On Monday 15 April, the ICJ will hold a roundtable seminar with judges of the Russian Federation’s highest courts, on disciplinary action against judges in the Russian Federation.
The ICJ today expressed its deep concern at the decision of the President of the Republic of Italy to pardon Colonel Joseph L. Romano III, following his conviction by an Italian court for complicity in the rendition of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar (photo).
“This pardon deals a serious blow to the rule of law and to accountability for CIA renditions and secret detentions, a system which involved torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary and secret detention and other serious crimes under international law,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe Programme. “Italy stood honourably as the only country where an effective prosecution had been brought against CIA and Italian agents responsible for crimes under international law committed through the CIA rendition programme. This pardon deletes, in a single stroke of the pen, years of relentless efforts of prosecutors, investigators and lawyers to assure accountability for these crimes under international law.”
The ICJ emphasized that the pardon granted by the Italian President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, in his last weeks of office, defeats the efforts of the judiciary to uphold the State’s international law obligations to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for gross violations of human rights.
“By nullifying the effects of years of efforts of the Italian judicial system, this pardon seriously undermines Italy’s action against impunity and weakens the very foundations of the rule of law,” Frigo added. “The fact that the President of the Republic justified this action by raising the “peculiarity of the historical moment” of 9/11, thus suggesting that a kind of state of exception for the rule of law could have existed, is an unacceptable position under international law.”
The ICJ deeply regrets this decision of the President of the Republic to use his prerogative of pardon to prevent accountability for such an egregious violation of the rule of law in name of US-Italian diplomatic relations.
The ICJ condemns this pardon and stresses that it must not constitute a precedent and that other convictions in this case must not be nullified by pardons or amnesties. All European countries must uphold their duty fight against impunity for gross violations of human rights.
Any further circumvention of accountability for perpetrators of renditions or other gross human rights violations would only extend the cloak of impunity over the rule of law in Europe.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
PR-Italy-RenditionPardon-2013-eng (english version)
PR-Italy-RenditionPardon-2013-ita (italian version)
On 5 April, Vietnam’s Hai Phong court sentenced Doan Van Vuon and three of his male relatives to imprisonment sentences ranging from two to five years, for attempted murder. The ICJ condemns this decision.
Mr. Doan’s wife and sister-in-law received suspended sentences in the form of 18 and 15 months respectively for resisting persons in the performance of their official duties.
Vuon, along with his brothers Doan Van Quy and Doan Van Sinh, as well as Sinh’s son Doan Van Ve, were initially arrested on 5 January 2012 for injuring four policemen and two soldiers with homemade weapons when more than 100 security forces tried to forcibly evict them from their fish farm in a district approximately 90 kilometres from Hanoi.
The four men had remained in detention for more than a year waiting for the commencement of last week’s trial.
Under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam is a signatory to, states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge…and be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.
“Pre-trial detention should only be used in criminal proceedings as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time period, when required to meet the needs of justice,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “The prolonged period of detention in this case is detrimental as it could possibly have violated the defendants’ presumption of innocence and due process.”
During the trial, it was concerning to note that all the judges involved in the case were members of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party and were carrying out their judicial duties under the central government’s directions.
Article 14 of the ICCPR further guarantees that a person is “entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
“Vietnam’s blatant disregard of the right to fair trial violates not only their international law obligations, but also the proper administration of justice in a criminal proceeding,” said Emerlynne Gil.
The ICJ also observed that the court’s judgment failed to incorporate the fact that the defendants had acted in such a manner only as an attempt to defend and protect their land, which was legitimately given to them by the Vietnamese government in 1993.
The right to receive a reasoned judgment is an inherent principle in safeguarding fair trial rights and it is the general rule that court rulings must include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning.
“The failure to adhere to the minimum international fair trial standards reveals Vietnam’s serious lack of commitment towards upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in the country; a violation most certainly not in line with the profile of a country wishing to obtain a seat at the UN Human Rights Council 2014-2016 tenure,” Gil added.
In the event of an appeal, the ICJ calls that the Vietnamese Court of Appeal be consistent with the international basic judicial guarantees and the principles of independence, impartiality and competency.
The ICJ urged the Cambodian Bar Association to make it clear that its new Code of Ethics, launched today, does not restrict the freedom of lawyers to express their opinions.
Article 17 of the new Code of Ethics states (in an informal translation by the ICJ) that “All interventions made publicly or through public media by lawyers in their capacity as lawyers may be permitted only within the framework of strict compliance with the duties of the legal profession. Such interventions require diligence.”
This language replaces Article 15 of the 1995 Code, which demanded all lawyers in Cambodia to “inform” or “consult” the Bar President before making media statements.
“The language of the new Article 17 is an improvement over the old Code, but it is ambiguous and raises fears that lawyers will not be able to exercise their right to express their opinions freely,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia. “The Cambodian Bar Association must clarify that under Article 17, lawyers, like all others, can address important legal and policy issues publicly and openly.”
The ICJ asserted that the Bar Association must clearly and publicly state that Article 17 shall not be construed to mean that lawyers must seek permission prior to engaging in public activities in their professional capacity.
The ICJ also expressed concern over the previous statements made by the Bar Association implying that lawyers could be sanctioned for expressing certain views of the country’s laws or legal reforms. During a press conference on 15 March 2013, the Bar Association said that the purpose of Article 17 was to prevent lawyers from misinterpreting the law and thus “making society chaotic”.
“The best means of increasing public awareness of the laws and strengthening the rule of law is to encourage greater public discussion,” said Emerlynne Gil. “Disagreements about the meaning of laws are part of the nature of the legal process and should be encouraged publicly.”
The ICJ recognizes the grave difficulties of facing the legal system in Cambodia, where fewer than 1000 active lawyers must provide services for a population of more than 14 million people. “We share the Cambodian Bar Association’s concerns about the need to uphold the professional competence and integrity of its members,” said Emerlynne Gil. “However, this concern should be addressed through efforts to improve legal education expertise rather than limiting the right of lawyers to freedom of expression.”
For questions and clarifications, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477, fax no. +662 6198479 or emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Joint Statement: Attacks on the Rule of Law, Judicial Independence and Access to Justice in Zambia
HRC63: ICJ Raises Concern over Widespread and Systematic Arbitrary Detention in Egypt
Myanmar: As armed conflict rages and military rule continues, critical measures can be taken towards eventual justice and accountability for victims of Enforced Disappearance
HRC63: ICJ Raises Alarm over Repression in Tunisia and Arbitrary Detention in El Salvador