Jul 19, 2017 | Noticias
El 28 de marzo, el defensor de derechos humanos de la comunidad La Mestiza, don Jovel Tobar, fue detenido por efectivos de la Policía Nacional Civil.
Desde entonces, permanece detenido; el proceso lo instruye la Jueza Karla Hernández del Juzgado Pluripersonal de Primera Instancia, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente, por el presunto delito de Usurpación de Área Protegida.
El proceso penal contra Jovel Tobar y su detención, se dan como respuesta por sus actividades como defensor de derechos humanos.
En particular, la detención de Jovel Tobar se da cuando la comunidad de La Mestiza, junto a otras comunidades, habían logrado avanzar en el establecimiento de una mesa de diálogo de alto nivel con las autoridades guatemaltecas, para discutir su “Propuesta Alternativa de Desarrollo Integral y Sostenible de las Comunidades afectadas por la declaratoria de Áreas Protegidas de Laguna del Tigre y Sierra Lacandón”.
Desde el inicio, el proceso penal fue declarado en reserva, denegándole a Jovel Tobar su derecho a un juicio público, en violación a los artículos 14 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos y 8 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.
La CIJ considera que el proceso penal contra Jovel Tobar constituye una forma de criminalización de la legítima protesta social y del ejercicio de la defensa de los derechos humanos y que su detención es arbitraria.
La CIJ recuerda que la justicia debe ser administrada por jueces independientes, imparciales, idóneos, profesionales y éticos, ya que de ello depende, en última instancia, que exista una recta administración de justicia, garante de los derechos humanos.
Asimismo, fiscales y jueces deben abstenerse de perseguir penalmente y criminalizar el ejercio legítimo de la defensa de los derechos humanos.
La CIJ ha podido constatar que en los casos de persecución penal de defensores de derechos humanos, fiscales y jueces han criminalizado el ejercicio de la defensa de los derechos humanos.
En tal sentido, la CIJ exige que los órganos encargados de establecer la responsabilidad de jueces y juezas, inicien una investigación en este caso, para determinar si la función de la Jueza del Juzgado Pluripersonal de Primera Instancia, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente, se ha llevado a cabo en forma independiente e imparcial.
Dicha investigación debería cuando menos determinar: a) si existían argumentos objetivos y válidos para declarar el proceso bajo reserva; b) si se ha respetado el principio de celeridad en el proceso; c) las razones por las cuáles no se otorgó una medida sustitutiva a favor de Jovel Tobar; y d) cualquier otro aspecto, que se relacione con la falta de independencia o con la parcialidad de la jueza mencionada.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América finalizó expresando: “Todo parece indicar que al señor Tobar se le persigue por la vía del Derecho Penal, para dar un castigo ejemplar a toda la comunidad La Mestiza e intimidar a sus pobladores. Ojalá que la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad (CICIG) inicie una investigación en el departamento de El Petén por este y otros casos de criminalización. Exigimos la inmediata e incondicional liberación del Señor Jovel Tobar y el archivo de la causa penal en su contra.”
Jul 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt and apply procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) that are clear and comply with international human rights law and standards.
The statement came following a high-level mission to Tunisia from 12 to 15 July 2017 in which the ICJ engaged with senior judicial officials, including the President of the Cassation Court, members of the High Judicial Council, SCC judges, and other stakeholders.
An ICJ analysis, Procedures of the Specialized Criminal Chambers in light of international standards, was published at the end of the mission.
“While the Specialized Criminal Chambers have the potential to contribute to addressing impunity and deliver justice for victims in Tunisia, ambiguity about the procedures to be followed by these Chambers risks undermining their effectiveness,” warned Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
As detailed in the ICJ analysis, the lack of clarity comes in part from the 2013 transitional justice Law, which is seen by many stakeholders as setting up a special regime, separate from the existing criminal justice system.
There is fear that the SCC may decide not to apply the existing ordinary criminal procedures, while at the same time no detailed procedures specific to the SCC have yet been adopted.
The creation of such a gap would risk serious breaches of international standards of fairness and justice.
For example, the 2013 Law seems to give the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité, IVD) exclusive power to refer cases to the SCC.
However, no procedures specific to the SCC implement the rights of an accused to examine witnesses interviewed by the IVD or to access all documents and evidence collected by the IVD in order to prepare his or her defence, as required by international standards and the ordinary code of criminal procedure.
The 2013 Law also fails to clarify the role of prosecutors and investigating judges in addressing such cases, including by making their own determination in relation to charges, standard of proof, and whether these cases should be brought before the SCC.
“Clarifying the procedures to be applied by the Specialized Criminal Chambers and ensuring their full compliance with international standards, including those relating to fair trial, are a prerequisite to fully establish the truth about human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that the proceedings are fair to the victims and accused,” added Benarbia.
The ICJ set out a list of recommendations with a view to assisting the Tunisian authorities in their efforts in achieving these objectives, including by:
- Amending article 42 of the 2013 Law and related provisions to clearly provide victims of gross human rights violations with direct access to the SCC, including when victims did not submit a file to the IVD;
- Amending provisions of the IVD Guides to ensure that the review process and the possibility to challenge IVD’s decisions will apply to decisions not to transfer a case to the SCC and that such review be based on objective criteria for considering gross human rights violations in line with international standards;
- Establishing specialized prosecution services, investigating judges, and judicial police in line with international standards and with adequate resources to work in coordination with the SCC;
- Clarifying the relationship between the SCC and other ordinary criminal chambers and civil and other courts;
- Amending the legal framework to clearly provide that cases investigated by the IVD are to be transferred to specialized prosecutors who are to carry out their functions as defined in the CCP and in line with international standards;
- Ensuring that the IVD’s investigative function complements the role of the specialized judicial institutions in charge of the investigation and prosecution; and
- Amending the CCP and ensuring that any related provision of any other procedures adopted for the SCC fully respect fair trial guarantees.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 642837354, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (full memo in English, PDF)
Tunisia-SCC procedures memo-News-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (full memo in Arabic, PDF)
Jul 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today mourns the passing of Chinese human rights defender and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 and was described as the “foremost symbol of the struggle for human rights in China.”
