Oct 16, 2023 | News
Judges and Prosecutors in Nepal have taken up the challenge to step up their efforts to ensure that victims and survivors of human rights violations are able effectively to access justice.
At a Judicial Dialogue convened by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Advocacy Forum Nepal (AFN) in collaboration with Judges Society Nepal (JSN) on 15 – 16 September 2023, judges and prosecutors from district and high courts in Gandaki Province in Nepal attended and assessed the challenges faced by victims and survivors in the context of the stalled transitional justice process which followed from the end of Nepal’s internal armed conflict in 2006.
The Government of Nepal has made repeated commitments to ensure access to justice and the Supreme Court of Nepal has affirmed that the authorities have firm legal obligations to act in the transitional justice process. Participants considered that there had been serious undue delay in the Nepalese TJ process over years, which have included ineffective commissions, non-implementation of court rulings and a failure to take into account the voices of victims of human rights violations. There was therefore a pressing need for judges and public prosecutors to play a more proactive role in order to address conflict-era gross violations delivering justice for the victims of the violations.
ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal Kalyan Shrestha, emphasized that it was indispensable to adhere to international and domestic human rights law, including the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. He expressed concern that adjudication of conflict-related cases had been significantly delayed, resulting in a prolonged wait for justice for the victims of human rights violations. Justice Shrestha also underscored the need for Nepal’s judiciary and public prosecutors to effectively fulfill their responsibilities and ensure justice for victims of human rights violations, in accordance with a well-developed body of jurisprudence on justice in the transitional context.
Justice Ishwor Khatiwada of the Supreme Court of Nepal reviewed the status of human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Nepal. More than a thousand cases related to conflict-era human rights violations have been pending at different courts, and there was no law that restricts courts/judges from deciding the cases of human rights violations from conflict. The Government of Nepal had been refusing victims of conflict access to regular justice system arguing that they will be provided justice by transitional justice mechanisms. However, these promised TJ mechanisms had not been established even more than a decade and a half after signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), making commitments to create these mechanisms.
Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal highlighted that jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court mandated a robust role of the judiciary in assessing the implementation of its jurisprudence.
Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, provided insights into the global context of transitional justice and discussed the challenges, lessons learned, and good practices.
High Court Judge Tek Prasad Dhungana, General Secretary of Judges Society Nepal presented the objectives of the dialogue, which was chaired by Mr. Baburam Regmi, Acting President of Judges Society Nepal and former High Court Judge and facilitated by Kathmandu District Court judge Raju Kumar Khatiwada.
Contact:
Dr Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +9779851048475, e: mandira.sharma@icj.org
Kashiram Dhungana, ICJ Legal Adviser, Nepal, t: +9779851226964, e: kashiram.dhungana@icj.org
Oct 13, 2023 | Human Rights Council, News, Statements, Work with the UN
Geneva, 13 October 2023
In this statement, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) looks back at five weeks of consideration of a wide range of country situations and human rights thematic concerns, and at intense negotiations during the 54th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) that ended today in Geneva.
This session resulted in some positive actions for the protection and promotion of human rights and for accountability for grave human rights violations. However, States also failed to address the dire human rights situation in a number of countries. They also failed to support unanimously a number of important initiatives towards the greater enjoyment of human rights for all without discrimination.
Welcoming the renewal of a number of Special Procedures’ mandates
The ICJ welcomes the renewal of a number of Special Procedures’ mandates on both country situations and themes. In particular, the mandates on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Cambodia and Russia have been extended. With regard to thematic mandates, the ICJ particularly salutes the adoption of resolutions enabling the continuation of the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, as well as of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. With respect to this, the ICJ considers it very positive that the resolution on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances explicitly encourages States to participate in the upcoming world congress to promote the ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in 2024.
