Sep 1, 2017 | News
Today the Supreme Court of Kenya took the unprecedented step of voiding the presidential elections held on 8 August 2017 citing the failure by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to adhere to constitutionally mandated processes.
The ICJ commends the Supreme Court of Kenya for adjudication of a sensitive case at a high professional standards amidst a charged political atmosphere.
The ICJ in partnership with the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum (AJJF) sent a mission of three distinguished judges to observe the proceedings during the presidential petition in Kenya.
The delegation consisted of Retired Chief Justice Earnest Sakala (Zambia), Justice Dingake (Botswana) and Justice Chinhengo (Zimbabwe).
The mission’s observations will be publicized in due course.
Kenya held national elections on 8 August 2017 administered by the IEBC.
The IEBC subsequently announced that Uhuru Kenyatta had won the elections with a 54% majority.
The opposition National Super Alliance Coalition led by Raila Odinga filed an election petition alleging serious irregularities in the tabulation and transmission of the results of the elections and asking the court to nullify the results and order fresh elections.
The Supreme Court heard the election petitition culminating in the decision that was handed down today.
According to the observers, the court conducted the hearing in a manner consistent with the rule of law and that adhered to the Kenyan Constitution and international principles of a fair trial.
The Court gave acted fully as a competent, independent and impartial judicial body.
“The decision taken by the Supreme Court today is precedent setting. It places a cost on the election management body for apparently failing to adhere to constitutional imperatives and the normative framework governing the conduct of elections,” said Arnold Tsunga, Africa Director of the ICJ.
“Elections are a high stakes subject in Kenya, as elsewhere in the world. Previous elections have shown that violence and multiple human rights violations increase during the election period. We therefore encourage the political leaders in Kenya to accept the court’s verdict and to encourage their supporters to exercise maximum restraint and tolerance as the country braces itself for fresh elections,” he added.
Finally the ICJ urges the authorities in Kenya and the IEBC to quickly comply with and implement the court’s judgement.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Director for Africa, t: +27716405926 ; e: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Aug 31, 2017
Today, the ICJ intervened in the case Anatoliy Oleksiyovych Denisov v Ukraine, Application no. 76639/11.
In its submission, the ICJ provided the Court with an analysis in relation to:
(a) The role of court presidents in the self-governance of the courts and in maintaining judicial independence;
(b) International standards in relation to security of tenure of judges and court presidents;
(c) The importance of procedural safeguards, including under Article 6.1 ECHR, in decisions affecting the career and tenure of court presidents; and
(d) In light of international standards and principles, the extent to which a disciplinary measure such as removal from the position of president of a court may interfere with the right to respect for private life as protected by Article 8 ECHR.
The ICJ argued that court presidents, in many European jurisdictions, play an important role in the self-governance and impartiality of the judiciary.
Upholding the independence of the judiciary requires, inter alia, that court presidents should, in the discharge of these functions, enjoy independence from the executive, as well as from other powerful interests.
The intervener will argue that the nature of court presidents’ role has consequences for the application of Convention rights to measures affecting their judicial career, including removal from the role of court president, even in cases where they retain judicial office.
Ukraine-Denisov v Ukraine -Advocacy-legal submission-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Aug 30, 2017 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La CIJ considera que la crisis institucional que se vive en Guatemala requiere la intervención directa del Secretario General de Naciones Unidas Sr. Antonio Guterres.
La CIJ a la comunidad nacional e internacional expresa:
1. El Acuerdo entre La Organización de las Naciones Unidas y el Gobierno de Guatemala, relativo al establecimiento de una Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG), en su punto 10 numeral 4. , establece el compromiso del Gobierno, de proporcionar a la CICIG y a su personal, en todo el territorio, “la seguridad necesaria para el cumplimiento eficaz de sus actividades”. Además, el punto 10 citado anteriormente, compromete al Gobierno de Guatemala a velar por que el personal de la CICIG, nacional o internacional, no sea objeto de abusos, amenazas, represalias o intimidaciones, por el desempeño de su trabajo.
2. Los actos unilaterales del Presidente Jimmy Morales constituyen una violación a dichas garantías y pueden interpretarse como un mecanismo para afectar el eficiente trabajo que viene realizando el Comisionado Iván Velásquez al frente de la CICIG; para obstaculizar la justicia, para interferir en la Independencia del Poder Judicial y promover así, más impunidad en el país.
3. La decisión de la Corte de Constitucionalidad de dejar en suspenso en forma definitiva el acto reclamado por el Procurador de los Derechos Humanos y de esa forma, dejar sin efecto el acto unilateral por medio del cual el Presidente Jimmy Morales declaró “persona non grata” al Comisionado Velásquez, viene a reforzar el Estado de Derecho en Guatemala y fortalece al máximo Tribunal Constitucional.
Sam Zarifi, Secretario General de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas expresó:
“Ante la crisis institucional que se vive en Guatemala, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas considera que es necesaria la intervención directa del Secretario General de Naciones Unidas Sr. Antonio Guterres mediante una Misión de Alto Nivel, que permita evaluar “in loco”, si el Gobierno de Guatemala está dispuesto a honrar el Acuerdo firmado en la ciudad de Nueva York el 12 de diciembre de 2006.”
