Nov 17, 2020
The ICJ has published Judicial Accountability: An Adaptation of Practitioners Guide No. 13 for Zimbabwe, which analyzes the Zimbabwean legal framework in light of international and regional standards on accountability mechanisms for judicial corruption and judicial involvement in human rights violations.
The Guide reproduces the text of the ICJ’s 2016 global publication, Judicial Accountability: Practitioners’ Guide No.13, supplementing it with detailed information, analysis and recommendations specific to the context of Zimbabwe.
The Guides focus on international and regional standards and best practices on not only the accountability of individual judges, but also the accountability of the judiciary as an institution and State responsibility under international law, particularly in relation to the harm caused to victims of violations by judges.
The adaptation of this Guide to the Zimbabwean context specifically, is meant to assist practitioners in Zimbabwe, including judicial officers and lawyers, to engage with the domestic legal framework from a position informed by international standards and best practices.
This publication should be a particularly useful and relevant resource for the Zimbabwean judiciary whose theme for this calendar year is “Judicial Transparency and Accountability”.
Speaking on this publication and its relevance to the Zimbabwean context, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Blessing Gorejena highlighted how topical the issue of judicial independence in Zimbabwe has been:
“Judicial accountability is at the core of a functional and independent judiciary. The independence of a judiciary cannot just be assumed, it must be evidenced by functional and effective accountability mechanisms, systems and processes which leave little to no room for doubts about the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice without fear or favor. As such, like justice, judicial independence must not only be said to exist but must be seen to exist. Accountability is how judicial independence is seen to exist.”
This Guide considers a multitude of topics relating to judicial accountability, including but not limited to an appraisal of Zimbabwe’s duties to ensure an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary under international law and an analysis of the relevant accountability bodies in Zimbabwe.
Recommendations are consequently made in an effort to tackle inconsistencies between the adopted practices in Zimbabwe and its duties under international law.
Contact
Blessing Gorejena, Senior Legal Adviser and Team Leader of ICJ Zimbabwe Project, t: +263 77 215 1989, e: blessing.gorejena(a)icj.org
Elizabeth Mangenje, Legal Adviser, t: +263 77 474 2420, e: elizabeth.mangenje(a)icj.org
Download
Zimbabwe-PG No 13 Accountability adaptation-Publications-Reports-Thematic report-2020-ENG (full guide, in pdf)
Nov 17, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the renewed threat of criminal proceedings by prosecutorial authorities against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions, as his case is appealed before a panel of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland, but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya’s immunity should be maintained. Actually he should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with as its decisions were in accordance with the law and the principles of transparency and public trials,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“His case is a further demonstration of the relentless attacks against the independence of judges ongoing in Poland.”
The Disciplinary Chamber, in a single-judge formation, upheld Judge Tuleya’s immunity on 9 July but the prosecution appealed the ruling that will be now decided by the same Chamber before a three-judge panel, Tomasz Przelawski, Slawomis Niedzielak and Jaroslaw Sobutka.
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which has given competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“Immunity claims against a judge should be decided only by an independent body,” Massimo Frigo added.
“As EU Court of Justice held, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on this case.”
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver was rejected on 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government, in a single-judge formation. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the ruling. The case will be now considered by the same Disciplinary Chamber in a three-judge formation. A first hearing was scheduled for 5 October 2020 but was postponed. It will take place on 18 November.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 797499949
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy
On 15 October 2020, Polish lawyer Roman Giertych was detained by the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA) on accusations of money laundering. His house and office were searched and prosecutors imposed preventive measures, including suspension of his right to practice law.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned that the manner in which these measures were taken is inconsistent with international standards on the independence of the legal profession.
Roman Giertych has worked on a series of high-profile cases against the governing Law and Justice party. He has also represented various prominent opposition figures, including Donald Tusk, the former Polish prime minister and head of the Civic Platform opposition party, and former president of the European Council.
Mr. Giertych’s arrest happened one day before the scheduled detention hearing in another politically significant high-profile case, concerning Leszek Czarnecki, in which Roman Giertych was appointed as defence counsel.
According to the information available to Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association, Mr. Giertych was arrested merely to serve him with charges. He was not given a chance to appear voluntarily.
On 22 October 2020, Mr Giertych’s defense lawyers filed four complaints with the court about the actions of the Poznań prosecutor’s office relating to his arrest and the search of his home and office.
Professional lawyers’ associations such as the National Council of Attorneys-at Law, the Association of Attorneys-At-Law “Defensor Iurius”, the Polish Bar Council and the Council of the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates have expressed “great concern” about Mr. Giertych’s detention, the search of his house and office, and the preventive measures that were taken against Mr. Giertych.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned about the circumstances of Mr. Giertych’s arrest, in particular the fact that the arrest seems to have only been made in order to present him with charges.
L4L, ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are also concerned by the fact that the searches of his house and office were conducted without proper safeguards of attorney-client privilege and by the suspension of Mr. Giertych’s right to practice his legal profession by a public prosecutor. We will continue to monitor the case of Mr. Giertych closely.