He passed away today at the First Hospital of China Medical University, while still in the custody of Chinese authorities.
He has been imprisoned since 2009, after being found guilty for “subverting state power”, for calling for a new constitution in China. His wife, poet Liu Xia, remains under house arrest in Beijing.
In May 2017 authorities announced that he had been diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer.
Chinese authorities refused calls that he be allowed to travel to receive medical treatment abroad.
The ICJ honors Liu Xiaobo for his peaceful and unrelenting pursuit for human rights in China, and calls on the government to end the house arrest, and guarantee the freedom of movement, of Liu Xia.
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General said: “Liu Xiaobo will continue to serve as an inspiration not only for those fighting for human rights in China, but also for all human rights defenders working to promote and protect human rights all over the world.”
The ICJ believes that the death of Liu Xiaobo should serve as a wake up call to the Government of China that they cannot simply and brutally silence dissenting voices.
Liu Xiaobo’s death only serves to amplify his call for human rights and upholding the rule of law in China.
The ICJ has consistently called upon the Chinese government to end the harrassment and unlawful detention of lawyers and human rights defenders.
Jul 12, 2017 | News
The ICJ is alarmed at ongoing attacks on the rule of law in Poland.
On 12 July 2017, the Government tabled in Parliament draft bill no. 1727, that, if approved, would automatically dismiss all judges of the Supreme Court and let the Minister of Justice decide which judges are to be reinstated or newly appointed.
“This draft law is a direct blow to the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock of the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme.
“The security of tenure and conditions of service of individual judges are essential to judicial independence,” he added.
Draft bill no. 1727 follows another piece of legislation, recently approved by Parliament, by which the Parliament empowered itself to appoint the majority of the members of the National Council of the Judiciary, the body which selects and governs the judiciary.
That law gives political powers in the Polish legislature and executive, which have increasingly demonstrated deep disregard for human rights and the rule of law, undue influence over the judiciary.
Such deficiencies were also highlighted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE in May 2017.
“These series of legislative attacks to the independence of the judiciary in Poland must stop. These actions are inconsistent with the international obligations of Poland to ensure the independence of judges,” said Massimo Frigo.
“The European Union must intervene. A EU Member State that directly undermines the checks and balances of its own legal system threatens the founding values of the EU of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” he added.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
International standards
Particularly in a context like present day Poland, mass removal of all judges from a court, by another branch of government, without a fair and evidence-based individual process for each judge, is incompatible with international standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (See, ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13 on Judicial Accountability, pp. 99-104). The UN Basic Principles affirm, among other things, that:
1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
10. …Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. …
12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Similar mass removals with politicization of the procedure for reinstatement and new appointments have been condemned as violations of States’ international human rights obligations by, for instance, the UN Human Rights Committee acting under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is also party (see Busyo, Wongodi, Matubaka et al v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Doc CCPR/C/7878/D/933/2000 (2003), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see e.g. Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coelle et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 266 (2013) and Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al) v. Ecuador, Series C No. 268 (2013).
Council of Europe standards, in the form of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, provide among other things as follows:
26. Councils for the judiciary are independent bodies, established by law or under the constitution, that seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges and thereby to promote the efficient functioning of the judicial system.
27. Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
44. Decisions concerning the selection and career of judges should be based on objective criteria pre-established by law or by the competent authorities. Such decisions should be based on merit, having regard to the qualifications, skills and capacity required to adjudicate cases by applying the law while respecting human dignity.
45. There should be no discrimination against judges or candidates for judicial office on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, disability, birth, sexual orientation or other status. A requirement that a judge or a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the state concerned should not be considered discriminatory.
46. The authority taking decisions on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the executive and legislative powers. With a view to guaranteeing its independence, at least half of the members of the authority should be judges chosen by their peers.
47. However, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary (without prejudice to the rules applicable to councils for the judiciary contained in Chapter IV) should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice.
48. The membership of the independent authorities referred to in paragraphs 46 and 47 should ensure the widest possible representation. Their procedures should be transparent with reasons for decisions being made available to applicants on request. An unsuccessful candidate should have the right to challenge the decision, or at least the procedure under which the decision was made.
49. Security of tenure and irremovability are key elements of the independence of judges. Accordingly, judges should have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age, where such exists.
50. The terms of office of judges should be established by law. A permanent appointment should only be terminated in cases of serious breaches of disciplinary or criminal provisions established by law, or where the judge can no longer perform judicial functions. Early retirement should be possible only at the request of the judge concerned or on medical grounds.
69. Disciplinary proceedings may follow where judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner. Such proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
Jul 12, 2017 | Incidencia
El abogado Carlos Ayala, miembro del comité ejecutivo de la CIJ analiza la constitucionalidad de esta asamblea y concluye que tanto la convocatoria como las Bases Comiciales de la ANC “configuran un fraude a la Constitución y una usurpación a la soberanía popular.
El 1 de mayo de 2017 el presidente Nicolás Maduro convocó una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC) mediante el Decreto No. 2.830.
Tibisay Lucena, presidenta del Consejo Nacional Electoral, aprobó la convocatoria e informó que el 30 de julio se realizarán los comicios para elegir a los constituyentistas.
Carlos Ayala concluye también que la ANC y la convocatoria violan los principios de la universalidad y la igualdad del sufragio”.
A continuación el texto completo:
Venezuela-ANC paper-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-SPA (en PDF)
