Feb 13, 2016 | Artículos, Multimedia, Noticias
Este caso afecta 14 comunidades que implican aproximadamente 15000 personas
Este caso se inicia a nivel local en el Municipio de Nebaj, con la notificación por parte del Estado (Secretaria de Asuntos Agrarios y FONTIERRA[1]) a las 14 comunidades de la aldea Tzalbal, de que la tierra (33 caballerías) de la aldea Tzalbal[2] en el municipio de Nebaj, ya no era de ellos, ya que pasaron a nombre del Estado cuando ellos estaban refugiados en México o desplazados internos en las montañas en 1984. Este despojo de tierra afectaría a aproximadamente 15000 personas.
Ante esta información, las comunidades pidieron apoyo a la Comisión Internacional de Juristas (CIJ), para determinar si esto era cierto. La CIJ llevó a cabo un estudio registral que confirmó la información: las tierras habían sido vendidas al Estado por medio de escritura pública firmada por el alcalde de esa época. Sin embargo, dicho acto no había contado con el aval de los “vecinos de Nebaj”. Por esa razón, la CIJ consideró que habían suficientes razones legales, para que la tierra fuese restituida por el Estado a las comunidades.
Reclamo a Nivel local: con el acompañamiento de la CIJ y el esfuerzo de las comunidades, se inicia un diálogo con el actual alcalde Municipal del municipio de Nebaj.[3] El Alcalde decide apoyar a las comunidades. El alcalde municipal y su Consejo Municipal aprueba un acuerdo municipal de restitución de tierras, lo cual fue muy significativo. Sin embargo, el Organismo Ejecutivo a nivel local no permite que la rstitución avance.
Reclamo a nivel Nacional: Con el acuerdo municipal de restitución de la tierra aprobado por el Consejo Municipal de la Alcaldía de Santa María de Nebaj y con el apoyo del Alcalde Municipal de dicho municipio, la CIJ acompaña a las comunidades, brindándoles asesoría legal; se inicia un reclamo administrativo al Estado (Organismo Ejecutivo representado por FONTIERRA y la Secretaría de Asuntos Agrarios), para lograr la restitución de la tierra por la vía administrativa.
Esto permitiría recuperar la tierra a nombre de la Alcaldía Municipal de Nebaj y sus vecinos, por la vía administrativa, sin necesidad de recurrir a la vía judicial por medio del recurso de amparo, que implicaría más tiempo. Se conforma una mesa de diálogo entre dichas instituciones estatales, las comunidades y el Consejo Municipal de Santa María de Nebaj.
A pesar de que el Gobierno de Guatemala, por medio de las dos instituciones estatales mencionadas, se compromete a aprobar un Acuerdo Gubernativo de restitución de tierras, cuyo texto fue aprobado en la mesa de diálogo, el Estado no cumple con su compromiso de aprobar dicho acuerdo y a finales del año 2014 se interrumpe el diálogo y las comunidades, conjuntamente con la CIJ, inician el estudio de la alternativa de acudir a la vía judicial por medio del recurso de amparo, para lograr la restitución de la tierra por la vía judicial.
La oficina de la CIJ en Centroamérica dará apoyo legal a las comunidades, para reclamar por la vía judicial la restitución de la tierra que les fue despojada durante la guerra. La elaboración de dicho reclamo legal, se hará tomando en cuenta que si los tribunales nacionales no aceptan el reclamo judicial, se acudirá al Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.[4]
Para el efecto, la CIJ organizó una visita a Tzalbal, en la que participó Olivier van Bogaert, Diretor de medios de comunicación de la CIJ en Ginebra, el abogado mexicano José Guevara, Director Ejecutivo de la Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos y el Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica.
La Asamblea Comunitaria contó con la participación del señor Alcalde Municipal Pedro Raymundo Cobo.
Esta visita se llevó a cabo el 29 de septiembre de 2015. También participó la abogada guatemalteca Martha García, quien llevó a cabo el estudio registral sobre la tierra de Tzalbal.
El Director de Medios y comunicación de la CIJ pudo llevar a cabo varias entrevistas y realizó un video acerca de este caso.
Actualmente, se está preparando el recurso de amparo, para lograr la restitución de la tierra por la vía judicial.
[1]Fondo Nacional de Tierras y la Secretaría de Asuntos Agrarios fueron creados a raíz de los acuerdos de paz, para resolver la conflictividad agraria. Sin embargo, se han apartado de sus objetivos originales y muchas veces presionan a las comunidades para resolver la conflictividad agraria por medio de engaños y represión.
