Sep 14, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In advance of the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption of the outcome of its review of the Maldives’ human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, the ICJ has submitted a written statement.
It highlights the Maldives’ failure to accept and implement a number of member states’ UPR recommendations.
In particular, the ICJ pointed out the urgent need for Maldives to accept and implement recommendations regarding the following issues, among others:
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judicial Service Commission;
- Strengthening the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the Paris Principles;
- Strengthening women’s representation in the judicial profession;
- Immediately releasing former president Mohamed Nasheed and other political prisoners, and ensuring the fairness of any further legal proceedings in such cases; and
- Safeguarding freedom of expression and media, association and peaceful assembly by investigating cases of human rights abuse and violations against journalists, civil society and human rights defenders, and taking effective measures to prevent further abuses
The Council will consider member states’ UPR recommendations for the Maldives during its 30th session on 24 September 2015, ahead of which the Maldives government will be expected to formally respond and indicate which of the recommendations it will commit to implement.
Sep 14, 2015 | Events
Judges, lawyers, prosecutors and human rights: 30 years of UN action
Side event, Tuesday 15 September 2015, 1600 – 1800
Room XXII, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Followed by a drinks reception hosted by the IBA’s Human Rights Institute
in Bar Serpent, Palais des Nations
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) are organising a side event at the Palais des Nations to mark the 30th Anniversary of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the 25th Anniversary of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. This side-event, taking place during the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, will look back on the progress that has been made in the protection of judges, lawyers and prosecutors over the past 30 years and the continuing challenges for implementation of the UN standards.
Side Event, 1600-1800
Opening remarks:
- Her Excellency Zsuzsanna Horváth Ambassador of Hungary
Speakers:
- Monica Pinto Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
- Anne Ramberg Secretary General, Swedish Bar Association
- Irene Petras Executive Director, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
- Nazir Afzal Former Chief Crown Prosecutor, North West England
Drinks Reception, 1800
The IBA’s Human Rights Institute will host a drinks reception in Bar Serpent, Palais des Nations, with a number of high-level speakers to follow the side event to the 30th session of the Human Rights Council.
Speakers:
- Her Excellency Patricia O’Brien Ambassador of Ireland
- His Excellency Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai Ambassador of Botswana
- Monica Pinto Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Side event co-sponsors include, in addition to the IBAHRI and ICJ:
Australian Permanent Mission to the UN, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the UN, Permanent Mission of Ireland to the UN, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN, Permanent Mission of Thailand to the UN, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Botswana to the UN, Council of Europe
Association pour la Prévention de la Torture, Avocats Sans Frontières, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association, International Legal Assistance Consortium, Judges for Judges, Lawyers for Lawyers
Attendance at this side event is open to individuals who have access to the UN grounds at Palais des Nations in Geneva.
Sep 1, 2015 | News
Nepal’s Constituent Assembly must ensure that the new Constitution Bill contains strong and effective protections for all human rights in accordance with Nepal’s international legal obligations, said the ICJ today.
The Constituent Assembly endorsed a Constitutional Bill last week.
As per the CA Rules of Procedure, CA members have until 5 September to submit proposals for amendments.
“This draft includes some improvements from earlier versions, but it needs serious revisions to meet international standards regarding human rights protections,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.
“As an immediate matter, the Constituent Assembly must extend the 5 September deadline, and provide adequate time for public consultation and discussion of this essential legal text,” he added.
The ICJ released a detailed briefing paper in July 2015 analyzing provisions of the Draft Constitution on citizenship, fundamental rights and judicial independence, in light of Nepal’s international human rights obligations.
The ICJ also highlighted the non-inclusive and non-representative nature of the constitution-making process.
