Mar 23, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council on the findings of the report of the OHCHR investigation mission on Libya.
It includes that violations of international law taking place throughout Libya “may amount to war crimes and other international crimes under international law.”
The statement continued as follows:
All sides to the conflict in Libya continue to perpetrate grave human rights violations and abuses. As highlighted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, these violations continue to take place with “complete impunity” amid the collapse of the domestic justice system.
Unless genuine accountability is provided for these ongoing crimes the cycle of violence in Libya will continue, and the peace process will likely become no more than a well-intentioned piece of paper.
In this context, this Council has a duty to remain seized of the human rights situation in Libya, ensure continued monitoring of the situation and act to strengthen international accountability for crimes committed in Libya if the national system remains incapable of fulfilling this role. We are deeply concerned that the current resolution before this Council falls short of that standard.
Additionally, all UN member states should ensure that the International Criminal Court has the capacity to fulfill the mandate provided to it by the Security Council and begin fully fledged investigations into past and ongoing crimes committed in Libya.
As highlighted by civil society in a letter to this Council: “It is critical that all parties to the conflict are put on notice that their actions are being monitored and that accountability for serious crimes is a real prospect rather than an empty threat. Failure to do so will likely embolden those committing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and will reinforce the endless cycle of impunity” in Libya.
The statement was on behalf of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, FIDH, and OMCT.
Mar 10, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement on counter-terrorism legislation in these countries, in an interactive dialogue at the UN Human Rights Council with the the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
The text of the statement follows:
COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION IN EGYPT, TUNISIA AND PAKISTAN
10 March 2016
Mr President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the attention given by Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, to defective counter-terrorism legislation that facilitates violations of human rights, as reflected for example by communications on Egypt, Tunisia and Pakistan in the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/31/79).
Numerous counter terrorism laws promulgated or applied in these and other countries include overly broad or imprecise definitions of terrorism-related offences. These extend the laws’ reach beyond acts of a truly terrorist character. Such laws can be and are abused or misapplied to criminalize the legitimate and peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Further, these laws provide sweeping immunities that contribute to pervasive impunity for unlawful killings by security forces.
These laws also facilitate violations of the right to liberty and fair trial rights and insufficiently safeguard against abuses in detention. In Tunisia a person can be held in police custody without being brought before a judge for up to 15 days. In Pakistan, suspects can be held in preventive detention without charge, and without being brought before a judge, for up to 90 days.
Egypt and Pakistan continue to use military courts to conduct unfair trials of civilians in terrorism cases, contrary to international standards. At least eight civilians sentenced to death in secretive trials by military courts in Pakistan have been hanged since January 2015. “Expedited” procedures in terrorism circuit courts in the Egyptian civilian system also give rise to fair trial concerns.
The ICJ invites the Special Rapporteur to comment on measures or mechanisms that states, inter-governmental organisations, and civil society can take to help ensure that states such as Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan repeal or amend counter-terrorism legislation to bring it into line with their international human rights obligations and commitments.
Mar 4, 2016
The call comes on the third anniversary of the start of the mass trial of 94 individuals, including government critics and advocates of reform.
Ten human rights organizations appeal to the government of the United Arab Emirates to release immediately and unconditionally all those imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly as a result of this unfair trial.
UAE-Joint statement GCHR-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)
Related readings:
United Arab Emirates: in a new report, ICJ documents massive rights violations in the UAE 94 trial
United Arab Emirates: stop the charade and release activists convicted at the mass UAE 94 trial
Feb 24, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to put an immediate end to their campaign to muzzle judges through unfair and arbitrary “unfitness” proceedings.
The Disciplinary Board, in hearings that tried dozens of judges at the same time, declared a total of 41 judges “unfit” for judicial office in 2015, forcing them into retirement.
The Supreme Disciplinary Board is currently reviewing these two cases.
The ICJ is concerned that many of the judges that have been subjected to these proceedings are leading advocates for judicial independence in Egypt and that the proceedings before both the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board were not fair.
Further, the cases stem from the judges’ exercise of freedom of association, belief, assembly and expression, and it appears that the Disciplinary Boards did not act in accordance with relevant international standards in this regard.
”Ending judges’ tenure following mass proceedings that are both arbitrary and unfair is inconsistent with Egypt’s obligations under international law,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“With these assaults on individual judges, the Egyptian authorities are ensuring that their ongoing, sustained crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms is extended to the very institution that is supposed to protect such rights and freedoms- the judiciary,” he added.
