La CIJ y la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad presentarán dos estudios sobre la justicia en Guatemala

La CIJ y la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad presentarán dos estudios sobre la justicia en Guatemala

La CIJ y la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, con el apoyo de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, presentarán dos estudios sobre el estado actual del sistema de justicia en Guatemala.

El primer estudio La Independencia Judicial en Guatemala se centra en una evaluación de la independencia judicial en el país haciendo referencia a la normativa nacional e internacional.

El estudio lleva a cabo un análisis de sentencias nacionales relacionadas con la independencia judicial.

El segundo estudio Buenas Prácticas en la Justicia Especializada se centra en los avances y hallazgos de los Tribunales de Mayor Riesgo y los Tribunales de Femicidio.

Incluye un análisis de los casos “Siekavizza” y el “Plan de Sánchez”, entre otros.

En el foro estarán presentes una delegación de tres jueces Noruegos del Comité de Derechos Humanos de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, quienes realizan la primera de dos visitas anuales al país, para dar seguimiento a la situación de jueces independientes en Guatemala.

Además comentarán los estudios la jueza guatemalteca Yassmín Barrios; la Magistrada de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, María Eugenia Morales Aceña; el juez guatemalteco y Presidente de la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, Haroldo Vásquez; y la jueza hondureña y Ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia, Rubenia Galeano.

Guatemala-Independencia Judicial-Publications-Thematic reports-2016-SPA  (informe en PDF)

Guatemala-Feminicidio y Riesgo-Publications-Thematic Reports-2016-SPA (informe en PDF)

Tunisia: amendments to the High Judicial Council law would weaken the independence and authority of the judiciary

Tunisia: amendments to the High Judicial Council law would weaken the independence and authority of the judiciary

The ICJ today called on the Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, to refrain from signing into law amendments to the law that regulates the country’s High Judicial Council (HJC). The amendments were adopted on Tuesday 28 March 2017 by the People’s Representatives Assembly.

The ICJ also urged the Head of the Cabinet, Youssef Chahed, to act, as a matter of highest priority, on the nominations by the Instance Provisoire de la Justice Judiciaire (IPJJ) with a view to filling the positions of the First President of the Cassation Court and its General Prosecutor.

The ICJ expressed concern that the amendments revising the country’s 2016 HJC law would weaken the effective functioning of the judiciary and the administration of justice in several respects

  • The amendments would strip the IPJJ President of the authority to convene the HJC’s first meeting and instead provide the President of the Parliament with such power. This would constitute an inappropriate interference of the legislative branch into the management of the judiciary in clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence.
  • The amendments would explicitly exclude any possibility of challenge or judicial review of such action of the President of the Parliament. The ICJ considers that the judiciary must be able to review such decisions to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily or outside the law.
  • The amendments would also reduce the quorum required for the validity of HJC meetings from one-half to one-third of its members. This could lead to situations where non-judicial members of the HJC have the power to take decisions over the judiciary, in contravention of international standards.

“Instead of using legislative tactics and procedures to weaken the independence and the effective functioning of the HJC, the Tunisian Head of Cabinet should act on the IPJJ’s nominations to fill the positions of the President and the Prosecutor General of the Cassation Court as a matter of urgency, and ensure that until the HJC is properly established, the IPJJ continues to fully exercise its competencies in overseeing and managing the judiciary,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) Programme.

Indeed, irrespective of the amendments, the ICJ recalls that article 148(8) of the Constitution clearly states that the IPJJ is to carry out its mandate until the seats on the HJC have been filled. This is further affirmed under article 74 of the 2016 HJC Law and article 19 of the 2013 IPJJ Law. Both of these laws make the end of the exercise of the IPJJ’s functions dependent on two conditions, namely that the HJC be fully composed and established.

The ICJ considers that the delay in acting on the IPJJ nominations of senior judges risks undermining the effective functioning of the judiciary, as well as adversely affecting the functioning of other institutions that are essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Tunisia. The adopted amendments are no answer to this problem.

“The ongoing crisis is political and not judicial,” Benarbia said.

“Solving it does not require the introduction of legislative amendments that erode the rule of law and judicial independence, but rather the compliance with existing laws and the Constitution,” he added.

Contact

Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa Programme, t: +33 6 42837354, e: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org

Background

The amendments were introduced and adopted amid a continuing crisis and functional paralysis of the judiciary that also impact on the effective functioning of other State institutions, including the body in charge of reviewing the conformity of laws with the Constitution.

