Nov 23, 2018 | News
The ICJ is concerned at increasing government interference with the independence of the legal profession, including through intimidation and harassment of the leadership of the National Bar Association and individual lawyers in Kazakhstan.
In the last two months, there have been a series of resignations in the leadership of the National Bar, including Anvar Tugel, ex-President of the National Bar Association who publicly announced that his resignation was the result of “disagreement with the reform proposed by the Ministry of Justice”.
He explained that the “reform” aimed to remove the leadership of the Bar Association.
In his public statement, Tugel points out that several presidents of the local bar associations, faced pressure.
Indeed, Yakubenko Raisa and Vladimir Zolotov presidents of Aktyubinsk and Pavolodar bar associations respectively faced disbarment proceedings in the Kazakhstan courts, initiated by the Ministry of Justice.
The disciplinary charges against them are related to their administration of the bar associations.
He also pointed out that pressure was also exerted on individual lawyers, who had been invited to the Ministry of Justice and instructed which decisions to vote for at the National Conference of delegates of the regional bar associations.
Furthermore, Sergei Sizintsev, the Executive Director of the National Bar Association, has been unexpectedly dismissed from his position following the resignation of Anvar Tugel.
“Instructions about the outcome of the vote, apparently unjustified disciplinary proceedings against high profile lawyers and other such actions constitute interference with the independence of the legal profession and are of concern” Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme Senior Legal Adviser, said today.
“These developments cannot but create a chilling effect on the lawyers in Kazakhstan, including those independent lawyers who openly spoke against the reform of the legal profession,” he added.
Such measures are inconsistent with international law and standards on the independence of the legal profession, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
The ICJ calls on the State authorities, including the Ministry of Justice, to refrain from interference with the internal matters of the Bar, especially with the election of its governing bodies.
The interim leadership of the National Bar Association should ensure that elections to positions in the governing bodies are fair and transparent and are not a result of inappropriate interference from whatever quarter.
The ICJ will continue to monitor developments regarding the Kazakhstan legal profession, including disbarment proceedings against heads of regional bar associations, and other instances of apparent pressure on lawyers related to their opposition to reforms of the profession earlier criticized by the ICJ.
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity.
The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference (Principle 24)
International principles on the role of lawyers also require the State to ensure that neither disciplinary sanctions, nor other measures such as criminal penalties, are unfairly or arbitrarily imposed on lawyers for action taken in accordance with their professional duties, and in accordance with accepted standards of professional conduct, including those enshrined in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers
According to Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles it is the obligation of the governments to ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that they do 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”.
The Law ‘On the Professional Activities of Advocates and Legal Assistance’ was signed into law on 10 July 2018.
Earlier the ICJ expressed concern in respect to the new law, as contradicting international law and standards on the independence of the legal profession, by enabling the executive to influence or to have control over who is allowed to practice law and substantial influence on disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. Read the full text here.
Read also
ICJ statement following the mission to Kazakhstan on the independence of the legal profession.
Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.
The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.
Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.
He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”. Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.
On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.
On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.
According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.
The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.
The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.
“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.
Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.
The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.
Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ made submissions today to the European Court of Human Rights in support of the right of association of Azerbaijan’s lawyers representing applicants before the Court and highlighting the situation of harassment of the legal profession in the country.
The ICJ intervened today in the cases of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan and Mustafayev and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan.
In these cases, lawyer Asabali Mustafayev and its NGO challenged the compliance of the freezing of their assets and criminal proceedings for financial offences as arbitrary interferences with their work as human rights defenders and in representation of clients before the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The ICJ has intervened to highlight the case-law regarding the right to individual application before the Court under article 34 ECHR and its application to the work of lawyers and legal NGOs.
It further examined the systemic practice in Azerbaijan of harassment of lawyers and of NGOs established by lawyers for the purpose of providing legal advice or representation, including representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, the ICJ analyzed the implications of such practices with regard to the State’s obligations under article 18 ECHR read together with article 11 ECHR.
Azerbaijan-icj-DHRRC&other-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Question to the parties: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184179
Jul 26, 2018 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser in Bangkok, Thailand.
Over recent decades, international observers have tended to view the human rights and political situation in Cambodia as a series of predictable cycles that does not warrant too much alarm.
The conventional wisdom has been that Prime Minister Hun Sen and his government routinely tightens their grip on the political opposition and civil society in advance of elections before relaxing it again after victory has been secured.
But that analysis is no longer valid.
The reason is simple: During the course of ensuring it will win the national election scheduled for this Sunday (29 July), Hun Sen’s ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) has, since the last election, systematically altered the country’s constitutional and legal framework – and these changes will remain in place after the election has passed.
Through the passage of a slew of new laws and legal amendments inconsistent with Cambodia’s obligations under international law, and the frequent implementation of the law to violate human rights, the legal system has been weaponized to overwhelm and defeat the real and perceived opponents of the CPP, including the political opposition, the media, civil society, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens.
