May 28, 2020 | Articles, Nouvelles
Un article de Martine Comte, Commissaire française de la CIJ. (Avec une mise à jour)
En raison de la crise sanitaire, la loi française n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 habilitait le gouvernement à adapter notamment, par ordonnance, diverses règles de procédure pénale, compte tenu des circonstances.
C’est ainsi que l’article 16 de l’ordonnance n° 2020-303 du 25 mars 2020 prorogeait de plein droit les délais maximums de détention provisoire d’une durée allant de 2, 3 ou 6 mois selon la peine encourue.
L’interprétation de ce texte donnée par le Ministère de la Justice aboutissait à priver les détenus de tout examen contradictoire par un juge de cette prolongation, avec l’assistance d’un avocat, et allongeait automatiquement la durée maximale de détention provisoire possible, et ce, malgré différents recours, tous rejetés par le Conseil d’État.
Cette situation, contraire à la convention européenne des droits de l’Homme, au pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques et à la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme, ne cessait d’être dénoncée par différents juristes, qu’ils soient magistrats, avocats ou professeurs de droit, et bien sûr, par les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme .
Elle avait donné lieu à un précédent article sur ce site.
C’est dans ces conditions que le Parlement a adopté, le 11 mai 2020, la loi n° 2020-546 prorogeant l’état d’urgence sanitaire et complétant ses dispositions, publiée le 12 mai 2020, après décision du conseil constitutionnel n° 2020-800 DC du 11 mai 2020 .
Cette loi modifie notamment l’article 16 précité de l’ordonnance n° 2020-303 du 25 mars 2020 et crée un article 16-1 qui met fin, à partir du 11 mai, à la prolongation de plein droit des titres de détention provisoire qui arrivent à échéance, le débat contradictoire devant un juge avec l’assistance d’un avocat redevenant la règle.
Par ailleurs, la prolongation de plein droit du délai de détention intervenue au cours de l’instruction avant le 11 mai 2020, en vertu de l’article 16 précité, n’a pas pour effet d’allonger la durée maximale totale de la détention en application des dispositions de code de procédure pénale, sauf si cette prolongation a porté sur la dernière échéance possible .
Enfin, pour tenir compte des prolongations intervenues avant le 11 mai, ou pour les détentions venant à échéance entre le 11 mai et le 11 juin, des dispositions particulières prévoient l’obligation d’une audience contradictoire devant le juge selon des modalités précises et dans des délais contraints .
Si l’on peut se réjouir que le Parlement ait mis fin à une situation portant atteinte de façon considérable aux droits et libertés fondamentales, il n’en reste pas moins que les juridictions vont devoir appliquer, dans des conditions particulièrement difficiles, des dispositions complexes, et statuer, dans des délais brefs, sur des prolongations de détention intervenues sans aucun contrôle et sans débat ou venant prochainement à échéance.
Il eût finalement été plus simple de respecter dès le départ les garanties fondamentales découlant de la présomption d’innocence et soumettant la privation de liberté avant procès au contrôle d’un juge indépendant, dans le cadre d’un débat contradictoire, avec l’assistance d’un avocat.
Il faut enfin noter que ce texte intervient quelques jours avant que la cour de cassation ne statue sur différents recours portant sur ce point et que sa décision constituera une référence pour savoir comment concilier, dans un contexte tout à fait exceptionnel, les droits humans et les libertés fondamentales avec les impératifs de continuité du fonctionnement des institutions.
Note et mise à jour de la CIJ: Le 26 mai, la cour de cassation a rendu deux arrêts levant les incertitudes sur la mise en oeuvre de l’article 16 de l’Ordonnance n°202-303 du 25 mars 2020 prévoyant la prolongation de plein droit des détentions provisoires. Voir le communiqué et le jugement ci-dessous:
Communiqué
Arrêt détention
May 27, 2020
Today the ICJ joined 83 other signatories in calling on States, donors and other stakeholders to protect and promote the rights of stateless persons in their Covid-19 responses.
The call stresses that stateless people who are denied and nationality and deprived of human rights and welfare are facing greater, life-threatening marginalization.
