ICJ’s and AI’s intervention in the case Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania

ICJ’s and AI’s intervention in the case Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania

GuantanamoThe ICJ and Amnesty International presented a third party intervention in the case Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania before the European Court of Human Rights.

In the third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments on the knowledge imputable to Contracting Parties at relevant times; on the obligations attached to principle of non-refoulement; on the duty to investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and other procedural obligations; and on the human rights violations that detainees previously held in the USA’s secret detention and rendition programmes are currently enduring.

Abu_Zubaydah_v_Lithuania-ICJAIJointSubmission-ECtHR-final (download the third party intervention)

 

ICJ’s and AI’s intervention in the case Al Nashiri v Romania

ICJ’s and AI’s intervention in the case Al Nashiri v Romania

ECtHRThe ICJ and Amnesty International presented a third party intervention in the case Al Nashiri v Romania before the European Court of Human Rights.

In the third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments on the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty as a rule of customary international law; on the knowledge imputable to Contracting Parties at relevant times; on the duty to investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and the right to truth; and on the evidential approach to enforced disappearances.

AlNashiri_v_Romania-ICJAIJointSubmission-ECtHR-final (download the third party intervention

ICJ and AI submit further observations in the case Al Nashiri v Poland

ICJ and AI submit further observations in the case Al Nashiri v Poland

ECtHRThe ICJ and Amnesty International presented additional observations in the case Al Nashiri v Poland before the European Court of Human Rights.

In their supplementary third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments in light of the case El-Masri v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on enforced disappearances, on diplomatic representations in light of the Grand Chamber’s findings on responsibility for violations outside the jurisdiction, on the gross human rights violations that detainees previously held in the USA’s secret detention and rendition programme are currently enduring, and on relevance of the Grand Chamber’s observations in El-Masri in relation to any potential resort to ex parte materials and procedures.

Poland-ICJAI-SupplAmicusBrief-AlNashiri v Poland-legal submission-2013 (download the third party intervention)

ICJ and others welcome European Court judgment on same-sex second-parent adoption

ICJ and others welcome European Court judgment on same-sex second-parent adoption

The European Court of Human Rights today ruled that an Austrian ban on same-sex second-parent adoption is discriminatory.

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of X and Others v. Austria and ruled that Austria’s Civil Code discriminates against a partner in a same-sex relationship by making it legally impossible to adopt the biological child of the other partner while permitting second parent adoptions for unmarried heterosexual couples.

The organisations that provided written submissions in this case (FIDH, ICJ, ILGA-Europe, BAAF, NELFA, and ECSOL) welcome this judgment and consider it a landmark judgment applying the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on equal treatment of unmarried couples to same-sex couples applying for second-parent adoption.

Children in same-sex families are highly vulnerable due to a lack of legal recognition and their inability to establish legal links to both of their parents.

Currently, second-parent adoption is possible in 11 European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Great Britain. New legislation that would allow it is planned in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland.  Moreover, as a result of the Court’s judgment, it would follow that the legislation of Austria, Andorra, parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Romania should be amended to allow same-sex couples to apply for second-parent adoption, because these countries already permit unmarried heterosexual couples to do so.

Martin K.I. Christensen, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board:

“This is a very significant and important victory for rainbow families in Europe. We hope that this judgment will pave the way towards the removal of the remaining legal barriers for these families in Europe. The lack of recognition and the inability for partners in same-sex families to establish legal links to their children is not only discriminatory and creates a number of legal uncertainties, but also has a profound and detrimental impact on the everyday lives of these families and the wellbeing of the children in those families. The principle of the best interests of the child needs to be upheld without exception.”

Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists, stated:
“With today’s decision, the Court clearly asserts that families are families, regardless of the sex of the parents, and that barriers to legal recognition and protection based on sexual orientation serve the interests of neither parents nor children.”

Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH, said:
The Court recognised the right of a partner in same-sex couple to adopt another partner’s biological child when such adoptions are available for heterosexual couples. This is an important step forward towards the application of the principle of non-discrimination based on the sexual orientation and strengthening legal security and certainty for children. This ruling should guide not only domestic courts, but also the legislator in European states that have not yet amended their legislation in that direction”.

Juha Jämsä, the Vice-President of NELFA, said:
“This is an important day for European LGBT families. We feel very hopeful that this case will lead to our children’s rights gaining better recognition throughout Europe. No group of children should be discriminated against because of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”

Historic ruling on Europe’s role in CIA renditions say ICJ and Amnesty

Historic ruling on Europe’s role in CIA renditions say ICJ and Amnesty

Today’s ruling on the CIA’s detention and rendition of Khaled El-Masri is a historic moment because for the first time it holds a European state accountable for its involvement in the secret US-led programmes.

It is also a milestone in the fight against impunity, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said.

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Macedonia) was responsible for the German national Khaled El-Masri’s unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment, and for his transfer out of Macedonia to locations where he suffered further serious violations of his human rights.

Further, that Macedonia did not satisfy its obligation to carry out an effective investigation.

“This judgment confirms the role Macedonia played in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) rendition and secret detention programmes, and is an important step towards accountability for European complicity in rendition and torture,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights.

“Macedonia is not alone. Many other European governments colluded with the USA to abduct, transfer, ‘disappear’ and torture people in the course of rendition operations. This judgment represents progress, but much more needs to be done to ensure accountability across Europe.”

“This ruling is historic. It recognises that the CIA rendition and secret detention system involved torture and enforced disappearances. It emphasises that both the victims and the public have the right to know the truth about these serious violations. It affirms without doubt that Europe cannot be an area of impunity but it must be a place of redress and accountability where international human rights law obligations are not bypassed but fulfilled,” said Wilder Tayler, Secretary General of the ICJ.

“Other European governments – such as Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, against which cases are also pending with the Court – should note today’s European Court judgment and take measures to ensure that the truth is told, thorough, effective, independent and impartial investigations are carried out and those responsible are held accountable.”

The Court’s ruling also serves to highlight the absence of accountability and remedy in the USA, noting that the claim filed against the CIA by Khaled El-Masri was dismissed by the US courts after the US administration invoked the “state secrets privilege”.

On 31 December 2003, the Macedonian authorities arrested El-Masri, who is of Lebanese descent, after he entered Macedonia from Serbia.

They held him incommunicado, subjecting him to enforced disappearance, repeated interrogations and to ill-treatment, until 23 January 2004 when they handed him over to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents.

As part of the covert, US-led rendition and secret detention programme, the CIA transferred El-Masri to a secret detention facility in Afghanistan.

There he was held unlawfully in secret, not charged with any crime and his detention was not subject to judicial review. He did not have access to a lawyer. His whereabouts were not acknowledged and he was held incommunicado.

As a result he was subjected to enforced disappearance for over four months. While in Afghanistan, he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.

On 28 May 2004, El-Masri was put on a plane and flown to Albania where he was released.

Contact:

Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t +41 22 979 38 30; e-mail: roisin.pillay(at)icj.org

For the ICJ/AI third party intervention, click here

Europe-Joint public statement El Masri-2012

Translate »