Feb 28, 2020 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the judgement of the Canadian Supreme Court in the Case of Araya v, Nevsun, which allows a civil lawsuit by a group of Eritrean plaintiffs to proceed against Canadian company Nevsun Resources Ltd. for its alleged involvement in forced labour, slavery, torture and other serious human rights abuses against plaintiffs.
The ICJ together with Amnesty International-Canada intervened in the case as a third party, arguing that Canada’s common law should be read in a manner consistent with the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations under international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This judgment is a landmark achievement for workers and other victims of human rights violations as well for international rule of law and justice,” said Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal adviser at the ICJ.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has shown that misapplied legal doctrine should not stand in the way of people’s right to effective remedy and reparations,” he added.
In the case, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the company’s contention that the “act of state doctrine” would preclude the case from going forward.
The Court concluded that this doctrine is not in fact part of Canadian law.
The company also contended that the allegations of breach of customary international law could only be applicable to States and not to the company itself.
The Court, however, held that customary international law, including customary human rights law, is part of Canadian law and could apply to Nevsun as a corporate entity.
In a significant victory for the plaintiffs and other similarly situated alleged victims, the Supreme Court has allowed the case to proceed, dismissing jurisdictional and procedural objections from Nevsun.
The proceedings before the Supreme Court originated in an appeal by the defendant company Nevsun Resources Ltd against the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s judgment of 2017 which upheld the rights of claimants to sue in Canada.
The claim filed in 2015 argued that Nevsun Resources was involved in various ways in the practice of forced labour, slavery, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity at the Bisha mine (picture) against hundreds of Eritreans who were conscripted into the Eritrean National Service Programme and forced to working in the mine operated jointly by Nevsun and Eritrean State companies.
The claimants were allegedly forced to work in the Bisha mine and fled the country to find refuge in Canada, where they sued Nevsun.
Feb 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ has intervened with an expert opinion to support the board members of the Turkish Medial Association in the appeal against their conviction for hate speech offences. The conviction raises significant concerns for freedom of expression.
The case before the Appeal Court concerns 11 defendants, all members of the Council of the Turkish Medical Association: Mehmet Raşit Tükel, Taner Gören, Sinan Adıyaman, Mehmet Sezai Berber, Selma Güngör, Bülent Nazım Yılmaz, Funda Barlık Obuz, Dursun Yaşar Ulutaş, Ayfer Horasan, Şeyhmus Gökalp and Hande Arpat.
On 3 May 2019, the defendants were convicted at first instance by the Ankara 32 Assize Court for having issued statements opposing the war during Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch in Syria.
The Assize Court concluded that the members of the Council publicly provoked hatred or hostility in one section of the public against another section which has a different characteristic based on social class, race, religion, sect or regional difference, in a way that creates an explicit and imminent danger to public security. The Court sentenced each defendant to two terms of 10 months’ imprisonment for provoking the public to hatred and hostility in two separate statements.
Hande Arpat was additionally convicted of “disseminating propaganda in support of a terrorist organization” to 18 months and 22 days in prison concerning her three Facebook posts.
The ICJ expert opinion presented before the Court of Appeal examines international law standards relevant to the criminalization and prosecution of crimes of expression.
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-ENG (download the expert opinion in English)
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-TUR (download the expert opinion in Turkish)
Feb 28, 2020 | News
The ICJ expresses concern at the decisions of 26 February of Yesil and Saryarka district courts of Nur-Sultan to disbar two lawyers, Erlan Gazymzhanov and Amanzhol Mukhamediarov, at the request of the Ministry of Justice.
These disbarments are a blow against the ability of lawyers to exercise their profession independently.
The immediate cause for the action was that the lawyers had published clips from a video recording of court proceedings in which the lawyers had acted for the defence, showing the judge behaving in an inappropriate way, on social media. The video clip was published after the proceedings had been concluded.
