Nov 23, 2017 | Agendas, Events, News
The ICJ delivers today and tomorrow a training for judges on asylum, migration and international human rights law, including non-discrimination, organised by OSCE and the Judicial Academy.
The training, that takes place in the capital Belgrade, will be delivered to judges of all level of jurisdiction of Serbian courts.
It will focus on human rights law related to the entry of migrants, including refugees, to the territory of a State, to the State’s obligations on international protection, the rules applicable to detention of foreign national and their rights, and the prohibition of non-discrimination.
Serbia-Training-MIgrationAsylum-OSCEJA-2017-eng (download the agenda in English)
May 26, 2017 | News
The ICJ has launched the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) in Thailand, together with the Thai Ministry of Justice, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the German Embassy in Bangkok.
The launch on Thursday coincided with a parallel launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
The Minnesota Protocol is a companion document to the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), and sets a common standard of performance in investigating potentially unlawful death and a shared set of principles and guidelines for States, as well as for institutions and individuals who play a role in death investigations.
The launch was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Thai Police, the Office of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Defence, and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia and member of the Forensics and Legal Working Groups which assisted with the revision the Minnesota Protocol, opened the event for the ICJ by commending Thailand for hosting the first national launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol.
“Investigations play a key role in accountability by upholding the right to life which is guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand is a State Party,” said Abbott. “All over the world we witness impunity in cases of unlawful death because either investigations do not take place or are inadequate and non-compliant with international law and standards.”
“The Minnesota Protocol makes it clear that investigations must be prompt, effective and thorough, as well as independent, impartial and transparent, and we expect that the revised Minnesota Protocol will help Thailand and other States to meet that obligation,” added Abbott. “The ICJ wishes to take this opportunity to reaffirm our long-standing commitment to the Thai authorities to assist them in efforts to implement Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”
The other speakers at the launch were:
- Ms Pitikarn Sitthidech, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Ms Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Head, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Regional Office for Southeast Asia
- Prof. Stuart Casey-Maslen, Project Manager of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol, University of Pretoria
- Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, Adviser, Central Institute for Forensic Science (CIFC) and member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol
- Ms Angkhana Neelapaijit, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and Victim Representative
- Mr Kittinan Thatpramuk, Deputy Director General, Department of Investigation, Office of the Attorney General
- Pol.Lt.Col. Payao Thongsen, Commander, the Special Criminal Cases Office 1, Department of Special Investigation (DSI)
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-ENG (PDF, English)
Universal-Minnesota-Protocol-Advocacy-2017-THA (PDF, Thai)
Universal-Minnesota Protocol-Advocacy-2017-BUR (PDF, Burmese)
Mar 14, 2017 | News
The ICJ urged the Pakistan government to withdraw its proposal to reinstate and widen the scope of military trials for civilians.
“Bringing back military courts is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue: the Government’s failure to enact reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system during the two years the 2015-2017 military courts were in operation,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Bills to amend the Constitution of Pakistan and the Army Act, 1952, to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to try a wide variety of terrorism-related offences, were introduced before the National Assembly (lower house of parliament) on Friday, 10 March.
The “terrorism-related” offences include, among others: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The new amendments are also applicable in all cases where the accused commit “grave and violent acts against the State”. The mandatory requirement to belong to a group that uses “the name of religion or sect”, as introduced by the 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act introduced in 2015, is no longer applicable.
“The expansion of military courts’ jurisdiction over all ‘grave and violent acts against the State’ creates the possibility that these courts could be used against a wide variety of people, including those who are legitimately exercising their rights to speech, association, and assembly,” added Zarifi.
According to the preambles of the bills, an “extraordinary situation” and a “grave and unprecedented threat to the integrity of Pakistan” still exist in the country, and military courts are being revived because they “yielded positive results in combatting terrorism” in the two years they were in operation.
“The military courts have not had any positive results in combating terrorism, given the country’s ongoing problem with acts of terrorism and armed insurgents,” said Zarifi. “Instead, military trials of civilians have further eroded the rule of law and weakened the government’s legitimacy in providing justice and defending the rights of people in Pakistan.”
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017. Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 17 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging. The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ recalled that the use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the disbarment proceedings against lawyer Muzaffar Bakhishov that are taking place before the Narimanov district court.
The ICJ calls for the disbarment proceedings to respect international standards on the role of lawyers and to ensure that no sanction is imposed contrary to the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under international law.
The ICJ understands that the proceedings against Mr Bakhishov, following a recommendation for disbarment by the Plenum of the Bar Association, are related to critical statements he made in a media interview with the news website moderator.az on the functioning of the Azeri judiciary with regard to judicial review of detention.
In the interview, he criticized the arrests of large number of persons by officers of the Ministry of National Security and the tendency of judges to approve orders of detention without proper scrutiny. He further raised concerns about lack of accountability of judges for failure to protect against arbitrary detention.
Under international law and standards, lawyers, like other individuals, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, including in regard to their professional role. Protection of lawyers’ right to freedom of expression is not only important to the individuals in question. It also serves to safeguard the important public function played by lawyers in a democratic society to comment on matters related to the rule of law and the administration of justice. Lawyers must be able to carry out these and their other professional functions without interference or intimidation.
The right to freedom of expression is protected in international human rights law, including by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Azerbaijan is party to both of these treaties.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specify that lawyers “…shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights …” The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that lawyers are entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, provided that their criticism does not overstep certain bounds, based on principles of dignity, honour, integrity, and respect for the fair administration of justice.
The ICJ considers that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, solely for expressing criticism of the conduct or functioning of the judiciary, whether in the course of court hearings or elsewhere, constitute an unjustified interference with freedom of expression. As the European Court of Human Rights has noted in Maurice v. France, this is particularly the case where the allegations have been presented in good faith and are substantiated by evidence.
Azerbaijan-BakhishovDisbarment-Statement-2016-AZE (download statement in Azeri)
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 9793805, e-mail: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
