Jun 13, 2016 | Events
Who judges the judges?
Accountability for judicial corruption and judicial complicity
Side Event Tuesday 14 June 2016, 14:00 – 16:00
Room XXIII, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the International Bar Association (IBA) organised a side event to the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council, on the topic of accountability for judicial corruption and judicial involvement in human rights violations.
The well-attended event considered the need for judicial accountability, and different options for effective mechanisms and procedures of accountability. Recommendations for ordinary situations were complemented with reflections on circumstances of transitions where the judiciary have been deeply implicated in the violations of the previous regime, as well as particular challenges in developing countries.
At the event the ICJ launched its new Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the IBA presented the recent report of its Judicial Integrity Initiative on Judicial systems and Corruption. Print copies of both publications were distributed.
A panel discussion also featured the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, as well as Thulani Maseko, a lawyer from Swaziland who was subjected to prolonged arbitrary detention and imprisonment by judges in Swaziland, for speaking publicly about judicial misconduct in the country.
Speakers:
- Mónica Pinto Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
- Thulani Maseko Lawyer, Swaziland
- Jane Ellis, Director, Legal & Policy Research Unit, International Bar Association
- Matt Pollard, Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, International Commission of Jurists
In addition to the ICJ and IBA, side event co-sponsors included:
- The Permanent Mission of Hungary to the UN
- Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association
- Commonwealth Lawyers Association
- Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges), Netherlands
- International Legal Assistance Consortium
The ICJ Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the research and consultations on which it is based, was made possible with the financial support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
For more information, please contact Matt Pollard.
ICJ Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability
The ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability aims to help practitioners ensure accountability for serious judicial misconduct, such as corruption or complicity in human rights violations, while preserving the independence of the judiciary.
It focuses on international standards on accountability mechanisms and procedures, illustrated by practical examples. It addresses not only the accountability of individual judges, and the accountability of judiciary as an institution, but also State responsibility under international law, particularly in relation to harm caused to victims of violations by judges.
The Guide was greatly informed by discussions among eminent judges and lawyers from around the world, convened by the ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, in Tunisia in October 2015 , and in Geneva in December 2015.
Among the topics covered by the new ICJ Guide are:
- The obligation to ensure an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary.
- The forms of judicial accountability, including:
- Remedy and reparation for victims,
- The responsibility of the State,
- Removal from office, disciplinary sanctions, and other administrative measures,
- Criminal responsibility, and
- The right to the truth.
- The structure and elements of accountability bodies, such as:
- Review of decisions through appeal or judicial review,
- Judicial councils,
- The ordinary courts,
- Parliamentary procedures,
- Ad hoc tribunals,
- Anti-corruption bodies,
- Civil society monitoring and reporting,
- National human rights institutions,
- Professional associations,
- International accountability mechanisms.
- Procedural issues, including:
- Necessary powers for accountability mechanisms,
- Procedural rights of the judge,
- Procedural rights of complainants and victims,
- Publicity and transparency,
- Procedures for lifting judicial immunity,
- Temporary suspension during proceedings, and
- Selective enforcement for improper purposes.
- Mechanisms in exceptional circumstances, such as transitions from undemocratic or authoritarian regimes, including:
- Truth commissions,
- Vetting, and
- Mass removal and re-application.
- Particular challenges in relation to developing countries.
Jun 6, 2016
ICJ Practitioners Guide No. 13 on Judicial Accountability addresses mechanisms and procedures to ensure accountability for serious judicial misconduct, such as corruption or complicity in human rights violations, while preserving the independence of the judiciary. (Available in English, Burmese and Nepali)
It focuses on international standards on accountability mechanisms and procedures, illustrated by practical examples. The Guide addresses the need for all countries to ensure effective judicial accountability, while also including special chapters on situations of transition and developing countries.
The Guide updates and expands on previous guidance contained in the ICJ publication, Practitioners Guide No. 1: International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors, as well as Practitioners Guide No. 7: International Law and the Fight Against Impunity. It also builds on earlier work of the ICJ on the theme of judicial corruption, including Strengthening Judicial Independence, Eliminating Judicial Corruption.
This Guide addresses not only the accountability of individual judges, and the accountability of judiciary as an institution, but also State responsibility under international law, particularly in relation to harm caused to victims of violations by judges.
The Guide has been greatly informed by the contributions of outside experts, including the participants to a consultation on judicial accountability in developing countries, convened by the ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers in Tunisia 8-9 October 2015, as well as the 2015 CIJL Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, 14-15 December 2015.
