Apr 23, 2015 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the recent arrest of Swaziland High Court Judges Jacobus Annandale and Mpendulo Simelane, the High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi and the Minister of Justice Sibusiso Shongwe.
The four detainees appeared today before High Court Justice Qinisile Mabuza (photo).
Justice Minister Sibusiso Shongwe was denied bail and remains detained, while the other two High Court Judges and the registrar were released on bail.
The judges, registrar and Minister of Justice are all facing various charges related to corruption and obstructing the course of justice.
The ICJ is also aware that police are presently seeking to arrest Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, and that they have surrounded his place of residence.
The ICJ has received information alleging that the police have cut off the electricity and water and have actively prevented people from bringing food supplies to him and his family.
The ICJ urges the authorities in Swaziland to immediately investigate the situation of the Chief Justice and, if the allegations are substantiated, to immediately restore supply of essential services to the Chief Justices family, denied in violation of rights guaranteed under the Swaziland’s Constitution and its international legal obligations.
“The arrest and attempted arrest of several judges, and a High Court Registrar as in this case, invariably raises questions of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary,” said Wilder Tayler Secretary General of the ICJ.
“The ICJ therefore calls on the authorities in Swaziland to conduct themselves with rigorous adherence to rule of law principles, the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. They must also do so with strict respect for international human rights law,” he added.
The ICJ emphasizes that the Chief Justice and the other judges are entitled as everyone else in Swaziland to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under international law.
These protections include the right to be informed the reasons for their arrest and the nature of any criminal charges, the right to representation by a lawyer of their choice and the right to be considered for bail if appropriate.
If no crime is alleged, but serious professional misconduct is suspected, then arrest and detention is inappropriate.
Additional information:
The ICJ has had longstanding concerns with the state of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession and the fair administration of the justice in Swaziland.
The ICJ has recently intervened in a case involving the conviction of prominent lawyer Thulani Maseko in an unfair trial.
For an ICJ analysis of the independence of the judiciary and legal profession in Swaziland, go here.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, Regional Director, ICJ’s Africa Programme, t: +27 731318411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Apr 20, 2015 | News
The ICJ is concerned at reports that a police official has purported to terminate a lawyer’s representation of a client against the client’s wishes, in violation of the right to fair trial and international standards on the independence and role of the legal profession.
A.J. Uchkempirov, the investigator of the City Department of Internal Affairs (the city police department) of Karakol City, reportedly issued a ruling removing lawyer Nurkyz Asanova from representation of her client, Mr Ishen Abdyrashev.
The ICJ is particularly concerned given that the removal of lawyer Asanova comes while she is representing Mr Abdyrashev in a case alleging that he was subjected to torture by police officers in detention, and subsequently detained at a police officer’s home and forced to carry out unpaid work for one and a half months.
On 29 December 2014, Ishen Abdyrashev, assisted by lawyer Asanova, complained about these events and a criminal investigation was initiated.
The investigation has now been completed and a criminal trial is underway.
On 3 April 2015, Abdrashev himself was charged with robbery, which he denies.
Lawyer Asanova also represents him in the robbery case.
On 14 April, investigator Uchkempirov issued a ruling purporting to remove her, despite Mr Abdyrashev’s opposition.
The purported basis for the ruling was that Lawyer Asanova was in some way interfering with the investigation of the case.
The investigator had no authority under Kyrgyz law to issue such a decision.
Under international standards, such a decision could in any event only be taken by an appropriately independent authority following a regular and fair procedure, which was clearly not the case here.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, for instance, “[n]o court or administrative authority before whom the right to counsel is recognized shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it for his or her client unless that lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with national law and practice and in conformity with these principles” (Article 19).
This is an important guarantee for the right under international law of every person to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice, as protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recognized by the Basic Principles.
The Principles also recognize, further to the right to fair trial under the Covenant, that it is the obligation of the government to guarantee that lawyers are able to pereform their functions without “intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that they are able to consult with their clients both within their own country and abroad.
