Jul 24, 2017
In a report published today, Judges for Judges and the ICJ analyze disciplinary proceedings against Bulgarian Judge Miroslava Todorova in relation to international standards on judicial independence and accountability.
On 12 July 2012, the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria dismissed Judge Miroslava Todorova, at that time a judge of the Sofia City Court and Chairperson of the Bulgarian Judges Association, on the grounds that she was responsible for delays in a number of cases.
Subsequently, Judges for Judges and the ICJ followed the disciplinary proceedings against Todorova and sent trial observers to Sofia on two occasions, in May 2013 and November 2014.
In their findings, the ICJ and Judges for Judges do not address whether, and if so which, disciplinary sanctions may have been appropriate in this case.
They note, however, that the disciplinary proceedings concerned delays, constituting judicial misconduct, in a context where according to many internal and external observers the workload between the courts is divided unevenly and may be very high for some.
The two organizations also note that, as the second three-judge panel pointed out, the overall organization of the workflow was never properly considered in considering and reaching a determination n the disciplinary case.
With the quashing of the second three-judge panel’s decision, likewise other relevant circumstances were not taken into account.
Furthermore, the report finds, disciplinary practice in Bulgaria is deficient in respect of its lack of predictability and consistency, and doubts expressed by many observers as to the independence of the Judicial Service Council muddy the waters further.
The 2013 amendments to the legal framework only partially served to remedy the disciplinary practice’s deficiencies.
In particular, a full right of defence that includes the opportunity for the defendant to address all arguments and evidence remained wanting at the time of the Todorova proceedings.
In the report, the ICJ and Judges for Judges also note the animosity towards Todorova from certain quarters in the Executive and SJC for her activities as the chair of the BJA in defence of judicial independence.
Under the circumstances, there is an appearance that the disciplinary proceedings against Todorova were instituted and pursued selectively, and the system of the disciplinary proceedings in Bulgaria does not provide sufficient safeguards to dispel this appearance.
The disciplinary proceedings against Todorova demonstrate why it is crucial that accountability mechanisms be independent not only in theory but in practice, and for such mechanisms to be in some way themselves publicly accountable.
Bulgaria-The Todorova Case-Publications-Reports-Trial observation reports (full report, in PDF)
For additional background, see:
ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, Judicial Accountability (2016, in PDF)
and more generally:
ICJ Practitioners Guide No 1, International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors (2007, in PDF)
Jun 23, 2017
The ICJ has issued its Annual Report 2016, which offers a concise summary of the work carried out by the ICJ over the past year.
In 2016, the ICJ’s mission gained new urgency as the organization countered a global assault on the concept of the rule of law and respect for the international human rights legal order.
The year started with the international community seeming to accept, via the adoption of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, the fundamental importance of the rule of law to the implementation of sustainable development around the globe.
The inclusion of the rule of law in the SDGs emphasizes the need to develop the nexus between development and the legal framework of human rights; the ICJ has done this since its inception in 1952, and more consistently since the 1970s, and will continue to do so in the context of the SDGs.
However, this optimism has been overshadowed by an unprecedented, if not entirely unforeseen, invocation by political figures around the world of fear-mongering, discrimination, and demagoguery to erode respect for human rights and undermine the basic notion of an international legal order.
As the year drew to a close, Burundi, the Gambia and South Africa initiated steps to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (though at the time of writing the withdrawals have either been reversed or suspended in all three countries, thanks in part to efforts by the ICJ).
A new administration in the United States of America signaled policies, inside and outside the country, at odds with fundamental principles of nondiscrimination and constitutional checks and balances.
Similarly, a new administration in the Philippines rapidly transformed the country from an important advocate for abolition of the death penalty to a country that has unapologetically embraced extrajudicial killings and taken steps to reintroduce the death penalty.
Turkey responded to a failed coup d’état by initiating an arbitrary purge of the judiciary that has significantly weakened the State’s judicial system.
Egypt has undermined the concept of judicial accountability by systematically using the judicial system as a tool of oppression.
Regrettably, there are many more examples of rights regression that can also be considered.
The anger about globalization is real and should not be ignored; in fact, the ICJ has for years pointed out the dangers of a global order that provides profit-making businesses with tremendous privileges but does not hold them to account, and we are currently engaged in the ongoing process for the elaboration of an international treaty on business and human rights.
However the solution is not to throw out the international institutions and systems that have been targeted but rather to strengthen these to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
The ICJ believes in the continued relevance of institutions such as the UN and the importance of the international standards that can be upheld through its mechanisms.
The ICJ has been working to ensure that these are increasingly accessible to everyone and has been working on a project with individuals and organizations from ASEAN to encourage and facilitate access to UN mechanisms for victims of rights abuses from the region.
The ICJ’s 2016 Geneva Forum explored the role of judges and lawyers in situations of large-scale movements of refugees and migrants and considered how the judiciary can uphold and protect the rights of those affected.
The ICJ also undertook training workshops with European lawyers to enhance their capacity to protect the rights of refugees and migrants through domestic legal systems in compliance with relevant regional and international standards.
The ICJ believes that an independent and robust judiciary is essential to this dynamic concept of the rule of law but also considers that a judiciary that acts with impunity and is unaccountable for any rights transgressions committed by the judiciary itself undermines this concept.
A new Practitioners’ Guide on judicial accountability was launched that addresses the complex and under-examined issues of how to ensure accountability for judicial misconduct whilst preserving the independence of the judiciary.
