Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Events, News
On 2-3 December 2020, the ICJ will convene the 11th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, on the Role of Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems in Access to Justice, the Rule of Law and Human Rights.
The Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) through its Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
The 8th Forum, in 2017, the 9th Forum in 2018 in Bangkok, and the 10th Forum in 2020 in Nairobi, considered the role of indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems at the global level, as well as in the particular regional contexts of Asia and Africa.
Interim findings and recommendations were set out in the reports from the 8th, 9th and 10th Fora. The September 2019 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples following her participation in the 9th Forum addressed indigenous justice..
As a reference for the Forum discussions and to assist the broader range of stakeholders, the ICJ published, and has subsequently updated, a Compilation of International Sources on Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems, including relevant provisions of global and regional treaties, UN and other inter-governmental declarations, and the jurisprudence and recommendations of expert Committees and Special Procedures established by treaties and the UN Human Rights Council.
The culmination of the Geneva Forum process on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems will be the 11th Geneva Forum on 2 and 3 December 2020, followed by publication by ICJ of a final set of global recommendations.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 11th Geneva Forum will be convened online, with participants from around the world.
Participation in the Forum is by invitation only and the Forum discussions will not be broadcast.
The concept note for the Forum may be downloaded here (PDF): GF2020 Concept Note 27-10-2020
The programme for the Forum may be downloaded here (PDF): GF2020 Programme 21-10-2020
The list of participants (subject to final confirmation) can be downloaded here (PDF): Public list of Participants_2020 ICJ Geneva Forum
For more information contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org.
The 2020 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers is made possible by the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
Photo: Traditional leaders preside over a case in B-Court, Nyang Payam, Torit County, South Sudan. Photo Credit: UNDP South Sudan2016Angelique Reid ©2016 United Nations
Oct 27, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a conversation on the past and current situation of the fight against impunity in Turkey with eminent international and Turkish expert.
Registation is on a first come first served basis by writing to: ihop@ihop.org.tr
Join our speakers:
– Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
– Wilder Taylor, Former Secretary-General of ICJ and chair of Uruguary NPM
– Luciano A. Hazan, Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance
– Melis Gebeş, Lawyer, Truth Justice and Memory Center:
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of Human Rights Joint Platform
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
Oct 27, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the adoption of amendments to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which serve to expand the powers of the President, while encroaching on the powers of the parliament and courts.
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution was passed into law on 22 October, with 156 of the 225 parliamentarians voting in favour of the amendment, after a mere two-day debate, overruling the Opposition’s request for at least four days of deliberation.
The ICJ noted that the Amendment undoes most of the reforms brought about by the 19th Amendment adopted only in 2015. Critically, it introduces judicial appointment procedures which are incompatible with principles of the justice by reintroducing the Parliamentary Council, consisting only of political actors.
That body serves to merely advise the President, regarding appointments to the judiciary and other key public institutions.
The 20th amendment gives the President sole and unfettered discretion to appoint all judges of the superior courts. Under international standards, appointments to the judiciary should not be vested solely with the executive.
Given the gravity of the constitutional changes, the ICJ expressed regret that the Government had suspended Standing Order 50 (2), which requires every bill to be referred to the relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee for consideration prior to being debated in parliament.
“It is appalling that Constitutional amendments with such far reaching consequences on the constitutional governance of the country were rushed through in such haste, especially at a time Sri Lanka battles with its largest COVID-19 outbreak to date,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The ICJ welcomes the alteration made to some of the problematic provisions of the 20th Amendment Bill during Committee Stage, particularly in relation to presidential immunity and the time period within which the president can dissolve Parliament.
The ICJ nonetheless is particularly concerned with the decision of the Minister of Justice to introduce entirely new provisions at Committee Stage, particularly in relation to the increase of the number superior court judges. The Supreme Court Bench will be increased from 11 to 17 and Court of Appeal from 12 to 20. These substantive amendments were not part of the gazetted 20th Amendment bill, the provisions of which were challenged before the Supreme Court by as many as 39 petitioners.
“While an increased number of judges may reduce court delays and expedite the judicial process, introducing substantive amendments such as this at Committee Stage is problematic at multiple levels,” Seiderman added.
