Sep 25, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ together with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, drew attention to ongoing attacks on the independence and role of lawyers in Egypt.
The ICJ made the oral statement during the general debate on country situations of concern, speaking on behalf also of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy draw the Council’s attention to the continuing deterioration of the situation for human rights and the rule of law in Egypt.
Today our organizations published a new report, Targeting the Last Line of Defense: Egypt’s Attacks against Lawyers, to be followed by a virtual side event on 30 September.
As the last line of defense against the government’s sustained and broad crackdown on human rights and fundamental freedoms, Egypt’s lawyers have been increasingly and systematically targeted by authorities. Since 2018, at least 35 lawyers have been arrested and arbitrarily detained for their legal defense work and exercise of fundamental freedoms.
Lawyers have been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, physical assault, torture and other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances, as well as unfounded and politicized criminal proceedings based on charges under grossly overbroad criminal laws on “terrorism,” “spreading false news,” and “misusing social media.” Arrests of lawyers spiked in the wake of the September 2019 protests. Arrests continue despite the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak in detention facilities.
The ICJ and Tahrir Institute call on Egyptian authorities to end these violations of the rights and role of lawyers, to take measures to protect the independence of the Bar Association, and to amend all relevant legal frameworks in line with Egypt’s constitution and international human rights law and standards.
Thank you.”
The full statement can be downloaded (PDF) here: UN-Advocacy-Egypt-HRC45-2020
For more information, contact: un@icj.org
Jul 8, 2020 | News
Draft law reduces leading bar associations’ authority, leads to creation of rival groups, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said today. The Turkish government’s plan to allow for multiple bar associations appears calculated to divide the legal profession along political lines and diminish the biggest bar associations’ role as human rights watchdogs, they added.
The current bar associations have not been consulted, and 78 bars out of 80 signed a statement opposing the plan.
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch have published a question and answer document explaining the draft law, scheduled for a vote in parliament in the coming days. The document outlines the government-led effort to reduce the influence of leading bar associations, reflecting the executive’s growing dissatisfaction with the bar associations’ public reporting on Turkey’s crisis for human rights and the rule of law.
“Turkey’s prominent bar associations play a key role in defending fair trial rights and scrutinizing human rights at a time when flagrant violation of rights is the norm in Turkey,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“The government move to create multiple bars and dramatically cut leading bars’ representation at the national level is a clear divide-and-rule tactic to diminish the bar associations’ authority and watchdog role,” he added.
The proposed amendments provide that in provinces with over 5,000 lawyers, a group of at least 2,000 lawyers can establish alternative bar associations.
In big cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, several bar associations could be established. The amendments would also greatly reduce the representation of the largest bar associations at the national level within the Union of Turkish Bars, the Ankara-based umbrella body with significant financial resources it controls and distributes to provincial bars.
The fact that the vast majority of elected legal profession representatives oppose the move and that the likely impact will be to greatly diminish the authority of leading provincial bars that have been critical of certain government initiatives demonstrates that the aim of the proposed change is to shield the government from justified criticism, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
Drastically cutting the number of delegates from large bar associations representing thousands of lawyers to the national Union of Turkish Bar Associations would reduce the influence of the large bar associations in electing the national group’s president and participating meaningfully in other decision-making functions.
A provincial bar association with fewer than 100 lawyers, such as Ardahan in northeastern Turkey, for example, would be represented by 4 delegates, compared with 3 at present.
But a bar association such as Izmir in western Turkey, with over 9,500 lawyers, which sends 35 delegates, would be entitled to only 5. Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir Bar, which represent 55 percent of the lawyers in Turkey, would be entitled to only 7 percent of all delegates within the national union.
The atmosphere of conflict in which the draft law has been introduced, its timing, and the lack of consultation with the bar associations themselves provides credible grounds for great concern and skepticism over the government’s motives, the groups said.
Over the past year, Turkey’s presidency and government have made public statements strongly criticizing leading bar associations in response to the bars’ legitimate expression of concerns about Turkey’s rule of law crisis and executive interference in the justice system.
The government has reacted strongly against the bars’ scrutiny of its failure to uphold human rights obligations through bar association publication of reports on torture, enforced disappearances, and other rights abuses ignored by the authorities.
For these reasons, the government’s proposed amendments are clearly designed to achieve a political purpose unrelated to an effort to advance or strengthen standards in the legal profession, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
The government’s move is politically divisive and will contribute to undermining the appearance of independence and impartiality in the justice system.
“The government should immediately withdraw the current proposed amendment and embark on a process of full consultation with bar associations,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The government’s plan as it stands will only deepen mistrust in Turkey’s justice system as lacking independence by dividing the legal profession along political lines. This could have disastrous long-term consequences for upholding the role and function of lawyers and for fair trial rights.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32-2-734-84-46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-79-749-99-49 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org ; Twitter: @maxfrigo
Download
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-ENG (Q & A, in PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-News-Press releases-2020-TUR (Story in Turkish, PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-TUR (Q & A in Turkish, PDF)
Mar 12, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the need for Kazakhstan to ensure the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary, in particular by ending the arbitrary disbarment of lawyers.
The statement, delivered during the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Kazakhstan by the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the acceptance by Kazakhstan of the recommendations by Denmark (138.83), France (139.85), Mexico (139.86) and Austria (139.113) to uphold the rule of law and to protect the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.