“El Gobierno de Guatemala debe dar a la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, garantías convincentes de que la CICIG, el Comisionado Iván Velásquez y todo su personal nacional e internacional, podrán cumplir en el futuro con sus funciones, sin abusos, amenazas, represalias o intimidaciones de ningún tipo,” concluyó.
Aug 28, 2017 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La CIJ dice que la declaración de Iván Velásquez como persona no grata es un fraude de ley y sin efecto legal.
La CIJ a la comunidad nacional e internacional expresa:
- Que la decisión del Presidente Morales de declarar “non grato” y de expulsar del país a Comisionado Iván Velásquez (foto), es nula “de pleno derecho” y no nació a la vida jurídica por las siguientes razones:
- Fue emitida de “mala fe” por el Presidente Morales, ya que el verdadero objetivo de la misma es obstruir a la justicia y proteger a él y a su familia; en tal sentido viola la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados (artículo 26), ratificada por el Estado de Guatemala;
- Por tal razón, se trata de un acto contrario al Derecho internacional de los Derechos Humanos, que también viola el artículo 149 de la Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala;
- Nuevamente se configura el “fraude de ley“, de conformidad con el artículo 4. segundo párrafo, de la Ley del Organismo Judicial (Dto. 2-89 del Congreso de la República), ya que de conformidad con dicho artículo “los actos realizados al amparo del texto de una norma, que persigan un resultado prohibido por el ordenamiento jurídico, o contrario a él, se consideran ejecutadas en fraude de ley y no impedirán la debida aplicación de la norma que se hubiere tratado de eludir”;
- El Presidente Morales resolvió declarar non grato al Comisionado Velásquez para obstruir la justicia y provocar más impunidad; es importante recordar que la lucha contra la impunidad constituye una norma imperativa delDerecho internacional, de carácter obligatorio y que no admite derogación alguna;
- El acto unilateral del Presidente Morales atenta contra la Independencia Judicial. En menos de dos meses, es la segunda vez que el Presidente Morales comete este tipo de hecho antijurídico, ya que con anterioridad, trató de influir ilegalmente en los magistrados de la Corte Suprema de Justicia;
- Según el artículo 4. primer párrafo de la Ley del Organismo Judicial citada, “los actos contrarios a las normas imperativas y a las prohibitivas expresas, son nulos de pleno derecho”.
- Por todo ello, la CIJ pide al Ministerio Público abrir un expediente en contra del Presidente Morales y hacer todo lo que esté a su alcance, para que se deduzcan las responsabilidades penales y civiles a que da lugar, la conducta ilegal del Presidente de la República.
- La CIJ apoya y valora altamente la gestión del Comisionado de la CICIG Iván Velásquez
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica expresó:
“La decisión del Presidente Jimmy Morales es inaceptable y su actitud de no cumplir con la resolución que otorga amparo provisional de la Corte de Constitucionalidad debe ser acatada por él en forma inmediata. De lo contrario, estará incurriendo en otro delito.”
Aug 22, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports, Video clips
The institutional political crisis in Venezuela has brought the rule of law to near collapse and severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report released today.
The ICJ’s report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Venezuela found that the authorities led by President Nicolás Maduro have undertaken a sustained campaign to take control of the Supreme Court of Justice and, with the Supreme Court’s support, suspend the constitutional powers of the former National Assembly and subvert efforts to hold the executive to account within a rule of law framework.
“Rule of law in Venezuela has been replaced by rule of arbitrary executive power,” said Alex Conte, ICJ’s Global Accountability coordinator.
“The Constitution is disregarded, the judiciary cannot exercise its independent function, and the separation of powers is non-existent,” he added.
The ICJ’s report concludes that the human rights situation in Venezuela has deteriorated rapidly in recent years, particularly since 2014.
Extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, the practices of torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, the trial of civilians by military courts and the criminalization and prosecution of political and social dissent have only increased.
“The political context of extreme polarization and the breakdown of the rule of law, along with the judiciary’s lack of independence, have severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations,” said Conte.
“Victims and their families are left without justice.”
This situation has been further exacerbated by the recent dismissal of Venezuela’s Attorney General, described by the ICJ as a politically motivated act that violates international standards and removes one of the last institutional checks on executive authority and destroys one of the few glimmers of hope for an end to impunity for human rights violations.
Also troubling is the establishment by the new Consituent National Assembly of a ‘Truth Commission’, which the ICJ fears will be a politically manipulated instrument aimed at entrenching impunity for the executive and, when combined with President Maduro’s declaration that legal immunity will be stripped from National Assembly members that have opposed him, a tool to silence Government opposition, rather than to help discharge Venezuela’s duty to promptly, independently and effectively investigate allegations of gross human rights violations.
“Venezuela’s situation of entrenched impunity cannot be resolved without the establishment of an independent judicial authority that can address human rights violations, deter further violations and help bring back the rule of law,” Conte added.
Contact:
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 27 33; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Federico Andreu Guzman, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Americas, e: Federico.andreu(a)icj.org
Venezuela-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report, PDF)
Read also:
ICJ Position Paper on the Dismissal of the Attorney General of Venezuela (August 2017)
ICJ Report, Venezuela: The Sunset of the Rule of Law (October 2015)
ICJ Report, Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela (November 2014)
