Aug 22, 2017
La crisis política institucional en Venezuela ha llevado al colapso Estado de Derecho y ha obstaculizado gravemente la rendición de cuenta de los responsables de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos, concluyó la CIJ en un informe publicado hoy.
El informe de la CIJ Lograr justicia por graves violaciones a los derechos humanos en Venezuela constató que el gobierno de Presidente Nicolás Maduro han emprendido una sostenida campaña para tomar el control del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, suspender, con el apoyo del máximo órgano de justicia, los poderes constitucionales de la anterior Asamblea Nacional, arrogarse amplísimos poderes y subvertir el Estado de Derecho.
“El Estado de Derecho en Venezuela ha sido reemplazado por el ejercicio arbitrario del poder por el Ejecutivo,” dijo Alex Conte, coordinador de la Iniciativa Global de la CIJ sobre Reparación y Rendición de Cuentas.
“La Constitución no es respetada, el Poder Judicial no es independiente y la separación de poderes es inexistente,” agregó Conte.
El informe del CIJ concluye que la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela se ha deteriorado rápidamente en los últimos años, especialmente desde 2014.
Las ejecuciones extrajudiciales y arbitrarias, la práctica de la tortura y malos tratos, las detenciones arbitrarias y el juzgamiento de civiles por tribunales militares, así como la criminalización y persecución de toda forma de disidencia política y social se han incrementado vertiginosamente.
“El contexto político de extrema polarización y la ruptura del Estado de Derecho, así como la falta de independencia del Poder Judicial, han obstaculizado gravemente la rendición de cuenta de los responsables de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos. Las víctimas y sus familias han visto denegado su derecho a la justicia,” dijo Conte.
Esta situación ha sido exacerbada por la reciente destitución de la Fiscal General de la República, calificada por la CIJ como un acto políticamente motivado, violatoria de los estándares internacionales, y que elimina uno de los últimos controles institucionales del Poder Ejecutivo y destruye uno de los pocos destellos de esperanza para una poner fin a la impunidad por las violaciones a los derechos humanos.
La CIJ considera que la creación de una “Comisión de la Verdad” por la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente es preocupante, toda vez que existen grandes temores de que sea un instrumento manipulado políticamente para afianzar la impunidad del Ejecutivo y para silenciar a la oposición, en lugar de cumplir con el deber del Estado de investigar pronta y efectivamente las denuncias de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos.
“La arraigada situación de impunidad en Venezuela no puede ser superada sin el establecimiento de un Poder Judicial independiente que pueda abordar las violaciones a los derechos humanos, disuadir de futuras violaciones y ayudar restablecer el Estado de Derecho,” agregó Conte.
Contacto:
Alex Conte, Coordinador de la Iniciativa Global de la CIJ sobre Reparación y Rendición de Cuentas, t: +41 79 957 27 33, C.E.:alex.conte(a)icj.org
Federico Andreu Guzmán, Representante de la CIJ para Suramérica, C.E.: federico.andreu(a)icj.org
Venezuela-GRABaseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-SPA (informe en PDF)
Aug 16, 2017
The dismissal of Luisa Ortega was a politically motivated act that violates international standards, removes one of the last remaining institutional checks on executive authority and further entrenches impunity for gross human rights violations in the country, the ICJ says in a Briefing Paper.
The dismissal of the Attorney General Dr Luisa Ortega Díaz (photo) was undertaken by a body not competent or empowered by Venezuelan law to do so, nor in observance of the established procedure and grounds defined in the law, the ICJ concluded in the Briefing Paper.
The dismissal also violated international standards regarding the independence of prosecutors.
“The dismissal of Attorney General Ortega Díaz appears to have been a measure taken in retaliation to her increasing challenges to Government initiatives and its expanded control over the legislature and judiciary, as well as her demands for accountability for gross human rights violations in the country,” said Alex Conte, ICJ’s Global Accountability coordinator.
“Her dismissal 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 gross human rights violations in the country,” Conte addedd.
“She must be reinstated and the independence of the Office of Public Prosecutions respected.”
Under Venezuela’s Organic Law of the Office of Public Prosecutions, which remains in force, removal of the Attorney General can only be on account of ‘serious misconduct’ (as defined by the law) and as a result of an absolute majority vote in the National Assembly, after confirmation by the Supreme Court of Justice.
“The purported grounds of misconduct by the Attorney General fall well short of the prescribed definition of serious misconduct under the Organic Law,” Conte said.
Ortega Díaz has at least in recent times been an outspoken critic of the Government led by President Nicolás Maduro.
She has been replaced by Tareck William Saab, a close political ally of President Maduro.
She has initiated several investigations and brought charges against State officials for the death of persons killed during public demonstrations; challenged decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice suspending the constitutional powers of the former National Assembly; challenged the appointment and conduct of Supreme Court judges; and challenged the convening of elections for the new Constituent National Assembly.
Since she began to criticize Government initiatives and take legal action to re-establish the rule of law, the Attorney General and her family have been the targets of multiple attacks, threats, harassment and campaigns of denigration and stigmatization by Government officials.
“This is not a question of the Attorney General’s politics but, rather, a significant assault on the effective administration of justice in Venezuela at a time when the rule of law is near collapse,” Conte added.
Contact:
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Federico Andreu Guzman, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Americas, email: Federico.andreu(a)icj.org
Venezuela-AG dismissal-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (briefing paper in PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
The ICJ is concerned with the passing of Constitutional Amendment no. 1 of 2017 by the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe on 25 July 2017.
The House of Assembly voted with over two-thirds majority for the amendment of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The amendment grants the President the right to appoint to office, the Judge President of the High Court, the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe.
Before this amendment the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) spearheaded the process of selection and appointment of judges with the President merely appointing from candidates recommended to him by the JSC.
The enactment of this Bill to law is likely to have a negative effect on the public’s perception of the judiciary. It also has the potential to affect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary.
“The amendment to the 2013 Constitution will negatively affect public confidence in the judiciary. Not only is this a departure from a position that was in line with international standards and best practices; the amendment is likely to have a ripple effect on the judiciary,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Director.
“In the short term the executive now has a carrot, which it can dangle in front of judicial officers. If a judge wants to be promoted to Judge President, Deputy Chief Justice or Chief they may have to align themselves with the thinking of the executive. Over time, given the central roles that these three office bearers play in the appointment process and thought leadership, Zimbabwe is likely to have a very executive minded bench,” he added.
To this end the ICJ calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed in the bill.
The procedure in section 180 of the constitution had distinguished Zimbabwe’s appointment procedures as exemplary in the region.
It is unfortunate that through this amendment the country has failed to consolidate this leadership position.
The amendment would be regressive and poses a real risk of undermining the essential role of the judiciary in securing the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe-Constitutional Amendment-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Jun 22, 2017 | News
The ICJ welcomes the adoption today, by consensus, of two UN Human Rights Council resolutions on the independence of judges & lawyers.
The Human Rights Council adopted the biannual resolution on independence of judges and lawyers, including a number of new elements on the theme of independence of lawyers and the legal profession. In particular, the resolution highlights the ongoing threats against and interference with the independence of lawyers and the ability of lawyers to fulfil their professional functions, including in relation to human rights.
The resolution reaffirms and builds on the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
The Human Rights Council also unanimously renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers for a further period of three years.
The unofficial text of the two resolutions are available in PDF format below:
Official versions will eventually appear on the UN website, at this location.
