Apr 12, 2018 | Articles, Nouvelles, Publications
Aujourd’hui, la CIJ a lancé son nouveau rapport Le jugement de civils par des tribunaux militaires au Venezuela. Il n’est cependant disponible qu’en espagnol.
Le rapport analyse le cadre constitutionnel et juridique de la juridiction pénale militaire du Venezuela, sa structure, sa composition et sa compétence.
Le rapport aborde également les graves problèmes d’indépendance de la juridiction pénale militaire vénézuélienne et la pratique du jugement de civils par des tribunaux militaires dans ce pays, à la lumière des normes internationales et des principes de l’Etat de droit.
Il récapitule les recommandations relatives à l’administration de la justice par les tribunaux militaires qui ont été adressées au Venezuela par divers organismes et procédures internationaux de protection des droits de l’Homme, tant au sein des Nations Unies que via le Système interaméricain.
Enfin, le rapport conclut que les tribunaux militaires vénézuéliens ne remplissent pas les conditions nécessaires et inhérentes à une bonne administration de la justice, institué par l’article 14 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, et que le jugement de civils par des tribunaux militaires constitue une violation flagrante du droit à un tribunal indépendant, impartial et compétent et est incompatible avec les normes et standards internationaux relatifs à l’administration de la justice.
Venezuela-Civiles Tribunales Militares-Publications-Reports-Thematic Reports-2018-SPA (le rapport complet, en espagnol et en PDF)
Apr 12, 2018 | Artículos, Noticias, Publicaciones
Hoy la CIJ lanza su informe El juzgamiento de civiles por tribunales militares en Venezuela.
El informe analiza el marco constitucional y legal de la jurisdicción penal militar de Venezuela, su estructura, composición y competencia.
Igualmente, el informe aborda los graves problemas de independencia de la jurisdicción penal militar venezolana y la práctica del enjuiciamiento de civiles por los tribunales militares de ese país, a la luz de estándares internacionales y de los principios del Estado de Derecho.
Asimismo el informe relaciona las recomendaciones sobre administración de justicia por tribunales militares que han venido formulando a Venezuela distintos órganos y procedimientos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos, tanto en el ámbito de las Naciones Unidas como del Sistema Interamericano.
Finalmente, el informe concluye que los tribunales militares venezolanos no satisfacen las condiciones necesarias e inherentes a una recta administración de justicia, establecidas por el artículo 14 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, y que el juzgamiento de civiles por tribunales militares configura una violación flagrante de los derechos a un tribunal independiente, imparcial y competente y es incompatible con las normas y estándares internacionales sobre administración de justicia.
Venezuela-Civiles Tribunales Militares-Publications-Reports-Thematic Reports-2018-SPA (el informe, en PDF)
Apr 12, 2018
Today the ICJ launched its report The Trial of Civilians by Military Courts in Venezuela (available only in Spanish).
The report analyzes the constitutional and legal framework of Venezuela’s military justice system, its structure, integration and scope of jurisdiction.
The report addresses the serious problems regarding the independence of the Venezuelan military justice system and the practice of prosecuting civilians by the military courts of that country, in light of international standards and the principles of the rule of law.
It also highlights the recommendations on the administration of justice by military courts that have been made to Venezuela by various international authorities charged with the protection of human rights, both within the United Nations and within the Inter-American System.
The report concludes that the Venezuelan military tribunals do not meet the necessary conditions for a fair administration of justice, including as provided by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In particular, it underscores that the trial of civilians by military courts constitutes a violation of the right to an independent, impartial and competent tribunal and is incompatible with international law and standards on the administration of justice.
Venezuela-Civiles Tribunales Militares-Publications-Reports-Thematic Reports-2018-SPA (Full report, in Spanish, in PDF)
Apr 4, 2018 | Comunicados de prensa, Noticias
La CIJ está hondamente preocupada ante la falta de independencia de los miembros de la comisión de postulación para la elección de fiscal general.
Desde el 27 de agosto de 2017, cuando el Presidente de la República declaró “persona non grata” al Comisionado de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad (CICIG), Iván Velásquez (foto), el Estado de Derecho de Guatemala viene siendo seriamente afectado por diferentes funcionarios al más alto nivel.
En dicha ocasión, la Corte de Constitucionalidad jugó un papel primordial en la defensa del Orden Constitucional y a favor del rescate del Estado de Derecho, al emitir varias resoluciones que lograron detener las acciones ilegítimas, que intentaron implementar al más alto nivel, el Presidente de la República y las y los diputados del Congreso de la República, para consolidar la impunidad.
