Jul 11, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the adoption of a new law on lawyers in Kazakhstan.
The Law ‘On the Professional Activities of Advocates and Legal Assistance’, signed into law on 10 July 2018, contradicts international law and standards on the independence of the legal profession, by enabling the executive to influence or to have control over who is allowed to practice law and substantial influence on disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
The law will have negative repercussions for protection of human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
“Some of the key provisions of the adopted law undermine the independence of the legal profession, a cornerstone of the rule of law,” Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe Program Senior Legal Adviser said today.
“Not only does the law weaken the legal profession, it sends an unfortunate message to the public that, as a result, their human rights, including their right to a fair trial, may be harder to uphold within the legal system,” he added.
More specifically, the ICJ is concerned that, under the new law, the role of the independent Bar Association in the composition of the disciplinary commissions is reduced.
Besides lawyers, the Disciplinary Commission will now include ‘representatives of the public’ designated by the Ministry of Justice. While the law does not specify how these members of the Disciplinary Commission would be selected, the selection is to be made by the Ministry of Justice.
The same procedure is not excluded to select members who are retired judges, which the Law requires also be part of disciplinary commissions.
While many of the specific procedures are unclear, it is apparent that these provisions would give the Ministry extensive influence over the Disciplinary Commission, especially as the law does not explicitly require these members perform their duties independently from the instructions of the Ministry of Justice.
The influence of the executive over the disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Association is contrary to the principles of independence of lawyers.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are to be brought before an impartial disciplinary committee established by the legal profession, before an independent statutory authority, or before a court, and shall be subject to an independent judicial review.
Furthermore, the law continues to give the Ministry of Justice control over admission to the practice of law.
It stipulates that prospective lawyers who have completed their professional training are to be assessed by the Commission for admission to practice established by territorial bodies of the Ministry of Justice.
The commissions consist of seven members, of which only three are members of the Bar Association. The composition of the commissions and the principles of their work are to be approved by the orders of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Law therefore preserves the previous procedure on admission to the profession criticized by the ICJ earlier, according to which the attestation of applicants for obtaining the membership to the Bar Association and issuing a license were within the exclusive competence of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
At the same time, many defense rights listed in the Law are curtailed or compromised by the wording that would allow for enactment of restrictions by secondary legislation, including that the adopted Law would not allow lawyers to freely and without interference collect evidence in defense of their clients or that lawyer’s inquiries can be subject to limitation where they seek to obtain “restricted information”.
The ICJ notes that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, States must ensure lawyers have access to appropriate information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time (Principle 21).
Read the full text in English here
Read the full text in Russian here
Jul 5, 2018
On 25 June, the ICJ and Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).
The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Fifth Periodic Report of Turkey under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
During its 65th session, from 12 November to 7 December 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Turkey.
Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Turkey’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Fifth Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.
The ICJ and IHOP’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.
In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Turkey, including on the following pressing issues:
- allegations of abduction;
- immunity from prosecution for torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- remedies and reparations for victims of torture;
- fundamental legal safeguards and access to a lawyer;
- conditions of detention;
- civil society organizations; and
- national human rights institution and national preventive mechanism.
Turkey-LOIPR-ICJ&IHOP-June2018-final (download the submission)
Turkey-LOIPR-ICJ&IHOP-June2018-statement-ENG
This project is funded by the European Union
* This article does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union
Jul 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ condemned today the forced retirement of 27 out of 72 judges of the Supreme Court of Poland in defiance of the most basic principles on the independence of the judiciary.
“The forced retirement of a third of the Supreme Court under the new law on the judiciary amounts to an arbitrary dismissal of judges” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, “It is a flagrant breach of a basic tenet of the independence of the judiciary, the security of tenure of judges.”
The government claims the law and its implementing measure of forced retirements are aimed at improving the administration of justice. However, the ICJ considers them to be a deliberate attempt to destroy judicial independence and install executive control.
