Oct 30, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to abide by the Constitution and its international obligations in peacefully resolving the current political crisis, and for all political leaders to commit to respect for human rights and the rule of law.
To this end, President Maithripala Sirisena (photo) should reconvene Parliament to end the constitutional crisis in line with the rule of law and democratic norms.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.
It is with grave concern that the ICJ has observed the unfolding of events in Sri Lanka since the evening of October 26, 2018.
Following the withdrawal of the United People’s Freedom Alliance from the National Unity Government, President Maithripala Sirisena, in an unexpected move, appointed Former President and Member of Parliament Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.
These actions have transpired in disregard of safeguards set out in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which limit the power of the President to remove the Prime Minister at will.
The Amendment spells out specific instances during which the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka ceases to hold office under the law.
The ICJ is concerned at the President’s move to prorogue Parliament until 16 November in what appears to be an effort to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. The move has exacerbated political tensions.
“The ICJ is alarmed that Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has yet to be held accountable for the well-documented human rights violations committed during his previous tenure, has been appointed Prime Minister – in apparent violation of the Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
Incidents of violence and the takeover of government-controlled media by supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa raise fears of an imminent return to the human rights violations and abusive practices which were widespread during his term.
ICJ also noted with concern ongoing crackdowns on the media and other attacks on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The ICJ stressed that the removal of the Prime Minister in violation of the law or constitutional provisions would constitute a violation of Sri Lanka’s commitments to the international community, set out in UN Human Rights Council resolutions in 2015 and 2017, to strengthen good governance and protect democratic institutions.
The ICJ also expressed concern that political instability, or the return of an unrepentant and unaccountable Mahinda Rajakpaksa to political power, would endanger progress made on fulfilling Sri Lanka’s commitments to press forward with transitional justice processes, and its legal obligations to ensure accountability for past human rights violations and abuses, as set out in both resolutions.
“The failure to address past abuses, and to fully implement UN Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1, has helped set the stage for the current political turmoil, and the possible return of an authoritarian figure who has proven his disrespect for human rights and the rule of law over and over,” said Frederick Rawski.
“The Human Rights Council will be watching closely to assess whether Sri Lanka is in breach of its commitments. Any serious threat to progress on human rights accountability will compel the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Aug 2, 2018 | News
The ICJ condemns in the strongest terms the violence that erupted in Zimbabwe after the elections, and calls for the restoration of the rule of law and respect for human rights.
At least 3 people are reported to have died in Harare on 1 August as a result of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ (ZDF) use of live ammunition “to disperse” unarmed protestors in Harare’s Central Business District.
Members of the ZDF are reported to have fired live bullets against the fleeing crowd, and assaulted people indiscriminately, resulting in injuries and loss of life.
While the ICJ does not condone acts of violence carried out by protesters and party supporters, it strongly condemns the intentional use of lethal force and other actions of the ZDF, which were disproportionate and unnecessary in the circumstances.
According to the ICJ, the unrest could have been contained in a manner consistent with Zimbabwe’s international human rights law obligations, which, in turn, could have avoided loss of lives and injuries to protesters and bystanders.
“The use of lethal force on unarmed protesters must never be condoned,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
“The intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life,” he added.
The ICJ reminds the authorities in Zimbabwe of their commitment to rule of law, constitutionalism and protection of human rights as provided for under the Constitution and relevant international human rights law and standards.
The ICJ calls on them to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights during this post-election period.
The ICJ urges the responsible authorities to hold to account members of the ZDF responsible for the loss of life and limb during the protests on 1 August.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Africa Regional Programme, International Commission of Jurists C: +263 77 728 3248, E: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background information
Protests erupted in the morning of 1 August 1 2018 during the announcement of the results for the National Assembly following “the Harmonised Elections” held on 30 of July 2018.
It is alleged by authorities that protesters were damaging property during the protest.
Media reports published later in the day indicate that the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) invoked section 37(1) of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11 :17], which allows the Minister of Home Affairs upon request by the Commissioner General of Police to seek assistance from the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) to quell civil commotion in any district and for the ZDF to assist.
The Zimbabwean Constitution recognizes and protects the rights of citizens to freely and peacefully demonstrate and petition.
It also guarantees the freedom of assembly and association.
Although section 86 of the Constitution makes clear the non-absolute nature of these rights, Zimbabwean authorities must be reminded that any limitations must be in terms of a law of general application and must be fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom.
Citizens of Zimbabwe are also reminded of these constitutional provisions and encouraged to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.
Feb 20, 2018 | News
In a memo published today, the ICJ called on the Moroccan authorities to refrain from signing into Law Draft Organic Law No. 86.15 on access to the Constitutional Court with a view to amending it and ensuring its full compliance with international standards.
On 8 August 2017, the House of Representatives approved the Draft Law.
The Second Chamber of the Parliament, the House of Counselors, approved the Draft Law on 16 January 2018.
Before its promulgation, the Draft Law is due to be reviewed by the Constitutional Court to assess its compliance with the Constitution.
“The Draft Law is a missed opportunity to facilitate individuals’ access to the Constitutional Court and to remedy Morocco’s history of inadequate procedures of constitutional review,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“By providing for a two-layered admissibility system that includes vague and subjective criteria, and by omitting to extend free and competent legal assistance to those unable to pay when challenging the constitutionality of laws, the Draft Law puts undue burden on the litigants and curtails their access to the Court,” he added.
Under the Draft Law, a request to challenge the constitutionality of a law can only be introduced in the context of a litigation.
Lower courts are to refer the request to the Cassation Court after reviewing it and confirming that the formal and legal requirements set out in the Draft Law are met.
