Sep 14, 2018 | News
The ICJ met this week in Warsaw with the First President of the Polish Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf.
Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, met with President Gersdorf to convey the support of the ICJ for the Court’s defence of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Poland, in the face of government attacks.
The ICJ emphasized that a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of 27 of the 72 Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65 years, contravenes international human rights law and standards, including the right to a fair hearing.
The measure is contrary to the principle of the security of tenure of judges and therefore to the independence of the judiciary, as expressed in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
In August, the Supreme Court submitted a preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the measure with EU law. The Supreme Court has suspended implementation of the law pending the proceedings before the CJEU.
The European Commission has recognized the current situation as undermining “the principle of judicial independence, including the irremovability of judges” and has triggered a procedure under Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union that could ultimately lead to suspension of Poland’s EU voting rights.
The Commission has also launched infringement proceedings against Poland in respect of the law on the Supreme Court.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Sep 10, 2018 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today called on all MEPs to vote in favour of the draft resolution and report by rapporteur Judith Sargentini MEP, before the European Parliament, which would activate Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union in respect of Hungary.
A vote for the resolution would mean that, under Article 7.1, the Council would determine whether there is a clear risk of serious breach by Hungary of the founding values of the EU.
Ultimately, if the situation persists, this would allow the Council to take more robust measures, including suspension of voting rights, to address the situation.
The vote, scheduled for 12 September, is crucial for the rule of law in Hungary and throughout the European Union.
The Parliament will vote on whether to activate the process under Article 7, by calling on the Council to identify a risk of serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s founding values, including the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The ICJ considers that the measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.
Cumulatively, these measures pose a grave, systemic threat to the protection of the human rights of all people in Hungary.
“The European Parliament should respond to the critical situation in Hungary by using the powers available to it under Article 7 TEU to defend human rights and the rule of law. Not to do so would be to abandon Hungary to an increasingly dangerous path, and would set a damaging precedent for all of Europe,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
Read the full statement and key concerns here: Hungary-triggering Art 7-Advocacy-2018-ENG (in PDF)
Sep 10, 2018 | Events, News
The legal profession plays a crucial role in ensuring access to justice for all, transparency and accountability of the state, Rule of law and the respect for human rights.
Yet, instead of being perceived as a vital player to the justice sector, today lawyers are often targeted by the governments in many OSCE countries for seeking truth and justice. As a result, lawyers often face high risks of persecution, harassment as well as severe sanctions for doing their job.
This side-event aims to specifically discuss the situation of lawyers in Belarus, Russia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. The discussion will extend to consider the latest developments related to the rights of lawyers and their independence in the respective countries, and what impact this has on the overall rule of law and human rights situation.
This side event will take place on 12 September 2018, from 13.00 -15.00 at Hotel Bristol, Warsaw
Moderator: Jurate Guzeviciute, Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
Presentations and Discussions:
Independence of the legal profession and harassment of lawyers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia:
- Tajikistan: Dilrabo Samadova, lawyer, Tajikistan
- Azerbaijan: Nijat Mammadbayli, lawyer, Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan: Snezhanna Kim, lawyer, Kazakhstan
- Russia: Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists
- Belarus: Anne Souléliac, Head of the Human Rights section, Paris Bar Association
Organizers: Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the OSCE, Permanent Representation of France to the OSCE, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Paris Bar Association, International Commission of Jurists.
Poland-HDIM_Side event-News-event-2018-ENG (flyer of the event in PDF)
Sep 2, 2018 | News
On 1 and 2 September, the ICJ held a “Workshop on the Independence of the Judiciary in the Context of the Inquisitorial Judicial System in Thailand” for members of the Thai judiciary in the north of the country.
Some 31 judges from 21 courts and the Administrative Office of the Court of Justice, Region V, attended the workshop, which was held in Chiang Mai.
The objective of the workshop was to discuss the role of judges and exercise of judicial power within the inquisitorial system, particularly in the context of adjudicating cases of human trafficking.
In an effort to combat human trafficking in Thailand, the Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases Act B.E. 2559 (2016) established inquisitorial system procedures for adjudication of cases of human trafficking.
With an increasing number of cases of human trafficking in Northern Thailand, judges in Northern Thailand are increasingly required to utilize inquisitorial processes in human trafficking cases.
Courts in Thailand generally adjudicate cases based on the adversarial judicial system.
In this context, the ICJ held the workshop in collaboration with the Administrative Office of the Court of Justice, Region V, in the North of Thailand, to share information and expand collaboration between Thai and international judges about inquisitorial processes.
Justice Aree Thecharuwichit, Chief Justice of the Office of the Chief Justice, Region V, Frederick Rawski, Regional Director of ICJ Asia and the Pacific, and Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, Vice-President of the ICJ, ICJ Commissioner, Acting President of the Belgrade Court of Appeals and Judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia delivered opening statements at the Workshop.
Justice Sittipong Tanyaponprach, Chief Judge of the Office of the Chief Justice, Region I, spoke about existing procedures in Thailand’s justice system to deal with human trafficking cases under the Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases Act 2016.
Justice Marcel Lemonde, Honorary President of Chamber in France’s Court of Appeal and an International Consultant in Judicial Matters, delivered an introduction to the inquisitorial system based on the French judicial system and spoke about existing challenges in inquisitorial processes.
Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, of the Supreme Court of Serbia and ICJ Vice-President spoke about judicial practice in cases involving human trafficking and shared her experience in adjudicating human trafficking cases in Serbia.
ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott moderated the workshop and provided an introduction to the ICJ’s resource materials on the independence of the judiciary and judicial accountability, including the ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability.
The ICJ ended the Workshop with a statement reiterating its commitment towards working with Thailand’s judiciary to strengthen the rule of law and administration of justice in Thailand.
This Workshop is the second workshop held by the ICJ for Thailand’s judiciary in the North of Thailand.
Aug 23, 2018 | News
The Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF-3), in a watershed judgment, ruled that prescription or statute of limitations was not applicable to claims of reparation by a victim of torture during the military regime in the 1970s. The Court accepted the arguments of ICJ Commissioner Belisário dos Santos Jr.
The hearing in the lawsuit against the Union and the State of São Paulo took place on Wednesday 22, after the case had been dismissed by the court first instance.
Belisário dos Santos Jr., Executive Committee Member of the ICJ, argued the case for the victim at the invitation of the Juridical Department of CA XI.
He noted: “On the one hand there could be no statute of limitation on torture claims, while on the other hand the the application of the statute of limitations which adopted by Decree 20.910 / 32 had to be considered.”
The lawsuit, which began in 2012, alleges political persecution and torture that took place beginning 1971 .
Belisário dos Santos Jr. argued that the rationale for the law and jurisprudence affirming the inapplicability of statute of limitation lies in the seriousness of the violation of torture, which had been committed on a widespread and systematic basis by order or with the knowledge of high-level State authorities in Brazil at the time.
“The obligation to provide reparation under the UN Convention against Torture could not be superseded by provisions of the domestic law of a State. In addition, the obligation to provide a remedy and reparation is a legal duty of the State which must not depend on the conduct or activity of the victims. For these reasons, the case could not have the same treatment of other lawsuits against the Public Treasury,” he said.
Belisário dos Santos Jr. also pointed out that, pursuant to article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, which was ratified by Brazil in 1991, “the reparation must be fair and adequate, as recognized by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice and TRF 3, itself in accordance with international human rights law and jurisprudence. ”
The TRF-3 decided by 3-2 majority that the statute of limitation was inapplicable and, unanimously, granted the appeal on merit, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
