Oct 16, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ holds a seminar in Turkmenistan, on “Comparative perspectives on the role of lawyers”.
The event organized in Ashgabat, with support of the EU Liaison Office in Turkmenistan, provides an important opportunity to discuss the questions of organization of an independent legal profession and the ethics of lawyers in the countries of the EU and Central Asia.
“Along with judges and prosecutors, lawyers are key participants in the administration of justice. Ensuring fair trial rights is intrinsically linked with the right to legal assistance by lawyers who are able to perform their duties independently and with full respect of profession’s ethical standards,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe Programme Legal Adviser.
“To achieve this they organize themselves through associations of lawyers,” he added.
The workshop takes a comparative approach and looks into the role of lawyers in several jurisdictions, including the organisation of the legal profession as well as the professional standards for lawyers in Germany, Switzerland, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
The speakers will also discuss international standards on the role of lawyers and their ethics.
Gulnora Ishankhanova, an ICJ Commissioner, will represent the ICJ along with other experts, including senior lawyers from the ICJ network.
They will present comparative national perspectives on the role of lawyers in their respective countries, placing them in the context of global and regional standards.
Representatives of lawyers’ associations in Turkmenistan will present the experience of Turkmenistan.
Oct 6, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the role of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors at a UN seminar on prevention of torture in police custody and pre-trial detention.
The ICJ made the interventions during the “Seminar on the implementation of effective safeguards to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment during police custody and pre-trial detention” organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to a mandate from Human Rights Council resolution 31/31 (2016). A report of the seminar will be delivered and discussed at the March 2017 session of the Council.
The ICJ stated as follows in the first session:
The ICJ’s Commissioners are 60 senior judges and lawyers from all parts of the world. The ICJ works extensively with judges and absolutely agrees that their role is key to prevention of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and pre-trial detention.
Some of the key aspects of the role of judges include:
Judges should rigorously pursue all allegations. They should inquire when there are signs of abuse even if the detainee does not specifically allege abuse. They should demand that detainees be physically brought before them. Judges should be prepared to hold authorities in contempt of court when the authorities do not comply. The ICJ was very interested in what the Panelist Judge Dias Toffoli from Brazil said during the session about developments for custody hearings there, and how the judiciary can take practical systematic measures to fulfil their role even when legislators and other authorities may hesitate to act.
Judges should recognise and balance for evidentiary issues faced by detainees and their lawyers given the control authorities exercise over the place of detention
Judges should ensure that authorities respect rights of access to the outside world (including lawyers, family, friends, doctors, letters, and so on), both as safeguard but also to ensure detainees are not subjected to isolation that in its cumulative impact can itself amount to ill-treatment or even torture. The ICJ was pleased that Special Rapporteur Melzer highlighted the importance of such access.
Judges should ensure that confessions, other information and evidence obtained by torture and similar abuse is not allowed to be part of proceedings before them. The ICJ was interested in what justice Donoso from Chile said about relevant developments there.
In many places, judicial authorities are responsible for supervision of places of pre-trial detention. Where this is the case, judges should visit regularly, and at times without prior notice, such places of detention.
Judges should ensure accountability of perpetrators.
Judges should ensure rigorous constitutional review of relevant laws and practices, and maintain knowledge of and apply in practice international law against torture and ill-treatment. Even non-legally-binding international standards (such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners or “Mandela Rules”, and the UN Body of Principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment) should be seen by judges as a useful and persuasive source of guidance in interpreting national laws.
To effectively fulfil their role, the judiciary must enjoy all necessary guarantees of independence from other authorities and other powerful interests in society. At the same time, at the ICJ we have also more recently been concerned to ensure accountability of judges when they fail to fulfil their duties to prevent and respond to torture, or are indeed intentionally complicit in mistreatment of prisoners.
Judges acting to protect human rights of criminal detainees are often subject to public criticism, and are often unable for reasons of impartiality and dignity of the court to defend themselves. It is therefore incumbent on members of the Executive, Legislature, legal profession, and others to defend such judges, and certainly not to pile on further unjustified criticism.
Finally, the ICJ would note that recent resolutions of the Human Rights Council on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on the administration of justice, stress the role of continuing professional education of judges on human rights issues (best organised by judicial institutions themselves, but involving other actors). Continuing education on prevention of torture and ill-treatment is a key area needed by all judiciaries in all countries.”
