Switzerland: ICJ and ICJ-Switzerland’s position on the “self-determination initiative” referendum

Switzerland: ICJ and ICJ-Switzerland’s position on the “self-determination initiative” referendum

The ICJ and the Swiss Section of the ICJ called today on Swiss people to seriously consider the adverse implications, if adopted, of the popular initiative called the “Swiss law instead of foreign judges – initiative for self-determination” by its proponents. On 25 November 2018, Swiss citizens will be called to vote on this initiative.

The campaign against the initiative has identified it as an “anti-human rights” referendum.

“The initiative, if approved, would have the effect of making it very difficult for people in Switzerland to access Swiss courts to vindicate their human rights,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.

“Swiss people would lose important defences against abuses by the State or private entities,” he added.

Unlike the title suggests the scope of the initiative is directed against international law in general (except for very few existing peremptory norms) which includes international multilateral treaties or bilateral commercial and administrative agreements.

The initiative would therefore fly in the fact of a fundamental legal principle essential to the rule of law, namely that individual States cannot use their national arrangements as an excuse to avoid their international legal obligations.

“Switzerland, as home to numerous international law-making institutions, has a long and distinguished history of championing international law. Adoption of this initiative would be a blow to the country’s reputation and leadership in this area,” said Massimo Frigo.

“The role accorded to international law by the Swiss Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court is essential to uphold reliability of Switzerland as party to international treaties, its role as central actor and generator in many fields of law including international trade, but also legal certainty in Switzerland”, said Professor Marco Sassoli, board member of the Swiss Section of the ICJ and ICJ Commissioner.

“Much of the economic and diplomatic success of Switzerland is based on its faithful adherence and promotion of international law. Essential Swiss values such as its neutrality or its commitment to the protection of war victims are based upon international law,” said Professor Sassoli.

Contrary to its title the initiative is not directed against “foreign judges” but against the practice of Swiss judges, those of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and neglects that the self-determination of peoples leads to their direct submission to international law and that the conclusion of treaties is an expression of and not contrary to the sovereignty of the State.

The text of this initiative if approved could lead to the erosion of primacy of international law among the sources of law in Switzerland.

The ICJ and ICJ-Swiss Section join the several NGOs, trade unions, economic actors, political parties and people of Switzerland that want to secure their rights and those of everyone in Switzerland and appeal to the voters before casting their vote to seriously consider the above arguments and not to decide based upon mere slogans such as “self-determination”, “democracy” or “foreign judges”.

Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org

PDF available in Italian: Switzerland-25 November Referendum-News-Press Release-2018-ITA

PDF available in German: Switzerland-25 November Referendum-News-Press Release-2018-GER

ICJ reiterates call for accountability for killing of Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi

ICJ reiterates call for accountability for killing of Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi

At a media event in Bangkok, Thailand, today, the ICJ reiterated its call for Turkey to work with the United Nations to establish a special independent mechanism to carry out an investigation into the killing of Khashoggi with a view to identifying the perpetrators.

The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FFCT) in Bangkok hosted a special panel discussion entitled Death of a journalist – Fallout from the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, which was attended by approximately eighty journalists, diplomats and club members.

On the panel, Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor for Global Accountability, began by making two positive observations, namely that there exists a clear international legal framework which applies to cases of suspected unlawful deaths including extra-judicial executions and enforced disappearance; and that a considerable amount of information about Khashoggi’s fate appears to be available.

He set out the international legal framework that applies to violations of the right to life noting the state duty to conduct a prompt independent, impartial, effective and transparent investigation consistent with the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions and the revised 2016 Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death.

Kingsley Abbott noted that in nearly all cases where there is reasonable suspicion of unlawful death, an autopsy should be performed and called for Khashoggi’s body or remains to be produced.

Kate Vigneswaran, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Programme, discussed options for accountability in the MENA region, in particular in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

She noted that Saudi Arabia provided little to no opportunity for meaningful justice given executive and Royal Court control over the judiciary and prosecutors. She further highlighted Saudi Arabia’s targeting of critics exercising their right to freedom of expression through criminal prosecutions, abductions and enforced disappearances, and egregious fair trial rights violations in the criminal justice system. She went on to state that similar human rights violations in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates make them unlikely credible options for accountability.

She also noted some concerns about aspects of the justice system in Turkey and in that regard said it was too early to determine whether the conduct of investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators in that country would meet international standards.

Other speakers included Nadia abou el Magd, who has 30 years’ experience as a journalist and commentator covering the Middle East, working mainly for the Associated Press, and Dr. Muhammad Ilyas Yahprung from the Faculty of Political Science, Ramkhamheang University, who focuses on Muslim World Issues.

The panel was moderated by Anneliese Mcauliffe who has worked as a journalist across Asia and the Middle East for over two decades.

Contact:

Kingsley Abbott

Kate Vigneswaran

Senior Legal Adviser

Middle East and North Africa Programme

Phone: +31624894664

Email: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org

Twitter: @KateVigneswaran

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context

Thailand: ICJ co-hosts lawyers’ meeting on admissibility of evidence in the national security context

On 21 October, the ICJ, together with Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), organized a lawyers’ meeting in Bangkok on the admissibility of evidence in the context of application of special security laws in Thailand.

Attendees included 30 human rights lawyers, paralegal officers, documentation officers, human rights defenders and journalists from Bangkok and other regions in Thailand.

The objectives of the meeting were:

  • To discuss about the challenges that lawyers currently face regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, both in law and in practice, in the context of existing special security laws. These laws include the Martial Law, Emergency Decree, and the Internal Security Act that are applied in the southern border provinces, and certain repressive National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Orders that are applied nationwide;
  • To discuss how to address the adverse effects on human rights and the administration of justice as a consequence of the implementation of these laws and how lawyers, members of civil society, and other stakeholders, at national and international levels, may work together to address such challenges; and
  • To gather recommendations from participants and discuss future advocacy strategies to tackle identified challenges.

The ICJ’s Legal Memorandum on Hearsay Evidence and International Fair Trial Standards was used as one of the main reference materials during the meeting.

A main recommendation of the Workshop, echoed the ICJ’s assessment in the Legal Memorandum, namely that Thailand should 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 to ensure safeguards required to protect individuals from unfair trials.

 Read also

Thailand : legal memorandum – hearsay evidence and international fair trial standards

Translate »