Oct 16, 2014 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News, Open letters
The ICJ condemns the imminent “trial” of Constitutional Court judges by Bolivia’s Senate, in proceedings that could see the judges sent to prison over politicians’ disagreement with a legal ruling.
The proceedings “violate the independence of the judiciary and the right to fair trial,” the Geneva-based organization wrote today in an open letter to all Senators and Deputies of the legislative assembly.
The charges in the trial, scheduled to begin on 21 October, are based entirely on a precautionary ruling by the judges that parts of a new law regulating notaries should not be implemented until the Court has an opportunity to hear a constitutional challenge to the law.
“The spectacle of dozens of politicians pretending to act as an independent and impartial criminal court, threatening to throw constitutional court judges in jail over a difference of opinion as to interpretation of the law, is incompatible with respect for human rights, the separation of powers, and the rule of law,” said Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ.
Constitutional Court Judges Soraida Rosario Chanez Chire and Ligia Mónica Velásquez Castaños are to be tried on 21 October, while proceedings against Judge Gualberto Cusi Mamani have reportedly been temporarily suspended for reasons of health. The judges were suspended from duty on 28 July.
An analysis brief published by the ICJ and sent to the legislative members concludes that the proceedings violate Bolivia’s international legal obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The brief also cites judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that found violations of the American Convention as a result of defective parliamentary proceedings for removal of judges in other countries. The proceedings in Bolivia are poised to be even more egregious than the proceedings at issue in the earlier judgments, given the possibility for the Bolivian Senate (photo) to impose a criminal conviction and imprisonment.
“The ICJ urges the Senators and Deputies immediately to cancel the proceedings, to end the judges’ suspension from duty, to refrain from any other form of interference with judicial independence, and to reform judicial discipline and removal procedures to bring them into line with international standards,” said Pollard.
(update as of 21 October: the proceedings were postponed to 4 November after one of the judges collapsed on arrival at the Legislative Assembly and was taken to hospital).
Contacts:
English: Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ, t: +41 79 246 54 75; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Spanish: Carlos Ayala, ICJ Commissioner, t: +58 212 952 8448; e: carlos.ayala(a)icj.org
BOLIVIA-Unfair trial of judges-News-Press release-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
BOLIVIA-unfair trial of judges-Advocacy-Open letter-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)
BOLIVIA-unfair trial of judges-Advocacy-Open letter-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
BOLIVIA-unfair trial of judges-Advocay-Analysis brief-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)
BOLIVIA-unfair trial of judges-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
Oct 13, 2014 | News
The Royal Thai Government should comply with its international human rights obligations to provide remedies and reparation to victims of torture or other ill-treatment, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said today.
Sep 24, 2014 | News
The ICJ expressed concern at the promulgation of a constitutional amendment that empowers the Bangladesh Parliament to impeach judges of the Supreme Court.
The ICJ urges the Government to ensure the impeachment provision meets its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
“Parliament must prescribe adequate safeguards to ensure the newly enacted impeachment provision meets international standards for protecting the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Without such safeguards, the looming fear of arbitrary and politically motivated impeachment would create an environment in which judges would be unable to exercise their judicial functions independently and impartially, especially in cases involving the Government.”
On 22 September 2014, President Abdul Hameed gave his assent to the 16th constitutional amendment, which was passed unanimously by the Bangladeshi Parliament on 17 September 2014.
The amendment empowers Parliament to impeach judges of the Supreme Court on the grounds of “proven misbehavior or incapacity” by passing a resolution supported by at least a two-third majority of parliamentarians.
To exercise this power, Parliament has to first pass a law to regulate the procedure in relation to investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a judge that would lead to an impeachment.
International standards on the independence of the judiciary, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three branches of Government, and the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, stipulate that judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for “reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties”.
The phrase “proven misbehavior or incapacity” in the Bangladeshi amendment will have to be interpreted and applied in line with this relatively high threshold.
