Mar 12, 2019 | News
Following its mission to Ukraine on 4-8 March, the ICJ has called on the Ukrainian authorities to take urgent steps to ensure the physical safety of lawyers and to bring to justice those responsible for a series of violent attacks against them.
During its visit, the ICJ delegation heard consistent testimony of attacks on lawyers by private persons, ranging from acts of intimidation to use of firearms against them.
Several lawyers have been attacked physically and verbally by individuals or organized groups, including in court. At least six lawyers have recently been killed in relation to the exercise of their professional duties.
These attacks take place in an environment where legislative reforms directed at governance of the legal profession, which would have grave consequences for freedom of association and the functioning of the bar association and civil society, have been proposed by the Presidential Administration without consultation with lawyers.
Without urgent and significant efforts to prevent attacks and combat impunity, the independence of the legal profession, and the ability of lawyers to protect human rights, will be increasingly jeopardized, the ICJ concluded at the end of its mission to the country.
It is of concern that violent attacks against lawyers, many of which have been credibly attributed to extreme right-wing groups, often result in impunity of the perpetrators, despite evidence and despite specific provisions in the criminal law which protect lawyers against attacks.
The ICJ heard that the law enforcement bodies often fail to investigate these cases in a prompt and impartial manner even where the identity of perpetrators is known.
The ICJ stresses that these attacks on lawyers, which are often related to the defence of clients in politically sensitive criminal cases, undermine the ability of lawyers to exercise their duties and protect the human rights of their clients, free from intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Furthermore, the ICJ recalls that under international human rights law, the State must take steps to protect the security of persons who the authorities know or ought to know are under threat, and they must ensure an independent, prompt, and thorough investigation of any attacks on the life or physical integrity of individuals.
In this regard, the ICJ stresses that a well-functioning, independent legal profession is essential to any justice system that upholds the rule of law. International standards recognize the importance of lawyers in protecting human rights and the contribution they make to maintaining the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers emphasize the importance of the independence of bar associations in ensuring the fair and effective administration of justice. Such associations must be institutionally independent, both in law and in practice, from all external actors, including the government, other executive agencies, parliaments and outside private interests.
In light of these standards, the ICJ is concerned about the process of adoption of draft law No 9055 “On the Bar Association and Lawyers’ Activity”, which was drafted without the necessary level of consultation and participation of a main stakeholder, the National Bar Association of Ukraine, which strongly opposes it.
It is unacceptable that in this context the draft law had been submitted to the Parliament through an urgent procedure, the need for which appears to be dubious, the ICJ says.
If adopted without the necessary consultation and endorsement by the Bar Association, this law may pose a threat to the independence of the legal profession in Ukraine and the capacity of civil society, including human rights defenders, to carry out their critical work, the Geneva-based organization adds.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that according to the draft law, lawyers would not be able to be employed by NGOs while being members of the Bar Association.
While international practice may differ, in the context of Ukraine specifically, this may undermine the ability of human rights NGOs to provide qualified legal representation or assistance to those whose human rights have been violated.
The ICJ further noted consistent allegations of corruption and lack of integrity of lawyers including in the context of legal aid system.
It also appears that the examination process for qualification as a lawyer, especially in some regions, is not free from corruption. Until now, the Bar Association has not been able to effectively resolve this problem which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The mission to Ukraine included members of the ICJ Secretariat as well as representatives of the Amsterdam and Geneva Bar Associations. It met with leading human rights NGOs, IGOs, the members of the Ukrainian National Bar Association as well as representatives of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
The ICJ wishes to thank all those whom its representatives met in Kyiv. A final report based on the key findings of the mission will be published later this year.
Mar 11, 2019 | Advocacy
The “Independent Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) on Rakhine State, announced by the Government of Myanmar in May 2018 and established in July, has not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of meeting international standards of independence, impartiality or effectively contributing to justice or accountability for human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The ICOE is not transparent about how its information gathering will, if at all, shed light on the truth, or contribute to accountability and redress, while protecting individuals it comes into contact with. It is also yet to fulfill conditions called for by the UN Human Rights Council in its September 2018 resolution 39/2.
Any move to shift reference in the Council resolution currently under discussion, to include more positive recognition of the ICOE, would be wholly unjustified.
