Aug 20, 2019
An opinion piece by Massimo Frigo, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Europe and Central Asia. This Op-ed was first published in the EU Observer.
Since he became Minister of Interior, Matteo Salvini has repeatedly vowed to close Italian harbours to migrants, including refugees, and NGOs, making it the central objective of his migration policy.
The latest attempt has been the issuance by the Government of a Law Decree called “Security Decree bis”. converted into law at the beginning of August by Parliament.
The Decree gives exceedingly wide power to the Minister of Interior “to restrict or prohibit the entry, transit or stop of any vessel in the territorial sea”.
The restriction or denial order may be issued for “reasons of public order and security or when the conditions arise under article 19.2.g of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.” Article 19.2 is about lack of respect of national immigration laws.
The same Decree affirms that the vessel’s captain must observe international law and the prohibition of entry, if ordered, by the Minister of Interior.
In case of breach of the prohibition of entry, the captain and the owner of the boat are sanctioned with an administrative fine between 150.000 and 1.000.000 EUR and the seizure of the boat.
As is evident from its express wording, the Decree itself recognizes that its terms are conditioned by the requirements international law. This limitation was highlighted as well by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, in his message accompanying the promulgation of the law that reinforced the duty of rescue upon any boat’s captain under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
This was also a mandatory condition, since article 117 of the Italian Constitutions holds that the laws must respect “the constraints deriving from EU legislation and international obligations”.
The law strikes back
It is for this reason that, since the promulgation of the Law Decree and its approval by Parliament, judicial decisions have hampered the purported aim of the Decree to close the Italian harbours.
The Judge of Preliminary Investigations of Agrigento, who, on 2 July, ordered the release from detention of Captain Carola Rackete of the Sea Watch 3, did so because she considered that her entry in breach of the prohibition under the Security Decree bis could not be unlawful, since it was done during a rescue operation, that is an obligation under international law.
A similar reasoning was followed, by the Administrative Tribunal of the Lazio Region, which on 14 August issued an injunction to the Government to let the boat Open Arms to enter Italian territorial waters so as to allow immediate assistance to persons in need.
According to media accounts, the Juvenile Court of Palermo has similarly questioned the Government on the situation of the several children aboard the Open Arms defining the situation of the boat as that of a push-back by Italian authorities.
The Open Arms is still at large and hosts more than 130 people, including a number of children. The ICJ and several other organizations have called on Italy and Malta to allow for the disembarkment of the passengers of the Open Arms for the last days.
The attacks on the Rule of Law
Matteo Salvini, who, in the meantime, has withdrawn his support for the Government – while remaining in charge as Minister of Interior – and called for new elections in the next autumn, has relentlessly attacked the judges and the judiciary in general for issuing “political decisions” in opposition to the “will of the Italian people” and of not respecting the law.
He has often called for a reform of the judiciary whenever an unfavourable decision has been issued.
More recently, he openly challenged the order of the Administrative Tribunal of Lazio by attempting to issue a new decree of prohibition of access to Italian waters for the Open Arms.
This move was blocked by the refusal of countersigning the order by the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Transports and Infrastructures.
However, it did not stop Salvini from openly criticizing the ruling of the Tribunal and hinting that there is a “plan to come back and open Italian harbours to make Italy be again the reception centre of Europe.”
These attacks by Matteo Salvini have been by UN independent experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Judges and Lawyers and by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) that emphasized that fundamental principles regarding the independence of the judiciary forbid such inappropriate interference with judicial process by the executive.
What is really at stake?
So, what is at stake in the cases of Sea Watch 3, Open Arms, and more generally in the role of courts?
It is not only the immigration policy of Italy or the EU, or the protection of migrants, including refugees, in extremely vulnerable and often life-threatening conditions that are stake.
It is the respect and protection of the Rule of Law, in particular of the independence of the judiciary and of the separation of powers that are at stake.
The attacks to Italian judges and the judiciary by Minister Salvini concern every person because an independent judiciary is an essential guarantee for the respect, protection and fulfilment of the human rights of everyone, and once it is undermined it is undermined for everyone.
In the cases noted above, the judges have done nothing more than reaffirm basic legal rules and principles.
And, thankfully, this means that thousands of people that find themselves wretched in dangerous conditions may be protected from abuse and, in many cases, death, because they have rights under international law as any other human being.
And this is what is the duty of judges and the Rule of Law to uphold.
