Oct 31, 2017
The ICJ presented a submission on the systems of extradition, expulsion and abductions of the Russian Federation to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The submission was presented for the consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation by the Russian Federation of a series of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the group of cases Garabayev v. Russia and others.
In particular, the ICJ presented its recent findings in the report Transnational Injustices – National Security Transfers and International Law that provides the most recent assessment of the systems of extradition, expulsion and abduction/rendition of the Russian Federation and States in Central Asia compared with the laws and practices in this field of EU Member States and the US rendition system.
The ICJ submission refers to the lack of compliance by the Russian Federation with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the respect of the principle of non-refoulement (articles 3 ECHR), the lack of effective remedy against violations of this principle (article 3 and 13 ECHR), as well as the lack of compliance with the Court’s interim measures (article 34 ECHR).
Russian Federation-Garabaev-Transfer-Shortcomings-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2017-ENG (Download the submission)
Aug 31, 2017
Today, the ICJ intervened in the case Anatoliy Oleksiyovych Denisov v Ukraine, Application no. 76639/11.
In its submission, the ICJ provided the Court with an analysis in relation to:
(a) The role of court presidents in the self-governance of the courts and in maintaining judicial independence;
(b) International standards in relation to security of tenure of judges and court presidents;
(c) The importance of procedural safeguards, including under Article 6.1 ECHR, in decisions affecting the career and tenure of court presidents; and
(d) In light of international standards and principles, the extent to which a disciplinary measure such as removal from the position of president of a court may interfere with the right to respect for private life as protected by Article 8 ECHR.
The ICJ argued that court presidents, in many European jurisdictions, play an important role in the self-governance and impartiality of the judiciary.
Upholding the independence of the judiciary requires, inter alia, that court presidents should, in the discharge of these functions, enjoy independence from the executive, as well as from other powerful interests.
The intervener will argue that the nature of court presidents’ role has consequences for the application of Convention rights to measures affecting their judicial career, including removal from the role of court president, even in cases where they retain judicial office.
Ukraine-Denisov v Ukraine -Advocacy-legal submission-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Jul 14, 2017
The ICJ submitted observations in a case brought with Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic, in defense of children in the juvenile justice system.
The submission is a reply to the Government’s observations in this collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights.
In this case, the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights argue that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and FORUM submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
This situation concerns more than one thousand children every year and as a matter of urgency, it requires a structured response.
CzechRepublic-ECSR-juvenilejustice-legalsubmission2-ENG-2017 (download the submission)
Jul 14, 2017
The ICJ and the International Detention Coalition (IDC) have presented their observations on the draft European rules for the administrative detention of migrants.
In their submissions, the two human rights organizations noted that the current detention practices in most Council of Europe member States raise serious questions as to their compatibility with human rights law.
They stressed that, under international human rights law, immigration detention must always be an exceptional measure of last resort in full respect of the norms of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination.
The ICJ and IDC expressed concern that the current draft document fails to adequately distinguish between criminal and administrative immigration detention regimes.
In doing so, the document risks normalizing unlawful detention practices and codifying prison standards that are wholly inappropriate in the context of migration.
The two organizations submitted that, as a general rule, persons in situations of particular vulnerability should never be detained merely for the purposes of enforcing immigration control.
Finally they called on the drafting Committee to prioritize alternative measures to detention.
Europe-ImmigrationDetentionRules-JointSubmission-ICJIDC-ENG-2017 (download the joint submission)
Background
The Council of Europe’s European Committee on Legal Co-Operation is currently drafting a set of European rules for the administrative detention of migrants.
This is a codifying exercise on a set of immigration detention rules based on existing international and regional human rights standards relating to the conditions of detention of migrants. The stated objective of the draft instrument is twofold:
- Protect migrants held in administrative detention by providing them with individual guarantees on the conditions of their administrative detention (i.e. detention not based on a criminal conviction);
- Provide guidance to both national authorities responsible for the closed centres and persons working closely with migrants.
The process to draft this codifying instrument started in May 2016.
The European Committee on Legal Co- Operation launched a written consultation procedure to involve civil society and key actors in the elaboration process of this codifying instrument.
This submission is the reply of the ICJ and the IDC to this written consultation.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jun 29, 2017
The ICJ presented today a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of Serbia on the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecution service.
In its submission, the ICJ drew attention to the following issues:
- the involvement of the National Assembly in the appointment and dismissal of judges and prosecutors;
- the composition of the High Judicial Council (HJC) and State Prosecutors’ Council (SPC) ;
- the tenure of judges, court presidents, public prosecutors, and deputy public prosecutors;
- the protection of judges and prosecutors; and
- Serbia’s engagement with international human rights instruments and mechanisms.
The submission concludes with recommendations addressing the above-mentioned concerns. It builds on the findings of the ICJ contained in its report Serbia’s judges and lawyers: the long road to independent self-governance.
Serbia-IndependenceJudiciaryProsecution-UPRSubmission-Advocacy-2017-ENG (download the submission)
