Sep 1, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today the ICJ called on the Organization of American States (OAS) to respect the autonomy and independence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) as the body in charge of promoting the observance of human rights in the Americas, including in respect of its core administration functions.
The OAS Secretary-General has declined to endorse the unanimous decision taken in January by the seven-person IACHR to renew the mandate of its Executive Secretary, Paulo Abrão, whose term expired on 15 August.
The Secretary General indicated that his action was motivated by concern at internal complaints that are still to be resolved.
The refusal to renew this mandate, however, must not be made on the basis of pending complaints, which must nonetheless be resolved in a reasonably short period of time, based on the principles of due process for all parties concerned
The ICJ recognizes the importance of processing the staffs’ complaints in a timely manner which respects the due process rights of the parties concerned through an independent and transparent process.
The ICJ recalls that it is essential to ensure the independence and autonomy of the Inter-American Commission, which necessarily includes the functions related to the appointment process of the Executive Secretary.
“The IACHR has played a critical role in the Americas to advance human rights and to protect victims of human rights violations,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
He also mentioned that “the situation requires an urgent resolution that guarantees respect for the principles of independence and autonomy of the IACHR.”
Sep 1, 2020 | News
The ICJ today expressed its concern regarding the 31 August 2020 and 14 August 2020 decisions of the Indian Supreme Court to convict prominent human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court, on the basis of two twitter posts in which the lawyer criticized the performance of the Indian judiciary.
While the Court only imposed a symbolic fine of one rupee, rather than imprisonment, the ICJ considers that the conviction appears to be inconsistent with international standards on freedom of expression and the role of lawyers.
The ICJ stressed that the ruling risks having a chilling effect on the exercise of protected freedom of expression in India and urged a review of the laws and standards on criminal contempt as applied by the Indian courts.
The two tweets published by Prashant Bhushan referred to the Chief Justice of India riding an expensive motorbike belonging to a BJP leader “when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice” and asserted that the Supreme Court and the last four Chief Justices of India had contributed to how, in his view, “democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency”
The Court in its 31 August judgment held that the tweets were a serious attempt to “denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice” which, it said, is “capable of shaking the very edifice of the judicial administration and also shaking the faith of common man in the administration of justice.”
The Court considered that its ruling was consistent with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, saying that it will have to balance its exercise of power to punish for contempt for itself (Article 129) with freedom of speech and expression.
The ICJ is concerned, however, that the conviction appears inconsistent with international law on freedom of expression as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19, ICCPR) to which India is a party.
While some restrictions of freedom of expression are permitted by international standards, a particularly wide scope must be preserved for debate and discussion about such matters as the role of the judiciary, access to justice, and democracy, by members of the public, including through public commentary on the courts.
Any restrictions must be strictly necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate purpose, such as protecting public order or the rights and reputations of others.
“There is a general concern that the protection of freedom of expression is rapidly eroding in India,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“We have seen this recently around the COVID 19 crisis in relation to the imprisonment of human rights defenders, on draconian charges of sedition, rioting and unlawful assembly for protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.”
“While the Indian Supreme Court has over the years generally been an institution that has served to advance human rights in India and globally, we fear it now may be perceived as silencing criticism and freedom of expression by invoking outdated criminal contempt laws,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ joins the 1800 Indian lawyers in calling for the Supreme Court “to review the standards of criminal contempt”, emphasizing that the law is overbroad and should be aligned with international law and standards on the limited scope for restrictions on freedom of expression and criminal contempt.
“Prashant Bhushan is a lawyer and lawyers being part of the legal system have a ring-side view and understanding of the state of the court. Convicting a leading lawyer for contempt for expressing his views in this manner may have a chilling effect on lawyers, in particular considering his involvement in many public interest litigation cases,” said Mandira Sharma, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
Contact
Ian Seiderman – ICJ Legal and Policy Director; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org , t: +41 22 979 38 00
Matt Pollard – ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Director, ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org, t: +41 79 246 54 75
Download
India-Criminal-Contempt-of-Court-Press-Release-2020-ENG (PDF, with additional background information)
Aug 21, 2020 | News
The order of the Magistrates’ Court of Zimbabwe barring lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa from continuing as defence legal counsel for journalist Hopewell Chin’ono is a violation of Chin’ono’s right to a fair trial and Mtetwa’s right to express her opinions freely, said the ICJ today.