The investigator’s decision should be declared void and lawyer Nurkyz Asanova’s right to represent, to communicate with and to visit her client, should be fully recognized and respected.
Furthermore, the authorities must take steps to ensure that there is no further unlawful interference with Ishen Abdyrashev’s right to the lawyer of his choice.
Kyrgysztan-Lawyer Asanova_statement-News-web story-2015-RUS (full text in PDF)
Apr 14, 2015 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned over the decision of the High Judicial Council and the President of the Cairo Court of Appeal to investigate two judges with a view to referring them to the disciplinary Council.
Media reports have indicated that Assem Abdel Jabar, deputy president of the Cassation Court, and Hicham Raouf, a judge in Cairo’s Appeal Court, are being investigated over their individual participation, together with other leading lawyers and legal experts, in a workshop organized by an Egyptian organization, United Group, to discuss and propose new legislation on the prevention of torture.
According to information available to the ICJ, the two judges have so far not been formally notified of any charges against them and have received no information about the allegations on which they are based.
The actions against these judges continue a pattern of intimidation and attempted silencing of judges who are seen by authorities as not aligning themselves with government objectives.
The apparent investigation is only the latest in a string of cases where judges have been subject to arbitrary disciplinary proceedings for legitimately exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
On 14 March 2015, the Disciplinary Council forced 31 judges into retirement for signing a statement, on 24 July 2013, which criticized the “attack on the constitutional legitimacy and the ouster of the legitimate president that was elected”.
The disciplinary proceedings against these judges were marred with violations of due process rights.
The judges were not adequately informed of the date and location of the hearings, defence witnesses were not called and requests by the judges that the hearings be public were disregarded.
On 4 April 2015, a disciplinary hearing took place against Zakaria Abdelaziz, former president of Egypt’s Judges Club and one of the leading advocates for judicial independence in Egypt.
The charges alleged “involvement in politics” and “breaking into the State Security Building during a demonstration on 5 March 2011”.
According to information available to the ICJ, the case files were not made available to Zakaria Abdeaziz until the first hearing despite repeated requests to obtain them.
Under international human rights law and standards, judges are guaranteed the right to freedom of belief, association, assembly and expression, including by commenting on matters of public concern and matters pertaining to the rule of law and human rights situation in a country.
“Instead of subjecting judges to arbitrary proceedings for lawfully exercising their rights, the Egyptian authorities should stop its sustained campaign to muzzle judges who are seen as not friendly to the authorities,“ said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA programme. “The Egyptian authorities must reinstate all judges who were removed from office solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly and drop all charges against those currently subject to disciplinary proceedings for charges stemming from the exercise of these rights.”
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834, e-mail: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804, e-mail: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Judges harassed-News-web story-2015-ARA (full text in PDF)
Mar 31, 2015 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today expressed concern at searches of lawyers’ homes and workplace by Kyrgyz investigators in the city of Osh.
The home of lawyer Valerian Vakhitov and the office of the human rights organization “Bir-Duyno-Kyrgyzstan” (photo) where lawyers Valerian Vakhitov and Khusanbay Saliyev worked, were searched and materials of the lawyers’ cases were seized. The ICJ considers that the searches are violations of the right to confidential communication between a lawyer and his or her client.
The confidentiality of lawyer-client communications and lawyers’ files is protected in international human rights law as part of the right to a fair trial, as well as the prohibition of arbitrary interference with correspondence, privacy and (in this case) home.
The searches followed the arrest of Umar Farooq, a US citizen and journalist who reportedly conducted research on inter-ethnic tensions in the Kyrgyz Republic, in particular near the border with Uzbekistan.
On 25 March 2015, he was arrested by officers of the State Committee of National Security (SCNS) and a number of items in his possession were seized including recordings containing “statements on religious topics and clips of military activities”, copies of charges filed against clients of the two lawyers, A.M. Yusupov and I.I. Salibayev, and the business cards of the two lawyers.