Following this publication, the judge was disciplined by a specialised judicial body for her behaviour during the court proceedings. At the same time, the judiciary addressed the Ministry of Justice with a request to act against the two lawyers for posting video clips on their social media pages.
The ICJ observed the court proceedings for disbarment of the lawyers in both cases. The court hearings proceeded in an orderly manner. However, the ICJ was concerned that the Press Service of the Supreme Court issued a comment on social media during the hearings that cast doubt on the impartiality of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Presidents of Yesil and Saryarka district courts of Nur-Sultan published identical comments, including the rationale for the decisions of judges that considered the cases. This happened immediately after the court decisions were pronounced to the parties. The oral explanations of decisions by judges presiding in the cases differed from the comments published by the respective presidents of the courts. The proceedings resulted in both lawyers being disbarred.
The ICJ notes with concern that these severe sanctions do not follow from legislation concerning the alleged breaches. The ICJ stresses that the principle of legality requires, among other things, that any measure imposing restrictions on human rights must be applied only as provided for by laws that are expressed clearly and unambiguously. The requirement that a measure be in accordance with law refers not only to the existence of the law but also to the quality of such law, which must be foreseeable, since a norm cannot be regarded as law unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his or her conduct: he or she must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.
Kazakhstan legislation does not contain any prohibition of publishing videos of court hearings online, let alone prescribe disbarment for such action. The only document against which the lawyers acted were the internal rules of the Department for Judicial Administration under the Supreme Court, which do not have the status of law and which neither explicitly nor implicitly suggest disbarment for posting the videos. Neither legislation nor lawyers’ ethical rules contain any penalty for publishing video of court hearings online. Therefore, the ICJ is concerned that the sanction imposed is not adequately prescribed by national law, and as such is unforeseeable and contrary to the principle of legality.
Following the request of the Ministry of Justice to apply a specific sanction against the lawyers –termination of the right to practice law – the courts considered only this sanction. This sanction is imposed for life. Bearing in mind the legal uncertainty as to the nature of the violations and the serious consequences that they entail, this sanction appears to be disproportionate.
Bearing in mind the existence of regular disciplinary proceedings before the National Bar Association that were introduced by the new law on the advokatura in 2018, the ICJ is concerned that these procedures were not utilized in these cases, which were initiated directly before the District Courts. The Ministry of Justice did not address the Bar Association’s disciplinary bodies, which makes a sham of the disciplinary bodies of the legal profession.
“We did not hear any convincing arguments in the proceedings as to why ordinary disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Association, including those related to an alleged breach of lawyers’ ethics, have not been used”, said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“In the circumstances such as these, the role of the Bar Association in assessing the conduct of its member is essential to ensuring independence of the legal profession as required by international law and standards”, Shakirov added.
The ICJ calls on the relevant authorities to restore the licences to practice law of Amanzhol Mukhamediarov and Erlan Gazymzhanov. Furthermore, the role of the Bar Association in various aspects of its independent functioning, including the disciplinary proceedings, especially where lawyers may face a disbarment should be strengthened. To this end, the ICJ calls on the Parliament of Kazakhstan to reconsider the legislative framework and remove the possibility of any executive authority to bypass the Bar Association’s competence to evaluate professional conduct of its members, including any disbarment or other disciplinary proceedings.
Disbarment-of-Mukhamediaov-and-Gazymzhanov-2020-ENG (full PDF document with backgroud information).
Feb 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged renewed international action to ensure justice and accountability for crimes under international law in Sri Lanka.
The statement, delivered during a discussion of updates and reports from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, read as follows:
“The ICJ deeply regrets the Sri Lankan Government’s withdrawal of support for the process under resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. ICJ supports the joint statement read by IMADR.
The Sri Lankan legal system and judicial institutions have for decades demonstrated a chronic inability to address systemic and entrenched impunity for crimes under international law perpetrated by the military and security forces.[1] The new President’s promises to protect the military from accountability, and senior command appointments of individuals credibly accused of crimes under international law, only deepen the concern.
