Oct 25, 2018
In a memorandum published today, the ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to introduce comprehensive reforms to enhance the independence and impartiality of the administrative courts system, in particular by divesting the executive of any role in the selection, appointment and disciplining of administrative judges.
“The Lebanese authorities must set out transparent procedures for the selection and appointment of administrative judges, including in senior judicial positions,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“While such appointments should in principle seek to reflect the diversity of the Lebanese society as a whole, including its various religious groups, they must be based on objective criteria, including legal qualifications, skills, experience and integrity,” he added.
The power to take decisions relating to the management of judges’ careers, including promotions, transfers, and disciplinary proceedings, should be exclusively reserved to the State Council Bureau once the framework governing its composition and mandate is reformed.
The Lebanese authorities should ensure that the State Council Bureau is independent and consists of a majority of judges who are elected by their peers from the State Council and, once they are established, from first instance administrative courts.
The membership of the State Council Bureau should also reflect a gender balance.
The Lebanese authorities should also amend the Statute of the State Council with a view to enhancing the individual independence of administrative judges.
“The conditions for the transfer, assignment or secondment of administrative judges should be clearly defined in the law and the entire process must not compromise judges’ individual independence, including through the use of secondment as a reward for judges,” Benarbia said.
The ICJ is also concerned that the disciplinary system does not fully conform to international standards and has the potential to compromise judges’ individual independence.
The Lebanese authorities must rescind the powers of the Ministry of Justice in relation to the disciplinary procedure, including the authority to initiate disciplinary investigations and to refer matters to the Disciplinary Council.
“Disciplinary offences must be clearly and precisely defined within the law and related procedures must guarantee judges’ rights to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial body, including the right to have decisions and sanctions reviewed by a higher judicial body,” Benarbia added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Lebanon-Memo re Court Reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
Lebanon-Memo Courts System launch-New-2018-ARA (Story in Arabic, PDF)
Lebanon-Memo Court Reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2018-ARA (Memo in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 13, 2018
The ICJ today issued a briefing note following the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh.
Fact-Finding Mission identifies crimes, calls for ICC referral and IIIM
On 27 August 2018, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) released a report finding that members of Myanmar’s military should be investigated and prosecuted for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, and for genocide in the north of Rakhine State.
The FFM identified that many of the same kinds of crimes committed against the Rohingya in Rakhine State, were also being committed by the same or linked military authorities against other minorities in Kachin and Shan states.
While the FFM focused on the situations in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States since 2011, it noted “serious allegations have also arisen in other contexts, meriting further investigation.”
The FFM concluded by recommending among other things that:
- the UN Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or create an ad hoc international criminal tribunal; an
- until the Security Council acts, the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council should create an independent evidence gathering mechanism, similar to the IIIM for Syria.
ICC ruling on jurisdiction re: Bangladesh
On 6 September 2018, an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that the Court could exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation (as a crime against humanity) of the Rohingyas from Myanmar into Bangladesh, since one element of the crime (crossing a border) took place in Bangladesh, which is a State party to the Rome Statute.
The Chamber noted that the same rationale could apply to other crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court “if it were established that at least an element of another crime … or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a State Party,” citing persecution and other inhumane acts as possible examples in this case. The crime of genocide was not directly addressed.
The ruling did not address other crimes allegedly committed against the Rohingya, or crimes against other minorities elsewhere within Myanmar, including in Shan and Kachin States.
The proceeding is still at an early, pre-investigation, phase. If at the conclusion of a preliminary examination the Prosecutor assesses that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, she must first seek authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber.
The preliminary examination phase has been known to take from less than a week (Libya) to more than 14 years (Colombia).
Need for an IIIM or similar independent evidence gathering mechanism
An independent evidence gathering mechanism, with functions similar to those of the IIIM for Syria, should be created by the Human Rights Council as a matter of urgency.
- The passage of time increases the chances that critical evidence will deteriorate or be lost entirely, reducing the possibility of effective prosecution.
- An IIIM mechanism would ensure that evidence is collected, preserved and analyzed to a standard and methodology facilitating its use in national, regional or international courts.
- The delay and uncertainty associated with referring the question of creation of a mechanism to the General Assembly mean the Council should establish the mechanism at this session.
The ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh does not reduce the need for an IIIM:
- The limited scope of the ruling relating to Bangladesh creates a high risk that the existing ICC proceeding will not cover all crimes under international law against the Rohingya, or other crimes against other minorities elsewhere in Myanmar, including Kachin and Shan states.
- At best, the ICC will only be able to prosecute a fraction of the crimes identified by the FFM, and an even smaller fraction of the perpetrators, leaving an impunity gap. An IIIM will preserve evidence to enable that gap to be filled now, or later, by national courts or other tribunals.
- The work of an independent evidence gathering mechanism would be complementary to and cooperate with any ICC investigation and prosecution (or that of an ad hoc tribunal).
Referral of Myanmar to the ICC
States should continue to call for Security Council referral to the ICC despite the jurisdictional ruling relating to Bangladesh.
- With a Chapter VII referral, the ICC would assume jurisdiction over all crimes listed in the Rome Statute that may have been committed after the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 either in the territory of Myanmar or elsewhere by a Myanmar national.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser (Global Accountability), kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Sep 7, 2018
On 30 May 2018 the Government of Myanmar announced its latest “International Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) to investigate human rights violations in Rakhine State.
Its creation follows at least eight other special government inquiries and boards conducted since 2012 in Rakhine State alone.
In a five-page legal briefing, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) assesses the inquiry in reference to standards on the conduct of investigations.