On 28 March, Umar Farooq was expelled from the Kyrgyz Republic on grounds of collection of information without accreditation.
The investigator sought a search warrant for the lawyers’ premises on the grounds that they could contain documents “necessary for the investigation” in criminal case No. 082-15-0236.
Warrants to search the NGO premises where the lawyers worked and to search the residence of Valerian Vakhitov, were issued in separate proceedings on 26 and 27 March by judges K.M. Matisakov and B.T. Satybaldiyev.
According to the search warrant issued by the Court, the search of Lawyer Vakhidov’s home was authorized taking into account the “the need for a full, objective, comprehensive resolution of the crime, obtaining evidence necessary for the investigation of the case, inevitability of the punishment for a crime committed and for the purposes of national security”.
The same reasons were given to authorize searches of the office of “Bir-Duyno-Kyrgyzstan” Investigators seized computers, memory sticks, dictaphones and disks with information on cases in which the lawyers represented clients.
Lawyer Vakhitov reported that among other documents, files relating to nine cases in which he represented individuals before the UN Treaty Bodies, including communication with the UN bodies, had been seized.
The ICJ notes that the State Committee of National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic officially stated, on 30 March, that the searches of work and residence places of lawyers were “legal and within the framework of the CPC of the KR [Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic]”.
On the same day, the Council of Advokatura, its main executive body, issued a statement calling on the Prosecutor General Indira Zholdubayeva “to take the strictest measures provided by law in regard to the officers of the State Committee of National Security which violated the guarantees of the independence of lawyers’ activity and integrity of lawyers”.
The ICJ considers that the searches are a clear violation of the law of the Kyrgyz Republic. According to Article 29 of the Law On Advokatura and Lawyers’ Activity the Kyrgyz Republic “requisitioning, seizure, examination, inspection, copying documents, collection and use of information related to legal assistance in a particular criminal case are allowed only in the case involving a lawyer as a defendant …”.
A criminal case against a lawyer may be initiated only by the Prosecutor General or her deputy (Article 29.3).
According to article 30 of the Law, information related to providing legal aid to clients is protected as lawyer-client privilege (…).
Read the full statement here:
Kyrgyzstan-Searches of lawyers-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Kyrgyzstan-Searches of lawyers-Advocacy-2015-RUS (Russian version in PDF)
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The conviction of the Maldives’ former president, Mohamed Nasheed, on terrorism charges after a grossly unfair trial marks a significant deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the country’s judiciary, said the ICJ.
On 13 March, Mr. Nasheed (photo) was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the dismissal and alleged unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Mr. Abdullah Mohamed, in 2012, when Mr. Nasheed was president.
He was convicted of an “act…of kidnapping or abduction of person(s) or of taking hostage(s)” under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990.
“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”
The case’s pre-trial phase and trial were marked by gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
Two of the judges on the three-judge bench testified as witnesses against Mr. Nasheed in the 2012 investigation; these statements were submitted as evidence in the present trial.
Mr. Nasheed’s defense team was not allowed to be present on his behalf during the first proceeding, nor was he given the opportunity to seek bail.
The defense team was repeatedly denied full access to prosecution evidence and witnesses or to regularly consult with Mr. Nasheed during the course of the trial.
When Mr. Nasheed’s defense team recused itself in protest of the lack of fairness, the court proceeded with the trial without legal representation present for Mr. Nasheed rather than granting him the opportunity to obtain new counsel. The defense was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses.
Mr. Nasheed now has the right to appeal the conviction, but his right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.
In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe.
The ICJ has previously documented the politicization of the judiciary and the polarized political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterized by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past (See Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition (February 2011)).
“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicized along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” Zarifi said. “The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”
The ICJ urged Maldivian authorities to ensure Mr. Nasheed’s defense team full access and adequate opportunity to prepare an effective appeal, and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.
The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
Background information can be downloaded here:
Maldives-Background Brief Nasheed Trial-Advocacy-Anylysis brief-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
