May 28, 2013 | News, Publications
The ICJ has now published a translation of its Practitioner’s Guide, International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
This is the first comprehensive analysis of the existing standards and compilation of universal and regional instruments published in Russian. The Guide outlines the roles to be played by a strong legal profession, an independent judiciary and an impartial and objective prosecuting authority. References to international decisions, reports, texts of treaties and other international standards allow the Guide to be used as a reference book by legal practitioners and policy makers.
International-Principles-on-the-Independence-and-Accountability-of-Judges-Lawyers-and-Procecutors-(No.1)-Practitioners’ Guide series-2013-Rus (full text in pdf)
May 28, 2013
The ICJ today addressed the Human Rights Council, and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, concerning migrants’ rights at EU borders.
In an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Francois Crépeau, the ICJ commended the Special Rapporteur’s study concerning the external borders of the EU. It drew attention to gaps in the harmonized EU standards on the rights of persons in need of international protection; and the risk of proposed EU Regulations for Frontex sea operations to institutionalise pushback operations and to not be in line with the principle of non-refoulement. The ICJ asked the Special Rapporteur to consider whether, by divesting responsibilities to non-EU member States, EU policies can constitute a form of complicity in human rights violations.
The statement was delivered under Item 3 (promotion and protection of all human rights) of the agenda of the Human Rights Council’s 23rd regular session (27 May to 14 June 2013).
Europe-HRC23-OralStatementMigrants-LegalSubmission-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
Photo by EU Commission
May 17, 2013 | News
On 16 May, the ICJ and Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges) observed an appeal hearing at the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in a case against the dismissal of Judge Miroslava Todorova.
Judge Todorova, who had been serving on the Sofia City Court, is known for critical commentary on the problems in the judiciary in Bulgaria. In this hearing, the Prosecutor’s Office supported Judge Todorova’s appeal against her dismissal, but the Court has not yet issued its decision.
The ICJ previously raised concerns over Judge Todorova’s dismissal from her position of judge and as Chair of the Bulgarian Judges Association, in July 2012. The ICJ was particularly concerned at the disproportionate sanctions for delay of several reasoned cases, which is a problematic, but usual, practice among judges in Bulgaria.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the fact that the proceedings took place some six years after the limitation period ended. Further questions arose as to the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the body which both initiated the proceedings and conducted the hearing, and its independence in this case.
The trial observation mission consisted of Professor Doctor Günter Witzsch (Germany), who observed the trial on behalf of the ICJ, and Judge Janneke Bockwinkel (the Netherlands, on behalf of Judges for Judges). The ICJ and Judges for Judges will continue to follow the case of the dismissal of Judge Miroslava Todorova and will issue a detailed report following the issuing of the decision by the SAC.
For further information
Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
May 13, 2013 | Адвокаси, Новости, Статьи, Юридические заявления
Сегодня МКЮ опубликовал свои рекомендации по законопроекту, вносящему изменения в дисциплинарную систему судей в Российской Федерации.
МКЮ считает что Законопроект о внесении изменений в статьи 121 , 14 и 15 Закона Российской Федерации «О статусе судей в Российской Федерации» предусматривает целый ряд положительных изменений. Тем не менее, МКЮ с сожалением отмечает, что авторы законопроекта не воспользовались возможностью ввести в действие более обширные реформы, направленные на ликвидацию институциональных, материальных и процессуальных недостатков системы, создающих почву для злоупотреблений и способствующих произвольному и непоследовательному применению мер дисциплинарного взыскания.
Russia-judicialdisciplinelaw-comment-2013-rus (скачать комментарий на русском)
May 13, 2013 | News
On 13 May, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal granted W, a transgender woman, the right to marry her male partner. The ICJ, which made submissions in the case, applauds this decision.
W is a resident of Hong Kong who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, paid for by the Hong Kong Government, and who holds a national identity card and passport recording her sex as female.
In 2008 she applied to the Registrar of Marriages seeking confirmation that she could marry her male partner.
The Registrar denied her request on the grounds that “the biological sexual construction of an individual is fixed at birth and cannot be changed.”
Because “only an individual’s sex at birth counts,” the Registrar would not celebrate the marriage.
The trial court and court of appeal upheld the Registrar’s interpretation of the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance and ruled that it did not conflict with Hong Kong’s Basic Law or its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These courts relied on the 1970 British case of Corbett v. Corbett, which held that sex was fixed immutably at birth.
W won her case at the Court of Final Appeal, which ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance ignored the “psychological and social elements of a person’s sexual identity” and thus were inconsistent with the constitutional right to marry.
Furthermore, the ordinances were unconstitutional because they denied W the right to marry at all and thus impaired the very essence of the right.
While the Court granted the parties leave to make further submissions as to the exact nature of the declaratory relief, it held that “a transsexual in W’s situation” should in principle be granted a declaration that she is in law a woman within the meaning of the marriage ordinances and “therefore eligible to marry a man.”
Importantly, the Court also stated: “We would not seek to lay down a rule that only those who have had full gender reassignment surgery involving both excising and reconstructive genital surgery, qualify. We leave open the question whether transsexual persons who have undergone less extensive treatment might also qualify.”
“This is a historic decision,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Advisor at the International Commission of Jurists. “Not only has W won her own case at the Court of Final Appeal, her courage and commitment have changed the lives of transgender people in Hong Kong.”
The parties have an additional 21 days to file written submissions. The Court’s proposed order gives the Hong Kong legislature time to respond but indicates that even in the absence of intervening legislation, the marriage ordinances would be given a remedial interpretation to include W.
Photo by K.Y. Cheng: Michael Vidler, solicitor of the appellant, holds the judgment in his hand outside Court of Final Appeal.