Many of those concerns still remain and must be addressed urgently, including:
- Non-citizens are excluded from key rights and protections. For example, Articles 18 (right to equality), 25 (right to property), 27 (right to information), 31 (right to education), 33 (right to employment), 35 (right to health), 36 (right to food), 37 (right to housing), and 43 (right to social security) are all restricted to citizens. These protections must be extended to all persons under Nepal’s jurisdiction, not only citizens, in accordance with Nepal’s international obligations;
- The right to gender equality under women’s rights (particularly in article 38) is not adequately protected. For example, the Constitution should include explicit guarantees for equal pay for work of equal value, and prohibit multiple, intersecting grounds of discrimination on basis of gender and sexual orientation, caste, religion, etc;
- Key economic, social and cultural rights – including in articles 33 and 34 (employment and labour), 35 (health), 37 (housing), and 43 (social security) – are not adequately protected;
- Restrictions and limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, information and press freedom, are broad and vague and do not conform with international human rights standards (including articles 17 and 19 and 27);
- Provisions on remedy for human rights violations (articles 46 and 47) are inadequate;
- Provisions regarding the impeachment of judges (articles 101, 130 and 131) and composition of the Judicial Council (as in article 153, responsible for the appointment, disciplining and dismissal of judges) fail to safeguard judicial independence;
- Provisions on emergencies and consequent restriction of rights are overbroad (as in article 268(10)).
The ICJ noted some improvements in the current draft, such as:
- Making any person whose father or mother is a Nepali citizen eligible for citizenship through descent. Previous drafts required both parents to be Nepali citizens;
- Guaranteeing a broader range of women’s rights, including the right to reproductive health;
- Revising the understanding of victim’s rights to ensure that victims of crime are entitled to “justice including compensation and restitution”;
- Adding more rights to the list of those designated as non-derogable rights during emergencies – including the right to social justice (as contained in article 42 of the Constitution Bill, which amongst other things, guarantees the rights of marginalized groups to participate “in the state structure and public service on the basis of principle of proportional inclusion”), and the rights of dalits (as contained in article 40 of the Constitution Bill, which contains guarantees of equality and non-discrimination).
“While these amendments are welcome, more revisions are necessary,” said Narayan. “The CA must ensure that the constitution-making process is participatory and inclusive. It should provide enough time and opportunities to make necessary amendments and produce a Constitution that fully ensures human rights protections and judicial independence.”
Nepal’s major political parties have stated publicly that they hope to have the Constitution finalized and enacted in mid-September.
However, many political parities and communities have been protesting against the Constitution since the introduction of the new Bill.
On 9 August, three protestors were killed when police fired at protestors violating curfew in Birendranagar, Surkhet.
One protestor was killed and five others were injured when police opened fire during a strike on 18 August.
On 24 August, eight police officers were killed during protests in Kailali district, and over 40 members of the security forces were badly injured.
“The deadly violence that has accompanied escalating protests across Nepal against this Draft is a warning about the high stakes for the drafters of the Constitution,” said Narayan. “The new Constitution should be the platform for bringing the country together after years of conflict, not serve as a new cause for discontent and insecurity.”
The ICJ called on the government of Nepal to conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into all protest-related deaths and injuries.
Where unlawful conduct is established, including by members of the security forces, those responsible must be brought to justice.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, Nepal Head of Office and ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +977 9813187821, e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Aug 2, 2015 | News
From 31 July to 2 August 2015 the ICJ supported a training and induction workshop for the Zimbabwe National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in Harare, with over 200 participants.
The public prosecutors came from the Eastern Division comprising of Midlands, Manicaland and Masvingo provinces.
The objective of the training and induction workshop was to appraise the prosecutors of the changes brought about by the Constitution, international and regional standards in the conducting of prosecutorial duties, their independence and accountability.
The presentations also focused on the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act as the main guiding framework for public prosecutors which has been significantly altered with the assumption of a new Constitution in respect of fair trial rights.
The NPA and the public prosecutors required a platform to collectively familiarize themselves with the changes and conducting of their duties guided by national, international and regional standards.
For purposes of infusing best regional and international practices, presentations included international principles and standards for prosecutors under United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Prosecutors; the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa; the relationship of the NPA and other arms such as the Judicial Service Commission and the Police.
An array of resources persons were invited and included Justice Chinembiri Bhunu, from the Judicial Service Commission, Virginia Mabiza, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Andrew Chigovera, former Attorney General of Zimbabwe, former Commissioner on the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and Dr. Tarisai Mutangi, law lecturer Midlands State University.
As a new establishment under the Constitution, the NPA explored the available and needed continuous professional development for prosecutors to fully equip them for their mandate.
The Principal of the Judicial College of Zimbabwe (a partner of the ICJ), Mr. Shana, presented on the opportunities for continuous professional development for prosecutors for acquaintance with new legal developments.
The training follows additional support that ICJ made to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) under a European Union (EU) funded agreement to develop a strategic plan for the NPA in respect of which a strategic planning workshop was held from 6 to 8 July 2015,
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
