Jun 29, 2019 | News
Between 26 and 29 June 2019, in Guatemala City, ICJ and its partner, Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala (FAFG), with the support of the Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad (AGJI) and the Bufete de Derechos Humanos (BDH), undertook trainings of more than 12 judges and 20 prosecutors on the international law and standards that apply to the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.
The workshops were conducted as part of the project under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative entitled, Promoting justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, supported by the EU European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Opening remarks were given by Tomás Pallás Aparisi, Head of Cooperation at the EU Delegation to Guatemala, Delia Dávila, Magistrate from the Supreme Court of Guatemala and Haroldo Vasquez, President of the Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad AJGI.
Ramón Cadena, Director of the ICJ’s Central America Office, addressed the international law and standards that apply to the investigation and prosecution of unlawful death and enforced disappearances and their relevance to Guatemala. Edgar Pérez, director of Bufete de Derechos Humanos (BDH) discussed the situation of enforced disappearances in Guatemala and the value and applicability of international law and standards. Marco García, a representative of FAFG, outlined the role of forensic science in the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, provided an overview of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which formed the core of the materials used at the workshops.
The ICJ took the opportunity of the workshops to visit the office of its partner, the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Guatemala (FAMDEGUA) and meet with Justice Delia Marina Davila Salazar of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala.
Contacts:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America, and Regional Coordinator of the Project, email: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Jun 13, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the authorities in Tajikistan to immediately release a prominent lawyer who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 28 years on dubious charges.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published a decision in Mr Yorov’s case on (date), finding that “the trials of Mr. Yorov were carried out in total disregard for the guarantees encapsulated in article 14 of the Covenant, being of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr Yorov an arbitrary character […].”
The Working Group recommended that the government remedy the situation of Yorov without delay and to this end “release Mr. Yorov immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law”.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
The ICJ earlier expressed concerns at the conviction of the lawyer to a 28 year sentence in prison, which is based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients.
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the WGAD and calls on the Tajikistan authorities to fully implement the decision and to take all necessary measures to protect lawyer Yorov, his family and his lawyers against any threats to their security, or any intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with their performance of their professional functions as lawyers.
In this regard, the ICJ notes recent protests by dozens of individuals who took part in a rally against Yorov in front of the representative offices of the United Nations and the European Union in Tajikistan, soon after the decision of the WGAD.
Posters of the demonstrators called on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to “take her hands off Tajikistan” and named organisations that had defended Mr Yorov or brought the petition on behalf of Yorov to the UN WGAD.
In this context, it is imperative that the Tajikistan government immediately publicly affirm the legitimacy of the decision of the WGAD and make clear its commitment to complying with it, the ICJ underlined.
Background
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.” Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March 2017, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.” In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
On 24 May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a group of independent experts established in 1991 whose members are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, published an Opinion finding a number of violations of human rights of Yorov protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommended as a remedy his immediate release, payment of compensation or other reparation and conducting an investigation into the violation of Yorov’s rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require that the Governments ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference ”. Under these Principles “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.” The right to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms” is guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9.3(c)).
May 15, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned a series of the acts of violence directed against the Muslim community in the aftermath of the Easter attacks on 21 April in Sri Lanka directed at churches and other places.
In the most recent attacks on 13 May, at least one person was killed in anti-Muslim mob violence in Nattandiya. In addition, various attacks have resulted in the looting and destruction of mosques, Muslim-owned businesses and houses in several parts of the island including Negombo, Chilaw, Kurunegala and Gampaha.
The ICJ called upon the State authorities to conduct independent, impartial and effective investigations into the attacks and bring all perpetrators to justice in line with international standards. Furthermore, the ICJ urges the Government of Sri Lanka to send a clear public message that acts of violence against any religious minorities are not tolerated.
“Attacks perpetrated against religious minorities are more likely to occur in a climate of impunity” said Fredrick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The fact that Sri Lanka has a history of serious violations of human rights of religious minorities makes it even more urgent that the Government act to safeguard the human rights of all persons and take immediate measures to protect members of religious minorities from further violence.”
Delayed action or inaction on the part of law enforcement authorities during and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks has further exacerbated the situation. Given the recurring patterns of mob violence against religious minorities in Sri Lanka, a handful of arrests will not suffice. It must be followed up by independent and impartial investigations and, where warranted, prosecutions as part of an effective preventive strategy to counter such collectively organized violence.
Under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a party, States have a duty to protect freedom of religion, which includes persons from religious minorities against abuses committed against them by any person or group.
