Apr 20, 2017 | News
Authorities in the United Arab Emirates should immediately release Ahmed Mansoor, an award-winning human rights defender who is facing charges that violate his right to freedom of expression, a coalition of 18 human rights organizations, including the ICJ, said today, one month after his arrest.
Mansoor, who received the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015, has been in detention since March 20, 2017 facing speech-related charges that include using social media websites to “publish false information that harms national unity.”
On March 28, a group of United Nations (UN) human rights experts called on the UAE government to release him immediately, describing his arrest as “a direct attack on the legitimate work of human rights defenders in the UAE.”
“Ahmed Mansoor has an unimpeachable record as a defender of rights and freedoms, and every day he remains in prison will constitute a black mark on the UAE’s human rights record,” said the organizations.
Mansoor was arrested at his home in Ajman in the pre-dawn hours of March 20.
Security officers conducted an extensive search and took away all of the family’s mobile phones and laptops, including those belonging to his young children.
His family had no information on his whereabouts until authorities issued an official statement on March 29, saying he was in detention in the Central Prison in Abu Dhabi.
The signatories understand that Mansoor’s family have been allowed only one short supervised visit with him which took place two weeks after his arrest on April 3, when authorities moved him from where he was being held, believed to be a detention facility adjacent to Al-Wathba Prison, to a prosecutor’s office in Abu Dhabi.
Informed sources told rights groups that Mansoor is being held in solitary confinement and has not spoken to a lawyer.
The UAE’s official news agency, WAM, said on March 20 that Mansoor had been arrested on the orders of the Public Prosecution for Cybercrimes and detained pending further investigation.
It said that he is accused of using social media websites to: “publish false information and rumors;” “promote [a] sectarian and hate-incited agenda;” and “publish false and misleading information that harm national unity and social harmony and damage the country’s reputation.”
The statement classified these as “cybercrimes,” indicating that the charges against him may be based on alleged violations of the UAE’s repressive 2012 cybercrime law, which authorities have used to imprison numerous activists and which provides for long prison sentences and severe financial penalties.
In the weeks leading up to his arrest, Mansoor had called for the release of Osama al-Najjar, who remains in prison, despite having completed a three-year prison sentence on charges related to his peaceful activities on Twitter.
Mansoor had also criticized the prosecution of Dr. Nasser bin-Ghaith, a prominent academic and economist, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison on March 29, for charges that included speech-related offenses, including peaceful criticism of the UAE and Egyptian authorities.
Mansoor had also used his Twitter account to draw attention to human rights violations across the region, including in Egypt and those committed by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
He had also signed a joint letter with other activists in the region calling on leaders at the Arab Summit in Jordan at the end of March to release political prisoners in their countries.
“Ahmed has worked tirelessly, at great personal cost to himself, to advocate for human rights in the UAE and the wider region. He should be immediately released and the authorities should end their harassment of him once and for all,” the organizations added.
Signatories
ARTICLE 19
Amnesty International
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
CIVICUS
FIDH, under the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Front Line Defenders
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Commission of Jurists
International Service for Human Rights
Martin Ennals Foundation
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Scholars at Risk
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State, Tunisia
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), under the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
UAE-Joint statement AMansoor-News-Press releases-2017-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Mar 30, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, to refrain from signing into law amendments to the law that regulates the country’s High Judicial Council (HJC). The amendments were adopted on Tuesday 28 March 2017 by the People’s Representatives Assembly.
The ICJ also urged the Head of the Cabinet, Youssef Chahed, to act, as a matter of highest priority, on the nominations by the Instance Provisoire de la Justice Judiciaire (IPJJ) with a view to filling the positions of the First President of the Cassation Court and its General Prosecutor.
The ICJ expressed concern that the amendments revising the country’s 2016 HJC law would weaken the effective functioning of the judiciary and the administration of justice in several respects
- The amendments would strip the IPJJ President of the authority to convene the HJC’s first meeting and instead provide the President of the Parliament with such power. This would constitute an inappropriate interference of the legislative branch into the management of the judiciary in clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence.
- The amendments would explicitly exclude any possibility of challenge or judicial review of such action of the President of the Parliament. The ICJ considers that the judiciary must be able to review such decisions to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily or outside the law.
- The amendments would also reduce the quorum required for the validity of HJC meetings from one-half to one-third of its members. This could lead to situations where non-judicial members of the HJC have the power to take decisions over the judiciary, in contravention of international standards.
“Instead of using legislative tactics and procedures to weaken the independence and the effective functioning of the HJC, the Tunisian Head of Cabinet should act on the IPJJ’s nominations to fill the positions of the President and the Prosecutor General of the Cassation Court as a matter of urgency, and ensure that until the HJC is properly established, the IPJJ continues to fully exercise its competencies in overseeing and managing the judiciary,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) Programme.