Continued intergovernmental negotiations on the issue of private security companies
The ICJ is actively engaged in supporting the elaboration of new standards to enhance human rights protection in respect of the activities of private military and security companies. In this context, the ICJ has followed the HRC’s thematic debates on both the use of mercenaries and the work of the intergovernmental working group tasked with the elaboration of a new regulatory framework on private military and security companies. In light of this, the organization welcomes the renewal of the mandate of the intergovernmental working group to negotiate such standards.
Celebrating the creation of a new investigative mechanism on the situation in the Sudan
The ICJ applauds the creation of a robust independent international fact-finding mission on the human rights and humanitarian crises resulting from the ongoing armed conflict in the Sudan. The ICJ had joined a group of 120 civil society organizations that sent a letter to States, on 1 September 2023, in advance of the HRC session, urging the creation of such an independent investigative mechanism.
Adoption of important thematic resolutions
The ICJ also considers that the adoption of a new resolution providing more capacity for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support States in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) is a positive step.
However, the ICJ urges States to ensure:
• respect for the independence of the OHCHR in carrying out additional work in this area;
• that ESCR be treated on an equal footing with other human rights; and
• that any new work builds upon the existing work carried out by the HRC and by the OHCHR for several decades in this area.
After intense negotiations, the HRC eventually adopted the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and the one on the question of the death penalty. Fortunately, all amendments aimed at weakening human rights protections in both texts were defeated.
However, the ICJ deplores the persistence of ploys intentionally engineered during the negotiations of these two resolutions, which, if successful, would have been detrimental to the enjoyment of women and girls’ human rights, including to sexual and reproductive health and comprehensive sexuality education. In addition, purported concern over States’ sovereignty negatively impacted a number of debates and threatened to impair progress in the protection of universal human rights.
Regretting the inability of the HRC to address key situations
These controversies took place at a very polarized HRC session and reflect the broader geopolitical realities and ideological tensions worldwide.
In this regard, the ICJ regrets that the HRC failed to continue the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia. This commission was established to respond to the dramatic human rights situation after the conflict between the Federal Government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) broke out in 2020. Since then, widespread violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law have been committed in Tigray, Amhara and Afar in northern Ethiopia. As the situation is deteriorating even further, the failure of the HRC to renew the mandate of the Commission terminates the international independent investigation of atrocity crimes committed in the context of this conflict and is an abject dereliction of duty on the part of Member States of the HRC.
With regard to Afghanistan, while the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights in the country, with additional resources to carry out his work, is an important measure towards monitoring the dire human rights and humanitarian situation, the ICJ deeply regrets that the HRC was not able to give a response commensurate with the gravity of the situation and failed to create a robust independent accountability mechanism to investigate, collect and preserve evidence of the widespread and systematic human rights violations and atrocities crimes committed in the country.
Last but not least, the ICJ regrets that the Council could not take action on the violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law committed by all parties in Israel and the OPT since the attacks in Israel by Palestinian armed groups started on 7 October 2023.
https://www.icj.org/israel-occupied-palestinian-territory-immediately-end-attacks-on-civilians/
Oct 10, 2023 | News
The prosecution of the rights defender and businessman Osman Kavala and four codefendants in connection with mass protests a decade ago has been unfair and essentially a political show trial from the beginning, a group of nine non-governmental organizations including the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today, ahead of an October 12 urgent debate calling for Kavala’s release at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The five have been punished for the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
On September 28, 2023, Turkey’s Court of Cassation, its top appeals court, upheld the convictions, notwithstanding that the European Court of Human Rights has previously found no basis for detention or trial, and ordered Kavala’s immediate release.
“By ignoring these judgments and Turkey’s human rights obligations, the Court of Cassation is doubling down on the deep injustice of this case that dramatically demonstrates how far Turkey has deviated from the rule of law,” said Helen Duffy of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The trial has not only led to grave violations of the rights of Kavala and the others, but it provided a chilling example of how Turkey’s justice system has become a tool of political repression.”
