May 2, 2017 | News
The Nepali legislature should immediately reject the unprecedented motion filed on 30 April 2017 to impeach Chief Justice Sushila Karki because it threatens the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, said the ICJ today.
“This impeachment motion, the first against a sitting Chief Justice in Nepal’s history, raises very serious concerns about the independence of Nepal’s Supreme Court and the separation of powers in the country,” said Matt Pollard, who heads the ICJ’s Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
“The impeachment motion seems timed to suspend Chief Justice Karki just as she was scheduled to hear a politically controversial case,” he added.
The impeachment motion comes in the wake of the decision of the full bench of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Karki, to revoke the Cabinet’s 12 February decision to appoint a new Inspector General of Nepal Police evidently in violation of existing processes and regulations.
The motion to impeach Chief Justice was sponsored by two ruling parties, Nepali Congress and Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center), pursuant to Article 101(2) of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution.
This provision allows for an impeachment motion against the chief justice to be moved by one-fourth of the members of the Legislature–Parliament on the grounds of “serious violation of the Constitution and law, his or her incompetence, misbehavior or failure to discharge the duties of his or her office in good faith or serious violation of code of conduct.”
Justice Karki is scheduled to retire on 7 Jun 2017, when she reaches the mandatory retirement age.
“The timing of the impeachment action, so close to the Chief Justice’s scheduled retirement, gives credence to suspicions that it is aimed at preventing her participation in judicial activity during the next few weeks,” Pollard said.
Filing the impeachment motion immediately resulted in the suspension of the Chief Justice from her duties, pursuant to Article 101(6).
“The impeachment process under Article 101 does not comply with international standards on the independence of the judiciary, as the ICJ has pointed out repeatedly in its analysis of the 2015 Constitution,” Pollard added, referring to the ICJ’s Briefing Paper on the Constitutional Draft. “This recent motion starkly demonstrates the problems with the Constitutional provision.”
Nepal’s judiciary, including the Supreme Court, had also recently been criticized by officials in the ruling parties and the military in relation to a number of high profile human rights cases.
“Nepal’s Judiciary has been instrumental protecting human rights, rule of law and enforcement of the Nepal’s obligation under international law,” Pollard said.
“The Nepali judiciary as an institution has strengthened and has gained international respect for its independence, so it should be celebrated and strengthened, instead of being subject to this kind of legislative attack,” he added.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Nepal and ruling parties to withdraw the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice in order to ensure judicial independence and the appropriate separation of powers under the rule of law in the country.
May 2, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Chinese government to release immediately Xie Yang, a prominent human rights lawyer who was arrested during the crackdown on human rights defenders in July 2015. Authorities have now canceled his scheduled trial without giving a reason.
He was charged on 16 December 2016 with inciting subversion of State power and disrupting court order. He is detained at an undisclosed location.
“Xie Yang’s arrest and prosecution seem to be in connection with his performing legitimate professional functions as a human rights lawyer,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“No lawyer should ever be subject to persecution for carrying out their professional duties. Lawyers in China like Xie Yang are indispensable in ensuring human rights protection and upholding the rule of law in China,” he added.
Xie Yang had served as counsel of the family of Xu Chunhe, who was alleged to have been shot dead by police authorities in May 2015 in Heilongjiang Province.
He also acted as counsel for persons alleging religious persecution, alleged victims of unlawful land seizures, and outspoken critics of the government.
The ICJ emphasized that in the absence of evidence that he has committed a cognizable offence, the criminalization of which is consistent with international human rights law, Xie Yang should be immediately released.
In January 2017, the lawyers of Xie Yang alleged that he had been subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation, forced into stress position for more than 20 hours a day, verbally harassed and threatened, and subjected to regular beatings and other forms of torture and ill-treatment.
“The government should release Xie Yang immediately and conduct a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation on the allegations that he has been subjected to torture,” Zarifi said.
The ICJ received information that Xie Yang has not been able to communicate with his lawyers ever since he reported to them his torture allegations by police authorities.
He has now been assigned State-appointed counsel.
The ICJ further called on the government to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for the torture of Xie Yang.
Under no circumstances must any statement he may have made during his interrogation under torture or ill-treatment be admitted into evidence at his trial.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Additional information
Following his arrest, Xie Yang was detained for the first six months in an undisclosed location, but was subsequently transferred to the Changsa City No. 2nd Detention Center.
He was again transferred to an undisclosed location where he remains detained to this day.
The date and the reason for the transfer are unknown.
Xie Yang’s treatment comes amidst a much wider attack on lawyers and human rights defenders in China.
Since 9 July 2015, the government has launched an unprecedented nationwide crackdown – now commonly referred to as the “709 Crackdown” to mark the start of the crackdown – which resulted in the interrogation, detention, and/or criminal indictment of nearly 250 human rights lawyers and activists.