The ICJ continued as follows in the second session:
“A common thread that has already emerged from the first two panels is the role that pressure on police to obtain confessions plays in the incidence of torture and abuse in police custody. Thank you to the Panelists for their insights on this issue.
Values and signales from superiors and political leadership, including for instance in relation to practical aspects like career progression of police officials, is very important. Having clear rules is also very important in this regard. As is the perception of police that they lack alternatives to confessions as form of proof. Training on interviewing techniques, having an adequate number of officers, access to materials like fingerprinting kits and means of assuring chain-of-custody for physical evidence, are all also important.
The Seminar has addressed judges and police already, and will discuss lawyers later; the ICJ would also like to highlight the role of prosecutors in removing incentives on police to focus on obtaining confessions by any means.
The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (Article 16) provide that prosecutors shall refuse to use evidence that they believe to have been obtained by torture.
A similar provision is incorporated in the professional standards adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors (which have also been endorsed by the UN Crime Commission). This also is an example of how international and regional professional associations can play an important role with their members in practical measures for prevention of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and pre-trial detention.”
In the third Session, the ICJ expressed its agreement with points made by Ms Miti-Drummond, the representative of the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute regarding the role of the legal profession in the prevention of torture, particularly regarding the importance of access to and presence of a competent and independent lawyer prior to and during any interview.
The ICJ also pointed out that some States have period of delay or even preclusion of access of detainee to the lawyer of his or her choosing, for instance in counter-terrorism, national security or similar cases. Often these are cases where there is a particular risk of abuse, and also may involve delay in bringing the person before a judge. In some places the independent bar association assigns a lawyer who has immediate access, if the access to the person’s lawyer of choice is denied or delayed. The ICJ invited comments or recommendations about this practice or other means to ensure lawyers can effectively prevent torture in such circumstances.
Oct 4, 2017 | News
Tajikistan should take urgent action to ensure the protection of Buzurgmehr Yorov, a lawyer serving a 28-year sentence in prison, following his conviction being based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is aware that Bugurgmehr Yorov has been subjected to acts amounting to torture or other ill-treatment.
The responsible authorities must ensure that such ill-treatment immediately ceases and that allegations that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s rights that have been violated are promptly and thoroughly investigated by an independent body.
Anyone responsible for violations of his rights must be held accountable and brought to justice, as required under Tajikistan law as well as international human rights treaties to which Tajikistan is a party.
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.”
Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March this year, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.”
In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
On 27 September 27 2017, Hurinniso Ishokova, mother of Buzurgmehr Yorov, obtained permission to visit her son in a pre-trial detention facility, for the first time in nine months.
Following the visit, she alleged that her son had been systematically beaten by prison staff during the whole period of his detention, and that in the last month the beatings had intensified.
She also said that at an unspecified time during his detention Buzurgmehr Yorov had been admitted to the hospital at the pre-trial facility.
After several days of treatment, he was again sent back and the beatings by prison staff resumed.
According to his mother, these beatings were accompanied by insults, humiliation and threats. Reportedly, on three recent occasions Buzurgmkhar Yorov was placed in a punishment cell for several days.
On September 28, 2017 the head of the pre-trial facility rejected all claims that Buzurgmkhar Yorov had been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.
Background:
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
The ICJ is concerned that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
See:
https://www.icj.org/tajikistan-long-prison-sentences-for-lawyers-endangers-the-fairness-of-the-justice-system/
https://www.icj.org/tajikistan-arrest-of-lawyer-raises-concern-over-reprisals-for-defense-of-clients/
https://www.icj.org/tajikistan-icj-concerned-at-arrest-of-lawyer/
Tajikistan is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) both of which enshrine the absolute prohibition on torture or other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment, and require that allegations of such ill-treatment should be subject to independent, thorough and prompt investigation, and that perpetrators of crimes of torture should be brought to justice.
According to UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers “shall 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(c)).
Yorov_statement_rus (Russian translation – pdf)
Sep 28, 2017 | Advocacy, Uncategorized
The ICJ today called on the UN Human Rights Committee and a group of UN Special Procedure mandates to take urgent follow up action on Venezuela in light of the grave and ever deteriorating human rights situation in the country.