May 27, 2020
The ICJ, together with 24 other civil society organizations, sent a joint open letter to the Indian Government calling for the release of human rights defenders, all detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Mr Amit Shah
Union Home Minister of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
Re: Release human rights defenders at risk in the context of COVID-19
Dear Home Minister,
We, the undersigned organizations, write with great concern regarding the situation of student activists Safoora Zargar, who is four months pregnant, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Sharjeel Imam, all detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). We believe their detention is unfounded and designed to punish them for defending human rights and engaging in peaceful protest against a discriminatory law. In addition, their being jailed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is unnecessarily putting their lives and health at serious risk. We urge you to immediately and unconditionally release all four activists, as well as other persons who have been detained, charged, or convicted simply for defending human rights and exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rahman are student activists who were involved in protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and arrested in April 2020. Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rahman, were arrested by the Delhi Police on 10 April, 1 April and 24 April on charges of rioting and unlawful assembly, reportedly in connection with their alleged role in the demonstrations.The CAA legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion and contravenes the Constitution of India and international human rights law. Student activist Sharjeel Imam was arrested in January 2020 under charges of sedition for his speech during anti-CAA protests. The additional charges under UAPA were brought in April 2020. All of them are currently in pre-trial detention.
Their situation is not unique. For example, on 14 April 2020, the authorities also detained human rights activists Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha under the UAPA for allegedly inciting caste-based violence during a 2018 demonstration in Bhima Koregaon, Maharashtra state. Nine other activists have been detained since 2018 in relation to the same case. They are known for their work defending the rights of Adivasi and Dalit communities and should all be released immediately.
We are seriously concerned that the Indian authorities have routinely misused draconian, anti-terrorism laws such as the UAPA, to undermine human rights, stifle dissent and press freedom. This is even more concerning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow investigative processes and extremely stringent bail provisions under these laws mean that human rights defenders and others who speak out may face many years behind bars unjustly. In their communication to the Government of India on 6 May 2020, eight UN Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention raised serious concerns about the 2019 amendment to the UAPA regarding ‘the designation of individuals as “terrorists” in the context of ongoing discrimination directed at religious and other minorities, human rights defenders and political dissidents, against whom the law has been used.’ They also noted that non-violent criticism of state policies or institutions should not be made a criminal offence under counter-terrorism measures in a society governed by the rule of law and abiding by human rights principles and obligations. Arrests of peaceful protesters violate India’s obligations under international law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to respect and protect the rights to liberty, to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, set out in Articles 9, 19 and 21 of that treaty.
On 25 March 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all states to release “every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With at least 200 prison inmates and jail staff testing positive for the COVID-19 across India, including in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, when the authorities misuse draconian laws to detain activists and human rights defenders, including peaceful protesters, they are not only persecuting them, they are unnecessarily putting their lives at grave risk.
In addition, Safoora Zargar’s pregnancy makes her release even more urgent, particularly amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, also known as the Bangkok Rules, recommend that while deciding on pre-trial measures, non-custodial alternatives should be preferred for pregnant women where possible and appropriate.
The Indian authorities need to ensure that, as they apply the Supreme Court of India’s directive to decongest prisons to contain the spread of COVID-19, they immediately and unconditionally release student activists Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Sharjeel Imam who remain in jail simply for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression by opposing the discriminatory law. They should also immediately release the 11 rights activists and journalists jailed in the Bhima Koregaon case.
The fight against the pandemic must be inclusive and not selectively used to dissuade and prevent human rights defenders from exercising their human rights.
Download
India-Release-HRDs-COVID19-Joint-Open-Letter-2020-ENG
May 26, 2020 | News
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern over the National People’s Congress (NPC)’s draft Decision on establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) to safeguard national security (“the Decision“).
The ICJ called upon the NPC to withdraw the Decision and to protect human rights, including freedom of expression and association, in accordance with its international human rights obligations and its longstanding commitment to respect the right to political participation of the people of Hong Kong.
The call comes after the NPC presented a decision at the third annual session of the 13th NPC on 22 May, 2020 which paves the way for legislation that would, “prevent, stop and punish any act occurring in the HKSAR to split the country, subvert state power, organize and carry out terrorist activities and other behaviours that seriously endanger national security as well as activities of foreign and external forces to interfere in the affairs of the HKSAR” and would allow the central government to set up “security organs” in the territory.
The ICJ stressed that while the precise contents of the proposed National Security Law have not been publicized, the language of the Draft Decision is troubling given how categories of “terrorist activities” and “subversion” have been abused in the past.
“There is a well-substantiated fear that the new security law will be used to suppress freedom of expression and curtail the activities of human rights defender in violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong guaranteed under its Basic Law and international human rights standards,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia & the Pacific Director of the ICJ. “We have already witnessed, many times over, how other deeply flawed laws like the Public Order Ordinance, have been abused to criminally charge peaceful protesters.”
