Jun 8, 2020
Tunisian authorities must protect the rights of the judiciary, the accused and other proceeding participants as judicial proceedings resume following COVID-19 lockdown, says the ICJ and Association des Magistrats Tunisiens in a briefing paper published today.
From 17 March 2020, the Tunisian President and executive authorities instituted exceptional measures to prevent and contain the spread of COVID-19, which included the suspension of judicial proceedings except for urgent matters, as well as work on all categories of cases by the prosecution, investigating judges and indictment chambers.
Subject to the Prime Minister’s national strategy, adopted on 2 May 2020, and a subsequent decision by the Minister of Justice, judicial proceedings are set to resume in full on 15 June 2020.
Prior to the adoption of a national strategy, the Prime Minister amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by Decree No. 2020-12 to permit remote hearings generally where the accused consents and, in situations of imminent danger or to prevent the contagion of a transmittable disease, irrespective of whether they consent.
Such developments raise concerns with respect to the modalities of proceedings and protection of all participants’ rights under international human rights law.
As Tunisia gradually lifts COVID-19 containment measures and judicial proceedings resume, Tunisian authorities must ensure that sufficient guarantees are put in place to protect the accused’s rights to liberty and a fair trial, victims’ right to an effective remedy and the judiciary and other proceeding participants’ rights to life, health and a safe and healthy working environment.
The briefing paper addresses these issues, submitting that:
- Tunisian authorities must adopt protective measures to ensure the rights to life, health and a safe and healthy working environment for all proceeding participants;
- Tunisian authorities should ensure remote hearings only occur where compliant with international law and standards governing criminal trials;
- Courts should remain available for urgent matters pending the adoption of protective measures; and
- Adjustments to the modalities of conducting trials should ensure the rights of the accused and victims are respected in Specialized Criminal Chambers’ proceedings.
Contact:
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t+31624894664 ; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org;
Anas Hmedi, President, Association des Magistrats Tunisiens: t +21698242625 ; e: anashmedi(a)gmail.com
Tunisia- judicial proceedings pandemic-Advocacy-briefing paper-2020-ENG (full briefing paper in PDF)
Tunisia- judicial proceedings pandemic-Advocacy-briefing paper-2020-ARA (full briefing paper, Arabic version, in PDF)
Jun 5, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the proclamation by the Sri Lankan president to establish a Presidential Task Force dominated by the security forces and called for the proclamation to be rescinded.
On June 2, 2020, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa issued an extraordinary gazette establishing a 13-member “Presidential Task Force to build a Secure Country, Disciplined, Virtuous and Lawful Society.” The Task Force is composed entirely of military, intelligence and police officials. It is to be headed by Defence Secretary, Retired Major General Kamal Gunaratne.
“This Presidential Task Force constitutes another act of over-reach by a government seeking to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to further expand its powers,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Its mandate is overbroad, and it empowers its military and police membership – including alleged war criminals – at a time when strong, independent, civilian-led policy-making is what is needed.”
The Task Force is given a sweeping mandate which includes:
- “taking necessary immediate steps to curb the illegal activities of social groups which are violating the law”
- “taking measures for prevention of the drug menace…”
- “taking legal action against persons responsible for illegal and antisocial activities conducted in Sri Lanka while locating in other countries”
- “investigating and preventing any illegal and antisocial activities in and around prisons.”
The task force also has the power to “conduct investigations and to issue directions as may be necessary in connection with the functions entrusted to it.” This includes issuing instructions to government officials to comply with its directives or be reported to the President.
The ICJ raised concerns that the task force has not been established on proper legal foundations. It is apparently pursuant to the broad, but ill-defined presidential powers under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The ICJ said that the task force could effectively usurp the powers and functions normally reserved for civilian authorities, under rule of law principles and as established by the Constitution and relevant enabling legislations.
Article 42 (1) of the Constitution provides that the “Cabinet of Ministers shall be charged with the direction and control of the Government.” Law enforcement and public officials under the direction of the relevant Minister have been designated under existing laws to specifically address drug-related offences and any other illegal and/ or criminal activity that seemingly fall within the mandate of this Task Force. The independence of public officials will be compromised if they are compelled to report to a military-dominated body. The Gazette provides no detail on how this reporting process would operate, or the legal consequences of refusing to act as instructed.
“Few doubt that this task force will be used as another tool to suppress speech and target critics of the Sri Lankan government. It is disturbing that such a potentially consequential body has been formed pursuant to broad presidential powers, with no reference to judicial or parliamentary oversight,” said Rawski. “Vague and overbroad language such as ‘anti-social activities’ could effectively criminalize expression protected under international law. Such provisions are inconsistent with the rule of law and contravene the principle of legality.”
