Oct 22, 2019 | News
On 25 and 26 October, the ICJ in Central America will hold the VII Regional Conference on Judicial Independence, with the central theme of the protection and security of Judges.
The Conference will discuss the role that governments should play in the protection of judges, as well as the relationship between judicial independence and security of those who deliver justice.
Participants from outside the region include Radmila Dragicevic Justice of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Serbia and Vice-President of the ICJ; José Antonio Martín Pallín, Judge Emeritus of the Spanish Supreme Court of Justice and ICJ Commissioner, and Erland Flaterud and Finn Arne Schanche, both judges from Norway.
Nine other judges from Central America will attend, including Leonardo Ramírez of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador Murcia and Fernando Cruz Castro, President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica.
The ICJ regrets that the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala has not been in a position to receive this important delegation at its plenary on 23 October to address the issue of the security of judges.
The ICJ recalls that this Conference is held within the framework of a letter of cooperation and understanding agreed with the former President of the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court of Justice, Ranulfo Rojas Cetina in 2015.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that there is presently an unfilled vacancy for Chief of Security for the judiciary, following the resignation of the former Chief who had allegedly engaged in conduct not consistent with his function.
Ramón Cadena, Director of the ICJ for Central America, said: “It is the duty of the Supreme Court of Justice to inform the Guatemalan public about the Judges Protection System, so that it does not become a source of corruption or in any way interferes with the work of independent, and impartial judges.”
In Guatemala, the international delegation will meet with judges such as Yassmín Barrios, Ericka Aifán, Miguel Ángel Gálvez, Carlos Ruano and Pablo Xitumul among others. They have been the subject of seemingly unfounded complaints which have posed risks to their personal security and independent judicial functioning.
Oct 7, 2019 | News
The apparent suicide attempt of a judge in southern Thailand highlights the need for urgent reform of the judiciary to improve its independence from political interference, the ICJ said today.
Judge Khanakorn Pianchana, Vice Presiding Judge of the Yala Provincial Court in Thailand’s restive southern region, reportedly shot himself in the chest following his delivery of a verdict on 4 October in a case in which he alleged political interference in his judicial functions. Judge Khanakorn is currently hospitalized in critical condition.
“This unfortunate incident again shows the need for sustained reforms of law enforcement and particularly of the independence of the judiciary in Thailand,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
Judge Khanakorn had alleged in a 25-page note that he was ordered in confidence to rewrite his ruling exonerating five suspects of murder charges – a decision he had allegedly reached on the basis of lack of sufficient evidence. The five have had been detained and interrogated under special security laws in force in the Southern Border Provinces of Thailand.
Under Thai law, if a superior judicial officer disagrees with a ruling of any judge, he or she must express such disagreement in writing and is forbidden from speaking to a judge in confidence to reverse the ruling.
“The ICJ has worked for years with the judiciary in southern Thailand to improve the administration of justice, especially by addressing problems such as the improper admission of evidence and problematic evidence-gathering by security forces countering armed groups,” Rawski said. “This case again shows how misuse of emergency decrees in southern Thailand has aggravated the political pressure exerted on judges.”
Today, the case was submitted to the Office of the Judicial Commission for its consideration. The Commission, chaired by the President of the Supreme Court, comprises of qualified members who are judicial officers of each level of the Court. Consequently, the Commission passed a resolution to set up a Sub-Committee comprises three of its members to investigate into the allegations.
Particularly because Judge Khanakorn’s claim involves several senior judges in active services, the Sub-Committee set up by the Commission to investigate the allegations must therefore be independent institutionally and functionally, at all stages of the investigation. Their mandate should be broadened to look into whether there is wider pattern and practice of interference beyond this case.
Background
Judge Khanakorn presided over a trial involving the alleged murder of five people in Yala province in 2018. Following the killing, authorities arrested five suspects who were charged with murder, secret association, conspiracy and gun-related offences. If convicted, three out of five defendants could be sentenced to death.
The five suspects were reportedly detained and interrogated under much-criticized special security laws which remain in force in the Southern Border Provinces of Thailand – i.e Martial Law and Emergency Decree. The ICJ has repeatedly criticized how the Martial Law confers upon military authorities the powers to arrest and detain any person without a warrant for up to seven days for interrogation and questioning and does not require detainees to be brought before a court at any stage of their detention. The ICJ has also repeatedly analyzed and criticized the Emergency Decree, which breaches international law and standards, by allowing authorities to detain suspects, with the leave of the Court, for up to 30 days. The law does not require a detainee to be physically brought before the Court during this period.
Information submitted to the court as evidence in this case had reportedly been obtained from the suspects during detention periods prescribed under Martial Law and the Emergency Decree. Judge Khanakorn noted in his statement that he was of the view that any information obtained during this period should not be admissible because rights protections had not been afforded to the suspects who had been detained under security laws, as they are provided to suspects in other criminal trials. This position had reportedly led to the disagreements between the judge and his supervisor over the case ruling.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed concern on the use as evidence of information obtained during interrogation under emergency laws in criminal proceedings of security-related cases, in the form of witness statements or inquiry reports from interrogation officials. The ICJ has called on Thailand to review existing standards in all special security laws and relevant articles in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of evidence that are not compatible with international fair trial standards.
Judge Khanakorn also described in his statement that certain evidence needed to have been ruled inadmissible as it had not been collected by competent authorities but by volunteers who were not competent or specialized in evidence collection.
Judge Khanakorn further asserted that interference in his judicial functions had also occurred in 2018 when he had been under pressure to reduce the sentence of three military officers who had been found to have shot villagers to death.
The right to a fair hearing in judicial proceedings before an independent and impartial court or tribunal is guaranteed in several human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand is a party. The right is also enshrined in section 188 of the 2017 Constitution of Thailand.