“Hopewell Chin’ono is already facing persecution because of his reporting on alleged corruption and now his lawyer is prevented from defending him properly. The Magistrate Court’s decision violates Zimbabwe’s domestic, international and regional legal obligations regarding freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
Hopewell Chin’ono, a prominent Zimbabwean journalist, is currently in custody and is facing trial on charges of inciting public violence, related to his reporting on corruption.
He appointed Beatrice Mtetwa, a prominent Zimbabwean human rights lawyer to act as his defence legal counsel.
After Hopewell Chin’ono was denied bail, it is alleged that a Facebook page by the name “Beatrice Mtetwa and The Rule of Law” posted the following statements:
“Where is the outrage from the international community that Hopewell Chin’ono is being held as a political prisoner? His life is in serious peril. Raise awareness about his unlawful imprisonment. Do not let him to be forgotten. You or someone you love could be the next one abducted from your home and put in leg irons.”
On account of these alleged statements and at the instance of an application by the State, the Magistrates’ court barred Beatrice Mtetwa from continuing as defense legal counsel on grounds that she made statements which demonstrates that “she is no longer detached from the case to continue appearing in it” and has lost the “requisite objectivity of an officer of the court”.
The full judgment by the court can be accessed here.
Beatrice Mtetwa denied ownership of or control over the said Facebook page. Filmmaker Lorie Conway is listed as the only administrator of the said Facebook page. Despite this, the Magistrate’s Court ruled that Beatrice Mtetwa is aware of the page, approved its creation and therefore, these statements are attributable to her.
“Regardless of whether or not these statements can be attributed to Beatrice Mtetwa, the International Commission of Jurists is concerned about the chilling effect which the judgment has on the exercise of freedom of expression by lawyers, the accused persons’ right to legal representation and the right to fair trial. The judgment seems to suggest that if a lawyer makes public statements such as those allegedly attributed to Beatrice Mtetwa, the lawyer should be barred from continuing as legal counsel in the matter—and that is contrary to international standards regarding the role of lawyers,” Zarifi said.
This right is underscored in Principle 23 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which states that:
“Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights…”
The right to legal representation is recognised in section 70(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This guarantees an accused person the right to appoint a legal practitioner of their choice to act as their defence attorney. The same right is underscored in article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR and article 7(1) of the African Charter. The right to legal representation is an integral element of the right to fair trial as elaborately explained under the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
Contact
Shaazia Ebrahim (Media Officer) email: Shaazia.Ebrahim(a)icj.org
Aug 19, 2020 | Artículos, Noticias
Hoy la CIJ llamó a las autoridades públicas a abstenerse de realizar comentarios o acciones que puedan socavar la integridad del proceso judicial y la independencia de la Rama Judicial.
El 4 de agosto la Sala Especial de Instrucción de la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia resolvió la situación jurídica del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez, y ordenó su detención preventiva, sustituyéndola por detención domiciliaria, en relación con el caso que se sigue en su contra por los presuntos delitos de soborno a testigo y fraude procesal.
Desde hace días, varios políticos han hecho declaraciones inapropiadas e incendiarias respecto de la justicia, incluidas algunas que sugieren que los jueces toman sus decisiones basándose en prejuicios ideológicos o políticos en lugar de basarse en la Constitución y la ley.
El presidente de Colombia, Iván Duque, expresó en una declaración trasmitida por televisión que le “duele como colombiano que muchos de los que han lacerado al país con barbarie se defiendan en libertad o inclusive tengan garantizado jamás ir a prisión, y que a un servidor público ejemplar que ha ocupado la más alta dignidad del Estado no se le permita defenderse en libertad con la presunción de inocencia. Soy y seré siempre un creyente en la inocencia y en la honorabilidad de quien con su ejemplo se ha ganado un lugar en la historia de Colombia”.
