Feb 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan and called it a further attack on the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary.
“President Abdulla Yameen’s Government has dealt another blow to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan is another step down in the country’s downward spiral away from democracy and stability, and is squarely at odds with the Maldives’ international obligations,” he added.
Maldivian officials confirmed in a statement that Ahmed Nihan, a magistrate’s court judge, and Muhthaz Muhsin, former Prosecutor General, were arrested on Sunday night on charges of forging a warrant for the arrest of President Abdulla Yameen.
Muhthaz Muhsin was released soon after, but Judge Ahmed Nihan was placed in judicial custody for one week.
“Judge Ahmed Nihan’s arbitrary and seemingly politically motivated arrest is yet another example of executive highhandedness and the corrosion of separation of powers in the Maldives,” said Zarifi.
“Undue interference with the Human Rights Commission, the arbitrary dismissal of the Auditor General, and the unlawful removal of two Supreme Court justices are just a few examples,” he added.
According to the Maldivian media, the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by Judge Ahmed Nihan, related to an on-going investigation against President Abdulla Yameen for embezzlement of state funds.
President Yameen’s spokesperson said in an interview the warrant was “fraudulent” because it “did not originate from any official authority.”
The Maldivian police (photo) claim the arrest warrant was issued using “falsified information”.
The ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately release Judge Ahmed Nihan and allow him to continue his judicial duties.
The ICJ also reiterates its previous calls on the Maldivian Government to implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Additional information:
In a fact-finding report released in August last year, the ICJ noted with concern the serious erosion of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, which resulted in the deterioration in the rule of law in the Maldives and the stalling of the country’s transition toward a more representative government.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Maldives acceded to in 2006, safeguards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
International standards on judicial independence, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, provide that judges shall be free from any “inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process”.
The fact that executive or legislative actors may disagree with a judge’s decision or interpretation of the law cannot be a valid ground for removal or punishment of the judge.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary further stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only through proceedings that guarantee the right to a fair hearing (Principle 17); and then only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18); that all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct (Principle 19), and decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review (Principle 20). The Basic Principles elaborate on legal obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant and Civil Rights (ICCPR).
The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003 contain similar provisions.
Article 154 of the Maldivian Constitution states that a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the person is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct.
Feb 5, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Royal Thai Government to immediately drop criminal proceedings against human rights lawyer Sirikan Charoensiri.
On 2 February 2016, Sirikan Charoensiri received two summons to appear at the Chanasongkram Police Station on 9 February 2016 to be charged with two offences under the Criminal Code of Thailand: “giving false information regarding a criminal offence” and “refusing to comply with the order of an official”.
Such charges could result in punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment.
“The charges against Sirikan Charoensiri apparently relate to her efforts to protect the legal and human rights of her clients, students who never should have faced arrest or criminal proceedings for peacefully exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in the first place,” said Matt Pollard of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
“Prosecuting Sirikan Charoensiri for her efforts to defend human rights is totally unacceptable and will only put Thailand further in violation of its international obligations,” he added.
The charges appear to relate to the circumstances surrounding Sirikan Charoensiri’s provision of legal aid to 14 students who were arrested on 26 June 2015 after carrying out peaceful protests calling for democracy and an end to military rule.
Although the precise basis for the changes is not set out in the summonses, the complainant is named as Pol. Col. Suriya Chamnongchok, a police officer involved in the investigation of the 14 students.
Sirikan Charoensiri, a lawyer with Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), has provided legal aid to many individuals, including activists and human rights defenders, since military rule was imposed in May 2014.
The ICJ first expressed concern about the Government’s targeting of Sirikan Charoensiri on 2 July 2015, after the Royal Thai Police threatened Sirikan Charoensiri with legal action, publically announced they were considering charging her with a crime, and visited her home and questioned her family.
These threats and harassment, like the currently pending charges, appeared to be in retaliation for her having refused consent for police to search her car after the students’ court hearing, and for having filed a complaint with the police when they proceeded to impound it.
The ICJ has brought the case to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders.
The situation of human rights in Thailand will be examined by the UN Human Rights Council in May 2016, as part of the Council’s Universal Periodic Review of all States.
“Ahead of Thailand’s human rights review by the United Nations in May, and against the background of the tabled ‘roadmap’ towards democratic rule, the need for the Royal Thai Government to restore respect for human rights only grows more urgent by the day,” said Pollard.
Contact
In Bangkok: Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
In Geneva: Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 12 ; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Background
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a Party, guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; the right to freedom of expression; the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention; the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (including the right of prompt access to a lawyer and precluding jurisdiction of military courts over civilians in circumstances such as these); and the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence (which includes arbitrary searches or seizures).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms the right of everyone peacefully to oppose human rights violations. It prohibits retaliation, threats and other harassment against anyone who takes peaceful action against human rights violations, both within and beyond the exercise of their professional duties. It protects the right of persons to file formal complaints about alleged violations of rights. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments are to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Thailand-Sirikan Charoensiri-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text in PDF, Thai)
Feb 5, 2016 | News
The ICJ is monitoring the ongoing trial under court martial of the 23 members of the Lesotho Defence Forces in the case The King vs Brigadier Mareka and 22 Others.
The Court Martial was convened through a government order issued and signed by the Minister of Defence and National Security Hon Tseliso Mokhosi on 13 August 2015.
Under the convening order, Brigadier Mareka and 22 others were generally accused of charges related to planning and or involvement in mutiny and violence.
The convening order also identified the names of the members of the court martial as well as the prosecuting authority at such court martial.
The court martial raises issues around observance of human rights, the rule of law and good governance in Lesotho.
Its significance is reflected in the fact that the Southern African Development Community (SADC), an inter-governmental organization, is also seized with the matter as part of its mandate under the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, and directed the convening of a SADC supported Commission of Inquiry into the issues related to the court martial.