The Cassation Court shall then assess the challenge and refer it to the Constitutional Court if deemed “serious.”
The ICJ is concerned that this proposed procedure increases the likelihood that some laws and provisions may never be subjected to constitutional review, and that litigants may be blocked in their efforts to ensure the review of the constitutionality of the laws.
Moroccan authorities should provide for lower courts to immediately refer constitutionality challenges to the Constitutional Court, as well for other avenues of access, including for individuals and NGOs to be enabled to join proceedings as interested parties or to submit information as amicus curiae or through expert opinions, the ICJ says.
Under international law, anyone who alleges they have been the victim of a human rights violation has the right to access to an effective remedy, including a judicial remedy.
In Morocco, ensuring that alleged victims have access to constitutional review is of key importance to fulfilling this right within the national legal system.
Morocco-Access Const Ct-News-web story-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
Morocco-Access Const Ct-Advocacy-Position paper-2018-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
Morocco-Access Const Ct-Advocacy-Position paper-2018-ARA (Memo in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 12, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Venezuelan Supreme Court has ceased to act as an independent court upholding the rule of law, but has become an arm of an authoritarian executive, the ICJ said in a new report released today.
The ICJ report The Supreme Court of Justice: an instrument of executive power says that through a series of rulings issued since December 2015, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has progressively dismantled the rule of law, undermined human rights and failed to faithfully apply key elements of the country’s Constitution.
In rulings on 27 and 28 March 2017 (Sentencias 155 and 156), the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) delivered a blow to the rule of law, effectively claiming legislative powers for itself, depriving the National Assembly of its Constitutional powers and granting sweeping arbitrary powers to the executive, the ICJ notes.
“These decisions amount to a coup d’état against the Constitutional order and have ushered in a new reign of arbitrary rule,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
The report analyses SCJ jurisprudence issued since December 2015 in the light of international law and standards, rule of law principles and the Venezuelan Constitution, and in relation to the Constitutional functions and faculties of the legislative power, parliamentary oversight, states of emergency and the amnesty.
It finds that:
- The SCJ has been decisively co-opted by the Venezuelan executive;
- The Court’s members are mainly from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) and/or ex-Government officials; and
- It has become a political instrument increasingly used against the political and social opposition.
The report also says the Court has interpreted the Constitution in an arbitrary manner, omitting to analyse key Constitutional standards while granting a supra-Constitutional status to standards of lesser rank.
It has abrogated due process and judicial review and so stripped the National Assembly of its Constitutionally mandated functions with regard to legislative matters, parliamentary oversight, regulation and internal administration in order to benefit the government politically, the ICJ adds.
“The rulings have not been issued with impartiality on the basis of facts and in accordance with law, as required under rule of standards,” Zarifi said.
“They are in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan Constitution. The SCJ has issued its decisions based on political considerations and ideological and party loyalties to the executive power,” he added.
The report also outlines key recommendations on the administration of justice which various UN and Inter-American procedures and bodies have made to Venezuela going back a number of years.
None of these recommendations appear to have been taken into account by the Venezuelan authorities. These include reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which are binding on Venezuela as a matter of law.
“The Venezuelan authorities are in breach of its international obligation to cooperate in good faith with international human rights bodies and procedures,” Zarifi said.
Finally, the report concludes that the SCJ has undermined the rule of law by violating the principle of the separation of powers and infringing upon the Constitutional functions and autonomy of the legislative power.
As a consequence of its decisions based on the political interests of the executive power, the SCJ has lost the essential attributes of an authentic judicial power, such as independence, impartiality, autonomy and legitimacy.
“The SCJ has assumed the role of giving an appearance of judicial legitimacy to the arbitrary political actions of the executive thus abandoning the exercise of its Constitutional function as the guarantor of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Zarifi added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzman, ICJ South America Representative, t +57 311 481 8094 ; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Download the report:
Venezuela-Suprem Court-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Further readings:
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Aug 3, 2017 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned by the Constituent Assembly elections held in Venezuela on 31 July and the violence that accompanied the process and left a number of people killed, injured or arbitrarily detained.
The ICJ considers that the election of a National Constituent Assembly (NCA) failed to comply with the Article 347 of the current Constitution, which provides the legal basis for convening of an NCA. In particular, a significant portion of the members of the NCA should be chosen in open and universal elections, but instead are to be selected from restricted social sectors.
Such arrangements undermine the right to direct, free, equal and secret elections recognized under international human rights standards, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“A Constitution which does not guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law and the validity of fundamental human rights and freedoms not only violates the international obligations of the Venezuelan State, but can also be used as a means of undermining the human rights of Venezuelans,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
The ICJ also calls for a prompt and independent investigation into alleged electoral fraud on the day of the poll.
The ICJ says that irrespective of its legitimacy, the new NCA must respect human rights and rule of law principles.
In particular, until the approval of a new Constitution, the NCA must respect the current Constitution of 1999, especially in terms of judicial independence, and protection of human rights.
Similarly, the new Constitution, which the NCA will draft, must also fully guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law, including the separation of powers, legislative autonomy, the independence of the judiciary, the subordination of military forces to the civil authority and the principle of legality and judicial control of executive actions.
The new Constitution also must fully guarantee the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It must enshrine the prohibition of trials of civilians by military courts, and ensure that states of emergency respect the requirements and guarantees of the Covenant International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international law and standards, the ICJ adds.
The ICJ also considers that the new Constitution, in addition to incorporating the human rights and fundamental freedoms already contained in the current Constitution, should add the express prohibition of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and other serious human rights violations.