En este contexto, se ha llevado a cabo la primera fase de la elección de Fiscal General por parte de la Comisión de Postulación. Informes, como el de la organización “Insight Crime”, señalan que los miembros de la Comisión de Postulación para la elección de Fiscal General, en lugar de actuar para cumplir correctamente con su mandato constitucional y coadyuvar para que el Estado de Guatemala logre alcanzar el bien común, lo hacen únicamente para satisfacer intereses de grupos vinculados al poder político, económico o militar.
Este actuar arbitrario socava el Estado de Derecho y provoca que la ciudadanía en general pierda la credibilidad en las instituciones de justicia y en el Estado de Derecho.
La CIJ considera oportuno recordar, en este momento del proceso de elección de Fiscal General, a los miembros de la Comisión de Postulación, que son funcionarios públicos sujetos a la Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala, a los Convenios internacionales de derechos humanos ratificados por el Estado de Guatemala, a las leyes ordinarias y a las decisiones de la Corte de Constitucionalidad en la materia.
La Constitución prescribe que el nombramiento en empleos o cargos públicos sólo se debe hacer sobre “razones fundadas en méritos de capacidad, idoneidad y honradez” (artículo 133).
En ese contexto, la CIJ recuerda el precedente de la elección de Fiscal General en el año 2010, cuando la Corte de Constitucionalidad ordenó repetir y reiniciar todo el proceso. En dicha oportunidad, varios de los comisionados tuvieron que inhibirse y se retiraron del proceso. Cuatro de dichos comisionados, vuelven a integrar hoy la Comisión de Postulación, lo cual introduce más dudas acerca de la legitimidad del proceso.
La CIJ recuerda que, para la realización de investigaciones independientes e imparciales, que garanticen el acceso a la justicia de las víctimas de los delitos y para romper el círculo de la impunidad, es fundamental que la Fiscalía pueda llevar a cabo su labor de modo independiente, autónomo e imparcial.
En ese sentido la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y el Relator de las Naciones Unidas para la Independencia de los Magistrados y Abogados, han señalado que la relación de dependencia que puedan tener la Fiscalía respecto de otros órganos – como el Poder Ejecutivo- puede tener un impacto negativo en su actuación independiente e imparcial, socavar la efectividad de las investigaciones y ser un factor de impunidad.
La CIJ considera que el “pacto de impunidad” que está en marcha, pretende cooptar al Ministerio Público y afectar el buen trabajo que realiza el comisionado Iván Velásquez, a favor de la lucha contra la impunidad.
De llegar a ser electo un o una Fiscal General que no reúna los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 113 de la Constitución, el daño a la sociedad guatemalteca en su conjunto, puede llegar a ser de múltiples dimensiones, difíciles de cuantificar y causar “daños irreparables al sistema de justicia”, por su falta de independencia frente a cualquiera de los tres poderes del Estado o por su compromiso de defender los intereses de grupos del poder político, económico, militar o del crimen organizado.
La CIJ esta hondamente preocupada por el hecho de que exista un potencial conflicto de intereses por parte del Presidente de la República en el proceso de seleción y nombramiento del Fiscal General, toda vez que el primer mandatario ha sido sido cuestionado por su posible involucramiento en el Caso Hogar Seguro, en el que resultaron muertas 41 niñas, hechos que deben ser investigados por el Ministerio Público y además, su hijo y hermano están siendo procesados por casos denunciados por el Ministerio Público y vinculados a la lucha contra la corrupción.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América, expresó: “La decisión final de la Comisión de Postulación deberá estar bien fundamentada y de ninguna manera podrán elegir personas que no reunan las condiciones previstas por el artículo 113 de la Constitución, que generen la más mínima duda con respecto a su independencia, honestidad e idoneidad o que resulten ser parte del pacto de impunidad existente.”
Apr 3, 2018
An opinion piece by Belisário dos Santos Júnior, ICJ Commissioner & Member of ICJ’s Executive Committee
The recent Federal military-led intervention in Rio de Janeiro was carried out, according to the executive decree ordering the operation, “to put an end to a serious breach of public order in the State of Rio”.
The Brazilian Constitution authorizes such exceptional political measures, but they must be ordered by the President and ratified by the Congress.
As far as the security situation was concerned, this additional military intervention was not necessary because the (Rio) State police, the National Public Security Forces and the Army had already been working together for many months, planning and executing numerous so-named “operations to guarantee law and order.”
Nor did the military intervention have anything to do with checks and controls of borders, ports, airports and federal highways, to prevent the international traffic of weapons, ammunition and drugs, notably from Paraguay. Other federal police forces are in charge of these controls.