Although President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish government officials repeatedly state that Turkish courts are independent, the trial of Kavala and his codefendants exposes those claims for the falsehood they are, and demonstrates how in key cases of interest to the president, prosecutors and courts blatantly do his bidding.
Kavala was sentenced to life in prison without parole, convicted of attempting to overthrow the government on false allegations that he organized and financed the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests against a government urban development project. Four codefendants – Çiğdem Mater, Can Atalay, Mine Özerden and Tayfun Kahraman – received 18-year sentences for allegedly aiding Kavala, while the court quashed the 18-year sentences of Mücella Yapıcı, Hakan Altınay and Yiğit Ekmekçi, and ordered Yapıcı and Altınay’s release pending retrial.
“This trial cynically opened six years after the Gezi Park protests with the malevolent intent of casting them as the outcome of a grand conspiracy by one man, Osman Kavala,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “To achieve this the prosecution and the courts blatantly had to ignore all the evidence of spontaneous mass protests in which the vast majority of protesters committed no violence and exercised their lawful rights to freedom of expression and assembly.”
The Court of Cassation’s 78-page verdict simply reiterates the prosecution’s allegations in the February 2019 indictment, though the European Court of Human Rights ruled twice that the indictment offered insufficient evidence to justify Kavala’s detention, prosecution or conviction, and by inference, the other defendants’.
Notably, in a striking rebuke to the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, and Turkey’s human rights obligations, the Court of Cassation makes no reference to the repeated findings against Turkey in this case. In December 2019, the European Court ordered Kavala’s immediate release, and in February 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the body responsible for overseeing implementation of European Court judgments, took the almost unprecedented step of triggering infringement proceedings against Turkey for its refusal to comply.
This led to a second European Court of Human Rights judgment condemning Turkey’s failure to carry out the first, and the failure of the Turkish court convicting Kavala and others on April 25, 2022, to recognize the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment. The Court of Cassation decision doubled down on that rejection of the European Court’s role, with no mention of that judgment.
Turkey’s European and international allies, both unilaterally and through intergovernmental organizations, including the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the United Nations, should address this injustice as a matter of urgency. They should treat the case as a priority human rights matter in their mutual relations with Turkey, and push for the swift and full implementation of the European Court’s’ judgments, including for the defendants’ immediate release.
They should firmly condemn the abuse of criminal law against activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others in politically motivated cases. Robust efforts are essential to ensure that Turkey respects and abides by its human rights obligations and rule of law principles, which are currently being flouted with impunity.
In turning a blind eye to the Strasbourg court’s rulings, the Court of Cassation is also ignoring its constitutional obligation to ensure that Turkey adheres to binding decisions of the European Court, which take precedence over rulings in Turkey’s domestic courts.
“In direct contravention of its legal obligations under international law, the Court of Cassation has chosen to maintain convictions despite the European Court of Human Rights judgment ordering Kavala’s immediate release,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Director (ad interim). “By failing to adhere to its obligations, the Court of Cassation sets a precedent, eroding confidence in the legal system’s ability to act as an independent and impartial institution, separate from political influence and committed to upholding human rights and the rule of law.”
The Court’s Flawed Reasoning
In its September 29 decision, the Court of Cassation relies on a chronology of events from the February 2019 indictment that the prosecution argues constituted the preparation for the Gezi protests. This included making a short video with a group of actors in 2011 called “Rise up Istanbul,” production of a play in Istanbul about a dictator, which ran from 2012-13, and the 2012 establishment of the civil society platform, Taksim Solidarity, focused on the highly contested plan to develop Taksim Square and Gezi Park. The court fails to show any causality between these lawful activities and any crime or to provide any evidence that these activities showed that Kavala and the other defendants were involved in a conspiracy.
The court decision makes reference to the protests and popular uprisings in various Middle Eastern countries that predated the Gezi protests and came to be known as the Arab Spring, and nonviolent civil disobedience movements such as OTPOR in Serbia a decade earlier, without showing their relevance to the case.
