Oct 6, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.
The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.
The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:
- The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR;
- The safe third country concept in international refugee law and EU law;
- The respect of the right to an effective remedy in cases of returns to Turkey under the safe third country rule.
Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
Feb 1, 2017 | News
The ICJ today launched a new global initiative focussed on redress and accountability for gross human rights violations.
In all regions of the world, perpetrators of gross human rights violations enjoy impunity while victims, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized, remain without effective remedies and reparation.
Governments of countries in transition and/or experiencing a wider rule of law crisis often seek to provide impunity for perpetrators of gross violations of human rights, or make no effort to hold them to account, or misuse accountability mechanisms to provide arbitrary, politically partial justice.
Yet international law requires perpetrators to be held accountable and victims to be provided with effective remedies and reparation, including truth and guarantees of non-recurrence.
This is reinforced by the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which recognizes the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide equal access to justice, are based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, and provide for accountability.
“Impunity and lack of redress dehumanizes victims and acts as an impediment to the cementing of democratic values and the rule of law”, said Alex Conte, coordinator of the ICJ initiative.
Lack of accountability and claims for justice dominate national debates, frequently leading to a paralysis or reduced functioning of the institutions of the State and detracting from the pursuit of other rule of law and development initiatives.
Impunity threatens a nascent democracy by rendering its constitution hollow, weakening its judiciary and damaging the political credibility of its executive.
Public institutions often act in ways that bring them into disrepute and undermine the public confidence in them that is required for sustainable transition, for example through the legislature enacting laws providing for impunity, through law enforcement and the judiciary acting on a selective basis or without independence, and/or through the executive ignoring rule of law based judgments by higher courts.
A failure to guarantee redress and accountability has too often also resulted in former structures of power, to the extent that they enjoy impunity, transforming into criminal and hostile elements that may perpetuate violence and conflict.
The ICJ’s new initiative, generously sponsored by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, currently focuses on seven countries (Cambodia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Venezuela) aims to combat impunity and promote redress for gross human rights violations.
It concentrates on the transformative role of the law, justice mechanisms and justice actors, seeking to achieve greater adherence of national legal and institutional frameworks with international law and standards so as to allow for effective redress and accountability; more independent justice mechanisms capable of dealing with challenges of impunity and access to redress; and judges, lawyers, human rights defenders, victims and their representatives that are better equipped to demand and deliver truth, justice and reparation.
The initiative will commence with the production of baseline studies on the situation in each focus country concerning accountability, access to justice/redress and the independence and accountability of judges and lawyers.
These will form the basis for tailored plans of action for each country identifying interventions and capacity building activities that can best drive the brining to justice of perpetrators of human rights violations and the access of victims to effective remedies and reparation.
Implementation of those activities will follow, alongside the production of global manuals and guides on key challenges for redress and accountability.
GRA Initiative Factsheet
Jun 29, 2015 | News
The ICJ calls on the UN Human Rights Council and the Security Council to respond to the findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict, and fully implement all its recommendations.
This should be done with a view to ensuring accountability, including effective remedy and reparation, for all violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses committed by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and by Palestinian armed groups, the ICJ says.
The ICJ further calls on the Human Rights Council to establish an independent mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations by both parties.
“Israeli and Palestinian authorities must break the chronic cycle of impunity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All credible evidence of war crimes, such as the Commission of Inquiry has highlighted, must be properly investigated,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA Programme.
“No one who is responsible, whether military or civilian and regardless how high their office, can be allowed to escape justice,” he added.
The Report published last week, and discussed today at the Human Rights Council, documents serious violations of international law and human rights abuses committed during the conflict, such as indiscriminate attacks, including disproportionate attacks, and direct attacks against civilians and against civilian objects that are not justified under the International Humanitarian Law.
The Commission found that artillery and other explosive weapons had been used in densely populated areas, that entire neighborhoods in Gaza had been destroyed, and that unguided rockets had been used.
As indicated by the Commission, some of those acts may constitute war crimes.
To date, both Israeli and Palestinian authorities have failed to meet their obligations under international law to effectively investigate the violations and to prosecute anyone criminally responsible.
Investigations and criminal proceedings initiated by the IDF’s Military Advocate General (MAG), which is also involved in the planning and execution of the IDF’s military operations, fall short of international standards including in relation to independence and impartiality.
No criminal investigations into violations and abuses committed by Palestinian armed groups appear to have been initiated by the Gaza authorities.
The ICJ calls on both authorities to provide for effective, independent and impartial investigation mechanisms in line with international standards.
Absent such reforms, international justice mechanisms can and should fill accountability and remediation gaps where domestic authorities are unwilling or unable to effectively administer justice.
