May 4, 2015 | News
Following a recent international conference, the ICJ and the other participants elaborated and signed the Tunis Declaration on the Arab Court of Human Rights.Among other things, the Tunis declaration (see below) is calling for the members of the League of Arab States (LAS) to refrain from ratifying the Statute of the Arab Court unless and until it is revised in accordance with international standards, with a view to creating an effective Arab human rights court.
The conference was organized from 8-9 April in Tunis by the ICJ and the Legal Agenda, and attended by international, regional and national judges, lawyers, human rights defenders and members of civil society.
Key provisions of the Statute of the Court, which was adopted by the Ministerial Council of the League of Arab States on 7 September 2014, were discussed and assessed in light of the experience and practice of regional human rights systems and international mechanisms.
Conference participants identified both shortcomings of the Statute and the necessary reforms required to establish a court that provides meaningful access to individuals alleging a violation of their human rights.
A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Statute can be found in the ICJ’s report, The Arab Court of Human Rights: A Flawed Statute for an Ineffective Court, published on 8 April 2015 (to access the Statute of the Court, see annex 1 of the ICJ report).
MENA-Arab Court Tunis Declaration-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF, English)
MENA-Arab Court Tunis Declaration-Advocacy-2015-ARA (full text in PDF, Arabic)
Apr 7, 2015 | News
The Malaysian government must cease efforts to strengthen the country’s draconian Sedition Act 1948, which has been used with increasing frequency and severity to suppress and punish criticism of the government, said the ICJ today.
An amendment to Malaysia’s Sedition Act tabled at parliament today would make sedition a non-bailable offence, aggravating the Sedition Act’s incompatibility with international human rights standards.
“The Sedition Act has been used against the government’s political opposition much more frequently than in previous years,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia. “Since January 2015, ICJ has recorded at least 36 academicians, lawyers, politicians, students, and activists have been investigated, arrested, or charged under the Sedition Act.”
According to the ICJ, this is a significant spike when compared to the total number of reported sedition cases recorded by Malaysian civil society in previous years: 2010 (5 cases); 2011 (3 cases); 2012 (7 cases); 2013 (19 cases); 2014 (42 cases).
“Instead of repealing or restricting the Sedition Act, the new amendment actually makes it worse by limiting the ability of courts to grant bail to people accused under the Sedition Act,” Gil added.
The amendment specifically states that if the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing that it would not be “in the public interest” to grant bail to the person charged with sedition, the person shall therefore not be released on bail, a matter otherwise normally determined by the courts in each case.
Denying bail based on a mere certificate by the Public Prosecutor removes any requirement that the court be presented with evidence to remand a person in custody and it may also preclude effective inquiry by the court into the lawfulness of the arrest and detention.
“The proposed amendment removes the court’s discretion to determine whether to grant bail or not when presented with a certification from the Public Prosecutor,” Gil said. “It appears therefore that the court has no power to require evidence or even articulation of the reasons to evaluate whether it is reasonable and necessary to remand the person charged with the offence in custody.”
Under international law, the right to seek provisional release before final conviction, for instance through posting bail, is closely linked to the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention.
Under international standards, a detention that complies with national law can nevertheless be considered arbitrary based on elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability.
In principle, anyone arrested on criminal allegations should have the right to seek release pending trial, including through bail proceedings before a court of law.
National laws should only allow bail to be denied where the facts of the individual case give rise to some specific reasonable ground for continued detention, such as preventing flight, or interference with evidence, or the commission of further violent offences.
Further, where the charges are incompatible with human rights – for instance when it is based entirely on protected freedom of expression – then there can be no basis whatsoever for pre-trial detention. Thus, any detention under the Sedition Act, a vague and ambiguously defined law, would be an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the ICJ recognizes that there have been instances when those arrested under the Sedition Act have allegedly committed acts that are recognizably criminal in character.
In these instances, other criminal laws in Malaysia could provide a proper basis for any investigation and detention.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia: emerlynne.gil@icj.org or +66840923575.
NOTE:
The figures above and the information contained in the chart and graph below are based on ICJ’s documentation in 2015 in comparison with the documentation of reported sedition cases for the past five years done by one of Malaysia’s leading organizations, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM).
Malaysia-Graph Sedition Cases 2010to2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full graph in PDF)
Malasia-Sedition table 2015-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full ICJ table in PDF)
Malaysia-SUARAM document Overview – Sedition cases 2010to2014-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full SUARAM table, in PDF)
Mar 9, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ supported a statement commenting on the respective reports by the Independent Expert on the Environment and Human Rights and the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and its impact on Human Rights.