Furthermore, the government continues its unwillingness to address credible allegations of crimes under international law, including in its report to the CEDAW Committee in February in which rape allegations were dismissed as “wild claims.”
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in response to a “Call for Submissions” on 12 December 2018, inviting “individuals, groups, witnesses and alleged victims to submit their complaints or accounts, with supporting data and evidence,” wrote to the ICOE Chairperson with four questions, summarised as:
- Are any measures in place to protect complainants and witnesses against threats of violence, legal action or other forms of reprisals for providing information to the ICOE? What specific measures have been taken to ensure the confidentiality of any materials submitted, and to protect the identities and wellbeing of witnesses?
- Given statements by commissioners that accountability is not part of their mandate, as the ICOE is seeking submissions of data and evidence from victims and witnesses, please clarify the ICOE’s position on how these submissions will be utilized – including for possible criminal investigations.
- Can you provide information on any measures taken to deal with real or perceived conflicts of interests that may affect the public’s trust in the ICOE’s impartiality and independence, including victims and witnesses and others who may submit materials in response to your call?
- The recommendations of past Commissions of Inquiry have not been fully implemented. Given the sensitive nature of the ICOE’s mandate, what considerations have been taken into account to increase the likelihood that recommendations will be more effectively implemented than in the past?
The ICOE did not respond to these questions, despite having formally acknowledged receipt of the letter. The deadline for public submissions to the ICOE has now passed. Its silence in this instance illustrates a broader failure to demonstrate independence or transparency and underlines protection concerns.
The ICJ is unaware of efforts by the ICOE to genuinely seek cooperation with the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission or the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as has been called for by the Council.
Based on extensive experience and research in Myanmar and globally, and recalling a 5-page legal assessment of the ICOE published in September 2018, the ICJ remains of the view that the ICOE, like previous government-backed inquires, cannot effectively contribute to or deliver justice or accountability.
Myanmar-Inquiry Rakhine-Advocacy-2019-BUR (Burmese version, in PDF)
Mar 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the initiation of disbarment proceedings by the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan against Sergey Sizintsev, former Executive Director of the National Bar Association and the newly-elected head of the Scientific-Consultative Board of the National Bar Association.
The official ground for disbarment of Sizintsev is his work as the Director the National Bar Association in 2016-2018 while continuing his legal practice at the same time.
On his facebook public account, however, Sizintsev alleged that this initiative is not related to the officially stated grounds, and that in fact continuing to practice while working as Director of the Bar Association is clearly permitted by the Kazakhstan’s law. Rather, he alleges, he is being pursued for his criticism of the law “On lawyers’ activity and legal aid” as well as his public statements in different international and national fora in regard to issues related to the independence of the legal profession.
The ICJ recalls that freedom of expression and association, in particular, constitute essential requirements for the proper and independent functioning of the legal profession and must be guaranteed by law and in practice.
According to Principle 23 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers “[…] 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 and to join or form local, national or international organizations and attend their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization. In exercising these rights, lawyers shall always conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession.”
Sergey Sizintsev as Executive Director of the National Bar Association and as a member of the Parliament working group on the Law on Lawyers’ Activities, was expected to voice concerns of members of the legal position including on the new law which the legal profession consider to be restrictive.
Moreover, his position demanded that he expresses his position on behalf of the National Bar Association including to draw attention to legislative developments which can jeopardise the independence of the legal profession in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ is concerned that this initiative appears to constitute an attack on the independence of lawyers in Kazakhstan and may have a chilling effect on members of the legal profession.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Ministry of Justice to end this lawsuit immediately.
The ICJ will closely follow the case of Sergei Sizintsev and the proceedings at the Rayon Court in Petropavlovsk.
In December 2017, the ICJ organized a mission to Kazakhstan and raised concerns over the then planned reform.
In November 2018, the ICJ raised concern at the disbarment proceedings against Presidents of Aktybinsk and Pavlodar Bar Association as well as resignation of Anuar Tugel, the President of the National Bar Association of Kazakhstan, allegedly as a result of the pressure from the Ministry of Justice.
Mar 6, 2019 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La CIJ expresa profunda preocupación por el nombramiento del nuevo Director de Seguridad Institucional de Jueces y Juezas, nombrado por la Corte Suprema de Justicia y los efectos negativos que ello conlleva en las y los jueces independientes e imparciales.