This misuse of the law is a significant development in the history of modern Cambodia and represents a determined move away from the vision enshrined in the historic 1991 Paris Peace Agreements that ended years of conflict and sought to establish a peaceful and democratic Cambodia founded on respect for human rights and the rule of law.
And it risks cementing the human rights and rule of law crisis that now exists within Cambodia for years to come.
To facilitate the closure of civil society space, and contrary to international law and standards, in 2015 the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO) was passed, which requires the mandatory registration of all NGOs and Associations, provides the government with arbitrary powers to deny or revoke registration, and places a vaguely worded duty on NGOs and associations to “maintain their neutrality towards political parties”.
The biggest blow to the political opposition has been the amendment last year of the Law on Political Parties (1997), amended twice within four months, which empowers the Supreme Court to dissolve parties, and four election laws, which permits the redistribution of a dissolved party’s seats in the country’s senate, national assembly, and commune and district councils.
Last November, the Supreme Court, presided over by a high-ranking member of the CPP, used the amended Law on Political Parties to dissolve the main opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), which had received just under 44% of the vote – or about 3 million votes – in communal elections held in June 2017.
After the CNRP’s dissolution, the amended election laws were then used to redistribute CNRP seats at every level of government, from the commune to the senate, to the CPP and minor parties.
To silence the media, the country’s media and taxation laws have been invoked – local radio stations have been ordered to stop broadcasting Radio Free Asia and Voice of America “in order to uphold the law on media” and the independent Cambodia Daily was forced to close after being presented with a disputed US $6.3 million tax bill which the Daily claimed was “politically motivated” and not accompanied by a proper audit or good faith negotiations.
To curb the exercise of freedom of expression, the Constitution has received vaguely worded amendments placing an obligation on Cambodian citizens to “primarily uphold the national interest” while prohibiting them from “conducting any activities which either directly or indirectly affect the interests of the Kingdom of Cambodia and of Khmer Citizens”.
Meanwhile individual journalists, members of the political opposition including the CNRP’s leader, Kem Sokha, human rights defenders and an Australian documentary filmmaker have been charged with any number of a kaleidoscope of crimes ranging from intentional violence and criminal defamation to treason and espionage.
And Cambodia lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.
In 2014, three “judicial reform laws” were passed which institutionalized the prosecution and judiciary’s lack of independence from the executive.
At the same time, the government perversely uses the doctrine of the “rule of law” to justify its actions.
Just hours after the Supreme Court dissolved the CNRP, Hun Sen announced that the decision was made “in accordance with the rule of law.”
When members of the diplomatic community and senior UN officials meet government officials to express concern at the increasing misuse of the law they receive an absurdist legal lecture on the “importance of the rule of law”.
What is happening in Cambodia is the opposite of that.
The International Commission of Jurists, UN authorities and others have been defining the rule of law since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was pronounced in 1948.
All agree that that the rule of law entails passing and implementing laws consistent with a country’s international human rights obligations.
It is time for the international community to recognize that a frank and fresh analysis of the situation in Cambodia is urgently required which acknowledges the way the country’s underlying legal and constitutional framework has been deliberately altered, and the way in which this will impact the country adversely long past this month’s election.
This acknowledgment must be accompanied by a coherent and, where possible, joint, plan of action that clearly sets out, with a timeline, what is required to bring Cambodia back on track with the agreed terms of the Paris Peace Agreements – including necessary legal and justice sector reforms – and the political and economic consequences for not doing so.
As long as Hun Sen’s Government deploys increasingly sophisticated justifications for its repressive actions, a more refined, multilayered and vigorous response from the international community is required – grounded on a proper application of the rule of law and Cambodia’s international human rights obligations.
Feb 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Maldivian Government’s assault on the Supreme Court and its judges and the suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency.
“President Yameen and his Government have dealt a grave blow to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in the Maldives,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The actions by the government are a wildly unjustifiable and disproportionate response to the decision of the Supreme Court”, he added.
On 5 February, the Maldivian Government declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections.
The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.
The Government, however, refused to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment, which resulted in the outbreak of protests in the country.
The national defense forces also reportedly entered the premises of the Supreme Court and arrested at least two senior judges, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.
“Summarily suspending basic rights protections and arresting judges whose decisions the President disagrees with is itself a display of sweeping lawlessness in the country,” Seiderman said.
According to the President’s office, the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court order resulted in “disruption of the functions of the executive power, disruption of the functions of the state institutions…and infringement of national security and public interest.”
According to an unofficial translation of the emergency decree received by the ICJ, the constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; the right to privacy; and the right to obtain remedy from the courts.
Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures have also been suspended.
In addition, laws providing certain immunities to judges and the right of judges to be informed if any action is taken against them have also been suspended.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ notes that international law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
“Maldivian authorities have not even come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Seiderman said.
The ICJ urges the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court, implement the ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, T: +41 22 979 38 37 ; e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Additional information
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
