Oct 16, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ holds a seminar in Turkmenistan, on “Comparative perspectives on the role of lawyers”.
The event organized in Ashgabat, with support of the EU Liaison Office in Turkmenistan, provides an important opportunity to discuss the questions of organization of an independent legal profession and the ethics of lawyers in the countries of the EU and Central Asia.
“Along with judges and prosecutors, lawyers are key participants in the administration of justice. Ensuring fair trial rights is intrinsically linked with the right to legal assistance by lawyers who are able to perform their duties independently and with full respect of profession’s ethical standards,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe Programme Legal Adviser.
“To achieve this they organize themselves through associations of lawyers,” he added.
The workshop takes a comparative approach and looks into the role of lawyers in several jurisdictions, including the organisation of the legal profession as well as the professional standards for lawyers in Germany, Switzerland, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
The speakers will also discuss international standards on the role of lawyers and their ethics.
Gulnora Ishankhanova, an ICJ Commissioner, will represent the ICJ along with other experts, including senior lawyers from the ICJ network.
They will present comparative national perspectives on the role of lawyers in their respective countries, placing them in the context of global and regional standards.
Representatives of lawyers’ associations in Turkmenistan will present the experience of Turkmenistan.
Sep 22, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Addressing the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged Thailand to end criminal proceedings against lawyer Sirikan “June” Charoensiri, that are based on her professional activities as a human rights defender and lawyer.
The statement came during general debate at the Human Rights Council on, among other things, the report compiling cases of individual complaints that have been raised by the Special Procedures (independent experts) appointed by the Council. The statement read as follows:
“Among the many cases covered by the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/36/25) is that of Thailand lawyer and human rights defender, Sirikan “June” Charoensiri. She was charged with sedition and other offences for actions taken, in her professional role, to protect human rights. With other lawyers, she had observed and provided legal assistance to participants in a peaceful protest.
In April, four Special Rapporteurs sent a joint communication (AL THA 2/2017) to Thailand about her case, and the related issues of restrictions on fundamental freedoms put in place following the military coup of May 2014, and prosecution of civilians in military courts.
Thailand’s response to the communication (No.52101/483) attempts to justify the charges against her by, among other things, appearing to associate her with the persons to which she and her colleagues were providing legal aid.
Principle 18 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers states that, “lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.”
The International Commission of Jurists considers that the case against Ms Charoensiri is incompatible with these and other international human rights standards. The ICJ calls upon Thailand ensure the legal proceedings against Ms Charoensiri are ended, and that measures are taken to end and prevent similar cases against other human rights defenders in the country.”
Exercising its right of reply to the statement, the delegation of Thailand, while appearing to accept that Ms Charoensiri is a human rights defender and lawyer, asserted that she had not been charged in her capacity as a lawyer or human rights defender, but due to the possibility that she was a principal or co-perpetrator of an offence, which the delegation said was based on unspecified information from the Royal Thai Police. The delegation affirmed that the Thai government attaches high priority to the protection of human rights defenders, and referred to several initiatives the delegation said were currently being prepared in this regard.
More detail from ICJ about the case is available by clicking here.
Details of the Special Procedures’ action on the case is available in the database of communications, by clicking here.
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy
In a joint statement released today, the ICJ joins several other organisations in calling on the Supreme Court of the Maldives to rescind the indefinite suspension of 56 lawyers.
The lawyers had signed a petition to the Supreme Court calling for the independence and reform of the judiciary.
The statement, made jointly with Maldivian Democracy Network, Front Line Defenders, Transparency International and FORUM-ASIA, can be downloaded here: Maldives-Advocacy-Lawyers-2017
Sep 12, 2017 | Comunicados de prensa, Informes, Noticias, Publicaciones
Hoy la Comisión Internacional de Juristas lanza un nuevo informe sobre la grave ruptura del Estado de Derecho: El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela: un instrumento del Poder Ejecutivo.
A través de diferentes sentencias emitidas desde diciembre de 2015, el máximo órgano de la Judicatura venezolana fue progresivamente desmantelando el Estado de Derecho, socavando los derechos humanos y dejando sin aplicación la Constitución política de ese país.
En sus decisiones Nos. 155 y 156 de marzo de 2017, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ) daría una estocada final al Estado de Derecho, arrogándose las facultades legislativas, despojando a la Asamblea Nacional de sus facultades constitucionales y otorgando amplísimos y arbitrarios poderes al Ejecutivo.