The Government of Sri Lanka must take appropriate security measures in response to the worst terror attack in recent years. However, it must ensure that the volatile situation is not made worse by inaction to prevent anti-Muslim violence and vigilantism. Moreover, the State must ensure that any counter-terrorism measure is adopted and implemented in line with its international human rights law obligations and does not explicitly or implicitly target a particular community.
Apr 29, 2019 | News
On 27 and 28 April 2019, the ICJ held a workshop on “Ensuring accountability through the Specialized Criminal Chambers” in coordination with the Association des Magistrats Tunisiens (AMT).
Participants in the workshop included 28 Tunisian judges attached to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC).
The workshop aimed to reinforce the capacity of SCC judges to effectively exercise their role in adjudicating crimes under international law, in line with international law and standards.
ICJ legal advisers and Tunisian experts gave presentations on State the obligations of State actors to respect and apply international law, the legal framework governing the application of international law in Tunisia, and the principle of legality and statutory limitations to crimes under international law. They also spoke on the international and domestic definitions of crimes under international law and modes of liability.
Through working group and plenary sessions, the participants discussed options for applying international law and standards at the national level.
Expert speakers included Judge Brahim Weslati, Judge Radhouane Werthy and Imen Soussi.
Feb 12, 2019 | News
As the trial of twelve Catalan separatist leaders begins before the Spanish Supreme Court today in Madrid, the ICJ warns that their trial on broadly defined offences of rebellion and, possibly, sedition unduly restricts rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association.
“The very broad definition of the offence of rebellion being applied in this case risks unnecessary and disproportionate interference with rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia regional Director.
The twelve political leaders – including high-ranking Catalan government officials – have been charged in connection with their part in the administration on 1 October 2017 of a referendum on Catalonian independence.
The referendum was conduced despite having been declared illegal by the Constitutional Court.
The voting process during the referendum was partially suppressed by the police, with credible reports of the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force in breach of Spain’s international law obligations.
“Interference with peaceful political expression and protest must be justified as strictly necessary and proportionate under international human rights law. Where peaceful protests or political actions, even if declared unlawul by the authorities, provoke an excessive response by the police, it is solely the police and other state authorities who should be held responsible for the violence,” Pillay said.
“It is crucial that the Supreme Court, in its consideration of these charges, takes full account of Spain’s obligations under international human rights law,” she added.
The ICJ is concerned that prosecutors, and the Supreme Court in admitting the indictment in the case, have ascribed an unduly broad meaning to the offence of “rebellion” under article 472 of the Criminal Code.
According to that article, the offence requires violent insurrection to subvert the constitutional order.
But the referendum organizers are not accused of using or advocating violence.
Rather, they are being tried on the basis that they should have foreseen the risk of intervention and the use of force by the police.
It is therefore alleged that the defendants were criminally responsible for the violence that ensued from their decision to carry on with the referendum, despite it being declared illegal.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the use of force by Spanish law enforcement authorities during the repression of the referendum of 1 October 2017 was “legitimate and, as such proportionate”, international observers have concluded that such use of force was excessive and disproportionate.
In accordance with international human rights law, the mere fact that the use of force is considered to be legal under national law, does not of itself mean that it can be considered to be necessary and proportionate.
The Supreme Court has further already accepted that, if the facts alleged by prosecutors are proven, they could amount to the offence of sedition, which is committed by those that that rise up publicly and in a tumultous way, by force or by unlawful means, to impede the implementation of laws or of authorities’ orders.
“Vague, broadly defined offences of sedition or rebellion risk violation of the principle of legality, as well as arbitrary and disproportionate interference with human rights,” said Róisín Pillay.
“In a highly sensitive and politicised case such as that of the Catalonian referendum, they would set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of peaceful independence movements and political dissent, not only in Spain but internationally,” she added.
Several of the accused have already been held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods, further exacerbating the severity of the interference with rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and casting doubt on the proportionality of the response.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
The 12 people on trial in connection with the October 2017 referendum include Oriol Junqueras (photo), former Catalan vice-president; Carme Forcadell, former Catalan parliament speaker; eight former ministers in the Catalan government – Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Santi Vila, Meritxel Borràs, Dolors Bassa, Josep Rull, Carles Mundó -; Jordi Sànchez the former leader of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC); and Jordi Cuixart, former head of the independence organisation Òmnium Cultural.
The trial, which begins on 12 February in the Supreme Court in Madrid, is expected to last for several months.
Spain has obligations to protect freedom of expression, including political expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association under Article 11 ECHR and Article 21 and 22 ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on freedom of expression has affirmed that: “extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3 of article 19 ICCPR, which requires that restrictions on freedom of expression be provided for by law and must be necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as national security or public order .) Rights to participate in public life are protected under Article 25 ICCPR.