Indeed, irrespective of the amendments, the ICJ recalls that article 148(8) of the Constitution clearly states that the IPJJ is to carry out its mandate until the seats on the HJC have been filled. This is further affirmed under article 74 of the 2016 HJC Law and article 19 of the 2013 IPJJ Law. Both of these laws make the end of the exercise of the IPJJ’s functions dependent on two conditions, namely that the HJC be fully composed and established.
The ICJ considers that the delay in acting on the IPJJ nominations of senior judges risks undermining the effective functioning of the judiciary, as well as adversely affecting the functioning of other institutions that are essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Tunisia. The adopted amendments are no answer to this problem.
“The ongoing crisis is political and not judicial,” Benarbia said.
“Solving it does not require the introduction of legislative amendments that erode the rule of law and judicial independence, but rather the compliance with existing laws and the Constitution,” he added.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa Programme, t: +33 6 42837354, e: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Background
The amendments were introduced and adopted amid a continuing crisis and functional paralysis of the judiciary that also impact on the effective functioning of other State institutions, including the body in charge of reviewing the conformity of laws with the Constitution.
In particular, two key positions have been left vacant as neither the First President of the Cassation Court, nor its General Prosecutor, have been appointed, and both of these positions also serve as ex officio members of the HJC.
In October 2016, elections were organized to choose the members of the HJC. A swearing-in ceremony before the President of the Republic followed in 14 December 2016, in which not all the HJC Members participated.
In November 2016, the IPJJ proposed candidates including to fill these two positions. Under the Tunisian Law, the Head of the Cabinet must confirm these nominations.
Alternatively, this official may request new nominations from the IPJJ until agreement is reached, as provided for in article 12 and 14 of the IPJJ Law No.13 of 2013. So far, the Head of the Cabinet has failed to act on the IPJJ’s nominations and uncertainty prevails as to whether the HJC has been properly established.
Under the Tunisian Constitution and laws, the President of the Cassation Court is also the President of the Instance Provisoire de Contrôle de la Constitutionnalité des Projets de Loi, the body in charge of assessing the conformity of laws with the Constitution during the transition period.
When established, the HJC will be charged with appointing four members of the Constitutional Court.
Tunisia-Statement new HJC Law-News-Web stories-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 21, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Untied Arab Emirates (UAE)’ authorities to immediately release Ahmed Mansoor, the 2015 Laureate of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, and to ensure that he is not subjected to any form of ill-treatment as long as he remains detained.
On 20 March 2017, security officials raided the apartment where Ahmed Mansoor and his family resides and confiscated electronic devices. They took Ahmed Mansoor away at around 3:15AM local time. His present whereabouts remain unknown.
The authorities have not informed his family members of the reasons for his arrest, the authority that ordered such arrest, or the location to which he was taken.
The ICJ calls upon the UAE authorities to disclose, as a matter of urgency, Ahmed Mansoor’s place of detention and provide full information about his fate and whereabouts.
International law requires that detainees be held in officially recognized places of detention and that no one is held secretly in detention, whether in officially recognized detention facilities or elsewhere.
The ICJ fears that the arrest and secret detention of Ahmed Mansoor is likely related to his human rights work, protected under international law.
His activities involve the exercise of his right to the freedom of expression, including his use of social media to criticize attacks on human rights defenders in the UAE.
“Arbitrarily detaining Ahmed Mansoor and subjecting him to secret detention exemplifies the lengths to which the UAE authorities are prepared to go in their relentless campaign to suppress peaceful human rights work and to reduce to silence all those perceived to be critical of the authorities,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The UAE authorities must comply with their obligations under international law and release immediately and unconditionally all those individuals detained or imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association,” he added.
Mansor’s arrest and secret detention comes amidst a continuing crackdown on individuals calling for peaceful political reform.
Many of them were subjected to serious human rights violations, including torture and other-ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances.
The ICJ has previously documented such cases.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, ICJ Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 41 22 979 38 17, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Ahmed Mansoor is a highly prominent human rights defender in the UAE and well known in the Arab region and around the world.
He has regularly monitored and raised awareness about cases of serious human rights violations in the UAE, including cases arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and violations of fair trial rights.
Since 2006, has faced repeated intimidation and harassment, including imprisonment in 2011 after being convicted of “insulting officials” and sentenced to three years’ in prison, although he was released after eight months.
Since being jailed in 2011, he has been denied a passport and banned from travelling.
Feb 28, 2017
The ICJ today called on the Lebanese authorities to introduce comprehensive legal and policy reforms to ensure that the judiciary is fully independent, impartial and accountable.
