Apr 14, 2013 | Articles, Nouvelles
Du 7 au 13 avril 2013, la CIJ a organisé une mission de recherche sur l’accès à la justice pour les victimes de violations des DESC au Maroc.
Durant la mission, organisée par le Programme sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels en collaboration avec le Programme régional Afrique du Nord et Moyen Orient, la CIJ s’est entretenue avec un large éventail d’acteurs impliqués dans la protection des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, notamment les Présidents des Chambres administrative, civile et sociale de la Cour de Cassation du Royaume du Maroc ; des membres du Conseil National des Droits de l’Homme ; des représentants de syndicats de travailleurs dont l’Union Marocaine du Travail (UMT) et la Confédération Démocratique du Travail (CDT), ainsi que des associations de protection des consommateurs telles que la Fédération Nationale des Associations du Consommateur (FNAC), la section UNICONSO de Casablanca ainsi que l’Association Marocaine de Protection et d’Orientation du Consommateur (AMPOC) à Kenitra.
La CIJ a également rencontré des représentants de la société civile marocaine, y compris l’Union d’Action Féminine (UDF) et l’Association Démocratique des Femmes du Maroc (ADFM) ainsi que des victimes de violations des DESC.
Les entretiens menés durant la mission ont permis d’identifier les avancées mais aussi un nombre d’obstacles tant juridiques que pratiques empêchant un accès efficace à la justice pour les victimes de violations des DESC ainsi que les causes profondes de ces violations.
Les personnes rencontrées ont principalement insisté sur le fait que malgré qu’une nouvelle Constitution progressiste ainsi que de nouvelles lois respectueuses des droits de l’homme aient été adoptées ces dernières années, leur application demeure problématique.
Cette mission a permis de récolter de nombreuses informations qui complèteront celles déjà compilées depuis juillet 2012 par le biais de recherche documentaires et ateliers, et permettront de publier un rapport sur l’accès à la justice pour les violations des DESC au Maroc, qui sera publié au courant de l’année 2013.
Contexte de la mission
Dans le cadre de projets nationaux tels que celui sur le Maroc, le Programme sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels de la CIJ vise à contribuer à l’amélioration de la responsabilité pour les violations de droits de l’homme et l’accès à la justice pour tous, notamment les victimes de violations et de menaces à l’encontre des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.
La CIJ a démarré un processus de recherches au niveau national afin d’identifier les obstacles et les possibilités pour l’accès à la justice, ainsi qu’un processus de consultations et de collaborations avec ses partenaires locaux afin de déterminer des stratégies pouvant remédier aux manquements identifiés.
Selon les besoins identifiés, la CIJ appuiera la mise en œuvre de recommandations et interviendra à travers des actions telles des formations et des contributions juridiques.
Apr 12, 2013 | News
On Monday 15 April, the ICJ will hold a roundtable seminar with judges of the Russian Federation’s highest courts, on disciplinary action against judges in the Russian Federation.
Apr 8, 2013 | News
The ICJ today expressed its deep concern at the decision of the President of the Republic of Italy to pardon Colonel Joseph L. Romano III, following his conviction by an Italian court for complicity in the rendition of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar (photo).
“This pardon deals a serious blow to the rule of law and to accountability for CIA renditions and secret detentions, a system which involved torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary and secret detention and other serious crimes under international law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme. “Italy stood honourably as the only country where an effective prosecution had been brought against CIA and Italian agents responsible for crimes under international law committed through the CIA rendition programme. This pardon deletes, in a single stroke of the pen, years of relentless efforts of prosecutors, investigators and lawyers to assure accountability for these crimes under international law.”
The ICJ emphasized that the pardon granted by the Italian President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, in his last weeks of office, defeats the efforts of the judiciary to uphold the State’s international law obligations to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for gross violations of human rights.
“By nullifying the effects of years of efforts of the Italian judicial system, this pardon seriously undermines Italy’s action against impunity and weakens the very foundations of the rule of law,” Frigo added. “The fact that the President of the Republic justified this action by raising the “peculiarity of the historical moment” of 9/11, thus suggesting that a kind of state of exception for the rule of law could have existed, is an unacceptable position under international law.”
The ICJ deeply regrets this decision of the President of the Republic to use his prerogative of pardon to prevent accountability for such an egregious violation of the rule of law in name of US-Italian diplomatic relations.
The ICJ condemns this pardon and stresses that it must not constitute a precedent and that other convictions in this case must not be nullified by pardons or amnesties. All European countries must uphold their duty fight against impunity for gross violations of human rights.