Among the topics covered by the Guide are:
- The international legal frameworks for the obligation to ensure an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary.
- The forms of judicial accountability, including:
- Remedy and reparation for victims,
- The responsibility of the State,
- Removal from office, disciplinary sanctions, and other administrative measures,
- Criminal responsibility, and
- The right to the truth.
- The structure and elements of accountability bodies, such as:
- Review of decisions through appeal or judicial review,
- Judicial councils,
- The ordinary courts,
- Parliamentary procedures,
- Ad hoc tribunals,
- Anti-corruption bodies,
- Civil society monitoring and reporting,
- National human rights institutions,
- Professional associations,
- International accountability mechanisms.
- Procedural issues, including:
- Necessary powers for accountability mechanisms,
- Procedural rights of the judge,
- Procedural rights of complainants and victims,
- Publicity and transparency,
- Procedures for lifting judicial immunity,
- Temporary suspension during proceedings, and
- Selective enforcement for improper purposes.
- Mechanisms in exceptional circumstances, such as transitions from undemocratic or authoritarian regimes, including:
- Truth commissions,
- Vetting, and
- Mass removal and re-application.
- Particular challenges in relation to developing countries.
(An online compilation of international standards on independence and accountability of judges, as well as independence of lawyers and prosecutors, is available here.)
The ICJ Practitioners Guide on Judicial Accountability, and the research and consultations on which it is based, would not have been possible without the financial support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Universal-PG 13 Judicial Accountability-Publications-Reports-Practitioners Guide-2016-ENG (full guide in English, in PDF format)
Universal-PG13 Judicial-Accountability-Publications-Reports-Practitioners Guide-2016-Burmese (full guide in Burmese, in PDF format)
Universal-PG13 Judicial-Accountability-Publications-Reports-Practitioners Guide-2016-Nepali (full guide in Nepali, in PDF format)
To provide feedback on the Guide please respond to this online survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Q5VKMRM
To order printed copies, or for other queries, please contact Matt Pollard (matt.pollard(a)icj.org).
Apr 22, 2016
The ICJ and Child Rights (CRIN) launched today a practical guide on how to use the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child’s 16th General Comment to make its recommendations and guidance a reality.
The 16th General Comment focuses on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights.
The guide also provides examples of how NGOs have intervened on behalf of children, as well as advice on litigation, monitoring, advocacy and activism on behalf of children.
The impact of business on children is often overlooked by many human rights advocates and while attention given to the impacts of business on human rights has increased recently, the ways in which children are affected by business operations have not yet attracted sufficient attention.
CRIN and the ICJ hope that this guide goes some way to filling this gap and will be a useful starting point for further research and discussion.
Businesses can have a huge impact on children, with the potential for violations of their rights present in virtually every industry.
There are also vast power imbalances between children and business and, often, prohibitive costs involved in litigation against companies which have violated children’s rights.
Such cases are frequently settled out of court, while in many countries children do not even have standing to bring cases on their own behalf.
Violations of children’s rights continue to take place despite States’ obligations to cooperate to achieve the realization of children’s rights beyond their territorial boundaries.
Ultimately this means that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must work together to push for change alongside governments if children’s rights are to be respected.
Universal-Guide UN Committee on Rights of the Child-Publications-Reports-2016-ENG (full report, in PDF)
Mar 24, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of a resolution on human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights.Negotiation of the resolution was led by Norway, who presented the draft to the Council with co-sponsorship with a large number of states from around the world.
A series of hostile amendments tabled by the Russian Federation, China, Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan, which would have weakened the resolution, were defeated, and the resolution was ultimately adopted by a large majority.
The ICJ had earlier joined advocacy efforts to support the resolution text as presented, and welcomes the strong message the resolution as adopted sends affirming the importance of defenders’ work on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the need for states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of such defenders, including through a range of legislative, policy, and practical measures.
The draft resolution is available in an unofficial version here: 2016 draft resolution HRDs as orally revised.
The voting on the resolution is available here: Result of the vote HRDs
Mar 23, 2016
Member States of the UN Human Rights Council should support the adoption of a vital draft resolution on the protection of human rights defenders and vote down over 30 hostile amendments proposed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia, which could substantially weaken the text.
In an open letter to governments, more than 100 non-governmental organisations from all regions of the world have said that the resolution – which focuses on the situation and protection needs of those working to promote economic, social and cultural rights – is a timely, balanced and important response to the worsening crackdown on human rights defenders. States from all regions, including Australia, Brazil, France, Ghana, Japan and Tunisia, among others, have already pledged their support for the Norwegian-led text.
