Joint judicial colloquium on gender equality and women’s access to justice in Southeast Asia

Joint judicial colloquium on gender equality and women’s access to justice in Southeast Asia

The ICJ collaborated on this judicial colloquium with the UN Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women and the Thailand Office of the Judiciary.

The Judicial Colloquium on Gender Equality Jurisprudence and the Role of the Judiciary in Promoting Women’s Access to Justice was held from 4 to 5 September 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Judges from eight Southeast Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Thailand) came to the colloquium to discuss the role of judges in the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Representatives from the eight countries’ judicial training institutions and civil society organizations joined them in this colloquium.  All eight participating countries are parties to the CEDAW.

The judicial colloquium is part of the work of the ICJ in engaging various actors, including judges, lawyers, and human rights defenders, to explore ways to address the range of obstacles that persistently reduce women’s access to justice and legal protection.

Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, also noted the importance of this colloquium in the context of the development of a regional human rights mechanism in the ASEAN. He observed during his opening speech that the ASEAN is in the midst of setting standards and emphasized “it is important for judges to be aware of international standards of this issue so that they can substantially contribute to the discourse in setting up a regional mechanism.”

At the end of the colloquium, the participating judges, representatives from judicial training institutes and civil society organizations adopted a statement which noted, among other things, the uneven progress in the implementation of CEDAW in domestic laws and that judges should strive to interpret domestic law in consonance with the CEDAW.

They also agreed on recommendations, one of which is to encourage the formation of a regional network of judges to promote continuing dialogue, knowledge and information sharing regarding the application of CEDAW and other international human rights treaties in judicial systems.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +66 6198477 ext. 206 or emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

 

 

 

Bangladesh: withdraw contempt of court notice against Human Rights Watch, the ICJ says

Bangladesh: withdraw contempt of court notice against Human Rights Watch, the ICJ says

The ICJ today called on the Bangladesh authorities to immediately withdraw the contempt of court notice issued against the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.

The charges are in response to well documented concerns by Human Rights Watch that the trial of Ghulam Azam (photo), former head of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami Azam’s trial was “deeply flawed” and failed to meet international fair trial standards.

“Silencing voices that highlight the shortcomings of the International Crimes Tribunal impede rather than advance the enormously important task of ensuring that those responsible for committing atrocities during Bangladesh’s war of liberation are brought to justice in a process that complies with international law and standards”, said Alex Conte, Director of the ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.

On 2 September 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh issued a show cause notice asking Human Rights Watch to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against it for its allegedly ‘biased’, ‘scandalous’ and ‘inaccurate’ statements about the ICT. Human Rights Watch has to respond within three weeks, or possibly face trial and conviction in absentia.

“Assessing the conduct of administration of justice in judicial proceedings, including where it entails criticism of judicial performance is an important means of ensuring accountability,” said Conte. “Judges and prosecutors should defend the right to freedom of expression, not use their discretionary powers to muzzle criticism”.

Contact:

Alex Conte, Director, International Law & Protection Programmes, t: +41 79 957 2733; email: alex.conte(a)icj.org

Additional information:

The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct clarify that “since judicial independence does not render a judge free from public accountability, and legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability subject to law, a judge should generally avoid the use of the criminal law and contempt proceedings to restrict such criticism of the courts”.

The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government also stress that “criminal law and contempt proceedings should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions”.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.

The Declaration also highlights that human rights defenders have the right to “freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to hold opinions and draw public attention to the observance of human rights.

Women judges from Africa meet in ICJ Colloquium

Women judges from Africa meet in ICJ Colloquium

Women judges from across Africa participated in the first ICJ Colloquium on Women and the Judiciary on 12 and 13 August in Arusha, Tanzania.

The Arusha Colloquium, was opened by the Chief Justice of Tanzania and was hosted in collaboration and partnership with the Tanzania Women Judges Association and the Judiciary of Tanzania.

It enabled thirty five senior women judges from over fifteen African jurisdictions to come together to share their stories and reflect on and discuss their personal and professional experiences and challenges as women within the judiciary.

They were joined by over 15 women human rights defenders and lawyers.