[2] Tzalbal fue uno de los centros de operación del Plan Sofía en 1982. Arrasada por el Ejército en los años ochentas. En la región se sufrió el Genocidio Ixil. Las masacres se iniciaron en 1981 y tuvieron que desplazarse internamente o buscar refugio en México.
[3] Nebaj es un municipio al occidente del país, compuesto principalmente por población maya-Ixil. Sufrieron durante la guerra el genocidio Ixil y parte de sus tierras están registradas en forma comunitaria como Éjido Municipal de Nebaj, propiedad de la Municipalidad y vecinos.
[4] Es importante hacer ver que existen dos casos similares (Aguas Tingny vrs. Nicaragua y Yake Axa vrs. Paraguay), en el cual la Corte Interamericana falló a favor de las comunidades, quienes habían sido despojadas de la tierra.
Caso Nebaj en video:
Feb 13, 2016 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The land of several communities from the Municipality of Nebaj was sold to the State during the civil war. But this happened without any valid legal basis.
The expropriation occurred in 1984 in the area of Tzalbal, at a time when most of the people from 14 local communities had flown to Mexico or the neighboring forests because of the war, which was particularly intense in the area.
The loss of farmland affected some 15000 people.
In 2013, the communities asked the ICJ to help them recover their land.
An initial investigation by the ICJ confirmed that the mayor at that time (1984) had signed a document transferring the land into the State’s hand.
However, this happened without consulting the communities and none of their representatives signed the document.
The ICJ asked the State to return the land to the communities through a Governmental Agreement, which was initially accepted.
However, the Government eventually reneged on its promise and ended the negotiations.
The ICJ is now preparing an action for protection of constitutional rights to help the communities recover their land through a judicial decision.
Guatemala-Caso Nebaj-News-Web Story-2016-SPA (full story in PDF, Spanish)
The Nebaj case in video (Spanish, English subtitles)
Feb 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called for the reversal of last Thursday’s decision removing Judge Mohamed Al-Haini from office with suspension of his pension rights.
Judge Al-Haini, together with his colleague Amal Homani, was referred to the High Judicial Council by the Minister of Justice on unwarranted allegations of “violating the duty of discretion” and “expressing opinions of a political nature” following social media comments and media articles written by the judges in which they criticized the government’s Draft Laws on the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire and on the Statute for Judges.
The ICJ stresses that it is entirely appropriate for a judge to comment on matters of public interest that go to the organization and governance of the legal profession.
The ICJ, as well as Moroccan professional associations of judges and civil society organizations, has previously called on the Moroccan authorities to revise these same two draft laws to fully comply with international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ is concerned both at the unfair and arbitrary nature of the proceedings against Judge Al-Haini. He was only granted two hearings before the High Judicial Council’s decision to dismiss him was taken.
Furthermore, several flaws in the proceedings curtailed Judge Al-Haini’s right to defense.
In particular, the High Judicial Council refused to strike the Minister of Justice from the disciplinary panel.
The Minister clearly had a conflict of interest, given his role in initiating the proceedings against the two judges.
As a result, Judge Al-Haini’s defense team withdrew from the case in protest.
At the second hearing the proceedings were carried out in the absence of any defense counsel.
“Despite recurring breaches of due and fair process standards, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Al-Haini continued leading to the harshest disciplinary sanction possible in violation of principles governing the independence of the judiciary,” said Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
According to international standards members of the judiciary facing disciplinary proceedings have the right to an independent and impartial authority or court with all the guarantees of a fair trial.
The ICJ is further concerned that under the current legal framework in Morocco, the decisions of the High Judicial Council are not subject to any form of review.
This is clearly inconsistent with international standards that require that any disciplinary decision should be subject to an independent review.
“The absence of any possibility to challenge the decision of dismissal deprives Judge Al-Haini of a safeguard against the improper use of disciplinary proceedings, which is clearly the case here,” Boutruche warned.
The ICJ had previously called on the Moroccan authorities to end the unwarranted and arbitrary disciplinary proceedings against Judges Al-Haini and Homani.
The ICJ stressed that members of the judiciary, like other persons, enjoy the rights to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly in consonance with the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
“This decision should be nullified and the proceedings against the two judges themselves should be terminated,” Boutruche added.
“This case is a stark reminder of the need for the Moroccan authorities to revise the two draft laws, that were adopted last Wednesday by the parliament, to properly strengthen the judicial independence and create a truly independent Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire in line with international standards,” he concluded.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +961 70 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Morocco-Al Haini Dismissal-Web Story-2016 (full web story in PDF, Arabic)
Feb 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan and called it a further attack on the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary.
