May 13, 2016
In a new report released today, the ICJ called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt comprehensive legal and policy reforms as well as practical measures to fully guarantee effective remedy and reparation for victims of human rights violations.
Under Ben Ali’s regime, thousands of human rights violations, including torture and other ill-treatments, unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary arrests and detentions, were committed by law enforcement and other security officers, the ICJ reminds.
Numerous similar violations were also committed during the December 2010 to January 2011 uprising and some continue today.
The ICJ report Illusory Justice, Prevailing Impunity highlights how, five years after the toppling of former President Ben Ali, legal and practical obstacles continue to undermine victims’ right to a remedy and reparation.
“Despite the adoption of some reforms and transitional justice measures, such as the establishment of the Truth and Dignity Commission, to date the legal system has failed to deliver the truth and justice that victims have been tirelessly seeking,” said Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser at ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
While several cases have been brought before Tunisian courts, in particular military courts, these proceedings in themselves do not fulfil Tunisia’s obligations to fully investigate and prosecute crimes under international and national law, establish the truth about violations, and ensure remedy and reparation for victims, the ICJ says.
The report details numerous flaws, in law and practice, including: lack of independence of the judiciary; inadequate statutory definitions of crimes; inadequate statutory recognition of the responsibility of superior officers for certain violations committed by their subordinates; the broad discretion of the public prosecutor to dismiss cases without providing specific reasons; the inadequacy of criminal investigations, including the lack of effective measures for the protection of victims and witnesses; and the resort to military justice, rather than ordinary civilian courts, to address human rights violations.
“Hope and expectations for justice grew within the transition period, but victims are frustrated and disappointed by persistent impunity and the inadequate outcomes in the proceedings brought against law enforcement officials since 14 January 2011,” added Boutruche.
The report identifies specific reforms of the justice system, in line with international law and standards that are needed to address current obstacles and fully realize the victims’ right to a remedy and reparation.
These include ensuring that: gross human rights violations are promptly, thoroughly and effectively investigated by bodies capable of triggering criminal prosecutions where required; victims and witnesses are protected; and that victims’ rights are given full effect, including the possibility to judicially review any decision by a prosecutor to dismiss a case prior to opening an investigation.
“Comprehensive reforms of the justice system are needed not only for victims of past violations to obtain justice and reparation but also for ‘transitional justice’ measures to deliver meaningful justice. The successful transfer of cases by the Truth and Dignity Commission to the Specialized Chambers highly depends on those reforms,” said Boutruche.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +96 170 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Tunisia-Remedy & reparations launch-News-Press releases-2016-ARA (full press release in Arabic, PDF)
Tunisia-Remedies and reparations-Publications-Thematic report-2016-ENG (full report in English, PDF)
Tunisia-Remedies and reparations-Publications-Thematic report-2016-ARA (full report in Arabic, PDF)
Watch the 12-minute documentary here:
May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release human rights lawyer Malek Adly and to drop all charges against him. He was arrested on Thursday 5 May 2016, pursuant to an arrest warrant.
Malek Adly has been charged with a number of offences, including “attempting to overthrow the regime,” “spreading false rumors,” and “using force against a public servant.”
The Prosecuting authorities have not provided information on specific behaviour that would constitute criminal conduct.
The ICJ is concerned that the charges may be in retaliation for Malek Adly’s work as a lawyer and human rights defender, and are aimed to chill him and others from engaging in work perceived as threatening to or disfavoured by Egyptian authorities.
They came at the backdrop of his work as a human rights lawyer, his critical views on the rule of law situation in Egypt, and his legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and assembly in opposing transferring the sovereignty of Tiran and Sanafir islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the ICJ says.
“Malek Adly’s arrest, detention and prosecution for carrying out his work as a lawyer and human rights defender and for peacefully expressing his views is yet another attempt by the Egyptian regime to muzzle lawyers, the last line of defence for victims of human rights violations in Egypt,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The regime’s crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms has been worryingly extended to the very lawyers whose role is to challenge and protect against such crackdown,” he added.
Over the last three years, the ICJ has documented numerous cases of lawyers who have been subjected to human rights violations and reprisals in relation to the representation of their clients.
These include the cases lawyers Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi who were allegedly subjected to torture and subsequently died while in police custody.
International standards aiming to safeguard the role of lawyers provide that States have a duty to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their functions “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that lawyers must not be subject to prosecution or other sanction for carrying out their professional responsibilities, the Geneva-based organization reminds.
International standards on human rights defenders require States protect human rights defenders from attacks, threats, retaliation and arbitrary action.
The Egypt 2014 Constitution guarantees the “independence of the lawyer’s profession and the protection of its interests as a guarantee to protecting the right to defence”. In addition, it prohibits the arrest of a lawyer while he or she is exercising the right to defence, except in flagrante delicto crimes.
“The Egyptian authorities must live up to their obligations under the Constitution and international law and put an immediate end to their attacks against lawyers,” concluded Benarbia.
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-HR Lawyer MalekAdly-News-Press Releases-2016-ARA (full text in Arabic, PDF)
Mar 28, 2016 | News
The ICJ today calls for the reversal of the Supreme Disciplinary Board’s decisions to force into retirement 47 judges following two separate, mass proceedings known as the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case”, which concern over 60 judges.
Today’s final decision in the “July 2013 Statement Case” forcibly removed 32 judges from their offices.
It comes after all of the 15 judges referred to disciplinary proceedings in the “Judges for Egypt” were forcibly removed from their offices last Monday.
In a third case on 7 March 2016, the Disciplinary Board removed from office Zakaria Abdel Aziz, a former President of the Judges Club (Egypt’s representative body of judges) and a leading advocate of judicial independence.
“The intensity of Egypt’s attacks against individual judges is reaching a frightening level,” said Said Benarbia.
“By removing judges from the office following mass, arbitrary and unfair disciplinary proceedings, the authorities are purging from the judiciary the very voices that have promoted its independence, and sending a chilling message to others who might challenge the ongoing crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms in Egypt,” he added.
The ICJ had previously raised concerns about fairness of these proceedings as well as the nature of the charges against the concerned judges.
In the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case,” the Disciplinary Board found that the judges had been involved in politics and were therefore “unfit” to carry out their functions.
Article 73 of Egypt’s Judicial Authority Law prohibits judges from engaging in “political activity”.
This prohibition was interpreted by the Disciplinary Board to include “discussing or commenting on legislative and governmental decisions as long as it does not pertain to a case that he [the judge] is looking into as part of his judicial function”.
The ICJ considers that the interpretation by the Disciplinary Board could result in arbitrary limitations to the judges’ right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, well beyond any restrictions that could possibly be justified as necessary to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Furthermore, these disciplinary proceedings have failed to meet international standards of fairness, the ICJ says.
The Geneva-based organization previously highlighted procedural flaws in the proceedings against the judges such as failure to be notified properly, to be represented before the Board and to be provided with adequate time and facility to prepare a defense.
“The Egyptian authorities must reinstate all judges that have been removed from their office as a result of unfair and arbitrary proceedings”, said Benarbia.
“Furthermore, they must amend the Judicial Authority Law to ensure that disciplinary offences are clearly and precisely defined within the law; that the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly in a manner consistent with the dignity of the office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary does not constitute a disciplinary offence; and that the disciplinary procedure is fair and does not undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” he 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
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which were adopted by the UN in 1985 and elaborate on states’ obligations under international law, include the following provisions:
- In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
- Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence. (…)
- A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.
- Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
- All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
- Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
Egypt- removal of judges-press release-2016-ARA (full text, Arabic, in PDF)
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.