Any further circumvention of accountability for perpetrators of renditions or other gross human rights violations would only extend the cloak of impunity over the rule of law in Europe.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
PR-Italy-RenditionPardon-2013-eng (english version)
PR-Italy-RenditionPardon-2013-ita (italian version)
Apr 8, 2013
An opinion piece by Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director and Benjamin Zawacki, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
The controversy surrounding Aung San Suu Kyi (photo) and a joint-venture copper mine project in Myanmar should give prospective foreign investors pause.
It should also prompt the international community to help the country establish a legal regime on which both investors and the people of Myanmar can rely for protection of their rights.
A government-backed investigation into the mine project, chaired by Suu Kyi, concluded that security forces used chemicals against villagers protesting against it.
It also recommended additional impact assessments, and either increased compensation or the return of farmland allegedly taken via fraud and coercion.
But, crucially, it concluded that the project should continue. Villagers vehemently disagreed and vowed to pursue a lawsuit.
Myanmar’s government has a duty to protect workers, consumers, landholders and indigenous people against rights violations.
Despite recent steps, however, there are not enough lawyers, judges and others adequately trained to monitor economic activity and provide accountability for violations of laws governing corporate action.
Corporations have a strong interest in supporting the development of robust accountability mechanisms in Myanmar.
Many now considering investing participate in a global corporate citizenship initiative known as the UN Global Compact, which asks its members to take action prior to investing, such as human rights and environmental impact assessments, and to monitor business activity once under way.
Yet all the compact’s “commitments” are non-binding. And even strict adherence would not serve as a defence for companies accused of committing human rights and environmental violations.
Increasingly, transnational corporations may be held legally responsible for abuses in the country where they occurred, and also in their home country.
Western companies are the most vulnerable, but the copper mine case shows Asian enterprises are not immune: the mine’s other joint-venture partner is the Chinese Wan Bao mining company, a subsidiary of weapons manufacturer Norinco.
The copper mine controversy also shows that the line between “government” and “company” in Myanmar can be blurry; large joint ventures often include the military-owned Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Company.
Indeed, the army is deeply involved in many companies and has a long record of human rights and humanitarian law violations.
In one landmark case, villagers sued Unocal in a US court for complicity in security forces’ human rights violations during the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline.
The case was settled in 2004 before a final decision on liability was reached. What made it significant – and still relevant – is that the US law used is not limited to US corporations.
The Unocal case was allowed to progress in the US because the courts found that the judicial system in Myanmar was not independent of the military government of the time and therefore could not provide a proper venue for a lawsuit.
Today, despite ongoing legal reform, there is a long way to go to rebut this finding.
The copper mine case presents an opportunity for the judiciary to demonstrate whether it can render just decisions.
Investment in Myanmar, if done lawfully and with reliable legal remedies, can be a strong force for good.
The international community should support Myanmar’s reformers in making this happen.
Apr 8, 2013 | News
On 5 April, Vietnam’s Hai Phong court sentenced Doan Van Vuon and three of his male relatives to imprisonment sentences ranging from two to five years, for attempted murder. The ICJ condemns this decision.
Mr. Doan’s wife and sister-in-law received suspended sentences in the form of 18 and 15 months respectively for resisting persons in the performance of their official duties.
Vuon, along with his brothers Doan Van Quy and Doan Van Sinh, as well as Sinh’s son Doan Van Ve, were initially arrested on 5 January 2012 for injuring four policemen and two soldiers with homemade weapons when more than 100 security forces tried to forcibly evict them from their fish farm in a district approximately 90 kilometres from Hanoi.
The four men had remained in detention for more than a year waiting for the commencement of last week’s trial.
Under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam is a signatory to, states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge…and be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.
“Pre-trial detention should only be used in criminal proceedings as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time period, when required to meet the needs of justice,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “The prolonged period of detention in this case is detrimental as it could possibly have violated the defendants’ presumption of innocence and due process.”
During the trial, it was concerning to note that all the judges involved in the case were members of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party and were carrying out their judicial duties under the central government’s directions.
Article 14 of the ICCPR further guarantees that a person is “entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
“Vietnam’s blatant disregard of the right to fair trial violates not only their international law obligations, but also the proper administration of justice in a criminal proceeding,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ also observed that the court’s judgment failed to incorporate the fact that the defendants had acted in such a manner only as an attempt to defend and protect their land, which was legitimately given to them by the Vietnamese government in 1993.
The right to receive a reasoned judgment is an inherent principle in safeguarding fair trial rights and it is the general rule that court rulings must include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning.
“The failure to adhere to the minimum international fair trial standards reveals Vietnam’s serious lack of commitment towards upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in the country; a violation most certainly not in line with the profile of a country wishing to obtain a seat at the UN Human Rights Council 2014-2016 tenure,” Gil added.
In the event of an appeal, the ICJ calls that the Vietnamese Court of Appeal be consistent with the international basic judicial guarantees and the principles of independence, impartiality and competency.