Aug 19, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Human Rights Watch have jointly intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Taner Kiliç, former Chair of the Board of Amnesty International Turkey.
Taner Kiliç is a Turkish human rights defenders. He had been Chair of the Board of Amnesty International Turkey since 2014.
He was arrested on 6 June 2017 on reportedly unsubstantiated charges of “membership of a terrorist organisation” and was released on bail on 15 August 2018 after having spent 14 months in detention.
His case before the European Court of Human Rights challenges the lawfulness of his pre-trial and on remand detention, the violations of his right to judicial review of his detention, and of his freedom of expression and association, considering his arrest linked to his work as leader of a NGO.
As the interveners have written to the Court, this case epitomises some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today.
These involve widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly of human rights defenders (HRDs) and rapidly closing civil society space.
The interveners have submitted observations on:
- the factual context in respect of the situation facing HRDs in Turkey;
- international standards governing obligations towards HRDs of relevance to the Court’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the limits prescribed by Article 18;
- key principles necessary for a rule of law approach to the application of the criminal law, against the legal and practical pattern of excessive resort to criminal law against HRDs in Turkey today.
Turkey-ECtHR-icj&others-Kilic-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Photo credit: Amnesty International
Aug 8, 2019 | News
The ICJ called today on Italy and Malta to cooperate to swiftly provide a place of safety for the disembarkment of the 121 migrants, likely including asylum seekers, on board the Open Arms vessel.
Open Arms rescued 123 people that left Libya and were on a situation of distress in international waters, and has been navigating seven days on the Central Mediterranean Sea in search of a place of safety for disembarkment.
Currently Italy and Malta (the nearest States) and Spain (the flag State) have not granted access to their territorial waters.
“When a boat is conducting an operation of rescue it is the duty under international law for neighbouring States to provide a place of safety,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“The situation on the boat, with also 30 children and two babies, is rapidly deteriorating and it is of the utmost urgency to allow for their disembarkment,” he added.
“The refusals and lack of cooperation by Italy, Malta and Spain is in contravention of their obligations under the law of the sea,” said Frigo.
“These States should open their harbours and the EU should work hard to ensure that resettlement is ensured so as to relieve pressure from them.”
Relevant provisions of international law include: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 98); International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Annex, Chapter V; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t:+41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jul 21, 2019
On 19 July, the ICJ, jointly with ILGA Europe, FIDH, KPH and NELFA submitted a third-party intervention in the case of X. v. Poland before the European Court of Human Rights.
The case concerns the refusal of the Polish authorities to grant a lesbian mother custody of her children.
It raises issues concerning whether such a refusal is the result of discrimination on the grounds of her sexual orientation, and therefore, as such, would constitute prohibited discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8.
In the brief, the ICJ, together with its partners, set forth the current status of play of the case-law related but not limited to child custody decisions where one or both of the parents are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) individuals.
The third-party interveners have urged the Court to build upon its recent jurisprudence asserting and protecting the rights of LGBTI persons by drawing on its approach to consider the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument that needs to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.
Europe-X v Poland_TPI-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2019-ENG (full intervention, in PDF)
Jul 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) have jointly sent international observers to attend the second hearing of the criminal trial on the “Gezi Park” protest at the Silivri Prison Courthouse in Istanbul, scheduled to take place on 18 and 19 July 2019.
The ICJ and IBAHRI observers will be monitoring a trial hearing before İstanbul 30th Assize Court with prinicipal defendant Osman Kavala, and 15 others; Ali Hakan Altınay, Ayşe Mücella Yapıcı, Ayşe Pınar Alabora, Can Dündar, Çiğdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yılmaz, Handan Meltem Arıkan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoğlu, İnanç Ekmekci, Memet Ali Alabora, Mine Özerden, Şerafettin Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Yiğit Aksakoğlu and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi.
The observers will report directly to the IBAHRI and ICJ Secretariats on the proceedings following the mission.
The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon turned into nationwide demonstrations.
The protest was quelled by police with the use of tear gas and water cannons against the protesters in Taksim Square. Following a six-year investigation into the events, the 657-page indictment issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was accepted by the 30th A Court in Istanbul on 4 March 2019.
The defendants are to be charged under Turkish Criminal Code Article 312 (attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government or attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury); crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136, and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863.
The total sentence asked for by the prosecution for these offences amounts to approximately 47,520 years imprisonment.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org