Ante la denuncia que hiciera la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad (AGJI) y el Sindicato de Trabajadores del Organismo Judicial (STOJ), la CIJ se permite llamar la atención de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ), para que asuma con seriedad dicha denuncia.
La CIJ considera que existen razones fundadas para dicha denuncia y que el nombramiento del señor Roberto Mota Bonilla, lejos de brindar más confianza a las y los jueces sobre su protección, causa mayor frustración y dudas.
El señor Roberto Mota Bonilla perteneció a la Secretaría de Inteligencia y la Secretaría de Asuntos Administrativos y de Seguridad de la Presidencia (SAAS) y por lo tanto, existen indicios que comprometen su independencia, por tener cercanía con el Poder Ejecutivo, uno de los tres Poderes del Estado que, es evidente, viene interfiriendo en la Independencia Judicial desde antes del año 2017 y con más fuerza a partir de agosto de dicho año.
Desde su nombramiento, las y los jueces independientes e imparciales, han venido sufriendo una serie de actos que pueden calificarse como presiones, intimidaciones, limitaciones a su función, vigilancia y control injustificados, que pueden llegar a afectar seriamente la independencia judicial y el debido proceso en los casos que dichos jueces conocen.
Las Naciones Unidas, al aprobar los Principios Básicos Relativos a la Independencia de la Judicatura, declaró en el principio 2: “Los jueces resolverán los asuntos que conozcan con imparcialidad, basándose en los hechos y en consonancia con el derecho, sin restricción alguna y sin influencias, alicientes, presiones, amenazas o intromisiones indebidas, sean directas o indirectas, de cualesquiera sectores o por cualquier motivo”.
Además, según dichos Principios, la ley debe garantizar no sólo la permanencia en el cargo de los jueces por los períodos establecidos, sino que también su independencia y seguridad, así como una remuneración, pensiones y condiciones de servicio y jubilación adecuadas. (Principio número 11. Sobre las Condiciones de servicio e inamovilidad).
De manera más específica, el Proyecto de Principios sobre la Independencia del Poder Judicial, dispone en el artículo 27 que: “Las autoridades ejecutivas tendrán el deber de garantizar la seguridad y la protección física de los miembros del poder judicial y de sus familias, en especial en caso de que sean objeto de amenazas”[1].
Este principio es desarrollado también en el artículo 2.23 de la Declaración Universal sobre la Independencia de la Justicia (Declaración de Montreal, aprobada en la Conferencia Mundial sobre Independencia de la Justicia), al establecer que “el Poder Ejecutivo deberá garantizar la seguridad y la integridad física de los jueces y de sus familiares”.
Los Principios de Siracusa son aún más explícitos. Bajo el apartado de “protección física”, el artículo 27 establece que las autoridades ejecutivas “tendrán el deber de garantizar la seguridad y la protección física de los miembros del poder judicial y de sus familias, en especial en caso de que sean objeto de amenazas”.
O sea que dichos principios, consideran obligación del Poder Ejecutivo garantizar la seguridad y contar con la proteccion física de las autoridades competentes, tanto si se trata de amenazas personales y directas, como en una situación general relacionada con el orden público o la seguridad interna de una Nación. En todo caso, las y los jueces deberán poder desempeñar sus funciones con la calma y la seguridad que requiere su función.
En tal sentido, la CIJ hace un enérgico llamado a las y los magistrados de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, para que tomen con seriedad las denuncias presentadas por miembros de la AGJI y que destituya cuanto antes al Señor Mota Bonilla, por no garantizar independencia de criterio, ni objetividad en la protección de jueces y juezas. Al contrario, dicho nombramiento puede repercutir muy negativamente en la seguridad de jueces y juezas.
La CIJ expresa que en diferentes oportunidades ha señalado que la proteccion de jueces y juezas es esencial en un Estado de Derecho, para que puedan cumplir con su función en forma independiente e imparcial y buscando la mayor protección de los derechos humanos de las y los ciudadanos.