The decision names civil society organizations and alleges they “supported and directed” the Gezi Park protests without providing any credible evidence. Chief among them are the Open Society Foundations, set up by the US financer and philanthropist George Soros, and the affiliated but independent (and now dissolved) philanthropic foundation in Turkey (Açık Toplum Vakfı). Kavala was a founding member of the group, and Altınay served for a period well before the Gezi Park protests as director of the board.
The court repeats a conspiracy theory, informed by antisemitic tropes, from the original indictment that Soros’s organizations aimed to overthrow governments in various countries by encouraging uprisings, and that the Turkish Open Society Foundation and Kavala were involved in this process under the guise of innocent-looking philanthropic activities.
Kavala’s own civil society group, Anadolu Kültür A.Ş., which supports the arts, was also named. The other defendants were linked to Kavala through their participation in that organization: film producer Çiğdem Mater, employed as an advisor, Mine Özerden, a member of the board, and Yiğit Ekmekçi, deputy head of the board. Taksim Solidarity is named as the group in which three defendants – lawyer Can Atalay, city planner Tayfun Kahraman and architect Mücella Yapıcı – participated actively.
The Court of Cassation endorses the indictment’s inclusion of Kavala’s contacts with bodies such as the European Commission, members of the European Parliament, diplomats, diplomatic missions and international human rights groups, as evidence of alleged efforts to influence international opinion against the Turkish government.
A section on the alleged protest financing cites the Open Society Foundations’ funding of the Turkish Open Society and Anadolu Kültür, but it omits that a formal investigation into the funding cited in the indictment (the MASAK report) found no evidence of unaccounted for money transfers. Instead, the court relies on examples drawn from wiretapped conversations, of Kavala once bringing people camped in the park a few bread rolls, talking about obtaining a plastic table for use in the park, and where to buy masks and goggles to protect from police tear gas.
The court decision also allows as admissible evidence a mass of random wiretapped conversations between the defendants and others that were illegally obtained. Far from revealing any criminal activity, the conversations show that the defendants were lawfully engaged in civil society organizations and nonviolent activism, and were exercising their rights to free speech, association, and assembly. Such activities are strictly protected under international law, including treaties to which Turkey is a party such as the European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in Turkey’s own laws.
The decision rejects parliamentary immunity from prosecution for one of the defendants, Atalay, a lawyer and activist who won a seat in the May 2023 parliamentary elections on behalf of the Workers’ Party of Turkey. The Court of Cassation decided that he was not protected by parliamentary immunity under article 83 of Turkey’s Constitution in relation to this case confirming its own July 13 decision on the matter, and upheld his conviction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Cassation rejects the case law of the Constitutional Court, given under identical conditions, in judgments related to other jailed parliament members, Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu and Leyla Güven, which held that they do have immunity and that arresting, prosecuting, and detaining them constitute very serious violations of that immunity.
The nongovernmental organizations who signed the statement are:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Human Rights Watch
- European Democratic Lawyers (AED)
- European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH)
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- PEN International
- Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
Oct 10, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in partnership with the Economic, Social and Cultural National Network/Justice & Rights Institute Nepal (JuRI-Nepal), the Public Interest Litigation LawyersGroup (Nepalgunj), and the Privatisation in Education and Human Rights Consortium (PEHRC), has launched a mentorship program geared towards training young lawyers on international law and standards applicable to private actor involvement in education.
The 22 lawyers who will benefit from the programme are from Bagmati and Lumbini Province. To kick off the program, workshops were held on 23 September in Kathmandu and 28 September in Nepalgunj.
“We are delighted to initiate this mentorship program and are hopeful that it will be helpful to prepare a new set of human rights lawyers capable of and dedicated to advancing the realization of the right to education in Nepal in the context of burgeoning privatization,” said Karuna Parajuli, ICJ National Legal Adviser.
