Sep 27, 2018
The ICJ intervened in the case Nahhas and Hadri v Belgium in front of the European Court for Human Rights in a case of a Syrian family applying for a visa at a Belgian embassy in Beirut.
The ICJ together with partner organisations (DCR, ECRE, AIRE Centre) submitted that there is an extra-territorial jurisdiction over persons when a state is issuing visa at its embassy, and that there might be positive obligations for the States to issue such visa when refusal would leave the applicants at a real risk of exposure to violations of Article 3 ECHR. Best interests of the child must underpin all decisions taken by the state.
In particular:
- Jurisdiction exists in a number of extra-territorial situations, including where the State exercises authority or control over persons, including decisions of diplomatic and consular personnel on the issuance of visas to third country nationals.
- State responsibility may thus be engaged when refusing treatment of a visa application, in circumstances where the State is or ought to be aware that applicant if returned faces a real risk of serious Convention human rights violations, in the absence of available alternatives that would prevent such outcome.
- To comply with their obligations under the Convention, Contracting States are prohibited from refusing to issue visas to travel to their territory when requested by those who have an arguable claim that he or she is at real risk of an Article 3 violation in a third State. This is particularly the case if no other legal route to safety exists and where if denied such visas, refusal would leave the applicants at a real risk of exposure (whether directly or indirectly) to violations of Article 3 in the third State and the Contracting State from which the visa is requested has (or ought to have) knowledge of the risks in question.
- Article 3 of the Convention read in the light of Article 3, 22 and 37 of the UNCRC requires that the best interests of the child underpin all decisions taken by Contracting States with regard to children, and that Contracting states ensure the child’s protection and give separate consideration to the child’s interest. These standards apply to decisions on visa applications made by children and their parents at the embassy of a Contracting State.
Please find the full intervention here:Belgium-Nahhas Intervention-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2018-ENG
Sep 26, 2018
Today, the ICJ has presented a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in Alayif Hasan oglu Hasanov v. Azerbaijan case.
In its submissions, the ICJ stresses that, while lawyers must perform their professional functions in conformity with ethical standards, the systems and procedures in respect of conditions of service, including in respect of admission to the profession and discipline, must not enforce such obligations in a way that impairs the exercise of human rights by lawyers or their capacity to effectively represent their clients.
The ICJ presented the submissions based on the jurisprudence of this Court as well as international standards governing the legal profession.
In particular, the submission addressed permissible restrictions of lawyers’ rights to respect for private (including professional) life under article 8 ECHR and to freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR, as well as the procedural safeguards required to apply such restrictions under article 6 ECHR.
Finally, the submission set out key findings of a recent ICJ fact-finding mission to assess the compliance of the governance of the legal profession in Azerbaijan with international law and standards.
Additional information:
Questions to the parties are available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184367
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Azerbaijan-ICJ submission to ECHR-legal submission-2018-ENG – Submission in English.
Jul 5, 2018
On 25 June, the ICJ and Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).
The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Fifth Periodic Report of Turkey under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
During its 65th session, from 12 November to 7 December 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Turkey.
Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Turkey’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Fifth Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.
The ICJ and IHOP’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.
In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Turkey, including on the following pressing issues:
- allegations of abduction;
- immunity from prosecution for torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- remedies and reparations for victims of torture;
- fundamental legal safeguards and access to a lawyer;
- conditions of detention;
- civil society organizations; and
- national human rights institution and national preventive mechanism.
Turkey-LOIPR-ICJ&IHOP-June2018-final (download the submission)
Turkey-LOIPR-ICJ&IHOP-June2018-statement-ENG
This project is funded by the European Union
* This article does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union
Jun 19, 2018
On 18 June 2018, the ICJ submitted an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) Brief to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICJ submitted the Amicus pursuant to the Prosecution’s Request (ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18) for “a ruling on the Court’s jurisdiction under article 12(2)(a) — specifically, to verify that the Court has territorial jurisdiction when persons are deported from the territory of a State which is not a party to the Statute directly into the territory of a State which is a party to the Statute”.
The Prosecutor made the Request following the alleged deportation of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people from Myanmar into Bangladesh.
In summary, the ICJ submitted that:
(1) The crossing of an international border is a fundamental constitutive element for the crime of deportation. This position is supported by customary international law, international human rights law and is reflected in the domestic laws of Bangladesh; and
(2) The Court has territorial jurisdiction over the crime of deportation. This position is supported by international principles of territoriality, which are also reflected in the domestic laws of Bangladesh.
The Amicus was filed in light of the ICJ’s global mandate to seek the progressive development of international law with a view to ending impunity and ensuring accountability for gross human rights violations.
The ICJ regularly intervenes in judicial proceedings in domestic, regional and international jurisdictions around the world in an amicus curiae or other third party capacity.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +66 (0)94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Myanmar-Amicus observations-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (full amicus brief, PDF)
Apr 5, 2018
The ICJ, together with other NGOs, has responded to a consultation on how classified documents are taken into consideration before the European Court of Human Rights.
In the submission, the AIRE Centre, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, REDRESS and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) respond to the Court’s Standing Committee on the Rules of Court’s proposal to amend the Court’s Rules of Procedure by introducing a new Rule 44F.
The organisations urge the Court not to adopt a mechanism whereby the Court could receive and rely on or otherwise take into consideration information not disclosed to the applicant and his or her representative of choice.
The organisations emphasise that the right to an effective remedy for claims of human rights violations incorporates the right of access to a fair procedure and the right of victims and the public to the truth about human rights violations, including serious violations such as torture, enforced disappearances and extra-judicial executions or other unlawful killings.
In cases before the Court, the applicant victim’s interest in disclosure of evidence regarding violations of Convention rights should always outweigh any purported national security or other similar public interests in its non-disclosure.
The submission also analyses and makes recommendations on the specific wording of the proposed new Rule 44 F.
JointSubmission-ECtHR-Rule44F-LegalSubmission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