Judicial systems and processes can only be effective if they are accessible and the ICJ has been working to strengthen access to justice for particularly vulnerable and marginalized groups.
For example, in 2016, the ICJ released new Practitioners’ Guides on women’s access to justice for sexual and gender-based violence and on refugee status claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
For a complete overview of ICJ’s most important activities in 2016, you can download the Annual Report 2016 (in light PDF) here:
Universal-ICJ year 2016-Publications-Annual Report-2017-ENG (in low resolution to download faster)
Apr 6, 2017
Today, the ICJ and the Guatemalan Association of Judges for Integrity, with the support of the Norwegian Association of Judges, launched two studies (in Spanish) on the state of justice in Guatemala.
The first study Judicial Independence in Guatemala evaluates judicial independence in the country, making reference both to international standards and Guatemalan law.
The study also analyses various domestic rulings related to judicial independence.
The second study Good Practices in Specialised Justice in Guatemala looks as the advances made and challenges faced by the Femicide and Major Risk Tribunals of Guatemala.
The study analyses the “Siekavizza” and “Plan de Sanchez” cases, amongst others.
Three Norwegian judges, who form part of the Norwegian Judges Human Rights Committee, attended the event.
These judges make two annual trips to Guatemala to assess the situation of judicial independence and impunity in Guatemala.
The following speakers made presentations: Guatemalan judge, Yassmín Barrios; Guatemalan Supreme Court of Justice Magistrate, Maria Eugenia Morales Aceña; Honduran Judge and ex-President of the Association of Judges for Democracy, Rubenia Galeano; vice-President of the Guatemalan Association of Judges for Integrity, Miguel Ángel Gálvez; and President of the Guatemalan Association of Judges for Integrity, Haroldo Vásquez.
La CIJ y la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, con el apoyo de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, presentaron dos estudios sobre el estado actual del sistema de justicia en Guatemala.
El primer estudio La Independencia Judicial en Guatemala se centra en una evaluación de la independencia judicial en el país haciendo referencia a la normativa nacional e internacional.
El estudio lleva a cabo un análisis de sentencias nacionales relacionadas con la independencia judicial.
El segundo estudio Buenas Prácticas en la Justicia Especializada se centra en los avances y hallazgos de los Tribunales de Mayor Riesgo y los Tribunales de Femicidio.
Incluye un análisis de los casos “Siekavizza” y el “Plan de Sánchez”, entre otros.
En el foro estuvieron presentes una delegación de tres jueces Noruegos del Comité de Derechos Humanos de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, quienes realizan la primera de dos visitas anuales al país, para dar seguimiento a la situación de jueces independientes en Guatemala.
Además comentaron los estudios la jueza guatemalteca Yassmín Barrios; la Magistrada de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, María Eugenia Morales Aceña; el juez guatemalteco y Presidente de la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, Haroldo Vásquez; y la jueza hondureña y Ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia, Rubenia Galeano.
Guatemala-Independencia Judicial-Publications-Thematic reports-2016-SPA (Report in Spanish, PDF)
Guatemala-Feminicidio y Riesgo-Publications-Thematic Reports-2016-SPA (Report in Spanish, PDF)
Apr 6, 2017
La CIJ y la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, con el apoyo de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, presentarán dos estudios sobre el estado actual del sistema de justicia en Guatemala.
El primer estudio La Independencia Judicial en Guatemala se centra en una evaluación de la independencia judicial en el país haciendo referencia a la normativa nacional e internacional.
El estudio lleva a cabo un análisis de sentencias nacionales relacionadas con la independencia judicial.
El segundo estudio Buenas Prácticas en la Justicia Especializada se centra en los avances y hallazgos de los Tribunales de Mayor Riesgo y los Tribunales de Femicidio.
Incluye un análisis de los casos “Siekavizza” y el “Plan de Sánchez”, entre otros.
En el foro estarán presentes una delegación de tres jueces Noruegos del Comité de Derechos Humanos de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega, quienes realizan la primera de dos visitas anuales al país, para dar seguimiento a la situación de jueces independientes en Guatemala.
Además comentarán los estudios la jueza guatemalteca Yassmín Barrios; la Magistrada de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, María Eugenia Morales Aceña; el juez guatemalteco y Presidente de la Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad, Haroldo Vásquez; y la jueza hondureña y Ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia, Rubenia Galeano.
Guatemala-Independencia Judicial-Publications-Thematic reports-2016-SPA (informe en PDF)
Guatemala-Feminicidio y Riesgo-Publications-Thematic Reports-2016-SPA (informe en PDF)
Mar 24, 2017
The ICJ published today a Serbian translation of its Practitioners Guide no. 6 on Migration and International Human Rights Law.
This updated edition of the Practitioners Guide analyses the protection afforded to migrants by international law and the means to implement it at national and international levels.
The ICJ Guide synthesizes and clarifies international standards on key issues, in particular:
- the rights and procedures connected to the way migrants enter a country and their status in the country of destination;
- human rights and refugee law constraints on expulsion;
- the human rights and refugee law rights linked to expulsion procedures;
- the rights and guarantees for administrative detention of migrants;
- rights connected to work and labour; and
- rights to education, to the highest attainable standard of health, to adequate housing, to water, to food, and to social security.
Universal-PG 6 Migration-Publications-Practitionners’ Guides Series-2016-SER (full guide in PDF)