La CIJ enfatiza que es inapropiado que un jefe de Estado u otro funcionario del poder ejecutivo intervenga de esta manera en un caso que está siendo objeto de estudio en la Rama Judicial. Los Principios Básicos relativos a la independencia de la judicatura de las Naciones Unidas dejan claro que “[t]odas las instituciones gubernamentales y de otra índole respetarán y acatarán la independencia de la judicatura”, y esto implica que deben abstenerse de “influencias, alicientes, presiones, amenazas o intromisiones indebidas, sean directas o indirectas”.
Adicionalmente, y como reacción a la detención del expresidente Uribe, el partido político “Centro Democrático” del cual son miembros el presidente Duque y el expresidente Uribe, emitió un comunicado de prensa en el que dijo que planeaban proponer una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente “con el propósito de despolitizar la justicia”. Y el expresidente Uribe mencionó el 16 de agosto que esperaba que su partido político iniciara una reforma judicial a través de referendo para acabar con la “politización” de la Corte.
La CIJ considera que las acciones de reforma a la justicia no deben basarse en reacciones políticas a un caso o una decisión judicial determinada. Las reformas al sector justicia deben basarse en las buenas prácticas y en los estándares que permitan reforzar la independencia judicial y contar con una pronta, oportuna y justa administración de justicia.
Por último, el vicepresidente de Estados Unidos, Mike Pence, también hizo comentarios inapropiados frente a la justicia colombiana, al tuitear el 14 de agosto que se unía a las voces que pedían a las autoridades colombianas que permitieran que Álvaro Uribe “se defendiera como un hombre libre”.
Contacto: Carolina Villadiego Burbano, Asesora Legal para América Latina de la CIJ, e: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Aug 19, 2020 | News
Today the ICJ called on the public authorities to refrain from comments or actions that could undermine the integrity of the judicial process and the independence of the judiciary.
On August 4, the Instruction Special Chamber of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the pretrial detention, substituted for house arrest, of the former President Álvaro Uribe Velez, relating to allegations of bribery of witnesses and procedural fraud.
In recent days, a number of politicians have made highly inappropriate and inflammatory statements, including some suggesting that judges are making their decisions based on ideological or political biases rather than based on the Constitution and the law.
Colombian president Ivan Duque said in remarks broadcast on television on the 4 of August: “it hurts as a Colombian that many of those who have lacerated the country with barbarism defend themselves at liberty or are even guaranteed to never go to prison, and that an exemplary public servant who has held the highest dignity of the State is not allowed to defend himself in freedom with the presumption of innocence. I am and will always be a believer in the innocence and in the honor of him who, with his example, have earned a place in the history of Colombia.” (unofficial translation).
The ICJ stresses that it is inappropriate for a head-of-State or other executive official to intervene in this manner in a case that is under active judicial proceedings. The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary make clear that “it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary” and this includes refraining from any “improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect.”
In reaction to Senator Uribe’s arrest, the political party “Centro Democrático”, of which both President Duque and former President Uribe are members, released a press statement saying that they were planning to propose a National Constituent Assembly with the purpose of “depoliticizing justice”. Also, former President Uribe mentioned on 16 of August that he hoped his political party would initiate a reform of the justice system through a “referendum” to end the “politicization” of the Court.
The ICJ considers that any actions concerning reforms of the justice sector must be based on the standards and best practices that reinforce the independence of the judiciary and the prompt, timely and fair administration of justice, and not on a political reaction based on a single active case.
Lastly, United States Vice President Mike Pence has also made inappropriate remarks related to the Colombian justice system, tweeting on August 14 that he joined the voices that called Colombian authorities to let Alvaro Uribe “defend himself as a free man”.
Contact
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Latin America legal and policy adviser, e: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
