Nov 27, 2019
Tunisian authorities must ensure that the process of developing and adopting a Judicial Code of Ethics and Judicial Conduct in the country is inclusive and transparent, said the ICJ in a briefing paper released today in Tunis.
The Code must also align with international standards and be effectively and independently implemented to secure judicial independence and accountability, the memo Tunisia: Judicial Conduct and the Development of a Code of Ethics in Light of International Standards (available in English and Arabic), adds.
In the paper, the ICJ recommends the adoption of a clear, transparent and inclusive procedure for developing and adopting the Judicial Code, and for its content to conform to the UN-endorsed Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
“Adopting a Code of Ethics and Judicial Conduct is a unique opportunity for Tunisian authorities to bolster judicial independence and restore public confidence in judicial institutions,” said Saïd Benarbia, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the ICJ.
“The authorities should get both the process and the content right, and ensure that such a code provides detailed guidance to judges on what kind of conduct is expected of them,” he added.
The adoption of a Code of Ethics has the potential to remedy the shortcomings of the current legal framework on judicial independence and accountability.
Organic Law No. 67-29 on the Judiciary, the High Judicial Council and the Statute for Judges, even as modified by Organic Law No. 2013-13, does not adequately or sufficiently provide for the guarantees to uphold judicial individual independence, the criteria and procedures for recusal or disqualification, or the need to avoid use of one’s office for private gain.
This is particularly problematic given that the current disciplinary procedures are inconsistent with international standards and best practices for judicial independence and impartiality, including because of the role of the Minister of Justice in initiating such procedures.
Against this background, the ICJ calls on the Tunisian authorities to:
- Ensure that the Judicial Code is established in law as the basis on which judges will be held to account professionally;
- Ensure that the principles of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence are clearly incorporated in the Judicial Code of Ethics in accordance with the Bangalore Principles and other relevant international standards;
- Amend Organic Law No. 67-29 to ensure that judges in Tunisia enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions; instead, in appropriate cases, persons who suffer losses as a result of such improper acts or omissions should be able to make a claim for compensation against the State itself;
- Ensure that the law and the Judicial Code clearly and precisely define the forms of misconduct that may lead to a judge’s discipline;
- Provide, in a manner consistent with independence of the judiciary, for individual judges to be held responsible, through disciplinary or criminal proceedings or both as appropriate, for perpetration of or complicity in violations of human rights, international humanitarian law and for judicial corruption; in this regard clearly prescribe the offences that could give rise to disciplinary liability for such acts or omissions, in line with international law and standards; and
- Ensure, in defining grounds for disciplinary action, that the fundamental rights and freedoms of judges are upheld and respected.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Additional information
ICJ Commissioner Martine Comte led the delegation that met with different Tunisian authorities and justice actors this week in Tunis in order to present ICJ’s memo and discuss its findings and recommendations. The ICJ delegation met with Mr. Youssef Bouzeker, President of the Tunisian High Judicial Council, and other senior officials of the Tunisian Ministry of Justice and of the Tunisia Bar Association.
Tunisia-Code of Ethics-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2016-ENG (full paper, in PDF)
Tunisia-judicial code-news-press release-2019-ARA (full story, Arabic version, in PDF)
Tunisia-Code of Ethics-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2016-ARA (full paper, Arabic version, in PDF)
Nov 20, 2019
Israel must comply with its obligations under international law and reverse its policies and practices aiming at formally annexing parts of the West Bank, the ICJ said in a Briefing Paper released today, analyzing the applicable international law.
The ICJ’s analysis – The Road to Annexation – contradicts the 18 November 2019 statement by the US Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, in which he asserted that the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
“Israel’s settlements are illegal no matter how hard the Israeli and the US governments try to spin or whitewash them,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Director.
“Any sovereignty claims by Israel over East Jerusalem and the West Bank are null and void under international law and must be repudiated, not condoned or encouraged,” he added.
The ICJ’s Briefing Paper explains that such statements by the US administration are void and of no effect under international law, as are the underpinning Israeli settlement laws, policies and practices.
Throughout the 52 years of occupation over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel has implemented long-term, irreversible changes to the occupied territory, including the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements, as well as the construction of the Separation Barrier incorporating considerable parts of the West Bank into Israeli territory.
The ICJ Briefing Paper finds that these activities, combined with Israel’s legislative activity aiming at extending its sovereignty over settlements, are a further, strong evidence of Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank.