“Israeli and Palestinian authorities must reform the framework for their current investigations and prosecutions. They must also fully cooperate with international accountability mechanisms, including the preliminary examination initiated by the International Criminal Court,” Benarbia said. “The aim throughout must be to make known the truth about the violations, to identify and hold those responsible to account, to ensure victims’ rights, and to prevent any recurrence.”
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 670735747, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
POT-UN Report Gaza -News-Press release-2015-ARA
May 29, 2015 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions, Position papers
The ICJ called today on the EU institutions to bridge the final implementation gaps to ensure an effective access to justice to victims of violent hate crimes.
The contribution of the ICJ was submitted as input for the European Commission’s first annual fundamental rights colloquium to be held next October and focused on “Tolerance and respect: preventing and combating antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe”.
In its submission, the ICJ finds that the greatest weakness in addressing violent hate crime currently lies primarily in the failure of effective national implementation, which has meant that, despite development of the law, and despite authoritative recommendations from international and EU human rights bodies, the frequency of commission of violent hate crimes appears to have increased, and impunity for such crimes has persisted.
The ICJ considers that there are two main reasons for this lack of implementation: 1) lack of political or institutional will in Member States; 2) lack of implementation tools tailored to the laws, legal institutions and culture of the single national legal system.
The ICJ concluds, in its contribution, that it is the time for the European Union institutions to take up the opportunity to unite the efforts of all those concerned in the administration of justice – judges, court administrators, lawyers, civil society, judicial organizations, bar associations and government officers – throughout the EU to work together on the detailed technical assistance needed for an effective implementation of the right to an effective remedy for victims of crimes motivated by discrimination.
EU-Colloquium2015-ICJContribution-ViolentHateCrimes-Advocacy-non legal submission-2015-eng (download the submission)
Apr 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s adoption, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of the Working Group’s “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court”.
Under its resolution 20/16 (2012), the UN Human Rights Council requested the Working Group to prepare draft basic principles and guidelines on habeas corpus. The Working Group set out a first draft set of principles and guidelines ahead of its global consultation on the subject in September 2014. From 2 to 5 February 2015, the Working Group met to continue its elaboration of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, resulting in the adoption of a second draft. The Working Group adopted its final iteration of the document at the conclusion of its session on 29 April 2015. The Basic Principles and Guidelines will be presented to the Human Rights Council during the Council’s 30th regular session, to be held from 14 September to 2 October 2015.
The ICJ welcomes the Basic Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus. It especially welcomes certain aspects of the document, including:
- Paragraph 68, in which applicable qualifications are set out to any derogating measures to accommodate constraints on the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- Principle 6 and Guideline 4 which reaffirm that habeas corpus petitions must be heard by courts that bear all characteristics of competence, independence and impartiality (paras 27, 70 and 72(a)), that competence includes the power to order immediate release if detention is fund to be arbitrary or unlawful (para 27), that immediate implementation of such orders is required (para 71(c)) and that courts must give reasoned and particularized decisions (para 71(d));
- Guideline 7, in which it is provided that individuals are entitled to take proceedings multiple times (paras 81 and 82), that expediency is required, including in cases of subsequent challenges, and especially in cases alleging, among other things, torture or ill-treatment (para 83) and that authorities remain obliged to ensure regular review of the continuing need for detention (para 84);
- Principle 9 and Guideline 8 concerning legal representation and legal aid;
- The clarifications in Principle 10 and Guideline that persons able to bring proceedings include counsel, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee (paras 34 and 92) and that no restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s ability to contact such persons (para 35);
- The express recognition in Guideline 12 that information obtained by torture or other forms of ill-treatment may not be used in evidence;
- Guideline 13 concerning disclosure and limitations applicable to any non-disclosure of information on security or other grounds;
- Guideline 14, reflecting authorities’ obligation to justify the need and proportionality of detention;
- Principle 15 and Guideline 16 (on remedies), reflecting the overarching right to remedies and reparation (paras 43), the need for authorities to give immediate effect to an order for release (para 44) and the right to compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (paras 109-112); and
- Principle 16 concerning the application of Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) alongside international humanitarian law (paras 45 and 47), the application of Article 9(4) to civilians in an international armed conflict (para 47), the application of habeas principles to prisoners of war (para 48), and the question of administrative detention or internment in the context of a non-international armed conflict (para 49).
The ICJ has engaged in all stages of the Working Group’s elaboration and consultations. It made written submissions in November 2013, April 2014 and March 2015. Its staff, Matt Pollard and Alex Conte, gave panel presentations at the September 2014 global consultation.