“The State has the primary role in guaranteeing access to education for all persons without discrimination of any kind. We hope that knowledge of their specific duties around will assist Nepali lawyers to identify issues and support their clients in enjoying their rights to education and ensuring effective and adequate regulation of private actors in education, added Parajuli.
Opening the workshop in Nepalgunj Judge Harka Bahadur Gurung emphasized the importance of these issues in the Nepali context:
“The current educational system in Nepal has segregated children as those going to high-fee private schools and others going to public schools with no basic infrastructure. Your litigation initiative should focus to remove this division and enable each student equal access to free and quality education”.
“The Constitution of Nepal guarantees education as a human right which is fully enforceable before Nepali Courts. This provides a strong avenue to initiate strategic litigation, which remains underutilized”, said ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser Mandira Sharma. “We encourage the mentees in this programme and Nepali lawyers more broadly to work towards crafting innovative advocacy strategies directed at fully realizing right to education in Nepal”, she concluded.
Contact
Dr Mandira Sharma, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +9779851048475, e: mandira.sharma@icj.org
Karuna Parajuli, ICJ Legal Adviser, Nepal, t: +9779808431222, e: karuna.parajuli@icj.org
Further information
International law and standards on the right to education are spelled out in various treaties binding on Nepal such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further detail on States’ obligations to restrict, regulate and monitor private actor involvement in education are further details in a range of standards including the general comments of UN Treaty Body Mechanisms and the Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education.
Following the workshops, participants worked in groups to formulate an action plan for their mentorship period. They have been paired up with mentors (that include a senior advocate, senior litigating lawyers, and an ESCR expert). The mentorship program will run from October 2023 to March 2024.
The mentorship program is organized with the support of the Privatization in Education and Human Rights Consortium (PEHRC), an informal network of national, regional, and global organizations and individuals collaborating to analyse and respond to the challenges posed by the rapid growth of private actors in education from a human rights perspective and propose alternatives.
The main objectives of the mentorship program are to train young lawyers on how to utilize strategic litigation for claiming the right to education; expand their knowledge of international law (including Abidjan Principles) and share good practices on the right to education in other parts of the world.
Resources
https://www.icj.org/nepal-strategic-litigation-is-an-important-tool-to-ensure-compliance-with-international-human-rights-standards/
https://www.icj.org/late-as-usual-delayed-delivery-of-textbooks-infringes-the-right-to-education-of-nepali-students/
https://www.icj.org/nepal-icj-lawyers-workshop-discusses-strategic-litigation-to-enforce-the-right-to-education/
Oct 5, 2023 | News
The ICJ condemns the recent prosecution of two lawyers, Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza, who act as defence counsel in a high-profile case involving political opposition figures. On 29 September 2023, the Public Prosecutor of the Tunis Court of First Instance initiated criminal proceedings against Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza, who are members of the legal team defending a number of political opponents of the regime of Tunisia’s President, Kais Saied, some of whom have been detained since February 2023 for their alleged involvement in the so-called conspiracy case based on charges related to “terrorism” and “State security”.
البيان باللغة العربية على هذا الرابط
The ICJ further condemns the prosecution of Ayachi Hammami, also acting as defence counsel in the “conspiracy case”, who is scheduled to appear before the investigating judge of the “counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit on 10 October 2023. Ayachi Hammami was informed that he was being prosecuted in the “conspiracy case” on 3 May 2023.