In particular, two key positions have been left vacant as neither the First President of the Cassation Court, nor its General Prosecutor, have been appointed, and both of these positions also serve as ex officio members of the HJC.

In October 2016, elections were organized to choose the members of the HJC. A swearing-in ceremony before the President of the Republic followed in 14 December 2016, in which not all the HJC Members participated.

In November 2016, the IPJJ proposed candidates including to fill these two positions. Under the Tunisian Law, the Head of the Cabinet must confirm these nominations.

Alternatively, this official may request new nominations from the IPJJ until agreement is reached, as provided for in article 12 and 14 of the IPJJ Law No.13 of 2013. So far, the Head of the Cabinet has failed to act on the IPJJ’s nominations and uncertainty prevails as to whether the HJC has been properly established.

Under the Tunisian Constitution and laws, the President of the Cassation Court is also the President of the Instance Provisoire de Contrôle de la Constitutionnalité des Projets de Loi, the body in charge of assessing the conformity of laws with the Constitution during the transition period.

When established, the HJC will be charged with appointing four members of the Constitutional Court.

Tunisia-Statement new HJC Law-News-Web stories-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)

 

Botswana: arrangement among judges and executive brings hope for restoration of judicial functioning

Botswana: arrangement among judges and executive brings hope for restoration of judicial functioning

The ICJ expressed its hope today that an arrangement reached between four judges of the High Court and Botswanan President Ian Khama along with Chief Justice Dibotelo would serve to restore the effective functioning of the High Court and its critical role in the administration of justice.

The settlement resulted in Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe withdrawing a petition and letter they had written complaining about what they considered to be a range of deficiencies in the justice system, as well as a failure of leadership in judicial administration.

The President and executive, for its part, discontinued pursing allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute against the judges and disestablished the impeachment tribunal that had been set up to try them.

The ICJ had previously expressed its concern about the process of the impeachment of the judges and the impact of the impeachment proceedings on judicial independence and impartiality in Botswana.

The ICJ was also concerned that impeachment proceedings would not accord with the principles of the right to fair trial.

“This settlement paves the way for the four judges to resume their normal duties,” said Arnold Tsunga Director of the ICJ.

“The Botswana executive and judicial officials charged with administration of the justice can now focus their attention on addressing the very real challenges facing the justice system in the country,” Tsunga added.

The ICJ reminds the Botswana authorities of their duty to guarantee the independence, impartiality and accountability of the judiciary under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, treaties to which Botswana is a party.

Contact

Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716405926or +263 777 283 249; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

Background

The ICJ recalls that the four judges were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.

The suspension was precipitated by a signed petition directed to the Chief Justice. In the petition the judges objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.

The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.

The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.

Zimbabwe: case management consultation for national prosecuting authority

Zimbabwe: case management consultation for national prosecuting authority

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) held a consultation conference on case and docket management system in Harare on 21 March 2017. The ICJ provided technical support.

The consultation conference was intended to validate findings of the field and desk research conducted in respect of case management in Zimbabwe.

The ICJ engaged consultants reviewed the case and docket management system as it relates to other justice actors such as the judiciary, police, prisons and legal aid providers.

The case and docket management assessment was measured against regional and international comparative standards.

The assessment focused on how case and docket management systems address the rights of vulnerable groups’ including women, unrepresented minors, juveniles and persons with disabilities.

From these consultations and field work, the NPA will be supported with a comprehensive, specific and detailed proposal with practical steps for adopting an improved case and docket management system.

Further, the findings will make recommendations on strengthening the case management system in Zimbabwe and how to address the needs and interests of the various justice sector stakeholders.

The consultation conference was attended by the Acting Prosecutor General, Deputy Prosecutor General, National Director of Public Prosecutions, senior law officers, senior magistrates, clerks (criminal courts), representatives from Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services (ZPCS), Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), and Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC).

Civil society representatives included directors and senior staffers from Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) among others.

This consultation was held with financial support from the Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) Magna Carta Fund, through the British Embassy in Harare.

Contact

Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 716 405 926, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

Practitioners’ Guide N°1 now available in Portuguese

Practitioners’ Guide N°1 now available in Portuguese

The ICJ has now published a Portuguese translation of its Practitioner’s Guide N°1 International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.

The Guide outlines the roles to be played by a strong legal profession, an independent judiciary and an impartial and objective prosecuting authority.

Part one of this guide provides an analysis of the law and concrete examples drawn from international practice. Part two includes relevant global and regional standards on the topic.

Universal-PG N°1 Portugues-Publications-Practitioners’ Guide series-2017-POR (full guide, in PDF)

Translate »