“President Abdulla Yameen’s Government has dealt another blow to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan is another step down in the country’s downward spiral away from democracy and stability, and is squarely at odds with the Maldives’ international obligations,” he added.
Maldivian officials confirmed in a statement that Ahmed Nihan, a magistrate’s court judge, and Muhthaz Muhsin, former Prosecutor General, were arrested on Sunday night on charges of forging a warrant for the arrest of President Abdulla Yameen.
Muhthaz Muhsin was released soon after, but Judge Ahmed Nihan was placed in judicial custody for one week.
“Judge Ahmed Nihan’s arbitrary and seemingly politically motivated arrest is yet another example of executive highhandedness and the corrosion of separation of powers in the Maldives,” said Zarifi.
“Undue interference with the Human Rights Commission, the arbitrary dismissal of the Auditor General, and the unlawful removal of two Supreme Court justices are just a few examples,” he added.
According to the Maldivian media, the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by Judge Ahmed Nihan, related to an on-going investigation against President Abdulla Yameen for embezzlement of state funds.
President Yameen’s spokesperson said in an interview the warrant was “fraudulent” because it “did not originate from any official authority.”
The Maldivian police (photo) claim the arrest warrant was issued using “falsified information”.
The ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately release Judge Ahmed Nihan and allow him to continue his judicial duties.
The ICJ also reiterates its previous calls on the Maldivian Government to implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
In a fact-finding report released in August last year, the ICJ noted with concern the serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Maldives acceded to in 2006, safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
International standards on judicial independence, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, provide that judges shall be free from any “inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process”.
The fact that executive or legislative actors may disagree with a judge’s decision or interpretation of the law cannot be a valid ground for removal or punishment of the judge.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary further stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only through proceedings that guarantee the right to a fair hearing (Principle 17); and then only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18); that all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct (Principle 19), and decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review (Principle 20). The Basic Principles elaborate on legal obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant and Civil Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003 contain similar provisions.
Article 154 of the Maldivian Constitution states that a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the person is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct.
Feb 5, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Royal Thai Government to immediately drop criminal proceedings against human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri.
On 2 February 2016, Sirikan Charoensiri received two summons to appear at the Chanasongkram Police Station on 9 February 2016 to be charged with two offences under the Criminal Code of Thailand: “giving false information regarding a criminal offence” and “refusing to comply with the order of an official”.
Such charges could result in punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment.
“The charges against Sirikan Charoensiri apparently relate to her efforts to protect the legal and human rights of her clients, students who never should have faced arrest or criminal proceedings for peacefully exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in the first place,” said Matt Pollard of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
“Prosecuting Sirikan Charoensiri for her efforts to defend human rights is totally unacceptable and will only put Thailand further in violation of its international obligations,” he added.
The charges appear to relate to the circumstances surrounding Sirikan Charoensiri’s provision of legal aid to 14 students who were arrested on 26 June 2015 after carrying out peaceful protests calling for democracy and an end to military rule.
Although the precise basis for the changes is not set out in the summonses, the complainant is named as Pol. Col. Suriya Chamnongchok, a police officer involved in the investigation of the 14 students.
Sirikan Charoensiri, a lawyer with Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), has provided legal aid to many individuals, including activists and human rights defenders, since military rule was imposed in May 2014.
The ICJ first expressed concern about the Government’s targeting of Sirikan Charoensiri on 2 July 2015, after the Royal Thai Police threatened Sirikan Charoensiri with legal action, publically announced they were considering charging her with a crime, and visited her home and questioned her family.
These threats and harassment, like the currently pending charges, appeared to be in retaliation for her having refused consent for police to search her car after the students’ court hearing, and for having filed a complaint with the police when they proceeded to impound it.
The ICJ has brought the case to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders.
The situation of human rights in Thailand will be examined by the UN Human Rights Council in May 2016, as part of the Council’s Universal Periodic Review of all States.
“Ahead of Thailand’s human rights review by the United Nations in May, and against the background of the tabled ‘roadmap’ towards democratic rule, the need for the Royal Thai Government to restore respect for human rights only grows more urgent by the day,” said Pollard.
Contact
In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a Party, guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; the right to freedom of expression; the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention; the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (including the right of prompt access to a lawyer and precluding jurisdiction of military courts over civilians in circumstances such as these); and the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence (which includes arbitrary searches or seizures).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms the right of everyone peacefully to oppose human rights violations. It prohibits retaliation, threats and other harassment against anyone who takes peaceful action against human rights violations, both within and beyond the exercise of their professional duties. It protects the right of persons to file formal complaints about alleged violations of rights. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments are to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Thailand-Sirikan Charoensiri-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in PDF, Thai)