Such annexation is prohibited by international law, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity of a State and, consequently, the transmission of sovereign title over territories resulting from such use of force.
The International Court of Justice has affirmed that the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force is a peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation is permitted.
The ICJ also examines the legal implications of the annexation of the West Bank for third States, urging them not to recognize annexation efforts and activities, refrain from providing assistance to them, and act, collectively and individually, to bring such unlawful conduct to an end.
“The international community must not legitimize or aid and abet Israel’s moves to annex parts of the West Bank,” said Said Benarbia.
“Instead of condoning and supporting the acquisition of land by force, the US should urge Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territory, including by dismantling existing settlements and refraining from establishing new ones,” he added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Program, t: +41 22 979 38 17 ; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Download:
Israel-Road to Annexation-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG
Nov 18, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper assessing the reforms proposed in the Judicial Reform Strategy to promote judicial independence.
The briefing paper concludes that any judicial reform will be meaningless if implemented in the context of a judiciary which has been taken control of by the executive.
The lack of institutional independence of the judiciary, and the chilling effect of the mass dismissals of judges in the last years are serious threats to the rule of law. These factors clearly undermine the capacity of the judiciary as a whole to provide an effective remedy for human rights violations, both in regard to measures taken under the state of emergency, and in general.
The new Judicial Reform Strategy should be read against this background. Considering that problems relating to the independence of judiciary in Turkey are structural and that the situation has even further deteriorated due to recent amendments, the ICJ considers that the new Strategy will not be able to achieve its stated objectives unless it is amended or supplemented to address these structural problems.
In their briefing paper, the ICJ and IHOP note the commitment of the Turkish authorities to reform the systems of discipline, transfer, accession, promotion and ethics of judges and prosecutors in line with international standards.
However, these measures are deemed insufficient to restore judicial independence in Turkey without essential further reforms:
- reform of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors,
- reform of the Criminal Peace Judgeships system and
- repeal of Law no. 7145 that still allows for arbitrary dismissals of judges and prosecutors, among other civil servants
- introduction of judicial review for all decisions of the CJP
- introduction of a transparent and fair process of selection and appointment of judges and prosecutors ensuring the independence of the committee and process from the executive.
The briefing paper is a comment on the chapter of the Judicial Reform Strategy on judicial independence and it does not provide a full assessment of the situation of Turkish judiciary for which reference should be had to the ICJ reports Justice Suspended and Justice in Peril.
Download
Turkey-Justice Reform Strat-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-Justice Reform Strat-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
Nov 1, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper on the enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey.
This briefing paper, entitled Restricted at discretion: The enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey during and after the State of Emergency, reports on the law and practice of Turkish authorities relating to governors’ powers to restrict freedom of movement and assembly in the country.
During the state of emergency many restrictions on meetings and demonstrations were based on broad and vague decisions with insufficient reasoning to meet standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, including the banning of LGBTI events.
The ICJ and IHOP concluded that the current Law on Provincial Administration does not provide a sufficient basis of restrictions of these rights as the governors’ powers are not sufficiently well described in law to be foreseeable or to prevent arbitrary, disproportionate or discriminatory application.
Download
Turkey-FoMA brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-FoEA-Advocacy-analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
Jul 9, 2019
The ICJ today published a legal briefing (3 pages in Burmese and 2 pages in English) on Myanmar’s Child Rights Bill, which is under consideration by the Union Parliament.
The stated objectives of the Child Rights Bill are welcomed, particularly the commitment to implement Myanmar’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
However, based on drafts of the Bill that the ICJ has reviewed, the organization is concerned that if passed into law as presently formulated, the Union Parliament would miss a significant opportunity to protect the rights of those children throughout Myanmar who face discrimination based on race or ethnicity, and who experience human rights violations as a result.
Because the Bill does not sufficiently protect the right of a child to acquire citizenship of Myanmar, the Bill fails to meet its stated objectives, and also fails to comply with and implement the State’s international human rights law obligations under the CRC.
The ICJ provides a recommendation for legislators to amend the Bill before it is passed into law, in order to sufficiently protect the rights of a child to acquire citizenship/nationality, and to implement the State’s obligations under the CRC.
Contact:
Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ, sean.bain@icj.org
Myanmar-Child Bill-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (full analysis, English, in PDF)
Myanmar-ChildBill-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-BUR (full analysis, Burmese, in PDF