The ICJ however regrets that Kazakhstan only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendation by Czechia to “take immediate measures to ensure the effective protection of lawyers, media workers, bloggers and human rights defenders against any form of harassment” (139.114).
Furthermore, based on ICJ research, we regret to report that Kazakhstan’s assertion that the accepted recommendations are “in the process of implementation” (A/HRC/43/10/Add.1, para. 4) is simply not correct.
On the contrary, the ICJ considers that the independence of the legal profession is being actively undermined in the country.
The ICJ expresses particular concern at disbarment proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Justice, including the recent disbarment of Amanzhol Mukhamediarov and Yerlan Gazymzhanov.[1]
Finally, the situation is exacerbated by a Law on Advokatura that does not require the Bar Association’s authorisation to initiate disbarment proceedings.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Kazakhstan, ICJ calls on Kazakh authorities to stop all harassment of lawyers through disciplinary proceedings, readmit the lawyers unduly disbarred and reform its Law on Advokatura in line with international standards on independence of the legal profession.”
[1] See ICJ statement at https://www.icj.org/kazakhstan-disbarment-of-erlan-gazymzhanov-and-amanzhol-mukhamediarov-undermines-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession-icj-says/ .
Sep 24, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ in cooperation with a number of other leading international NGOs has organised a discussion on key challenges and opportunities for the legal profession in a number of CIS countries. The discussion aimed to share the experience of bar associations in achieving greater independence from the governmental authorities and any other undue influences.
The participants have shared their legislation and practices, specific challenges and lessons learned in taking steps to achieve institutional sustainability and independence to date, and opportunities for the legal profession, domestically and in coordination with other associations and international NGOs, to raise awareness and build legal and practical framework to enable a stronger institutional capacity and independent functioning. In addition, the ICJ, ABA, IBA, Lawyers for Lawyers, representatives of bar associations and legal experts have discussed what steps should be taken to support these efforts.
Sep 10, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern that a Government anti-corruption agency has engaged in acts of intimidation against the Chairperson of the Union of the Lawyers of the Republic of Tajikistan, Saidbek Nuritdinov, and 15 other lawyers.
The intimidation apparently relates to the lawyers’ defence of Abdulaziz Abdurahmonzoda, a lawyer facing trial on charges of fraud, who was allegedly ill-treated in detention by officers of the city Department of the Agency for Financial Control and Combating Corruption of the Republic of Tajikistan (Anti-Corruption Agency).
After the lawyers representing Abdurahmonzoda alleged that he had been ill-treated, the judge of the Sino district of Dushanbe city hearing the case, Ahmadzoda Farogat, requested the Prosecutor General’s Office to investigate the allegations.
Following the initiation of the inquiry of the allegations of ill-treatment, the Head of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Dushanbe, allegedly sent requests to a number of district courts of Dushanbe to obtain information about civil and criminal cases in which Saidbek Nuritdinov had participated as a lawyer.
The requests are said to seek information such as the names and, place of residence of clients: subject matter of civil cases, and details of the charges against his previous clients. In addition, it was reported to the ICJ that Judge Akhmadzoda Farogat, transmitted a list of the fifteen lawyers and copies of their official orders, the documents authorizing the representation of the lawyer, to the Anti-Corruption Agency at its request.
The ICJ notes, that while this information is not confidential per se, previous such investigations of the Anti-corruption Agency have led to criminal prosecution and conviction of lawyers.
“In this case, representation of a lawyer subject to criminal proceedings was undertaken by a group of his colleagues, including the head of the association of lawyers, in line with professional ethics, said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ. “Such representation is consistent with international standards on the role of lawyers as well as national law of Tajikistan”.
“If the investigation is related to the lawyers’ representation in the case of Abdurahmonzoda, it would constitute a means of intimidation of the lawyers. And as such it should be ceased, and the lawyers should be able to continue to act freely and diligently in accordance with the national law and international law and standards on the role of lawyers”, Shakirov added.
Background
The criminal case against lawyer Abdulaziz Abdurahmonzoda was initiated under article 247.2, of the Criminal Code (fraud) on 17 April 2019. At the court hearings observed by the ICJ, Abdurahmonzoda insisted on his innocence and alleged breaches of the criminal procedure in course of the preliminary investigation: initiation of a criminal case without legal grounds (the case was said to lack the victim’s statement about the fraudulent actions committed on the part of Abdurahmonzoda); violation of the procedure of the preliminary investigation and submission to the court of evidence knowingly obtained by illegal means. The ICJ is observing the trial.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments “shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and they should not “suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”(Principle 16).
Furthermore, interference or obstruction of lawyer’s activity is prohibited by the Law of the Tajikistan on Lawyers and Lawyers’ Activities. According to the law, a lawyer cannot be held liable for any opinion expressed by him/her as part of his/her lawyers’ activity, with the exception of actions that may constitute a crime. The request from lawyers or lawyer’s unions of information related to the provision of legal assistance in specific cases is not allowed.
According to the Draft Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice (“Singhvi Declaration”), enable the Bar Association to fulfil its function of preserving the independence of lawyers, they should “be informed immediately of the reason and legal basis for the arrest or detention of any of its members or any lawyer practising within its jurisdiction”. In these cases, bar associations are “ entitled to be represented by its president or nominee to follow the proceedings and in particular to ensure that professional secrecy and independence are safeguarded”.