“Sneaking in substantial changes at the last stage of the legislative process where there is no opportunity for public comment or judicial review is not consistent with democratic processes under the rule of law.”
Oct 27, 2020
The ICJ today published a legal briefing analyzing the implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (2005) in response to protests in 2020.
The ICJ welcomed the Thai government’s decision on 22 October 2020 to lift the Serious Emergency Situation in Bangkok but said the longstanding Emergency Decree of 2005 and emergency measures taken recently are non-compliant with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
The legal briefing looks at restrictions in law and practice that were imposed under the Decree between 15 and 22 October 2020, after the “serious emergency situation” was declared by Thailand’s Prime Minister, in light of international human rights law.
The ICJ in the legal briefing recommends that Thailand should remove the criminal liability for the protesters who are prosecuted or at risk of prosecution under the Emergency Decree for merely exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly as guaranteed under international and Thai law.
During the protests between 13 and 22 October 2020, at least 90 people, including protest leaders, have reportedly been arrested, mostly for violating the Emergency Decree.
The ICJ urges Thailand to ensure that affected populations shall have access to judicial remedies in respect of alleged violations under the emergency laws. The regulations, notifications, decisions and actions of officials exercising powers under the emergency law during the “serious emergency situation” must be subject to review by the courts, and ensure the affected persons’ right to access to an effective remedy.
The legal briefing also underscores the need for Thailand to repeal and amend several provisions of the Emergency Decree.
The legal briefing focuses on four primary areas of concern, namely:
- the emergency power;
- the limited scrutiny by the courts;
- legal immunity from prosecution; and
- emergency decree measures.
Thailand is still under a nationwide state of emergency as part of the COVID 19 restrictions.
Background
On 15 October 2020, Thailand’s Prime Minister invoked the Emergency Decree declaring a “serious emergency situation” in the areas of Bangkok in response to the student-led anti-government protests that took place between 13 and 15 October 2020. Protesters called for the Prime Minister’s resignation, constitutional amendment and reform of the monarchy.
The Prime Minister, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, claimed that the declaration of the serious emergency situation was necessary to “end the situation in an efficient and prompt manner, to ensure compliance with the law, and to sustain national order and public interest”.
The restrictions included: prohibition of a gathering of five or more people, dissemination of publications or any means of communication containing texts which intend to distort information and instigate fear among the population. The competent officials, who may not be law enforcement officials, are, among other powers, authorized to arrest and detain persons suspected of having a role in causing the emergency situation, or being an instigator, a propagator, a supporter of such act or concealing relevant information relating to the act which caused the emergency situation; summon any person to report to the competent official; seize or attach arms, goods, consumer products, chemical products or any other materials; and prohibit any act or any instruction to perform an act to the extent that is necessary for maintaining the security of the state, the safety of the country or the safety of the population.
Nevertheless, protests in Thailand have continued despite government ban and efforts by the authorities to prevent them. On 16 October 2020, it was reported that polices forcibly dispersed peaceful protesters at Pathumwan intersection in Bangkok in which thousands of people, including many students, took part. Officials forcibly dispersed the protestors by using water cannons – which, according to the UN Guidance On Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, should only be used in situations of serious public disorder where there is a significant likelihood of loss of life, serious injury or the widespread destruction of property. The water was laced with blue dye and an undisclosed chemical irritant to drive back protesters.
The state of serious emergency situation in Bangkok was lifted on 22 October 2020 by the Prime Minister, saying that the situation had eased and the violence was at an end.
In the legal briefing, the ICJ expressed concerned that the emergency declaration in response to the protests had activated provisions of the 2005 Decree that remain non-human rights compliant. The Decree has been used to impose a blanket restriction on freedom of expression and assembly by imposing a general ban on peaceful public demonstrations.
Download
Legal Briefing in English and Thai.
Further reading
Thailand: measures under the Emergency Decree to address the COVID-19 outbreak must conform to international law
More Power, Less Accountability: Thailand’s New Emergency Decree, August 2005
Implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree in Thailand’s Three Southern Provinces, July 2007