En su Sentencia No. 155 de 27 de marzo de 2017, el TSJ se pronunció sobre un recurso de nulidad presentado por un Diputado oficialista contra un acto de la Asamblea Nacional, que pedía la reactivación del proceso de aplicación de la Carta Democrática Interamericana de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, para una resolución pacífica de la crisis y la reinstauración del orden constitucional en Venezuela.
En su Sentencia No. 156 de 28 de marzo de 2017, el TSJ se pronunció sobre una demanda de interpretación sobre Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos, que cercenó las facultades constitucionales de la Asamblea Nacional.
“Estas decisiones constituyen un verdadero Golpe de Estado al orden constitucional y han dado inicio del reino de la arbitrariedad”, declaró Sam Zarifi, Secretario General de la CIJ.
El informe de la CIJ analiza, a la luz de estándares internacionales y de los principios del Estado de Derecho así como de la Constitución venezolana, la jurisprudencia emitida desde diciembre de 2015 por el TSJ en relación con las funciones y facultades constitucionales del Poder Legislativo, el control parlamentario, los estados de excepción y la amnistía.
El TSJ – una institución totalmente cooptada por el Poder Ejecutivo e integrada mayoritariamente por del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) y/o ex funcionarios del Gobierno- se convirtió en un apéndice del Gobierno y un instrumento político del régimen para enfrentar la cada vez más creciente oposición política y social.
Invocando arbitrarias interpretaciones de la Constitución, omitiendo el análisis de otras normas constitucionales, otorgando rango supraconstitucional a normas de inferior jerarquía y obviando el debido proceso y el sistema de contradicción judicial, el TSJ fue despojando y vaciando a la Asamblea Nacional de sus funciones constitucionales en materia legislativa, de control parlamentario, de reglamentación y de administración interna, para favorecer políticamente al Gobierno.
“Los fallos no se han proferido con imparcialidad, de conformidad a los hechos y el derecho, como lo prescriben el principio 2 de los Principios básicos relativos a la independencia de la judicatura pero más bien están en flagrante violación de la Constitución venezolana. El TSJ ha proferido sus decisiones basado en consideraciones políticas y lealtades partidistas e ideológicas con el Poder Ejecutivo”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Asimismo, el informe relaciona las recomendaciones sobre administración de justicia que han venido formulando a Venezuela, desde hace varios años, distintos órganos y procedimientos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos, tanto en el ámbito de las Naciones Unidas como del Sistema Interamericano.
Ninguna de esas recomendaciones ha sido acatada por las autoridades venezolanas, incluso las órdenes de reparación decretadas por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, las cuales son de obligatorio cumplimiento.
“Esa posición de las autoridades venezolana es violatoria de su obligación internacional de cooperar de buena fe con órganos y procedimientos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Finalmente, el informe concluye que el TSJ ha socavado el Estado de Derecho, vulnerado el principio de separación de poderes y conculcado las funciones constitucionales y la autonomía del Poder Legislativo.
El TSJ, como consecuencia de sus decisiones basadas en imponer los intereses políticos del Poder Ejecutivo, ha perdido sus atributos esenciales de un genuino Poder Judicial, tales como: independencia, imparcialidad, autonomía, y legitimidad.
“El TSJ ha asumido un rol de dar apariencia de legitimidad jurídica a las acciones políticas arbitrarias emanadas del Poder Ejecutivo, convirtiéndose en un apéndice del Poder Ejecutivo y dejando de ejercer su función constitucional de garante del Estado de Derecho y de los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales”, declaró Sam Zarifi.
Contactos:
Sam Zarifi: Secretario General de la CIJ; t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzmán: Representante para Suramérica de la CIJ; t + 57 311 481 8094; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Venezuela-Tribunal Supremo-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-SPA (el informe en PDF)
Venezuela-Actualización-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-SPA (mas información en PDF)
Sep 8, 2017 | News
Today, 8 September, the ICJ and the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan (SJC) hold a joint International Seminar on Comparative Approaches to Selection, Appointment and Evaluation of Judges.
The seminar will address issues related to the institutions and procedures on appointment and selection of judges as well as assessment of judicial performance. International standards and national comparative examples will be discussed, including experiences of Uzbekistan, Austria, Germany, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Serbia. The European and Central Asian perspectives will allow the participants to identify common challenges and find ways to address them.
A Press Release about the event is available to download:
In English, in Russian, or in Uzbek.