The prosecutions of Dalila Msadek, Islem Hamza and Ayachi Hammami are emblematic illustrations of a pattern of judicial harassment of lawyers representing individuals involved in political cases in Tunisia where the lawyers themselves are targeted solely because of their legitimate professional activities, ultimately underming their ability to defend their clients’ human rights, free from intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
“This growing pattern of judicial harassment of lawyers solely for their legitimate discharge of their professional duties violates their human rights, including to liberty and security of person, fair trial, work and freedom of expression, as well as their clients’ right to a fair trial, including the right to defend themselves and to legal representation and assistance,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza face charges of “spreading fake news with the aim of threatening public security through audio-visual media”, pursuant to article 24 of Decree-law 2022-54 of 13 September 2022, and of “processing of personal data relating to criminal offences, their investigation, criminal proceedings, penalties, preventive measures or criminal records”, pursuant to articles 13 and 87 of Organic Law No. 2004-63 on the protection of personal data. Dalila Msadek and Islem Hamza are being prosecuted in connection with statements they made on the radio on 28 and 29 September 2023 in which they mentioned having requested that the investigating judge of the ”counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit should hear the diplomats whom their clients allegedly met as part of the “conspiracy” of which the prosecution accuses them.
Since June 2023, Islem Hamza has also been prosecuted in a separate case, under article 24 of Decree-Law 54, following a statement she made on the radio, in her capacity as a defence lawyer of arrested political opponents, denouncing the conditions of transfer of detainees as inhumane. Similarly, Ayachi Hammami has been prosecuted since January 2023 in a distinct case pursuant to Decree-Law 54 based on a statement he made in his capacity as a defence lawyer of the dismissed judges.
The ICJ considers that, to prosecute Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami, the prosecution authorities have latched onto statements that Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami made in the legitimate discharge of their professional duties as lawyers towards their clients. In addition, their statements constitute the protected exercise of their right to freedom of expression and, as such, cannot be subject to criminal prosecution under general principles of criminal law and international human rights law and standards.
Islem Hamza, Dalila Msadek and Ayachi Hammami are not isolated cases: Abdelaaziz Essid is also being prosecuted based on a statement he made as a defence lawyer in the “conspiracy case”. Moreover, Ghazi Chaouachi and Rhida Belhaj, who were representing other defendants in the “conspiracy case”, are being prosecuted in that very same case before the “counter-terrorism” specialized judicial unit.
“After arbitrarily detaining peaceful political opposition members, the authorities are increasingly using the criminal law to harass and intimidate defence lawyers and disrupt the legitimate discharge of their professional duties,” said Said Benarbia. “In so doing, they are sending the chilling message that any lawyers who represent defendants in political cases expose themselves to the risk of being prosecuted on spurious criminal charges.”
The ICJ calls on the Tunisian authorities to drop all criminal charges against all lawyers currently prosecuted solely for the legitimate discharge of their professional duties and the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and to immediately end all practices that hinder the work of lawyers.
Background
Since 2022, State authorities have increasingly targeted Tunisian lawyers for their legitimate defence work and for exercising their human rights. On 26 May 2023, several mandate holders of the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures expressed concern over some of these cases.
According to information available to the ICJ, at least 27 lawyers are facing or have faced criminal prosecutions since 2022 based on charges related to, among others, “terrorism” and “State security”, or based on public statements critical of the executive. Among these, three – Noureddine Bhiri, Ghazi Chaouachi and Rhida Belhaj, who began a hunger strike on 2 October 2023 along with other detainees in the “conspiracy case” – are currently in detention; three other defence lawyers – Abdelrazak Kilani, Mehdi Zagrouba and Seifeddine Makhlouf – have been tried and imprisoned by military courts; and 15 others have been banned from traveling, including Lazhar Akermi following his release from pre-trial detention.
Lawyers, like any other person, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, as protected under human rights treaties to which Tunisia is party. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the African Commission on Human Peoples’ rights’ Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa reaffirm this principle and state that governments shall ensure that lawyers are able “to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”, and “to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has urged public prosecutors “ to closely monitor situations and cases in which lawyers might be criminalized for performing their duties. When such circumstances arise, appropriate orders should be issued to prevent public prosecutors from maliciously prosecuting members of the legal profession who criticize State officials and institutions in the exercise of their independence and freedom of expression.”