The subsequently-established Commission of Inquiry has completed its work and filed its report with the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation and the Prime Minister of Lesotho.
The report is yet to be made public and is planned to be released on the 8th February 2016.
The ICJ will particularly monitor the consistency of the Court Martial trial with international fair trial standards, both in terms of the conduct of proceedings, and the independence and impartiality of the tribunal including in light of the manner of selection of the Court Martial members, in which a number of junior soldiers were promoted in rank in order to justify their presiding in a disciplinary case over their superiors.
In particular the promotion of the President of the Court Martial Major General Letsoela seems to have been done to facilitate that he as a junior officer sits to determine a case involving Brigadier Mareka and another brigadier who ordinarily are his superiors in terms of rank.
The ICJ will also monitor whether the Court Martial and investigative authorities act in accordance with international standards in responding to the credible allegations of human rights violations committed against Brigadier Mareka and 22 others.
The allegations include prolonged incommunicado detention, torture, inhuman and other degrading treatment while in custody, being inhibited from fully consulting with and briefing their legal representatives, and defiance of High Court orders by the Lesotho Defence Forces including that the soldiers should be detained in open prison and not a military detention facility and should not be kept in leg irons.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +277 16405926 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
LESOTHO-Brig Mareka and 22 Others-News-Web story-2016-ENG (full story in PDF)
Dec 17, 2015 | News, Publications, Reports
With the signing of the political agreement on a national unity government today, the next step in Libya’s transition will be to ensure that its new Constitution fully conforms to international rule of law and human rights standards, the ICJ said today.
The statement came as the ICJ released its new report The Draft Libyan Constitution: Procedural Deficiencies, Substantive Flaws.
In the report, the ICJ calls on the Libyan Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to substantially revise the Draft Constitution published in October with a view to ensuring its full compliance with Libya’s obligations under international human rights law and international standards.
Libyan authorities, including the CDA, should also put in place effective mechanisms to ensure that the drafting process is inclusive, participatory, and fully reflects the views of a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups.
The report concludes that the Draft Constitution, in many key respects, does not conform to Libya’s obligations under international human rights law or to international rule of law standards.
“The new Constitution provides a crucial opportunity to depart from decades of authoritarianism under Moammar Ghadafi’s regime. It must therefore provide for a strong foundation upon which the rule of law, including the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and civilian oversight over military and armed groups, can be established and upheld,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA programme.
The Draft Constitution should also be amended to provide for a comprehensive set of human rights and protections that fully accord with international human rights law, including provisions relating to non-discrimination, the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, protections for minorities, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, fair trial rights, and a range of economic, social and cultural rights.
“The Libyan Constitution must at a minimum conform to the definition and scope of the rights contained within the human rights treaties to which Libya is a state party. Any scope for limitation of rights must conform to the criteria for such limitations under international law and, in particular, only as are provided for by law, are proportionate, and are demonstrably necessary in a free and democratic society,” Benarbia added.
Contact:
Doireann Ansbro, Associate Legal Advisor of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +216 71 841 701, email: doireann.ansbro(a)icj.org
Libya-Draft Constitution Flaws Deficiencies-Publications-Reports-2015-ENG (full report in PDF, English)
Libya-Constitution Flaws Report-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full press release in Arabic, PDF)
Libya-Draft Constitution Flaws Deficiencies-Publications-Reports-2015-ARA (full report in PDF, Arabic)
Dec 7, 2015 | News
The ICJ today called on the Moroccan authorities to put an immediate end to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges Amal Homani and Mohamed Al-Haini.
The two were referred to the High Judicial Council by the Minister of Justice on unfounded allegations of “violating the duty of discretion” and “expressing opinions of a political nature”.
The charges stem from social media comments and media articles written by the judges in which they criticized the government’s Draft Law No. 100.13 on the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire and the Draft Law No 106.13 on the Statute for Judges, including provisions that appear designed to maintain executive branch control of the judiciary and the career of judges.
“Instead of subjecting judges who are promoting the rule of law and judicial independence to unjustified and arbitrary disciplinary proceedings, the Moroccan authorities must comply with their obligations under international standards to guarantee, protect and preserve judicial independence,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The disciplinary proceedings against judges Amal Homani and Mohamed Al-Haini are clearly without foundation and must be immediately and unconditionally terminated,” he added.
International standards are clear: members of the judiciary are, like other citizens, entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.
The exercise of these basic human rights in a manner that preserves the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary should not constitute a disciplinary offence, the ICJ says.
The social media comments and media articles by judges Amal Homani and Mohamed Al-Haini were clearly within the scope of their rights to freedom of expression, the Geneva-based organization adds.
Under the current legal framework, in particular Law No.1-74-467 of 1974 on the Statute for Judges, the Ministry of Justice has comprehensive and effective control over the entire judiciary, including the High Judicial Council, the career of judges and judicial administration.
Indeed, under the current framework, the Minister of Justice is the Vice-President of the High Judicial Council.
As such the impartiality and fairness of any disciplinary hearings initiated by the Minister of Justice based on statements perceived to criticize the executive branch, must be called into question, the ICJ says.
While provisions of the 2011 Constitution relating to the judiciary constitute an important step towards ending the executive’s control over the judiciary, Moroccan professional associations of judges and civil society organizations have expressed concern that the draft laws perpetuate such control as well as executive interference in judicial matters.
The ICJ has previously called on the Moroccan authorities to revise the two flawed draft laws to ensure their full compliance with international law and standards on judicial independence.
“The Moroccan authorities must end their attacks on judicial independence, including by revising flawed institutional and legal reforms and by ending politicized proceedings against judges,” Benarbia said.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +961 70 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Morocco-Judges Homani-El Haini-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full press release in PDF, Arabic)