“We call on the Polish authorities to follow the EU’s recommendations, abolish this draconian legislation and immediately reinstate the Supreme Court justices. Not to do so strikes at the very core of judicial independence”, said Róisín Pillay.
“Universal principles of judicial independence guaranteeing security of tenure were developed long ago exactly to safeguard the kind of abuse of political authority driving this forced retirement measure, whereby judges would serve at the pleasure of the government of the day,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the implementation of the new law on the Supreme Court and the dismissal of the 27 Supreme Court Justices directly contravenes the security of tenure of judges and, hence, the principle of judicial independence, as expressed in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Council of Europe standards, the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and the rule of law principle of the EU Treaties.
Poland-Attacks on judiciary-News-web stories-2018-ENG (full story – with additional background information – in PDF)
Jul 4, 2018 | Новости, Статьи
МКЮ сегодня осудила принудительный уход 27 из 72 судей Верховного суда Польши вопреки самым элементарным принципам независимости судебной власти.
«Принудительный выход на пенсию третьей части Верховного суда в соответствии с новым законом о судебной системе означает произвольное увольнение судей», – сказала Роушин Пиллэй, директор Программы МКЮ по Европе и СНГ, «Это грубое нарушение основного принципа независимости судебной власти, безопасности пребывания в должности судей».
Правительство утверждает, что закон и его меры по принудительному выходу на пенсию направлены на улучшение отправления правосудия. Однако, МКЮ считает их преднамеренной попыткой уничтожить независимость судебной власти и установить контроль исполнительной власти .
«Мы призываем польские власти следовать рекомендациям ЕС, отменить это драконовское законодательство и немедленно восстановить судей Верховного суда. Неспособность сделать это ударяет по самому основу независимости судебных органов», – сказала Роушин Пиллэй.
«Универсальные принципы независимости судебных органов, гарантирующие безопасность пребывания в должности, были разработаны давно, чтобы защитить от злоупотребление политическими полномочиями, которые продвигают эту принудительную меру выхода на пенсию, в соответствии с которой судьи будут служить в удовольствие правительства того дня», – добавила она.
МКЮ считает, что осуществление нового закона о Верховном суде и увольнение 27 судей Верховного суда прямо противоречит безопасности пребывания в должности судей и, следовательно, принципа независимости судебных органов, как это выражено в Основных принципах ООН по Независимости судебных органов, в стандартах Совета Европы, юриспруденции Европейского суда по правам человека и принципом верховенства права в договорах ЕС.
Poland-Attacks on judiciary-News-web stories-2018-ENG (полная история – с дополнительной справочной информацией – в формате PDF, на английском)
Jun 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today raised concerns for the independence of the judiciary in Serbia, in a statement to the United Nations.
The statement was delivered during the discussion of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Serbia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) congratulates Serbia on the completion of its Third Cycle Universal Periodic Review.
The ICJ welcomes the acceptance by Serbia of all recommendations to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, including by limiting political influence over judicial appointments (Norway, 6.1; Sweden, 6.2; France, 6.3; Australia, 6.20; Germany, 6.22; Morocco, 6.23; Estonia, 6.24; Republic of Korea, 6.25; Singapore, 6.26; Canada, 6.27).
The ICJ regrets, however, that constitutional amendments currently under discussion in Serbia run counter to these recommendations.
The amendments would empower the National Assembly to determine appointments and dismissals of judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as for half of the members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors.
The independence and autonomy of the Constitutional Court, High Judicial Council and State Prosecutorial Council, would be better secured by reducing or eliminating the role of political bodies such as the National Assembly, particularly as regards dismissals.
The ICJ stresses that the judiciary and the prosecution service must exercise their functions free from direct or indirect external influences, threats or interferences, including from the legislative and executive powers.
While welcoming reforms for life tenure of judges and deputy prosecutors, the ICJ urges Serbia to implement the accepted recommendations by precluding involvement of the National Assembly in the appointment and dismissal of judges, court presidents, public prosecutors, and deputy public prosecutors.”
