Apr 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today warned that proposed amendments to Turkey’s Constitution to be voted on in the referendum of 16 April could irremediably compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The amendments would introduce significant changes to the institutional framework governing the Turkish judiciary, with far reaching consequences for the separation of powers.
The ICJ is concerned that the proposed constitutional amendments, if approved, would enshrine in Turkish Constitution measures that would be severely damaging the rule of law in Turkey for the long term.
The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental components of the rule of law.
Under the proposals, the President of the Republic would be empowered to appoint six out of thirteen members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, including four ordinary members as well as the Minister of Justice, (who would act as President of the Council) and the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
The remaining seven members would be appointed by the National Assembly.
None of the members of the Council would be appointed by judges or public prosecutors.
The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is the institution entrusted with the appointment, transfer, promotion, discipline and dismissal of judges and public prosecutors in Turkey.
It is the role of such a Council to act as a guardian of judicial independence and to protect the judiciary from interference by the executive and legislative powers.
The proposed Constitutional amendments are clearly contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary, which affirm that at least half of the members of a judicial council should be judges elected by their peers.
The amendments, if passed in the forthcoming referendum, would be enacted in a context where judicial independence has already been severely compromised.
Under the State of Emergency in place since the attempted coup of July 2016, approximately one fifth of the judiciary has been arbitrarily dismissed, and thousands of prosecutors and lawyers have been detained.
As the ICJ has previously highlighted, such measures have had a devastating effect on the independence of the judiciary at every level, compromising the courts’ ability to provide fair trials or an effective remedy for violations of human rights.
The ICJ understands that Turkey faced a serious threat to its democratic institutions in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Nonetheless, it stresses that measures meant to meet this threat must be undertaken within the framework of the rule of law and the country’s human rights obligations.
The ICJ reiterates its call on the Turkish authorities to lift the State of Emergency and the derogations from its international human rights law obligations that it has made as a matter of high priority.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
An ICJ briefing paper of June 2016, the Turkey: the Judicial System in Peril , raised concern at measures eroding the independence of the judiciary, prosecution, and legal profession in Turkey, with serious consequences for protection of human rights.
The Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, states:
- Not less than half the members of [councils for the judiciary] should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
Under international human rights law Turkey may derogate from certain human rights during a justified state of emergency only to the extent that derogating measures are strictly necessary to meet a current threat to the life of the nation.
Certain human rights, including freedom from torture, the right to life, and certain essential elements of the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy may never be restricted, even in an emergency situation.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
Apr 12, 2017
On 6 April, the ICJ, ECRE, the AIRE Centre and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention in the case of H. A. and Others v. Greece, which relates to the detention of nine unaccompanied minors (aged between 15 and 18), from Syria, Iraq and Morocco in Greek police stations.
The organisations argue that:
- A comprehensive assessment of the best interests of the child will presumptively exclude any resort to detention for children, when the detaining measures are being contemplated not in the context of furthering the child’s best interests but in the context of immigration control.
- The administrative detention of migrant children for immigration control purposes cannot fall within the scope of permissible detention under Article 5(1)(d) ECHR, which is intrinsically linked with the child’s educational supervision and protection needs.
- Before any administrative measure is taken concerning unaccompanied children, the State must appoint a guardian and provide the unaccompanied children with access to appropriate information in a language they understand.
- If the State fails to appoint a competent guardian for an unaccompanied child and/ or access to information is not adequately guaranteed, the State has failed to meet the procedural safeguards designed to assess, and determine the child’s best interests.
- Under EU law, EU Member States are obliged to provide conditions, procedures and information to children in order for them to have effective access to their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Greece-HA_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the third party intervention)
Apr 6, 2017 | Адвокаси, Новости, Статьи, Юридические заявления
МКЮ вмешалась перед Европейским судом по правам человека по делу предполагаемого похищения таджикского гражданина и передачи его стране происхождения, где он может подвергаться риску пыток или жестокого обращения.
Международная комиссия юристов (МКЮ) вмешалась по делу К.Ф. против России. К.Ф. был подвергнут процедуре экстрадиции в Таджикистан для ответа на преступления, связанные с терроризмом. Процедура была приостановлена временными мерами, принятыми Европейским судом по правам человека по данному делу. В день его освобождения, по истечении максимального срока содержания под стражей, он исчез. Семья сообщила его адвокату, что он содержится в следственном изоляторе в Таджикистане.