In the “July 2013 Statement Case”, 56 judges were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, following the Military seizure of power in July 2013, for endorsing a statement that 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 ICJ considers the statement to have been made consistent with the judges’ right to freedom of expression and association, exercised in a manner that preserved the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
However, on 14 March 2015, the Disciplinary Board found that 31 of the 56 judges were not fit to hold judicial office and in effect removed them from office by forcing them into retirement.
The Board found there was not sufficient evidence that the other 25 judges had in fact endorsed the statement.
The ICJ is concerned that the procedures and hearings before the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Disciplinary Board have not satisfied international standards of fairness.
In many instances, judges were not adequately notified of the dates of the hearings or of the courtrooms where such hearings took place.
In Egypt, judges facing disciplinary hearings are entitled to have another judge represent them; however, many of the judges were not permitted by Board officials to bring their representative to the hearings, without any reason being given for barring the representative, or because no representative could be secured as a result of fear of reprisals.
Further, many judges were not provided with adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.
In another case, the “Judges for Egypt Case”, each judge had limited time to make his case before the Board during the hearings, though they were granted the right to submit at the final hearing written pleadings of no more than two pages .
At the final hearing in the case, while the judges waited all day in the Board’s premises, the hearing was held in the absence of all but one of them.
Furthermore, the Board refused to collect the written pleadings without giving any reasons.
On 22 February 2016, after protesting against the adjournment of his hearing, Judge Amir Awad was arrested and placed under detention for four days by the office of the prosecutor.
He is charged with insulting a public employee and forcibly entering his office.
“Both cases have been tainted by failures to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The Egyptian authorities must nullify all decisions to remove judges resulting from these proceedings and put an immediate end to all forms of intimidation against and persecution of judges,” Benarbia added.
Contact:
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Attacks against judges-News-Web Stories-2016-ENG (full story in PDF, English)
Egypt-Attacks against judges- Press Release -2016- ARA (full story in PDF, Arabic)
Feb 13, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called for the reversal of last Thursday’s decision removing Judge Mohamed Al-Haini from office with suspension of his pension rights.
Judge Al-Haini, together with his colleague Amal Homani, was referred to the High Judicial Council by the Minister of Justice on unwarranted allegations of “violating the duty of discretion” and “expressing opinions of a political nature” following social media comments and media articles written by the judges in which they criticized the government’s Draft Laws on the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire and on the Statute for Judges.
The ICJ stresses that it is entirely appropriate for a judge to comment on matters of public interest that go to the organization and governance of the legal profession.
The ICJ, as well as Moroccan professional associations of judges and civil society organizations, has previously called on the Moroccan authorities to revise these same two draft laws to fully comply with international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ is concerned both at the unfair and arbitrary nature of the proceedings against Judge Al-Haini. He was only granted two hearings before the High Judicial Council’s decision to dismiss him was taken.
Furthermore, several flaws in the proceedings curtailed Judge Al-Haini’s right to defense.
In particular, the High Judicial Council refused to strike the Minister of Justice from the disciplinary panel.
The Minister clearly had a conflict of interest, given his role in initiating the proceedings against the two judges.
As a result, Judge Al-Haini’s defense team withdrew from the case in protest.
At the second hearing the proceedings were carried out in the absence of any defense counsel.
“Despite recurring breaches of due and fair process standards, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Al-Haini continued leading to the harshest disciplinary sanction possible in violation of principles governing the independence of the judiciary,” said Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
According to international standards members of the judiciary facing disciplinary proceedings have the right to an independent and impartial authority or court with all the guarantees of a fair trial.
The ICJ is further concerned that under the current legal framework in Morocco, the decisions of the High Judicial Council are not subject to any form of review.
This is clearly inconsistent with international standards that require that any disciplinary decision should be subject to an independent review.
“The absence of any possibility to challenge the decision of dismissal deprives Judge Al-Haini of a safeguard against the improper use of disciplinary proceedings, which is clearly the case here,” Boutruche warned.
The ICJ had previously called on the Moroccan authorities to end the unwarranted and arbitrary disciplinary proceedings against Judges Al-Haini and Homani.
The ICJ stressed that members of the judiciary, like other persons, enjoy the rights to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly in consonance with the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
“This decision should be nullified and the proceedings against the two judges themselves should be terminated,” Boutruche added.
“This case is a stark reminder of the need for the Moroccan authorities to revise the two draft laws, that were adopted last Wednesday by the parliament, to properly strengthen the judicial independence and create a truly independent Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire in line with international standards,” he concluded.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +961 70 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Morocco-Al Haini Dismissal-Web Story-2016 (full web story in PDF, Arabic)