Download
Poland-Roman Giertych-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full statement with additional information, in PDF)
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to abandon a draft law which would dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as a means of retaliation for a decision adopted by the Court and in order to circumvent the decision.
The authorities should also refrain from any other actions, including harassment of judges, which undermine the independence of the Constitutional Court.
“This draft law constitutes a direct attack on the ability of the judiciary to exercise its functions independently. It is incompatible with basic principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and with international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“By the nature of their role, the judiciary, and especially constitutional courts may be required to decide on controversial matters. It is however essential that particularly in such cases, courts are able to operate without fear of retaliation or repression for the decisions they take,” she added.
The draft law on Restoring Public Confidence in the Constitutional Court, submitted by President Zelensky to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), aims to pronounce a decision of the Constitutional Court on anti-corruption legislation “void” and without legal consequences.
This runs contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution according to which “[d]ecisions and opinions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be binding, final and may not be challenged” (Article 151-2).
The draft law would terminate the mandate of the judges of the Constitutional Court, in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine as well as basic principles of independence of the judiciary, governing appointments, dismissal and security of tenure of judges.
The draft law provides that the powers of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in force at the time of the decision on the anti-corruption law would be terminated from the date of entry into force of the law.
According to the explanatory note to the Draft Law, one reason the adoption of the law would be justified is because there had not been a “proper substantiation” of its judgment on the anti-corruption law. The note alleges that Court’s decision was adopted in the private interests of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, that its proper substantiation was not provided and that it contradicts the principle of the rule of law and denies the European and Euro-Atlantic choice of the Ukrainian people. The ICJ considers these allegations are inappropriate as they directly interfere with the judicial function of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contrary to the national legislation and international law on the independence of the judiciary.
On 2 November 2020, Oleksandr Tupitsky, the President of the Constitutional Court was summoned for interrogation by the State Investigation Bureau in connection with allegations against him of committing crimes as part of an organized group. The ICJ fears that this may be a form of pressure in relation to the Constitution Court’s decision.
Following these incidents, the Constitutional Court has stopped working as four of the judges refuse to take part in its sessions. The Court therefore lacks the necessary quorum to operate.
The ICJ calls on Ukraine to withdraw the draft law, and to refrain from any further reprisals against judges for their decisions.
Download
Ukraine-draft law constitutional court-News-ENG-2020 (full statement with background information)
Nov 16, 2020
Today, the ICJ published The case for reform: Criminal Law and Sexual Violence in Zimbabwe, a legal brief which examines sexual crimes in the Zimbabwean Criminal Code in light of the country’s obligations under international human rights law and standards.
The brief’s analysis is informed by provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as well as regionally and internationally recommended practices.
It highlights a number of concerns with respect to sections 65 – 72 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (Criminal Code) and makes specific recommendations for reform.
In particular, the brief highlights the following concerns:
- the limited scope of the crime of rape;
- the problematic characterization of certain acts of a sexual nature as ‘indecent’ when, instead, they should be properly proscribed as violations of sexual autonomy;
- the lack of adequate protection of children against sexual exploitation; and
- the concurrent failure to recognize the sexual autonomy of adolescents engaged in non-exploitative, consensual sexual activity with a peer.
Speaking on the value of this brief, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Blessing Gorejena noted that: “Sexual offences in Zimbabwe, particularly rape continue to be viewed to a larger extent as a private matter for which silence is a requirement, to the detriment of the victim and society at large. As a result, there is an urgent need to reform sexual offence legislation, including the Criminal Code in Zimbabwe. This brief offers clear and concise recommendations on how this can be done. It is an invaluable tool for legislative reform.”
Background
Zimbabwe has seen an increase in the incidence of rape over the last five years according to 2019 statistics by Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (Zimstats). The Zimbabwe Gender Commission reports that 22 women are raped daily, with one woman raped every 75 minutes. On average, 646 women are sexually abused monthly, with one in three girls raped or sexually assaulted before they reach the age of 18. The vast majority of sexual offences are committed by men against women, children and other men.
The legal brief published by the ICJ follows on from a November 2015 ICJ reflection paper titled: “Sexual and Gender Based Violence, Fair Trial Rights and the Rights of Victims – Challenges in Using Law and Justice Systems Faced by Women Human Rights Defenders”. This publication compiled information gathered from a regional colloquium held by the ICJ in Swaziland in July 2015.
The 2015 publication highlighted a gap in the protection guaranteed to victims of sexual offences by the criminal law in Zimbabwe. Authors noted that certain provisions relating to sexual crimes in the Criminal Code offered limited protection to victims/survivors of such offences.
Contact
Blessing Gorejena, Senior Legal Adviser and Team Leader of ICJ Zimbabwe Project, t: +263 77 215 1989, e: blessing.gorejena(a)icj.org
Elizabeth Mangenje, Legal Adviser, t: +263 77 474 2420, e: elizabeth.mangenje(a)icj.org
Zimbabwe-Sexual violence-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2020-ENG (full paper, in PDF)