It is expected that the NPC’s Decision will be added to Annex III of the Basic Law. Under the Article 18 of the Basic Law, Chinese national legislation only has effect in Hong Kong if it is listed in Annex III of the Basic Law and related to defence, foreign affairs or other matters outside the limits of the HKSAR’s autonomy. Once added to Annex III, the law can be promulgated by the Hong Kong Chief Executive by issuing a legal notice in the Government Gazette.
In 2003, the HKSAR government attempted and failed to enact a similar national security bill, after an estimated half a million people took to the streets to oppose the legislation.
“It is especially alarming that the central government has decided to take such a top-down, and anti-democratic approach to imposing this law by bypassing Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. There are no winners from such an approach, which will provoke a massive public response and a return to the unlawful use of force by the police,” said Rawski.
The ICJ stressed that legislation that seeks to address genuine national security concerns must comply with rights protections in the Basic Law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is applicable to Hong Kong, and other international human rights standards and should be subject to genuine public consultation and debate.
The NPC is expected to vote on the resolution at the end of the annual session, likely on May 28, 2020. The NPC decision will delegate the Standing Committee to draft the actual details of the new legislation for Hong Kong, which would then be included in Annex III of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The new law will be introduced in Hong Kong through either promulgation or local legislation.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Boram Jang, ICJ Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
See also
Joint Statement: Hong Kong arrests of pro-democracy figures condemned by international legal community
China (Hong Kong): Authorities must protect right of peaceful assembly and end legal harassment of activists and journalists
China (Hong Kong): ensure police do not use excessive force against protesters
May 22, 2020 | News
In order to comply substantially with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures Order in the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar, Myanmar should carry out legal reforms and cooperate with international accountability processes, said the ICJ today.
The Gambia has accused Myanmar of violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention in respect of its treatment of Rohingya population, characterized by acts of widespread killing and displacement of the population.
The call comes as Myanmar is scheduled to report on “all measures taken” to give effect to the provisional measures Order (Order) issued by the Court on 23 January 2020.
“Myanmar has not taken ‘all measures within its power’ to prevent acts of genocide until it implements comprehensive legal and constitutional reforms,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists. “Accountability lies at the heart of prevention, and so long as the Tatmadaw remains unaccountable to the civilian authorities the cycle of impunity for criminal atrocities within the country will continue.”
Since the Order, Myanmar has taken a limited number of steps linked to its compliance with the Order, including issuing three Presidential Directives encouraging anti-hate speech activities, and ordering compliance with the Genocide Convention and the preservation of evidence of human rights and related violations in Rakhine.
Myanmar has also asserted that the findings of the Government-commissioned Independent Commission of Inquiry (ICOE), which made selective admissions including that war crimes may have been committed during the 2017 “clearance operations” in Rakhine, have been transmitted to the Attorney General and the Commander-in-Chief of the Tatmadaw and that action would be taken “in conformity with military justice procedures if there is credible evidence of any commission of offence by members of the Tatmadaw.”
However, the Government has yet to amend or repeal key laws that facilitate discrimination against the Rohingya, including the 1982 Citizenship Law, 2015 Race and Religion Protection Laws and 2014 Myanmar National Human Rights Commission Law. On 6 May 2020, the International Commission of Jurists published a report on the killing of a journalist, Ko Par Gyi, in September 2014, which condemned the fundamentally flawed “military justice procedures” used to address allegations of serious human rights violations. The report highlighted the many deficiencies in ensuring to accountability for serious human rights violations in Myanmar under its prevailing legal framework, including:
- that several provisions of national laws facilitate impunity for serious human rights violations by soldiers against civilians, shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions and deny victims and their families of the right to truth about violations;
- investigations into unlawful killings routinely lack the independence, impartiality and effectiveness necessary to establish the truth and to provide accountability and redress; and
- the rights of victims and their families are rarely respected, including the right to access information concerning the violations and accountability processes, and the right to remedies and reparations.
The UN Human Rights Council has established an Independent Investigative Mechanism to look at allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and other atrocities in Myanmar, but the government has failed to extend its cooperation with the mechanism.
“Myanmar’s inability to prevent serious human rights violations under the existing legal framework underscores the need for it to cooperate with international justice processes, including the UN’s Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar – and for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court,” added Zarifi.
Download the statement with detailed background information here.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists, t: +41 79 726 4415; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Related work
Report: Remove barriers to justice for killing of journalist Ko Par Gyi
Statement: Why law reform is urgent and possible
Statement: Implement International Court of Justice provisional measures Order without delay
Briefing Paper: Four immediate reforms to strengthen the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
Briefing Paper: Myanmar’s discriminatory citizenship laws can and must be reformed