Recently the Chief Commander of the Army himself said in an interview that the intervention in Rio would only bear fruits in the very long term because it was crucial to first implement structural changes, especially in the public security system, the prison system, and the enforcement of penal law.
It has become obvious that corruption and links with organized crime reach to the highest levels of the civil and military police forces in Rio de Janeiro.
Arguably, the main objective of the military intervention was indeed to reform these police forces. But then if that was the case, it should have started with the removal of the present Governor of the State of Rio, Luis Fernando Pezão, who was the right-arm man of the former Governor Sérgio Cabral, convicted and imprisoned for corruption.
It should have also focused on all areas of the State government, and not just the security forces, which do not work in isolation. Moreover, the police reform would need to be accompanied by public policies and investment to provide local communities (in the favelas) with access to water, sanitation, and electricity.
Today, these local communities are hostage to the numerous drug-traffickers, territorial disputes between gangs and shoot-outs between police forces and organized crime.
In the favelas, services, such as the telephone, cable television, electricity supplies, and the sale of gas canisters are all controlled by criminal gangs and public service providers are systematically defrauded.
The military intervention has been used as a theatrical opportunity to parade armoured vehicles in strategic points of the city, with soldiers who are not trained to manage situations of urban violence but for troop action, and therefore not used to individual decision-making.
Furthermore it should be recalled that in 2018 alone, more than 60 policemen were killed by organized crime, which is approximately equivalent to the number of human rights defenders assassinated in Brazil last year, according to Amnesty International.
Tragically, the recent execution of Marielle Franco, the city councillor and human rights defender, is not even surprising. She and her driver were killed in the centre of the city, while the military intervention was in full force and all the country’s eyes focused on Rio de Janeiro.
This crime is not only odious, but a clear attack on the rule of law and a challenge to the democratic system. Elected with over 46,000 votes, Marielle Franco was a very active councillor, who in little more than a year, had already presented 13 important draft bills, on issues such as sexual harassment, legal abortion and evening opening hours for nurseries.
Above all it is important to remember that she was highly critical of both the police forces because of their abuses and human rights violations as well as the criminal gangs operating in the communities. And, supreme irony, she had been elected rapporteur of the City Council’s Commission for military oversight in Rio.
It is now known that the bullets that killed Marielle and her driver were from a stolen Federal Police stock and similar bullets had already been used in another similar murder. But both the material and intellectual authors of these murders remain free.
The State Police investigation looks far from being independent. Both the investigation and prosecution should be a Federal responsibility, which is permissible under the Constitution, Article 109, paragraph 5, in cases of serious human rights violations, exactly for the same motives that led to the military intervention in the first place.
However, the Prosecutor General of the Republic apparently declined this option, and only four Federal staff have been assigned to support the State-level Public Ministry in the investigation.
The huge outcry of protest that followed Marielle Franco’s assassination and brought thousands of people onto the streets in various cities of the country might change this situation.
Numerous and diverse demonstrations reveal there is a mounting rejection of Brazilian politics.
Human rights groups are considering how to increase international pressure, so that such a gross attack on the rule of law does not remain in impunity. For this reason, international missions will be very welcome in Brazil.
On the other hand, organized crime, both in Brazil and throughout Latin America, has become an extremely serious social phenomenon.
With the capacity to mobilize important financial resources, weapons and ammunition, organized crime has orchestrated riots in prisons, protests and blockades, paralyzing major cities with the burning of buses, for example, taking advantage of State police strikes.
Taken together with the attacks and the killing of public authorities, it seems that Brazil is in danger of “Colombianization”.
With the combination of corrupt security forces and armed groups linked to drug trafficking Brazil finds itself in a similar situation to what happened previously in Colombia and Mexico.
According to the National Justice Council, some 200 Brazilian judges are under police protection, including a Supreme Court Judge who is a rapporteur in cases of corruption.
In Rio de Janeiro in 2011, Judge Patricia Accioly was killed, shot no less than 28 times, after she had ordered the arrest of three military police officers.
During the last elections in Brazil, in 2016, there were 45 attempted murders of election candidates and 28 were killed, with half of these deaths occurring in Rio de Janeiro alone.
The situation in Rio is very serious, but the systematic violence and corruption in the whole of the country is equally concerning. The rule of law and the democratic system itself are at risk.
One of the first film pictures of the Federal military intervention in Rio showed school children, with their hands up, being searched by soldiers.
Is this the way to go? Is this the right way to protect the rule of law and to defend citizens?
Tragically, this situation is continuing. There will soon be more to write about it.
Brazil-Belisario sobre Marielle Franco-News-op-eds-2018-POR (Portuguese version in PDF)
