Jun 21, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports, Workshop reports
The ICJ has today published a report on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia.
The report is based on discussions at the 2018 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers which was convened in Bangkok, Thailand, in December.
The Bangkok meeting brought together judges, lawyers, and other legal experts from around the Asia-Pacific region, from both formal State justice systems and indigenous and other traditional or customary systems.
Participants reaffirmed the potential for indigenous and other traditional or customary justice mechanisms to contribute to the realization of equal and effective access to justice, particularly for indigenous, rural, poor and other marginalised populations.
Participants stressed the importance of sustained consultations and engagement directly with indigenous justice systems, to encourage their development in harmony with international human rights standards and in coordination with more official or formal national legal institutions.
Participants also highlighted the opportunities and risks associated with similar forms of constructive engagement with other, non-indigenous, traditional or customary justice systems. The relevance of UN Sustainable Development Goal 16 was also highlighted.
Participants further agreed that States must at the same time ensure that formal systems are also made more accessible, both in practical and in cultural terms, to relevant communities.
The report urges that, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, constitutional or other legal provisions should recognize the role of indigenous justice systems, within an overall framework for protection and promotion of international human rights standards.
Indigenous peoples and States should jointly consider means for improved coordination and collaboration between indigenous and non-indigenous justice systems, with a view to seeing the different systems work in harmony to provide effective access to justice and protection of human rights for all people.
The report cautions however, that a similar approach may or may not be appropriate in relation to certain other traditional and customary justice systems not covered by the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The report also outlines experiences from a number of countries around the region, both in terms of existing obstacles to equal access to justice, and the possibilities for constructive engagement.
It also identifies a number of legal and policy questions of continuing controversy, including on the relationship between indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems, and the official State justice system, and how international human rights and rule of law standards should be applied.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a key participant in the Bangkok meeting, has announced that her report to the Human Rights Council in September 2019 will focus on indigenous justice systems.
The interactive dialogue on her report will be an important opportunity for States and civil society to further exchange views on the best means of implementing the relevant provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the diversity of contexts around the world.
The Geneva Forum global and regional consultations, the Special Rapporteur’s report and associated dialogue, and the ICJ’s own research, global experience and expertise, will provide a foundation for the development by the ICJ of further legal, policy and practical guidance to be published in 2020.
The report summarizing discussions at the 2018 Forum should be read in conjunction with the separately published and periodically updated Traditional and Customary Justice Systems: Selected International Sources, which compiles relevant treaty provisions, standards, conclusions and recommendations of UN and other expert bodies, as well as the Report of the 2017 Forum.
The Geneva Forum is an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the ICJ through its Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, with the support of the Canton and Republic of Geneva (Switzerland) and other partners.
Each year, participants and the ICJ discuss an issue relevant to the independence and role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, with a view to developing and disseminating practical guidance for practitioners.
Contact
matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Universal-Trad Custom Justice GF 2018-Publications-Thematic reports-2019-ENG (full report in PDF)
Jun 15, 2019 | News
The ICJ welcomes the recent judgment of the Tanzanian High Court condemning the Tanzanian government’s actions leading to the suspension of the SADC Tribunal and the denuding of its crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting human rights in the Southern African region.
Following on a decision of the South African Constitutional Court in December 2018, the decision brings increased scrutiny to the legality and legitimacy of the decision of the SADC Summit to effectively disband the SADC Tribunal in 2010 and thereby “eviscerate the possibility of the States ever being held to account for perceived human rights violations, non-adherence to the rule of law or undemocratic practices”.
“The Tanzanian court’s decision once again raises fundamental questions about the legality and legitimacy of the SADC Summit’s attempt to strip the SADC Tribunal of its powers, following on decisions relating to land reform in Zimbabwe that upset leaders of SADC states. The ICJ endorses the views of the Tanzanian and South African courts that all decisions taken by SADC States must comply with the SADC Treaty, the right of victims of human rights abuses to access justice and the rule of law,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The Tanzanian Court’s decision is premised on the finding that the SADC Treaty is, in terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, binding on all SADC member States and obligations in terms of it must be performed in good faith by all executive officials.
Having set up and empowered the SADC Tribunal to adjudicate disputes in terms of the Treaty, the Court held that “State parties including Tanzania are obliged to give effect to the Tribunal, without which the existence of the Community itself remains doubtful”.
The Court likened the system of governance set out in the Treaty to a domestic doctrine of separation of powers, noting that the Tribunal is part of an intricate set of checks and balances set out in the Treaty.
The case was brought to Court by the Tanganyika Law Society in order to hold the Tanzanian government accountable to the Constitution, the SADC Treaty and “other international law human rights norms”.
The Law Society alleged that the Tanzanian government’s actions violate the right to access to justice and are therefore “inimical to the rule of law”.
The Court’s decision makes repeated reference to international human rights law norms including United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the African Charter concluding that crucial commitments in terms of the standards set out in these documents were violated by the Tanzanian government.
The Court reasoned that in terms of international law the State is obliged to “ensure observance of [international human rights law principles] in the conduct of its international relations”.
This, crucially, meant that State parties to the SADC Treaty must, in their conduct pertaining to international relations “ensure protection of fundamental human rights of the individual” (emphasis in original).