Photo credit: ChinaChange.com
May 1, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ begins its third International Human Rights Training Programme for Lawyers from Central Asia.
The objective of this programme is to train Central Asian lawyers on application of international human rights law in criminal proceedings.
In the course of the programme, the participants will learn how to use international human rights law in national courts and to make effective use of international human rights mechanisms.
Leading international experts and practitioners will share their insights with the participants of the training programme on how to interpret key concepts of international human rights law and apply them in practice, both nationally and internationally.
The training programme is built around the study of the relevant international jurisprudence on the right to fair trial, right to liberty, freedom from torture and other ill-treatment, and associated rights, including cases originating from Central Asian region considered by UN treaty bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee.
“Lawyers are on the frontline of implementing international human rights law in practice, and this remains an enormous challenge in Central Asia,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS Programme.
“The programme presents a unique opportunity for lawyers from the region to meet key experts in international human rights law, officials from the UN Secretariat and other lawyers from the ICJ network, and to develop practical expertise on how to apply international human rights law in the defence of their clients,” she added.
In the course of the training programme, the participants will attend one of the meetings during the 60th session of the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) that will take place in Geneva on 18 April–12 May 2017.
The 25 participants have been selected through a rigorous process from among 150 applications from across the region, which testifies to the growing interest of lawyers from the region in applying international human rights standards in their practice.
The ICJ is grateful to the European Union for its support of this initiative.
Download training materials in Russian:
Central Asia-Arbitrary arrest and detention-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-CIS lawyers training-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-Master file caselaw-GTP-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-NRefpresMFICJ-CIS training-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-PIL and HRL_Sassoli-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-PPT Right to life-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Central Asia-Torture Pollard-Training Modules-2017-RUS
Apr 29, 2017
The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region decided to effectively grant the same spousal benefits to a civil servant in a same-sex marriage that the Government provides to the spouses of other married civil servants whose marriages are to persons of the opposite gender.
The High Court held in the case Leung Cheung Kwong v. Secretary for the Civil Service, et. al, that the denial of spousal benefits under the Civil Service Regulations to same-sex couples legally married under foreign laws amounts to unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“This decision confirms the critical role that the judiciary can and should play in upholding human rights and combatting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
Mr. Leung Chun Kwong, the applicant in the case, is a Chinese national and a permanent resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In 2005 he met Mr Adams, a national of New Zealand, and they later decided to marry.
In light of the fact that the law in Hong Kong did not allow for same-sex marriage, they married in New Zealand, where the law makes provision for such marriages.
Eventually, Mr. Leung applied for and was denied: a) spousal benefits that the Government provides to the spouses of other married civil servants whose marriages are to persons of the opposite gender; and b) to have his tax liability jointly assessed with that of Mr. Adams, as a married couple.
He then brought judicial review proceedings before the High Court challenging both decisions on a number of grounds, including that the said denials discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation.
Judge Anderson Chow said he was unable to see how the denial of such benefits to legally married same-sex couples would serve to protect “the traditional family”.
The ICJ had been granted leave by the Court to intervene in the case.
The amicus brief submitted by the ICJ described the European Court of Human Rights’ approach to the issues at stake in this case, including, in particular, that the prohibition of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights duly covers questions related to sexual orientation, and that if the reasons advanced for a difference in treatment were based solely on a person’s sexual orientation, this would amount to discrimination under the Convention.
The High Court was also presented with the question of whether the marriage of a same-sex couple legally entered into under foreign laws may also constitute “marriage” for the purposes of Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue Ordinance (IRO).
In this instance, however, the Court held that to construe “marriage” under the IRO as including same-sex marriages would run counter to the meaning of this term under Hong Kong laws.
In any event, the High Court further pointed out that the refusal by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to assess the tax liability of Mr. Leung jointly with that of his spouse, as a married couple, did not cause any prejudice to them as the joint assessment would have made no difference to their total tax liability.
In the circumstances, therefore, the Commissioner’s refusal did not engage the right to equality.
Gil said: “The issue of the equal right of same-sex couples to marriage in Hong Kong was not ultimately at stake in this case. However, we hope that future judicial decisions will continue to push forward the protection of all human rights for all people in Hong Kong.”
Hong Kong-ICJ Amicus-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2017-ENG (ICJ Amicus, in PDF)
Hong Kong-High Court Judgment-Advocacy-2017 ENG (Judgment, in PDF)
Apr 28, 2017
The statement was delivered by the ICJ at the Half-Day of General Discussion on the Elaboration of a Revised General Comment on Article 3, the Refoulement Prohibition, of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Universal-CAT-General Discussion-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