The task force’s military and police membership follows a pattern of recent military appointments to civil administrative positions by the incumbent President. The military personnel appointed include officials credibly accused of war crimes. Chairman Major General Kamal Gunaratne was the commander of the 53rd division and Major General Shavendra Silva was the commander of the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan Army. Both units were identified by multiple UN investigatory bodies as having been involved in the commission of serious crimes and human rights violations during the last stages of Sri Lanka’s decades-long armed conflict which ended in 2009.
The ICJ called upon President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to rescind the extraordinary gazette establishing the Presidential Task Force. The role of the military in public life must be strictly circumscribed and matters pertaining to civil administrcation should be executed by elected and public officials in respect of the rule of law and principles of democratic governance.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today urged the country’s authorities to take immediate measures to fully reconstitute the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) after its operations were effectively suspended following the expiry of the terms of office of four of its Commissioners on 7 May 2020.
One Commissioner had already resigned in 2018 meaning that the ZHRC no longer has the constitutionally required quorum for it to make certain decisions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe.
“The inability by the ZHRC to fully execute its constitutional mandate has serious implications on the ability of individuals -in particular victims of human rights violations -to access justice,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Programme.
“The role of ZHRC, as Zimbabwe’s national human rights institution is critical in providing an avenue for redress to victims of human rights violations and the general public,” he added.
Zimbabwe has been witnessing an escalation of human rights violations requiring investigation by a fully functioning and effective Commission.
This spate of human rights violations has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and economically vulnerable in the context of the Covid-19 lockdown measures.
There have been an increase in targeting of human rights defenders, civil society leaders and political opposition, which have included acts of enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment.
The ICJ underlined that while redress for such violations required strong and independent judiciary as a guarantor of human rights, the role of fully functional ZHRC was critical to complement that of the judiciary.
The ICJ called upon the authorities in Zimbabwe, and in particular the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, to act expeditiously to ensure that the vacant positions are filled without any further delay to enable the ZHRC effectively perform and discharge its constitutional mandate.
The ICJ said that failure by the responsible authorities to act expeditiously to fill the vacant positions violated the core values and principles the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in particular section 324 of the Constitution which provides that “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay”.
In addition, the President to fill in any vacant position within three months of death or resignation of a Commissioner. The position of Commissioner Khombe became vacant on the 30 October 2018, and has not been filled to date.
Additional Information
The ZHRC is established as an independent institution under Chapter 12 of the Zimbabwe constitution with the general objective to “support and entrench human rights and democracy; to promote constitutionalism; to promote transparency and accountability in public institutions; to secure the observance of democratic values and principles by the State and all institutions and agencies of government, and government-controlled entities; and to ensure that injustices are remedied.”
On 26 May the Chairperson of the ZHRC, Dr. E.H Mugwadi, wrote a letter notifying “partners and stakeholders” of the retirement of four Commissioners, namely Dr Ellen Sithole (former Deputy Chairperson), Dr Joseph Kurebwa, Kwanele M. Jirira and Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube with effect from 7 May. The Chairperson noted that the retirement had left the Commission lacking the quorum to fulfil its constitutional obligations, particularly with respect to make policy resolutions and the adoption of monitoring and investigation reports. The Commission had also been unable to adopt Commission reports its activities.
International standards for effective and credible National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are contained in the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles), which provide that NHRIs must be adequately resourced with sufficient institutional capacity to perform and discharge their responsibilities.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +263 777 283 249; e-mail: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Blessing Gorejena, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +263 772 151 989, e-mail: Blessing.Gorejena(a)icj.org
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today raised concern at the threat of criminal proceedings against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions. The ICJ called on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court not to lift his immunity at its 9th June hearing.
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 should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with for his actions in delivering his ruling in public, which is in accordance with national law”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “His immunity must be maintained and the ‘Muzzle Act’ that allowed for these abusive prosecutions should be immediately scrapped.”
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 gave competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“As highlighted by the recent ruling of the EU Court of Justice, 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 issues pertaining to the disciplinary or criminal responsibility of judges, including a waiver of their immunity,” Massimo Frigo added.
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 will be examined on the 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government.
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 22 979 38 00
Jun 3, 2020 | Новости, Статьи
МКЮ призывает российские власти возбудить безотлагательное, независимое и тщательное расследование в связи с применением физической силы в отношении адвокатов Натальи Маговой, Дианы Ципиновой и Людмилы Кочесоковой, а также задержанием Дианы Ципиновой сотрудниками Министерства внутренних дел по Кабардино-Балкарии 21 мая 2020 года. Ответственные лица должны быть привлечены к ответственности, подчеркнула МКЮ.