The SADC Summit’s attempts to protect individuals from accessing the SADC Tribunal for the purposes of vindicating their rights therefore amounted to an unlawful encroachment on individuals’ rights in terms of domestic and international human rights law.
“The Court’s decision is a strong endorsement of the universality of international human rights principles as well as the need for strong checks and balances on power in all domestic, regional and international platforms established to ensure access to remedies for rights violations. The ICJ encourages the SADC leaders to individually and collectively take note of the decisions of the Tanzanian and South African courts and take immediate action to ensure full and effective operation of an independent SADC Tribunal capable of receiving and adjudicating individual complaints,” Tsunga added.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +263777283249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jun 13, 2019 | News
The ICJ today applauded the 11 June judgment of the Botswana High Court striking down criminal law provisions criminalizing same-sex relations.
Rightly, the Court considered that, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions at issues on their face criminalized consensual anal penetration, irrespective of the gender of those involved, the law did in fact target and disproportionately affect same-sex relations.
The judgment follows shortly after the Kenyan High Court refused to invalidate an almost identical criminal provision in judgment handed down on 24 May.
“The Botswana High Court’s judgment reaffirms the universality of the rights to be free from discrimination, dignity, privacy and equality, and directly rebuts the often-made false claim that homosexuality is ‘un-African’,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
“The ICJ commends the Court, and encourages all African states to repeal archaic criminal provisions criminalizing same-sex sexual intercourse often introduced into their legal systems by colonial powers,” he added.
In a decision referencing international human rights law and standards, and citing a growing wave of global jurisprudence on the unconstitutionality of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, identity and expression, the Court concluded that sections 164(a); 164(c), 165 and 167 of the Botswana Penal Code violated the rights to dignity, liberty and equality of homosexual men.
Letsweletse Motshidiemang, a 24 year-old university student who identifies as homosexual, and is currently in a relationship with a man, brought the case before the Court. Advocacy organization “Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Of Botswana” (LEGABIBO) was admitted as amicus curiae, and supported Motshidiemang’s case.
Despite partial legislative recognition of the need to protect people’s rights, regardless of sexual orientation, and comments made by Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi late last year that, “there are also many people of same sex relationships in this country, who have been violated and have also suffered in silence for fear of being discriminated. Just like other citizens, they deserve to have their rights protected”, the Attorney General (AG) had opposed Motshidiemang’s challenge, describing the case as “cry babies”.
In a fitting rebuke of this position, the Court indicated that the AG had not produced a “scintilla or iota of justification” for its defense of the offending provisions and, instead relied on “bare assertion and/or speculations” about public morality.
Given the substantial evidence presented to the Court by the applicant and amicus curiae about the harmful effects of continued criminalization of same-sex relations, the Court observed that it “perpetuates stigma and shame against homosexuals and renders them recluse and outcasts”, finding that “there is no victim in consensual same sex intercourse inter se adults”.
Concluding that such discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons violates sexual autonomy and their “right to choose a sexual partner” the Court found that the provisions go “to the core of [homosexual persons’] worth as a human being[s] and “pollutes compassion” in Botswanan society.
“The judgment is a victory for LGBT persons in Botswana whose consistent advocacy ground firmly in human rights should be applauded. This judgment should catalyze further action from the Botswana authorities to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights by LGBT persons in Botswana,” said Tsunga.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +63 77 728 3249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jun 13, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the authorities in Tajikistan to immediately release a prominent lawyer who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 28 years on dubious charges.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published a decision in Mr Yorov’s case on (date), finding that “the trials of Mr. Yorov were carried out in total disregard for the guarantees encapsulated in article 14 of the Covenant, being of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr Yorov an arbitrary character […].”
The Working Group recommended that the government remedy the situation of Yorov without delay and to this end “release Mr. Yorov immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law”.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
The ICJ earlier expressed concerns at the conviction of the lawyer to a 28 year sentence in prison, which is based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients.
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the WGAD and calls on the Tajikistan authorities to fully implement the decision and to take all necessary measures to protect lawyer Yorov, his family and his lawyers against any threats to their security, or any intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with their performance of their professional functions as lawyers.
In this regard, the ICJ notes recent protests by dozens of individuals who took part in a rally against Yorov in front of the representative offices of the United Nations and the European Union in Tajikistan, soon after the decision of the WGAD.
Posters of the demonstrators called on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to “take her hands off Tajikistan” and named organisations that had defended Mr Yorov or brought the petition on behalf of Yorov to the UN WGAD.
In this context, it is imperative that the Tajikistan government immediately publicly affirm the legitimacy of the decision of the WGAD and make clear its commitment to complying with it, the ICJ underlined.
Background
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.” Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March 2017, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.” In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
On 24 May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a group of independent experts established in 1991 whose members are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, published an Opinion finding a number of violations of human rights of Yorov protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommended as a remedy his immediate release, payment of compensation or other reparation and conducting an investigation into the violation of Yorov’s rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require that the Governments ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference ”. Under these Principles “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.” The right to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms” is guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9.3(c)).
Jun 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova, which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.
During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.
These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.
In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.
The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.
“The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”
Background
The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.
The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament. This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.
The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.
Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.
Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.
According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.
Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.
Article 85 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the procedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.
(2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.
(3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.
(4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser: t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