“Impeachment of judges must be an exceptional measure, reserved for cases of gross misconduct,” said Zarifi. “Unless Parliament takes great care to ensure the law regulating and clarifying the impeachment procedure follows international law and standards on the removal of judges, the constitutional amendment can only be interpreted as an assault on the independence of the judiciary.”
Any removal proceedings must meet international standards on fair trial and due process.
A judge at risk of being disciplined or removed must be accorded the right to be fully informed of the charges; the right to be represented at the hearing by council of choice; the right to make a full defense; and the right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal.
“The actions that Parliament might take under the impeachment amendment are particularly worrying given the Awami League Government’s recent record of passing a series of regressive laws and policies relating to human rights,” added Zarifi. “After clamping down on the operation of civil society groups and restricting freedom of expression of the media and human rights defenders, it appears that the Government is now looking to target the judiciary.”
An independent and impartial judiciary is central to the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
The ICJ therefore urges the Bangladesh Parliament to safeguard judicial independence by ensuring that the laws governing the impeachment procedure meet international law and standards on the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Apr 8, 2014 | News
The ICJ today welcomed steps taken by the Palestinian authorities to accede to core international human rights and humanitarian law conventions.
Oct 2, 2013 | News
The ICJ said the conviction today of Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer and human rights defender in Vietnam, violated international standards governing the right to a fair trial.
Judge Le Thi Hop of the People’s Court of Hanoi convicted and sentenced Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment with time served since late December 2012 to be taken into account.
His company was ordered to pay the unpaid tax amount of 645 million VND (approximately USD 30,000) and fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD 60,000) for the offence of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code.
One of Le Quoc Quan’s accountants, Phuong, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment.
Edmund Bon, a prominent Malaysian attorney and the ICJ’s appointed trial observer, was denied entry into court.
Police barricaded the courthouse to keep out hundreds of demonstrators protesting the perceived harassment of Le Quoc Quan.
“The court did not dispel the widespread belief that this case is political in nature and intended to silence a government critic,” Edmund Bon said. “The verdict was delivered after a 30-minute deliberation and the judge took about an hour to read the written grounds of judgment.”
The hearing was originally scheduled for 9 July 2013, but was postponed at the very last minute due to the judge’s illness.
On 17 September 2013, the court issued a notification informing that the trial had been rescheduled to 2 October 2013 and that the trial would be a public one.
Nevertheless, on the day of trial, only a handful of foreign diplomats who had obtained an invitation and pass from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were allowed to enter a room to observe the proceedings through a television screen.
Le Quoc Quan’s wife was the only family member who was permitted to observe the trial.
No independent journalists were allowed to enter the courtroom except for a reporter with the police and government media personnel.
The trial before a judge and two jurors started at 8.00am and ended at 2.30pm with a 15-minute recess in between. Six witnesses gave evidence. Counsel for the prosecution and defence took approximately one hour to make legal submissions.
“Le Quoc Quan’s trial and verdict raise serious questions regarding Vietnam’s commitment to ensure fair criminal trials that are to be open to public scrutiny, as it required to do as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Edmund Bon.
The ICJ also notes that the court had breached Le Quoc Quan’s right to a speedy trial.
Section 194 of the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that, upon a postponement, courts that hear first-instance trials have to set a new hearing date within 30 days.
Here, the court took almost two months to do so.
“The court’s failure to reschedule the case within a timely manner is a clear violation of Le Quoc Quan’s rights to be tried within a reasonable time and without undue delay, as stipulated under articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR respectively,” Bon added.
Since his arrest on 27 December last year, Le Quoc Quan has already spent a total of more than nine months in prison, awaiting trial.
“Le Quoc Quan should have instead been granted bail when his wife had filed an application for his release as there was no reason to believe that he would have had absconded the country,” said Edmund Bon.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan are expected to appeal the court’s decision within 15 days.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, tel. no. +66 8078 19002 or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