In the context of the Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Experts in the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council, Franciscans International and the Center of Concern, with the support of the ICJ, noted that the reports address, from different perspectives, a wide range of connections between the private sector and governments that many times result in human rights abuses.
The report by the Independent Expert on human rights and the environment, presented an encouraging set of good practices to mitigate environmental damage and its human rights impact.
The report by the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and its impact on human rights highlighted the links between private lending and the abuses committed by authoritarian regimes.
This report will be followed by another report on applicable legal standards and analysis of whether additional international standards are needed.
Universal-Statement on BHR at HRC28-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Feb 3, 2015 | News
On 2 February, the ICJ observed the trial of lawyer Kalid Baghirov, before the Nizami District Court of Baku.
In the case, the Azerbaijan Collegium of Lawyers seeks disbarment of the prominent lawyer (photo), who recently acted in a number of high profile cases in Azerbaijan, including on behalf of human rights defenders.
Following a letter of the Sheki Court of Appeal alleging misconduct by Khalid Baghirov during the trial against Ilgar Mammadov, leader of the “Republican Alternative” movement and former presidential candidate, on 10 December 2014 the Presidium of the Collegium of Lawyers suspended Khalid Baghirov’s practice.
At the same time, the Presidium applied to the Nizami District Court seeking complete termination of his right to practice law. The Court accepted the case for consideration.
The ICJ commissioned an international observer, Liliya Vigel, a lawyer practicing in the Republic of Uzbekistan, to observe the hearing in the case before the Nizami District Court.
The ICJ observer also met with the representative of the Collegium of Lawyers, with lawyer Baghirov, with members of the Presidium of the Collegium, and with a number of non-governmental organizations to collect information about the case.
The ICJ continues to monitor the case in relation to international standards on human rights and the rule of law, including as regards respect for the role of lawyers, and plans to publish a report on the proceedings in due course.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Nov 27, 2014 | News
Following a visit to the country from 15 to 19 November, the ICJ called on the government of Tajikistan to take meaningful steps to ensure that the institutional independence of the legal profession and the personal integrity of individual lawyers are secured.
The ICJ expressed concern at the continued detention of lawyer Shukhrat Kudratov, on criminal charges. It welcomed the release of another lawyer, Fakhriddin Zokirov, who had been on trial on charges that appeared to constitute an act of retaliation for his work as a defence lawyer. He was released on 3 November as a result of an amnesty.
“While the release of Fakhriddin Zokirov is a positive step, we are concerned that Shukhrat Kudratov remains in detention pending trial on similar criminal charges. We have received credible information that the charges against him are linked to his representation of a client, contrary to international standards on the independence of lawyers”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe and CIS programme at the ICJ.
The ICJ reiterated its concern at aspects of the reform of the legal profession presently under consideration under the draft law on Advokatura.
Following a mission to Tajikistan in 2013, the ICJ expressed concerns that the independence of the legal profession would be undermined by requirements in the draft law that all lawyers go through a new qualification process, administered by a body in which the Ministry of Justice would play a prominent role.
Amendments recently introduced to the draft law have not altered the inappropriate role which the Ministry of Justice would play in regulating the profession.
Under the draft law, the Deputy Minister of Justice would serve as an ex officio Chair of the Qualification Commission which determines who may be accredited as a lawyer.
This significant role by a member of the executive would jeopardize the independence of the profession.
The ICJ also remains concerned that the draft law would still require requalification of many lawyers, with exemptions only for those with at least 15 years of professional experience as defence lawyers.
Such provisions are contrary to international standards on the independence of the legal profession, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
The ICJ recalls Tajikistan’s earlier commitment during the UN Human Rights Committee’s session of 2013 that the Qualification Commission would be placed under the Ministry of Justice only for a short transitional period. A provision to this effect has not yet been introduced in the draft law.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Notes:
From 15 to 19 November, an ICJ legal expert, Dr Stefan Strobl, visited Tajikistan and held meetings with a number of international and local civil society organizations and lawyers to discuss recent progress on the reform of the legal profession and the wide ranging challenges it faces.
The visit followed an ICJ mission to Tajikistan in November 2013.
Tajikistan-Independence of legal profession-News-webstory-2014-RUS (full text in PDF)