Measures must be taken to ensure that the judiciary is not subject to any form of undue influence by political actors and confessional communities, and that it is able to fulfill its responsibility to uphold the rule of law and human rights, added the Geneva-based organization.
The statement came as the ICJ published three legal briefings analyzing aspects of the legal framework regulating the ordinary justice system, in particular Decree-Law No. 150/83 on the organization of the judiciary. The briefings formulate recommendations for amending the provisions relating to the High Judicial Council, the management of the career of judges, and judicial accountability.
“Decree-Law No. 150/83 does not guarantee judicial independence at the institutional and financial levels, nor does it adequately safeguard the independence of individual judges,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“If anything, it allows for improper political influence over virtually every aspect of judges’ careers, including their selection and appointment, their transfer through arbitrary procedures, and their discipline, suspension and removal through unfair and opaque proceedings”, he added.
The assessment by the ICJ concludes that instead of acting as a check against improper political influence in judicial matters, the High Judicial Council itself is vulnerable to such influence. This is evident in the fact that the Minister of Justice is empowered to appoint eight of the Council’s ten members and sets the budget of the High Judicial Council and of the judiciary as a whole.
In its briefings, the ICJ called for:
- the majority of members of the High Judicial Council to be judges who are elected by their peers;
- the establishment of detailed and objective criteria for all elected and appointed candidates, including for the appointment of the President and the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation; and
- the High Judicial Council to be given full control over its financial resources.
The ICJ also called for legal reforms to be introduced to reinforce the independence of individual judges. These are necessary to ensure that their selection, appointment, transfers and evaluations are based on transparent procedures and objective criteria, and that any disciplinary action against them is only pursuant to well-defined standards and respectful of all due process guarantees.
Under the current framework, the system for evaluating and promoting judges is opaque and open to cronyism and, in particular, to the undue influence of the executive and political actors. In addition, the Minister of Justice holds an outsize role in the process of selecting and appointing judges, and in initiating disciplinary proceedings against them, referring matters to the disciplinary council, and suspending judges pending a disciplinary decision.
“Ensuring that, once reformed and independent, the High Judicial Council is exclusively competent to manage all aspects of the careers of judges is a sine qua non condition not only to establish and uphold judicial independence, but also to restore the public faith and confidence in the integrity of the Lebanese justice system,” concluded Benarbia.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 17: said.benarbia(a)icj.org.
Lebanon-judicial independence-News-Press release-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re HJC-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (legal briefing on High Judicial Council, English, in PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re judges-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (legal briefing on careers of judges, English, in PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re accountability-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (legal briefing on judicial accountability, English, in PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re HJC-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (legal briefing on High Judicial Council, Arabic, in PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re judges-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (legal briefing on careers of judges, Arabic, in PDF)
Lebanon-Memo re accountability-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (legal briefing on judicial accountability, Arabic, in PDF)
Jan 12, 2017
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to refrain from its attacks against independent judges and reinstate all those that have been removed from office following arbitrary and unfair disciplinary proceedings.
The call came as the ICJ released a legal briefing assessing the compliance of the mass disciplinary proceedings in the “the July 2013 Statement case” with international standards on judicial independence and due process.
Upholding a decision by the Disciplinary Board in the “July 2013 Statement case”, the Supreme Disciplinary Board found that 31 judges were “unfit” to hold judicial office for endorsing a public statement following the ousting of President Morsi and the seizure of power by the Military.
The Statement called for the 2012 Constitution to be restored, for a dialogue between all stakeholders to be established within the framework of constitutional legitimacy, and for the right to peaceful demonstration to be respected.
“The July 2013 Statement was a legitimate exercise, by the concerned judges, of their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” said Saïd Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“Removing these judges from office for exercising such rights and following mass, arbitrary, and unfair proceedings runs counter to Egypt’s obligations under international law to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary,” he added.
According to international standards, judges can only be removed for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties after a fair hearing before an independent and impartial body.
The ICJ briefing analyses the numerous procedural and substantive flaws that marred the July 2013 Statement Case, including violations of the judges’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly, to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial body, and to equality of arms.
According to the study, the judges’ rights of defence were also undermined in a variety of ways, including by the failure to give judges prior and adequate notice of the hearings and access to the case file in advance of the hearings.
“Because of the litany of violations that marred the July 2013 Statement Case, the ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Disciplinary Board, to reinstate the judges that have been arbitrarily and unfairly removed from office, to refrain from attacks against the judiciary, and to put an immediate end to its campaign to silence independent judges,” Benarbia added.
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, ICJ Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 17, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Attacks on judges-News-Press release-2017-ARA (Press release in Arabic, PDF)
Egypt-attacks-on-judges-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-ENG (Analysis brief in English, PDF)
Egypt-attacks-on-judges-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-ARA (Analysis brief in Arabic, PDF)