International standards also reaffirm that judicial independence requires not only the independence of the judiciary as an institution from the other branches of government; it also requires judges being independent from each other. Such freedom from undue influence that might come from other judges is guaranteed in several internationally accepted standards, including Principle 1.4 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and its Commentary; article 3 of the Universal Charter of the Judge; and article 2 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
Further reading:
International principles on the independence and accountability of judges, lawyers and prosecutors – Practitioners’ guide, no. 1
Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context
Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards
Thailand : implementation of Thailand´s emergency decree
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Download:
Thailand-Suicide of Judge-News-2019-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Oct 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release all lawyers arrested for discharging their professional functions, and ensure they and other lawyers in the country are allowed to perform their work without threats or intimidation.
The Egyptian authorities have arrested more than 2400 people over the past two weeks following anti-government protests.
Many of the detainees’ lawyers have themselves been arrested, including Mahienour Al-Massry, Sahar Ali, Mohamed Salah Ajaj, Mohamed Al-Baqer (photo), Mohamed Helmy Hamdoun, Ahmed Sarhan, and Ahmed Abd El-Azim.
On 29 September, while representing prominent human rights defender Alaa Abdelafttah during questioning before the State Security Prosecution, lawyer Mohamed Al-Baqer was arrested and charged with, among other charges, “spreading false information aiming at disturbing the public and peaceful order” and “joining a terrorist organization.”
The ICJ has previously documented how lawyer Mahienour Al-Massry was arrested under similar circumstances, and called for her immediate release.
Mahienour was also charged with “spreading false information” and “joining a terrorist organization.”
“By arresting lawyers and prosecuting them on trumped-charges, the Egyptian military is dismantling the very last line of defense against its ruthless crackdown on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and silencing the very same voices that can still witness, challenge and report on its industrial-scale human rights abuses,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
Under international standards reflecting core rule of law principles, lawyers must be able to discharge their professional functions without hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
They shall not suffer, or be threatened with prosecutions for any action taken in accordance with their professional duties.
The ICJ emphasized that these standards are there not only for the interests of the lawyers and those they represent or might in the future represent, but also to ensure that the rule of law remains operative for the society as a whole.
The Egyptian authorities must conform to these standards, refrain from its attacks against the legal profession, and immediately release all lawyers and other individuals arbitrarily detained.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Egypt-Attacks on Lawyers-News-web stories-2019-ARA (story in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 24, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called for the immediate release of lawyer Mahienour al-Massry and hundreds of peaceful protestors who have been arbitrarily arrested by the Egyptian authorities in the context of recent protests against government corruption and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
On 22 September 2019, Mahienour al-Massry was arrested by plain-clothes police officers outside the Supreme State Security Prosecution headquarters in Cairo, after representing five detainees in judicial investigations.
The next day she was brought before the same Supreme State Security Prosecution on unknown charges.
The detainees represented by Al-Massry had been arrested during the recent protests against President Sisi, which commenced on 20 September 2019 when hundreds of Egyptians took the streets in Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Mahalla al-Kubra and Suez, among other cities.
Police responded by firing tear gas and arresting hundreds.
Media accounts indicate that nearly 500 people have been arrested, most or all arbitrarily, since the protests commenced. However, documentation by local NGOs indicates that as many as 800 people may have been arrested, apparently for “participating in a ‘terrorist group’ operation” and “distributing fake news to disturb the public opinion.”
“The Egyptian authorities must drop the charges against Mahienour al-Massry, promptly release her and immediately stop persecuting, intimidating and interfering with the work of lawyers protecting the rights of others,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Mahienour al-Massry was charged in 2013 and again in 2015 for taking part in peaceful protests, for each of which she received one year-long terms of imprisonment.
Mahienour al-Massry’s recent arrest constitutes an effective sanction that violates her right to liberty under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
It also impedes the right of her clients to legal representation under article 14 of the ICCPR.
The ICJ previously filed a submission to the Universal Periodic Review regarding arbitrary arrests and detentions and systematic use of pre-trial detention in Egypt, and documented the use of the Egyptian justice system as a repressive tool to eradicate political expression and human rights work.
“The systematic use of arbitrary arrest and detention by State authorities is one of the very reasons Egyptians took to the street in protest,” said Benarbia.
“The authorities’ response provides further evidence of the widespread violations of rights Egyptians face under the current regime,” he added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Download:
Egypt-al-Massry-News-web stories-2019-ARA (story in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 20, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at the killing of lawyer Derk Wiersum, who was shot on 18 September 2019 in broad daylight in front of his home in Amsterdam.
Derk Wiersum was representing a key witness for the prosecution in a high-profile criminal trial against 16 members of a criminal organization, accused of five murders and an attempted murder between 2015 and 2017.
The Netherlands’ counter-terrorism agency, NCTV, is leading a team of police and prosecutors carrying out an investigation into the killing; other lawyers and officials involved in the case have been put under emergency protection.
“The killing of a lawyer, apparently in connection with his work, raises serious concern both for security of lawyers and for the rule of law. We welcome the prompt measures taken by the Dutch authorities to initiate an investigation into this crime, which should lead to the identification and prosecution of the perpetrators. It is also crucial that measures be taken to ensure the safety of other lawyers and other individuals who may be at risk,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director.
Dutch lawyers, prosecutors and judges have issued a joint statement expressing their shock and raising concern at the threat of this attack to the country’s legal system.
Additional information:
International human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights to which the Netherlands is a party, requires that States take steps to protect the life and physical integrity of persons who they know or ought to know are at real risk of violence.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (principle 16). The UN Basic Principles specify that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (principle 17).