As the High Commissioner notes,[2] the failure to deal comprehensively with impunity and to reform institutions may lead to more human rights violations.
The Tamil population have consistently and rightly rejected any reconciliation process that ignores justice and accountability, and it is obvious that no justice or accountability process that is left to domestic Sri Lankan institutions alone can be credible. The compromise national-international “hybrid” judicial accountability mechanism foreseen by resolution 30/1 already fell far short of what the situation actually warrants.
If the Government seeks now to abandon even that compromise, purely international processes, whether before the ICC or through creation of another international accountability mechanism by the Council, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other States, are the only remaining options for securing the justice required by international law and indispensable to any credible reconciliation process for Sri Lanka.”
[1] International Commission of Jurists, Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, 2012, https://www.icj.org/sri-lanka-new-icj-report-documents-crisis-of-impunity/; Human Rights Council must respond to ongoing failure of Sri Lankan justice system to ensure accountability for human rights violations, 2014, https://www.icj.org/human-rights-council-must-respond-to-ongoing-failure-of-sri-lankan-justice-system-to-ensure-accountability-for-human-rights-violations/; Sri Lanka: the need for an international inquiry, 2014, https://www.icj.org/sri-lanka-the-need-for-an-international-inquiry/; Sri Lanka: Joint Open Letter to the Ambassadors of UN Human Rights Council Member States, 2015, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SriLanka-JointOpenLetter-Accountability-Advocacy-2015.pdf; Sri Lanka’s victims demand and deserve credible justice, 2016, https://www.icj.org/sri-lankas-victims-demand-and-deserve-credible-justice/.
[2] UN Doc A/HRC/43/19, para 36.
Feb 28, 2020 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) urge the Turkish Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) to stop their investigation into the three judges of the Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court who, on 18 February 2020, acquitted the defendants in the Gezi Park trial due to a lack of evidence.
According to a statement from 30 Turkish bar associations, the sole reason for the investigation was the acquittal in the Gezi Park trial. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the body of self-governance of the judiciary, has the power to launch and take disciplinary action against judges, including disciplinary proceedings leading to removal from office.
“The launch of such an investigation is a further sign of the grave decline of the rule of law in Turkey”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme “The disciplinary proceedings against these judges appear to be a direct interference in their decision-making power and will have a chilling effect on the independence of all members of the judiciary.”
“The role of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors should be to protect the independence of the judiciary – not to be an instrument of control and pressure against individual judges” said Massimo Frigo.
IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented: “The IBAHRI and the ICJ jointly welcomed the acquittal of Osman Kavala and the other 15 defendants. Now, we condemn the re-arrest of Mr Kavala, continue to stand with the defendants, and call for Mr Kavala’s immediate release. We implore the Turkish Council of Judges and Prosecutors to reconsider the hugely damaging impact their inspection of the judges will have on the principles of judicial independence and the rights of lawyers, and to cease all action in this respect.”
The launch of this investigation occurred immediately after the acquittals in the Gezi trial, spurred by the vehement public protests by President Erdogan against the verdict.
30 Turkish Bar Associations have issued a statement calling for the resignation of the members of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors and considered this investigation as a violation of the principle of judicial independence under the Turkish Constitution.
Background
The defendants in the Gezi trial – with the exception of those not present in Turkey who will be tried separately – were acquitted on 18 February for lack of evidence. The ICJ and IBAHRI welcomed the acquittal after having observed all hearings of the trial. The very evening of the verdict, one of the defendants, Osman Kavala, was re-arrested on suspicion of “attempting to disrupt the constitutional order” connected to the failed coup attempt of 2016.
Osman Kavala has been in detention since 18 October 2017 pending trial on charges connected to the Gezi Park protests. The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon grew into nationwide demonstrations. Police quelled the protest in Taksim Square with the use of tear gas and water cannons.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org – t: +41229793805