The draft resolution will be voted upn by 47 Member States of the Human Rights Council on 23 or 24 March.
The amendments being pushed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia include proposals to remove any reference in the text to the term ‘human rights defenders’, to deny the legitimacy of their work, and to weaken their protection against attacks and reprisals.
Re: Support resolution on the protection of human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights
22 March 2016
Your Excellency,
The undersigned civil society organisations, coming from all regions, urge your delegation to support the adoption of the resolution on the protection of human rights defenders working to promote economic, social and cultural rights as tabled. We urge you to resist efforts to undermine and weaken this resolution.
The draft resolution entitled ‘Protecting human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights (A/HRC/31/L.28) is being considered by the 31st session of the Human Rights Council. It will be presented for adoption on 23 or 24 March.
South African jurist and former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has articulated the importance of such a resolution in the following terms:
As a South African, I have seen and experienced first-hand the role of ESC rights defenders in combating poverty and injustice and in promoting universal human rights for all, even the most powerless and disadvantaged. I have seen how the work of those who defend ESC rights benefits entire communities; just as attacks against those who defend ESC rights harm entire communities. That is why it is so important and timely that the UN Human Rights Council is currently negotiating a resolution on the protection of ESC rights defenders.
The draft resolution has been developed through a number of open and transparent informal negotiations.
The text, as tabled, is balanced and appropriate, in recognising the vital contribution of human rights defenders to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. It is currently cosponsored by a broad group of States from all regions of the world.
The text also identifies the threats, attacks and challenges facing this group of defenders and the obligations, duties and interests of State and non-State actors in terms of supporting and safeguarding this work. It provides good practice guidance to both State and non-State actors in this regard.
Despite the importance of the resolution – so tragically illustrated at the commencement of the 31st session with the murder of Honduran woman human rights defender Berta Caceres – a small group of States, led by the Russian Federation, China, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan are seeking to seriously undermine the text. A large number of adverse amendments being pushed by these States include proposals which have the purpose or would have the effect of:
- Removing any reference to the term ‘human rights defenders’;
- Denying the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders;
- Weakening protection against, and accountability for, intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders and others who cooperate with the United Nations;
- Failing to acknowledge the specific risks and violations faced by women, indigenous, and land and environment human rights defenders, their families and communities;
- Diluting and regressing from consensus language and terminology from past human rights defenders resolutions; and
- Seeking to justify limitations on human rights that are impermissible under international human rights law.
The amendments being advocated by the Russian Federation, China, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan should be seen in the context of the systematic efforts currently underway in several of these States to restrict and criminalise the important and legitimate work of human rights defenders and independent civil society organisations in violation of international human rights law. The proposal to weaken language on reprisals should similarly be understood in the context of several of the proposing States being the subject of allegations of intimidation or reprisals in both the Secretary-General’s report and the joint communications report of Special Procedures.
We urge you not to associate with such positions. Instead, we respectfully urge your delegation to co-sponsor resolution L.28 as tabled, vote against the amendments presented, and vote in favor of the resolution as drafted.
Civil society and human rights defenders around the world look to the HRC and its Member States for support and protection, and we hope your delegation will stand with us.
Yours sincerely,
- International Service for Human Rights
- Amnesty International
- Arc International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development
- Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
- Boys of Bangladesh
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
- CELS (Argentina)
- CIVICUS
- Coalition Ivoirienne des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (CIDDH)
- Defend Defenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Digital Empowerment Foundation (India)
- Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)
- FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
- Foundation HELP (Tanzania)
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
- Globe International Center
- Groundation Grenada
- Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
- Human Rights Defenders Network Sierra Leone
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Law Centre (Australia)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
- International Platform against Impunity
- Ivorian Observatory for Human Rights (OIDH)
- JASS -Just Associates-
- LGBT Centre (Mongolia)
- Mongolian Women’s employment supporting federation
- Nazra for Feminist Studies (Egypt)
- OT Watch (Mongolia)
- Peace Brigades International
- Protection International
- Reporters Without Borders
- Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia
- Salmmah Women’s Resource Centre (Sudan)
- Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
- Steps Without Borders NGO
- Terra de Direitos (Brazil)
- Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights
- West African Human Rights Defenders’ Network
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
(The above 45 NGOs were the initial signatories, an updated version with additional signatories is here.)
