before the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC)’ in Tunis, Tunisia.
Twenty-five SCC judges and prosecutors from across the country participated in the two-day workshop.
Said Benarbia, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Director; Anas Hmedi, AMT’s President; and Martine Comte and Philippe Texier, ICJ Commissioners, were the main speakers.
On the first day, speakers and participants focused on legal reasoning and interpretation challenges before the SCC.
ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier spoke about the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, res judicata and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations, which are all recognised under Tunisian law.
Texier underlined that, when properly understood and applied, both the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations would not necessarily be a bar to the prosecution of crimes and gross human rights violations within the jurisdiction of the SCC, since international law, including customary international law, already proscribed them at the time of their commission.
Said Benarbia stressed the importance of applying international law and standards, especially with regard to international crimes that Tunisian domestic penal law does not proscribe yet, such as the crime under international law of enforced disappearance. With respect to the hierarchy of norms, he underscored that the Tunisian Constitution clearly recognises that international law and treaties are superior to national law.
As a result, SCC judges are required to have regard to and apply relevant international law and treaties ratified by Tunisia in adjudicating the cases before them. Judges have the power and the responsibility to interpret Tunisian law in light of international law, including, whenever necessary, by filling certain gaps in domestic legislation.
ICJ Commissioner Martine Comte then spoke about the attribution of individual criminal responsibility and modes of liability, procedural guarantees and the rights of victims and the accused, as well as reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. She emphasised that, under the 2013 Tunisian law on Transitional Justice, guarantees of non-repetition are a constitutive and fundamental element of the transitional justice process.
Comte also explained that the doctrine of command responsibility is a well-recognised general principle of international law, established and applied in many jurisdictions, and therefore to be applied, as relevant, in cases before the SCC.
Comte underlined the importance of enforcing and monitoring the respect of procedural guarantees and the rights of both the victims and the accused, including the right to the presumption of innocence, the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings.
She added that the first reparation of all is the establishment of the truth and of the facts of each case, which, in turn, aims to restore the dignity of victims and their families by recognizing the harm they suffered.
Finally, Comte and the other speakers talked about conviction and sentencing and the challenges faced by SCC judges when the sentence is not defined in nor international law nor Tunisian law.
On the second day, expert speakers and participants discussed judgment drafting in cases before the SCC. They discussed how SCC judges, while addressing the challenges related to the complexity of the cases at hand, can ensure organized, clear, and effective judgment drafting, including through the establishment of a coherent judgment outline; and by providing a clear analysis of factual issues and how they should be resolved.
Texier stressed that the SCC are not exceptional in their nature: they are composed of ordinary judges and have to adhere to the standards of fair trial. SCC judgments differ from ordinary judgments in that they carry a historic significance, by establishing a negated truth and contributing to the duty of remembrance, both of which are crucial elements of the transitional justice process.
Said Benarbia spoke of one of the main challenges facing the work of the SCC, namely, the voluntary absence of the accused who do not appear before court despite being summoned. Drawing on examples from other transitional justice contexts, he concluded that in this respect Tunisia is an exception, as the transitional justice process is typically accompanied by a political will that ensures the presence of the accused.
Benarbia also stressed the importance of the presence of the accused before the Court as one of the fundamental guarantees of the right to a fair trial.
Comte underscored the need to comply with the law regarding the admissibility of evidence (e.g., ensuring that a confession has not been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or by any other coercive means).
She then addressed the need for the judgment to provide a thorough analysis of the admissible evidence presented at trial on which the ultimate decision is rendered in light of the applicable law and stated that, under Tunisian law, the judges’ decision must be based on firm conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Finally, Benarbia presented an outline for judges to rely upon when drafting the first SCC judgments, based on several judgments rendered by international tribunals. He underscored that such a structured and comprehensive outline would help judges in drafting coherent and exhaustive judgements.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org phone number: +41 79 878 35 46
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer at the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: Asser.khattab(a)icj.org
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) called today on Turkish authorities to immediately drop charges of ‘propaganda for terrorism’ against Cihan Aydın, a lawyer and former President of the Diyarbakır Bar Association.
Cihan Aydın learned that he was the subject of a criminal investigation on May 26, apparently based on a statement of the Women Rights Centre of the Diyarbakir Bar Association in 2019 calling for an end to Turkish military action in Syria and calling for diplomatic resolution of the conflict.
Aydın, the President of Diyarbakır Bar Association until April 2021, is known for his human rights litigation and advocacy before domestic courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights including in high-profile and sensitive cases.
The charges amount to an unjustified interference with freedom of expression, the ICJ said.
“This criminal investigation is yet another case of the misuse of criminal proceedings to attack lawyers and human rights defenders in Turkey,” said Roisin Pillay, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Director. “The charge against Cihan Aydin of propaganda for terrorism, based on a call for peace by an institution within the Bar Association, is clearly arbitrary, in violation of freedom of political expression, and should be dropped. The criminal law should never be applied to suppress a call on the government to pursue a peaceful solution to conflict.”
Turkey has obligations under international human rights law, including under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to uphold freedom of expression, which can only be restricted to the extent strictly necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim. Speech on matters of public interest, including political debate or criticism of government policy, must be particularly protected. Moreover, under Article 20 of the ICCPR, states have a duty to protect against war propaganda, and that duty is likely to be undermined if a state seeks to prohibit and punish views that may be critical of war.
Background
On 26 May 2021, Aydin was requested to give his statement about the accusation of “propaganda for terrorism”.
This prosecution follows other investigations against the Diyabakir Bar Association: following a statement about the statement on Armenian Genocide and a statement denouncing the Head of Religious Affairs Directorate for his comments about LGBTI.
The ICJ has extensively documented government persecution of lawyers in Turkey as well as improper restrictions on freedom of expression:
ICJ mourns the passing of ICJ Commissioner Justice Moses Hungwe Chinhengo
HRC 60: Oral Statement on arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances in Egypt
EU: Procedural safeguards for migrant children must not regress under the Pact on Migration and Asylum
Sri Lanka: ICJ calls for repeal or substantial revision of Online Safety Act