In a letter to the UN Human Rights Committee, the treaty body responsible for monitoring implementation by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ called for urgent action by the Committee, either through its established follow-up procedure and/or through requesting a special interim report. The Committee’s follow-up procedure was referenced in the Committee’s Concluding Observations on Venezuela’s fourth periodic report under the ICCPR. Special interim reports may be requested by the Committee under Article 40(1)(b) of the ICCPR.
The ICJ also called for urgent action to be taken by the following UN Special Procedure mandates: the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This group of Special Procedure mandates had on 4 August 2017 issued a joint statement on the human rights situation in Venezuela.
The ICJ’s letters draw attention to several critical areas of concern:
- The rapidly deteriorating human rights situation;
- The lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations;
- The lack of effective remedies and reparation for victims of human rights violations;
- The lack of independence of the judiciary;
- The institutional crisis arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice;
- The unconstitutional election of the new National Constituent Assembly;
- The dismissal of the former Attorney General;
- The recent establishment of a ‘Truth Commission’;
- The intended revision of Venezuela’s Constitution; and
- Venezuela’s failure to notify its state of emergency under the ICCPR.
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-HRCttee-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Human Rights Committee, in PDF)
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-SPs-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Special Procedure mandates, in PDF)
ICJ reports:
Venezuela: the Supreme Court of Justice has become an arm of an authoritarian executive
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
Sep 25, 2017 | News
Guatemala’s Congress should immediately remove obstacles to investigation and accountability of President Jimmy Morales (photo) and other public officials for alleged violations of campaign finance rules and corruption, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ also called on President Morales to cease efforts to impede the effective functioning of the United Nations mandated International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).
“Guatemala’s president and some members of Congress are obstructing justice by abusing their authority to avoid investigations for corruption and block the important work carried out by the Attorney General, with CICIG’s assistance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, just returned from a visit to the country.
“Guatemala, with CICIG’s assistance, has witnessed important progress in the fight against corruption and impunity in recent years, and Congress should be making sure that this trend continues,” he added.
The Congress voted on September 21 to reject the request by Attorney General Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez, Commissioner of CICIG, to strip President Morales of Constitutional immunity he enjoys as president, in connection to allegations that his political party failed to report more than $800,000 in campaign financing.
But the Congressional vote fell short of the threshold of 105 votes needed to reach the necessary two-thirds of Congress needed to reach a final decision and thus can be reconsidered.
On September 13, Congress voted to revise the country’s criminal code by removing Secretary Generals of political parties from accountability for violations of electoral laws (instead limiting accountability to accountants) and to commute the sentences of those already convicted of a number of serious crimes, including corruption, trafficking of persons, and sexual abuse.
The legislators rescinded the vote after two days of nationwide public demonstrations and a decision of the country’s Constitutional Court to suspend the law’s application.
The Guatemalan Constitutional Court suspended the revisions in response to a writ of amparo and characterized Congress’ revisions to the criminal code as “a threat that, in case of being implemented, could cause irreparable damage to the judicial system”.
“The Constitutional Court’s speedy action avoided a massive blow to the fight for accountability in Guatemala, because if the law had gone into effect for even one hour, it would have provided a legal basis for politicians convicted on corruption charges to demand release or commutation of their sentences,” Zarifi said.
Congress’s actions followed an attempt by President Morales to expel CICIG’s Commissioner Velasquez, as persona non grata and to revise CICIG’s mandate, in an apparent bid to block investigations into his alleged wrongdoing.
“Since CICIG was formed in December 2006 at the request of the Guatemalan government, it has worked closely with the country’s Attorney General to improve accountability, and its impact has been undeniably positive,” Zarifi said.
“This is a model of international support for national accountability mechanisms that should be studied and emulated around the world; its continued operation is therefore of interest not just to Guatemala and the region but to global efforts to combat impunity,” he added.
The ICJ called on the Guatemalan government to comply with its international legal obligations as a State party to the 2004 United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the 1996 Inter-American Convention Against Corruption.
Background
Article 30(2) of the UN Convention Against Corruption calls on State Party to strike “an appropriate balance between any immunities or jurisdictional privileges accorded to its public officials for the performance of their functions and the possibility, when necessary, of effectively investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating offences established in accordance with this Convention.”
Article 30(3) demands States “to ensure that any discretionary legal powers under its domestic law relating to the prosecution of persons for offences established in accordance with this Convention are exercised to maximize the effectiveness of law enforcement measures in respect of those offences and with due regard to the need to deter the commission of such offences.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t: +41 79 726 44 15 ; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