В этом документе МКЮ предоставила Суду анализ, основанный на источниках международного права, позитивных обязательств участников Европейской конвенции обеспечить, чтобы передача лиц не осуществлялась, когда те лица находются под временным мерам Суда, запрещающим переводы. Представление включает сравнительный анализ права, юриспруденции и практики других региональных систем прав человека. МКЮ также оценила способность российской правовой системы защищать от передачи в нарушение прав Конвенции и, в частности, временных мер Суда.
МКЮ пришла к выводу, что российские власти еще не предоставили эффективную программу защиты, которая обеспечивала бы соблюдение временных мер Европейского суда в случаях предполагаемых похищений. Кроме того, МКЮ указала, что отсутствие каких-либо эффективных расследований и публичного осуждения практики похищения наносит ущерб эффективному осуществлению временных мер Суда.
МКЮ утверждала, что это продолжающееся отсутствие соблюдения российскими властями постановлений Европейского суда затрагивает всю систему соблюдения временных мер. Поэтому повторение этой ситуации требует разработки конкретных мер для повышения системных изменений в российском законодательстве и практике.
Russianfederation-KF_v_Russia-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ-final-eng-2017 (Скачайте вмешательство на английском)
Apr 6, 2017
The ICJ has intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case of alleged abduction of a Tajik national and transfer to his country of origin where he could be at risk of torture or ill-treatment.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) intervened in the case of K.F. v. Russia. K.F. had been subject to a procedure of extradition to Tajikistan to answer for terrorism-related offences there. The procedure was stalled by the interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights in the case. On the day of his release, for the expiry of the maximum term for detention, he disappeared. The family informed his lawyer that he was being held in a remand prison in Tajikistan.
In this submission, the ICJ provided the Court with an analysis, based on international law sources, of the positive obligations of States parties to the European Convention to ensure that no transfer is carried out of persons subject to interim measures enjoining such transfer by the European Court. The submission includes a comparative analysis of the law, jurisprudence and practice of other regional human rights systems. The ICJ also assessed the capacity of the Russian legal system to protect against transfers in violation of the Convention rights and, in particular, of the interim measures of the Court.
The ICJ concluded that the Russian authorities have not yet provided an effective protection programme that would ensure the respect of the interim measures of the European Court in cases of alleged abductions. Furthermore, the ICJ pointed out that the lack of any effective investigations and public condemnation of practices of abduction is detrimental to the effective implementation of the Court’s interim measures.
The ICJ submitted that this continued lack of compliance by Russian authorities with the rulings of the European Court affects the whole system of compliance with interim measures. The recurrence of this situation, therefore, requires the formulation of specific measures to enhance systemic changes in Russian law and practice.
Russianfederation-KF_v_Russia-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ-final-eng-2017 (download the third party intervention)
Mar 31, 2017
The ICJ and Amnesty International intervened before the European Court of Human Rights to promote access to justice in Switzerland for a victim of torture at the hands of the former Tunisian Government.
Abdennacer Naït-Liman, a Tunisian national, claims to have been tortured at the hands of officers of the former Tunisian regime. Years after having obtained refugee status in Switzerland, he sought criminal prosecution of one of the perpetrators when this last arrived to Geneva for medical treatment. While his arrest and the consequent criminal prosecution had not been possible, Mr Naït-Liman has sought to introduce a civil action for damages for the violation of his human rights. Swiss courts have dismissed this action on jurisdictional ground and he challenged this situation before the European Court of Human Rights.
In their intervention, the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International have provided the Court with observations concerning a range of issues, including:
- The international legal framework pertaining to the issue of universal civil jurisdiction relevant to the interpretation of article 6 ECHR, in particular the States’ obligation under Article 14(1) of the Convention against Torture to provide procedures permitting any victim to obtain reparation for torture committed abroad;
- Forum necessitates (forum of necessity) allowing courts to have jurisdiction over civil matters as a means to prevent a denial of justice; and
- The right to reparation for individuals in international human rights law with regard to the content of the obligation to provide reparation.
Switzerland-icj&ai-NaitLiman-Advocacy-legal submission-2017-ENG (download the third party intervention)