En el presente caso, todo parece indicar que mediante dicho nombramiento, se busca socavar la independencia judicial y afectar la función que llevan a cabo jueces y juezas independientes e imparciales.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas para Centroamérica expresó: “En un Estado como el de Guatemala, cooptado por el crimen organizado, éste debe ser un tema que el Poder Judicial debería analizar más a fondo y con mucho detenimiento, para brindar las soluciones más adecuadas a las y los jueces. Todo indica que el nombramiento del señor Roberto Mota Bonilla es un paso más hacia la militarización del Estado de Guatemala. Los magistrados de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, deberían destituir al señor Roberto Mota Bonilla y abrir un espacio de diálogo con las y los jueces afectados y con la sociedad civil, para tratar este tema tan importante para la seguridad de las y los jueces, para la Independencia Judicial y para el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho.”
Foto: Ramón Cadena, director de la CIJ, se reunió ayer con los magistrados de la Cámara Penal.
[1] Comité de Expertos de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Penal, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas y el Centro para la Independencia de Jueces y Abogados. Proyecto de Principios sobre la Independencia del Poder Judicial, mayo 1981.
Mar 4, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the disciplinary proceedings against lawyer Elchin Sadigov who was sanctioned with a reprimand on 25 February 2019 by the Presidium of the Bar Association of Azerbaijan.
The ICJ called on the Bar Association to reverse this sanction and take measures to end interference with the independent exercise of the representation of victims of human rights violations.
The decision to hold the lawyer accountable for actions taken in accordance with professional ethics and responsibilities jeopardizes the independence of lawyers and their capacity to protect human rights, and is likely to have a chilling effect on the independent exercise of lawyers’ duties in Azerbaijan, the ICJ said.
Elchin Sadigov represented Yunis Safarov, who was charged with the attempted murder of Elmar Valiyev, former mayor of Ganja City in Azerbaijan. According to Sadigov, he informed his client in a confidential conversation in detention, of the right to complain about torture or ill treatment.
Shortly afterwards, he was told that he had violated the law by persuading his client to complain about the ill-treatment which, the Prosecutor General’s Office officials “decided” in an official document, never took place.
On 5 September 2018, the Prosecutor General’s Office removed Elchin Sadigov as Safarov’s representative and complained to the Bar Association, seeking disciplinary action against the lawyer, among others, on the basis of “[…] creating false grounds to file a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights […], clearly knowing that it is not true, proposed his client to complain about torture inflicted by the police and investigative authorities, despite the fact that the accused told him that he had not been tortured, Sadigov continued psychological influence on his client again – as if he had been tortured – to refuse giving testimony, to refuse services of the State appointed lawyer […]”.
The complaint referred to the confidential conversation between the lawyer and his client, which was apparently overheard and possibly recorded by law enforcement officials. It also refers to a letter which appeared during the disciplinary proceedings, in which Sadigov’s client complained that his lawyer had tried to convince him to complain about use of torture in custody.
According to Elchin Sadigov, however, this letter may have been signed by his former client under pressure from the detention authorities.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, it is indispensable that lawyers “always loyally respect the interests of their clients.”
The Principles specify that they assist their clients “in every appropriate way, and taking legal action to protect their interests”. In the present case, as submitted by Elchin Sadigov and evident from the publicly available materials including photos and videos of Safarov with clear and multiple signs of severe beatings, the lawyer had every reason to believe that his client had been subjected to torture and ill treatment in custody.
Therefore, he had not only the right, but an affirmative professional duty to advise his client to use available remedies for this violation of human rights through procedural means such as a complaint. A failure to do this would be a breach of professional ethics and duties on the part of the lawyer as a trusted representative of his client. The ICJ is concerned that in this case a lawyer was held accountable for attempting to discuss with his client, in a confidential manner, issues related to the human rights of his client.
The ICJ is furthermore concerned that the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality has been violated in this case.
This principle is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial, as protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, to both of which Azerbaijan is a party.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers “[a]ll arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality…”
The ICJ is also concerned that lawyer Sadigov’s conversations may have been monitored in violation of the guarantees of professional secrecy with his client and contrary to international law and national procedure.
The ICJ considers it essential that the Bar Association send a strong signal in support of independent lawyers by lifting the sanction against lawyer Sadigov and consider legislative and practical improvements to ensure that confidentially of lawyers and their clients in detention is effectively guaranteed in practice.
Azerbaijan-Statement Sadigov-News-web stories (full story with additional information, in PDF)