По словам адвокатов, которые подтверждаются видеозаписями, размещенными в Интернете, они прибыли в ОМВД по Кабардино-Балкарии, чтобы представлять своего клиента, Ратмира Жилокова, еще одного адвоката, который был задержан 20 мая 2020 года, также в результате предполагаемого насилия со стороны полиции. Несмотря на просьбы адвокатов о предоставлении доступа к подзащитному, им не разрешили с ним встретиться. Вместо этого они были удалены из здания ОМВД с применением физической силы рядом сотрудников, что привело к драке. Кроме того, Диана Ципинова была задержана на несколько часов в здании ОМВД. Позже и она, и Ратмир Жилоков были освобождены.
«Применение физической силы в отношении адвокатов с целью воспрепятствовать их свиданию с подзащитным явно противоречит международному праву и стандартам в области прав человека, в том числе касающимся роли юристов», – отметил сегодня Тимур Шакиров, старший юридический советник Региональной программы МКЮ по Европе и Центральной Азии.
МКЮ также выражает обеспокоенность по поводу уголовного преследования адвоката Дианы Ципиновой (после инцидента 21 мая 2020 года) и Ратмира Жилокова, который был задержан 20 мая 2020 года, очевидно, в связи с попыткой защитить офис своего клиента от действий властей, которые он расценивал как незаконный обыск. Оба адвоката обвиняются в применении насилия в отношении сотрудников полиции.
Как сообщается, уголовное дело в отношении Дианы Ципиновой и Ратмира Жилокова было возбуждено после того, как они пожаловались на применение физической силы со стороны сотрудников МВД по Кабардино-Балкарской Республике.
МКЮ подчеркивает, что в соответствии с Принципами ООН, касающимися роли юристов, государства должны обеспечивать, чтобы юристы могли выполнять все свои профессиональные обязанности без запугивания, препятствий, преследования и неоправданного вмешательства, а также чтобы они не подвергались судебному преследованию за любые действия, совершенные в соответствии с признанными профессиональными обязанностями, нормами и этикой, а также угрозам такого преследования. Международное право в области прав человека также гарантирует право лица, лишенного свободы, встречаться со своим адвокатом.
Властям следует принять эффективные меры для предотвращения подобных действий в отношении адвокатов в будущем, а также для обеспечения того, чтобы адвокатам не препятствовали в представлении интересов своих клиентов в соответствии с законом, заявила МКЮ.
Кроме того, МКЮ призывает соответствующие власти прекратить уголовное расследование в отношении адвокатов в связи с попытками получить свидание со своими клиентами и защитить их интересы, а также в связи с любыми другими действиями, совершенными в рамках представительства доверителей, которые соответствовали их профессиональным обязанностям, нормам и этике.
Справочная информация:
По сведениям, размещенным на официальном сайте Следственного управления Следственного комитета РФ по Кабардино-Балкарии, в отношении Дианы Ципиновой и Ратмира Жилокова возбуждены уголовные дела по статье 318.1 (применение насилия, не опасного для жизни и здоровья представителя власти в связи с исполнением им своих должностных обязанностей) Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации. В частности, Диана Ципинова обвиняется в применении насилия в отношении сотрудников ОМВД по Кабардино-Балкарской Республике 21 мая 2020 года, когда она запросила доступ к своему подзащитному. Ратмир Жилоков обвиняется в применении насилия в отношении сотрудников полиции, прибывших в офис его доверительницы для проведения обыска 20 мая 2020 года.
30 мая 2020 года суд первой инстанции избрал в отношении Дианы Ципиновой меру пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий сроком на два месяца.
Адвокат Ратмир Жилоков, который был задержан 20 мая и освобожден 21 мая 2020 года, утверждает, что сотрудники, которые прибыли в офис его доверительницы для производства обыска, не предоставили ему никаких правовых оснований или документа на производство обыска и что он подвергся насилию, когда оспаривал незаконность их действий. Суд первой инстанции избрал в его отношении меру пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий сроком на два месяца.
Федеральная палата адвокатов Российской Федерации выступила в поддержку адвокатов, подвергла критике вмешательство в их профессиональную деятельность и активно участвовала в защите адвокатов.
Ранее МКЮ уже выражала обеспокоенность в связи с насилием и запугиванием в отношении российских адвокатов.