The ICJ finds that the ICOE cannot reasonably be seen as having any chance of being independent, impartial, or making an effective contribution to justice or accountability for the crimes under international law. To the contrary, giving any recognition to it is likely to undermine and delay effective international measures for justice and accountability.
On 28 August the spokesperson for the Office of the President stated that:
“We have formed the Independent Commission of Enquiry to response [sic] to false allegations made by the UN Agencies and other international communities.”
Indeed, the Chairperson of the ICOE stated at a press conference, that:
“[T]here will be no blaming of anybody, no finger-pointing of anybody… saying you’re accountable.”
Such prejudicial statements confirm the conclusion of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission (IIFFM), that:
“The Government’s recently-created Commission of Inquiry will not and cannot provide a real avenue for accountability, even with some international involvement. The impetus for accountability must come from the international community.”
Crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed in Myanmar, and an investigation of evidence of the crime of genocide is warranted, according to the summary report of the UN IIFFM, published on 27 August 2018.
Throughout Myanmar the rule of law is severely undermined by a lack of accountability for perpetrators of rights violations; lack of access to remedies and reparation for victims; and persistent challenges to the independence of the justice system.
In current circumstances it is impossible to rely on any national courts, prosecution services, or commissions of inquiry in Myanmar to deliver justice or accountability of security forces in relation to human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The UN Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court or a similarly constituted international tribunal without delay.
The UN Human Rights Council should promptly establish a robust International Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) or similar mechanism, to collect and analyse evidence for future prosecutions; action should be taken by the Council at its September 2018 session – waiting for or deferring to the UN General Assembly to act would risk further delaying or denying justice for victims, including because key criminal evidence could be irretrievably lost, destroyed, or deteriorate in the meantime.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, Asia and the Pacific Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Legal briefing
Myanmar-COI cannot deliver justice or accountability-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Myanmar-COI cannot deliver justice or accountability-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-BUR (full text in Burmese, PDF)
Aug 27, 2018
Today, the ICJ issued a Questions & Answers legal briefing note setting out what is required to prove genocide and, in particular, the element of “genocidal intent”.
This came as the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) called for investigations into crimes under international law including genocide.
Genocide is a particularly heinous crime whose genesis as a crime under international law resides in the extermination policies of the Nazi regime during World War Two.
Under customary international law and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948 (“Genocide Convention”), all states have a duty to prevent and punish genocide.
UN agencies and independent experts have reported credible and consistent information that serious crimes have been committed under domestic and international law against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, including the crimes against humanity of deportation, rape and murder.
A number of experts and authorities have also suggested that genocide may have been committed and have called for investigations in that respect.
Today, the FFM called for investigations into genocide in the north of Rakhine State, as well as for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States.
This announcement followed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein’s statement in December 2017 that “elements of genocide may be present.”
And in March 2018, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, and UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, raised the possibility that Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingyas may amount to genocide.
Rohingyas constitute the vast majority of the more than 700,000 persons displaced as a result of security operations commanded by Myanmar’s military in northern Rakhine State, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on 25 August 2017.
Genocide is a complex crime that in many instances may be difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt in a trial setting.
One area that has proved particularly challenging is the requirement to prove “special intent” or “genocidal intent” which is a critical constitutive and distinctive element of the crime of genocide.
The legal briefing note should assist those who are examining whether genocide has been committed against the Rohingya population and, if so, whether anyone can be held individually criminally responsible.
The Q & A answers the following questions:
1. What is the definition of genocide?
2. What does “genocidal intent” mean legally?
3. What are the similarities and differences between the international crimes of persecution and genocide?
4. How have different jurisdictions approached genocidal intent factually?
5. How relevant is any establishment of the intent element of the underlying crimes against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer to the genocidal intent?
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +66 (0)94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Download
Universal-Genocide Q & A FINAL-Advocacy-analysis brief-2018-ENG (Q & A in pdf)
Summarized Report (in English)
ICJ Genocide Q&A Summary Final Mar 2019 BURMESE(Q & A, summarized version, in pdf in Burmese)
Aug 22, 2018
The ICJ is participating in trial observation mission by leading jurists in hearings on the Zimbabwe Presidential election petition that started at the Constitutional Court in Harare today expected to continue over three days.
Nelson Chamisa of the Movement for Democratic Change Alliance (MDC A), the leading opposition candidate, filed the petition alleging serious irregularities in the way the presidential elections were conducted particularly by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC).
Among other things, he is calling for the elections to be annulled or alternatively for him to be declared the winner.
Both the ZEC and the announced winner incumbent president Emmerson Mnangagwa have filed papers opposing the petition.
The ICJ is conducting a joint trial observation with the Africa Judges’ and Jurists’ Forum in the trial observation mission.
The Mission team is composed of Retired Chief Justice Ernest Sakala (photo) who is a Zambian lawyer and retired Chief Justice of Zambia, Justice Isaac Lenaola a Kenyan lawyer and serving Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya, since 28 October 2016, Martin Okumu Masiga a Ugandan lawyer and founder member and incumbent Secretary General of the Africa Judges’ and Jurists’ Forum and Simphiwe Sidu a lawyer in the ICJ’s Africa Programme.
The observation mission will include an assessment of the proceedings of the petition in terms of compliance with regional and international human rights law and standards on fair trial and the administration of justice applicable to Zimbabwe.
A statement will be produced at the end of the observation with views that will be made available to the authorities in Zimbabwe and the general public.
Download
A “Question and Answer” briefing paper on the election petition in Zimbabwe is available here for more information:
Zimbabwe-Q and A elections-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2018-ENG (download in PDF)
Contact
Brian Penduka, e: brian.penduka(a)icj.org or t: +263772274307
Arnold Tsunga, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org or t: +27716405926