Colloquium themes included the importance and role of women within the judiciary,  independence and impartiality issues effecting women judges, appointment and promotion procedures, education and training needs and the role of women judges associations.

Discussions also addressed the role of the judiciary in advancing gender equality, women’s access to justice and protection of women human rights defenders.

The Colloquium marks the beginning of an ICJ multi-year initiative on women judges, lawyers and human rights defenders as agents of change.

Eminent Judges from Asia and the Pacific to discuss HIV, human rights and the law

Eminent Judges from Asia and the Pacific to discuss HIV, human rights and the law

Some 30 judges from the highest national courts from 16 countries in Asia and the Pacific will meet in Bangkok, Thailand on 2-4 June to discuss the role of the judiciary in the AIDS response.

The meeting is convened by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the ICJ as part of efforts to address concerns that legal environments, including laws and policies, law enforcement practices and access to justice across the Asia and the Pacific do not consistently protect people most at risk of HIV infection and those living with HIV from violations of their human rights including health, privacy, non-discrimination and freedom from violence.

The judges’ discussions will be supported by experts and resource people from communities living with HIV, representatives of sex workers and men who have sex with men, people who use drugs and transgender people and United Nations entities.

The ICJ has always believed that an independent judiciary is essential in delivering justice to vulnerable populations, including those living/infected with HIV.

As Mr. Sam Zarifi, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, said: “The judiciary has a crucial role to play in establishing a legal environment that assists the struggle against the spread of HIV. In Asia and the Pacific, those most at risk of contracting HIV are often among those with the least access to justice. An independent judiciary can help protect at-risk populations from discriminatory laws, negative stereotypes, and misguided policies.”

La CIJ condena fallo de la Corte de Constitucionalidad que evidencia estructuras de impunidad en el Sistema de Justicia guatemalteco

La CIJ condena fallo de la Corte de Constitucionalidad que evidencia estructuras de impunidad en el Sistema de Justicia guatemalteco

El fallo emitido por la Corte de Constitucionalidad constituye un retroceso en la búsqueda de Justicia en Guatemala por las graves violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas durante el conflicto armado interno, dijó la CIJ.

Es importante recordar que ya en diciembre de 2007, dos de los actuales magistrados de la Corte de Constitucionalidad también otorgaron un amparo al militar retirado General Ríos Montt, evitando su extradición a España. El día de ayer, la CC vuelve a amparar al militar retirado, esta vez para afectar gravemente el derecho de acceso a la justicia de las víctimas del Pueblo Ixil y provocar más impunidad en Guatemala.

Con este fallo, la Corte de Constitucionalidad envía un mensaje equivocado a la población guatemalteca y le da más poder a los victimarios.  Sin embargo, la CIJ reconoce que tanto el Magistrado Chacón como la Magistrada Porras, emitieron un voto disidente, apartándose así de la decisión mayoritaria de los magistrados Molina Barreto, Maldonado Aguirre y Pérez Aguilera.

El amparo que la Corte de Constitucionalidad otorgó el día de ayer, lejos de respaldar la justicia, avala las acciones del abogado defensor Francisco García Gudiel, quien faltó a la ética profesional al aceptar la defensa de Ríos Montt, aún sabiendo que la Ley del Organismo Judicial en su artículo 201 literal a) le prohibía “actuar en los juicios en que el juez tuviere que excusarse o pudiera ser recusado a causa de la intervención del profesional.”

Ramón Cadena, Director de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas para Centroamérica expresó: «Nuevamente la Corte de Constitucionalidad está provocando el incumplimiento de la obligación internacional del Estado de Guatemala de juzgar y castigar a los responsables de crímenes gravísimos como el genocidio, crímenes de guerra y crímenes de lesa humanidad.  Con dicho fallo,  las víctimas del Pueblo Ixil han sido burladas y su derecho de acceso a la justicia ha sido nuevamente negado.»

Otros artículos:

La CIJ expresa su preocupación ante la posibilidad de que juicio por Genocidio y Delito contra los Deberes de Humanidad sea anulado

La CIJ celebra triunfo de la justicia sobre la impunidad

 

NOTE:

You can find a comprehensive background on the Rios Montt trial in English here

 

Translate »