Sep 11, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, highlighting the role of her office in countering global threats to the rule of law and human rights.
The statement was made at the UN Human Rights Council, during general debate on the High Commissioner’s oral update. It read as follows:
“Madam High Commissioner,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) warmly welcomes you to your new mandate – a mandate that the ICJ has, since 1964, fought to create and support.
A multitude of issues and situations urgently call for your attention. However, a dark cloud looms over them all, and casts its shadow across the globe, including in this chamber. From different directions, various political actors driven by authoritarian ideologies and impulses, thirst for power and fraudulent populisms, grow in strength and are joining forces to mount a concerted attack on the rule of law.
They openly scorn the stated aims of the UN Charter, including “faith in fundamental human rights” and the maintenance of “justice and respect for … international law.” They seek to undermine, defame, and destroy global, regional and national institutions built over decades as bulwarks to protect human rights and human dignity. They thrive on silence or passivity by global leaders and populations, as they assault independent judiciaries, media, and civil society.
Madam High Commissioner, you can make a unique impact by speaking forcefully and publicly in defense of human rights and the rule of law, in defense of victims, and against governments and individuals who demonstrate their hostility or indifference to these aims. The ICJ stands ready to support you and your office in the challenges that lie ahead.
Thank you.”
Jun 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today raised concerns for the independence of the judiciary in Serbia, in a statement to the United Nations.
The statement was delivered during the discussion of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Serbia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) congratulates Serbia on the completion of its Third Cycle Universal Periodic Review.
The ICJ welcomes the acceptance by Serbia of all recommendations to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, including by limiting political influence over judicial appointments (Norway, 6.1; Sweden, 6.2; France, 6.3; Australia, 6.20; Germany, 6.22; Morocco, 6.23; Estonia, 6.24; Republic of Korea, 6.25; Singapore, 6.26; Canada, 6.27).
The ICJ regrets, however, that constitutional amendments currently under discussion in Serbia run counter to these recommendations.
The amendments would empower the National Assembly to determine appointments and dismissals of judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as for half of the members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors.
The independence and autonomy of the Constitutional Court, High Judicial Council and State Prosecutorial Council, would be better secured by reducing or eliminating the role of political bodies such as the National Assembly, particularly as regards dismissals.
The ICJ stresses that the judiciary and the prosecution service must exercise their functions free from direct or indirect external influences, threats or interferences, including from the legislative and executive powers.
While welcoming reforms for life tenure of judges and deputy prosecutors, the ICJ urges Serbia to implement the accepted recommendations by precluding involvement of the National Assembly in the appointment and dismissal of judges, court presidents, public prosecutors, and deputy public prosecutors.”
Jun 21, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will participate today in the side event “State of emergency and attacks on the legal profession in Turkey” organized by IBAHRI, the Law Society, and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales.
This side event at the Human Rights Council takes place on Thursday, 21 June, 15:00-16:00, room XXV of the Palais des Nations.
It is co-sponsored by Lawyers for Lawyers, Union Internationale des Avocats, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada.
In this side event, panelists will share their analysis on the impact of the state of emergency on the rule of law and the ongoing obstacles faced by the legal profession in Turkey since the failed coup in 2016.
They will also discuss Turkey’s derogations from its international and regional human rights obligations, as well as the response of regional and international human rights mechanisms to this situation.
Panelists:
- Özlem Zingil, Turkish lawyer;
- Massimo Frigo, International Commission of Jurists;
- Tony Fisher, Chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of England and Wales;
- Stephen Cragg QC, Secretary of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales;
- Natacha Bracq, Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.
Geneva-SideEvent-StateofEmergencyLawyersTurkey-IBAHRI&others-June2018-ENG (download the flyer)
May 29, 2018 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned about the recent attacks against Judge Erika Aifán that put judicial independence in Guatemala at imminent risk. Judge Aifán has always been upright and honest in her rulings, which she bases on sound principles of the rule of law.
Ramon Cadena, Director of the Central American office of the ICJ stated today: “We must support Judge Aifán because the guarantee of judicial independence is under serious threat.”
“Judge Aifán is an honest and brave Judge presiding over emblematic cases, which could be put in jeopardy if the legal actions against her proceed,” he said.
“It is totally unacceptable that a Court imposes a fine against a professional carrying out their duty. The Judges of the Third Court who imposed this fine should be investigated by the Public Ministry on account of their actions, which constitute an attack on judicial independence,” he added.
The ICJ firmly believes that the independence of judges is essential to uphold the rule of law so that public officials can effectively guarantee access to justice for victims of human rights violations.
The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has established that “the independence of the judicial power has been recognized as a general principle of law and enshrined in many international treaties”.
For that reason, and with reference to the Guatemalan Constitution and international human rights standards, the ICJ considers that the Guatemalan Supreme Court should take an active role in the defence of judicial independence and in this specific case concerning Judge Aifán.
The ICJ also urges the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to visit the country.
The ICJ also considers that the Guatemalan Prosecutor for Human Rights should submit the case to the IACHR so that that Commission can grant preventive measures to Judge Aifán and investigate this flagrant violation of judicial independence.
The ICJ also requests that the IACHR intervenes in the present situation.
The ICJ considers that the motives for the attacks against Judge Aifán are because she is currently presiding over emblematic cases in the fight against impunity and corruption.
Groups who are interested in maintaining a situation of impunity wish to see her removed from her position.
The ICJ recalls that a judge can only be removed from office for reasons established by law, following a disciplinary process that complies with the basic guarantees of a fair trial; or when a judicial officer has completed the term of their mandate.
Neither of these conditions is met in the case of Judge Aifán. Therefore, the ICJ can only conclude that the attacks against her are attacks on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole.
It is self-evident that the independence of every judicial body is indispensable for the fulfilment of fair trial standards without which the right of access to justice is undermined.
Furthermore, without judicial independence, people lack confidence in the courts or are fearful and therefore refrain from taking cases to justice.
