Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Myanmar.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group issues concerning:
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Nauru.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group issues concerning:
The Colombian Commission of Jurists, an affiliate of the ICJ, made an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council today, addressing threats to the independence of the judiciary in Bolivia.
The statement came in the discusson of Bolivia’s review by the Council universal periodic review procedure, in which Bolivia accepted recommendations on judicial independence, including to “guarantee the full independence of the judiciary system, in accordance with…international standards.”
In response, the ICJ and Colombian Commission of Jurists highlighted the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought by the Legislative Assembly against three judges of the Constitutional Court at the end of last year. The proceedings were based solely on the disagreement of the political branches with an interim order issued by the Court in a case challenging the constitutionality of a new law to regulate notaries.
In the so-called “trial” conducted by the Legislative Assembly in December, Assembly Members’ statements demonstrated a manifest lack of impartiality. The Assembly extensively and arbitrarily limited the rights of the judges to present evidence and witnesses in their defence.
In the result, one judge was arbitrarily removed from office in January, and another resigned under the pressure. The Assembly also referred both of these women for criminal prosecution. Proceedings against a third judge were suspended only for health reasons.
As the Government had announced that it will seek radical reform of the judicial system during 2015. In light of recent events, the two organisations asked:
Ireland had also raised concern about independence and effectiveness of the judiciary in its oral statement.
The delegation of Bolivia mentioned in its opening statement its intention to convene a forum on judical reforms and put reforms to a referendum, but did not provie any details other than that various sectors of Bolivian society would be involved. During the opportunity given at the end of the session to respond to the questions from states and NGOs, the delegation of Bolivia chose not to address these issues.
Read also Bolivia: ICJ condemns removal and forced resignation of Constitutional Court judges by Legislative Assembly and links therein.
The full written statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: Bolivia-HRC28-UPR-Advocacy-non legal submission-2015-ENG
La CIJ urge a las autoridades a tomar las medidas para investigar y corregir esta situación.
Entre el 23 de febrero y el 4 de marzo visitaron Guatemala miembros de la Asociación de Jueces de Noruega; el Presidente del Foro Democrático de Jueces de El Salvador y la ex Presidenta de la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia de Honduras.
Dicha visita se llevó a cabo en el marco del trabajo de la CIJ sobre el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho en Guatemala.
La oportunidad fue propicia para realizar reuniones y debates con miembros del Poder Judicial de Guatemala y con otros operadores de justicia.
Además se mantuvieron reuniones con el Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y otras magistradas de dicha corte; con la Fiscal General; con el Procurador de los Derechos Humanos; con el Comisionado de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad; con el representante de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, así como con otros actores relevantes de la sociedad guatemalteca, abogados y abogadas; dirigentes de Pueblos Indígenas y representantes de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales.
Al concluir su trabajo, la CIJ se encuentra alarmada por las presiones que existen en contra de jueces y juezas independientes que debido al cumplimiento de su función son frecuentemente objeto de denuncias y amenazas.
Entre las acciones que se están implementando en contra de jueces y juezas independientes, lo constituyen los traslados selectivos e injustificados que tienen como principal objetivo afectar y castigar a aquellos jueces que cumplen su función en forma independiente e imparcial.
Por otro lado, se suman denuncias infundadas en contra de los mismos, al tiempo que se configura un patrón de represión en contra de ellos, que tiene como objetivo que los jueces y juezas renuncien a su independencia judicial y “ajustar cuentas” por los casos que han juzgado.
Por otro lado, el caso relacionado con las sanciones impuestas el año 2014 en forma arbitraria por el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala en contra de la Jueza Iris Yassmín Barrios Aguilar, aún se encuentra pendiente de resolución final, sin que la Corte de Constitucionalidad de Guatemala resuelva el amparo presentado por dicha jueza.
Desde el año pasado, la CIJ expresó que dichas sanciones son arbitrarias e ilegales y que los jueces y juezas no pueden ser sancionados por un órgano como el Tribunal de Honor del Colegio de Abogados, que carece de competencia para ello; además, manifestó que de conformidad con los estándares internacionales y la legislación interna, los jueces y juezas sólo pueden ser objeto de sanciones por parte de los órganos del Poder Judicial establecidos para tal fin (Juntas de Disciplina y Supervisión General de Tribunales).
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica expresó: “La situación es grave y urgimos a la Corte Suprema de Justicia a suspender cualquier medida que afecte la independencia de jueces y juezas y a implementar las reformas que se necesitan para promover y proteger la independencia del poder judicial como garantía para la ciudadanía y el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho.”
The Nepali government must fully implement yesterday’s decision of the Supreme Court rejecting the possibility of amnesties for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses during the country’s civil war, said today the ICJ.
The decision, by a three-person special constitutional bench, composed of Justice Kalyan Shrestha, Justice Baidhya Nath Upadhyay and Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana, struck down the amnesty provision of the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014 (TRC Act) promulgated last May 2014.
The Court also ruled that only the judiciary, and not the Commissions established by the TRC Act, can determine the criminality of any violations committed in the context of the country’s decade-long conflict.
“Nepal’s Supreme Court has once again firmly reasserted the right of the victims of human rights violations to seek justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “This bold and principled decision should finally end the cynical attempts by politicians from all Nepal’s major parties, as well as the military, to legislate impunity and shield themselves from accountability.”
The decision distinguished between the jurisdiction of the courts and the criminal justice system, and the non-judicial reconciliation and truth-seeking mechanisms established by the TRC Act.
In the months before the decision, the government had essentially frozen the prosecution of claims already before various courts, and had blocked the filing of First Information Reports (FIRs) by victims trying to lodge new complaints.
“Now, the government must not only remove obstacles to these cases, it must commit itself to prosecuting such claims,” Zarifi added. “The Government must immediately take all necessary steps to implement the court ruling including to ensure criminal investigation of FIRs, and address the concerns raised by the victims on the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance.”
This is the second time that the Nepali Supreme Court has rejected the amnesty scheme introduced by the Nepali government.
On 2 January 2014, the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional the Ordinance on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC Ordinance).
However, the Government effectively ignored the Court order and introduced a slightly modified version of the 2013 Ordinance replicating almost all of the provisions of the TRC Ordinance, including many of its problematic aspects, such as the ‘amnesty’ provision.
“The Government, with the help of the international community, must now dedicate itself to meeting the promise of the political parties to provide justice, truth and reparations to the victims and survivors of the conflict,” said Zarifi. “Only doing so will help end the country’s cycle of impunity.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
International legal and human rights organizations condemn the Tunisian Authorities’ escalating attacks on the legal profession, the independence of the judiciary and civil society
UN human rights experts find Egypt’s detention of political economist Abdel Khaleq Farouq arbitrary and call for his immediate release
Second Memory Conference 2026: ICJ to Convene Panels on CRSV & Disability Rights
Prospects for Transitional Justice in Myanmar