May 5, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the dismissal of all five of the justices serving in El Salvador’s Supreme Court Constitutional Chamber by the country’s newly elected Legislative Assembly, backed by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele.
The dismissal on 2 May was justified on vague allegations of arbitrariness and dereliction of functions particularly relating to judicial decisions taken striking down government action related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Legislative Assembly also dismissed El Salvador’s Attorney General.
The ICJ stressed that the dismissal violated core tenets of the independence of the judiciary, by which judges are subject to dismissal only “for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.” (United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). Any decision must also be subject to a fair hearing of individual judges, with full due process guarantees.
The dismissal process was carried out without any individualized hearings, and without a clear expression of a legitimate basis for the dismissal.
The ICJ is concerned that this summary dismissal will undermine the independence of the judiciary, including by intimidating other judicial authorities in the country.
The dismissal of judges and the Attorney General was followed by the immediate appointment and swearing in office of other judges in replacement. This decision violates the procedural rules of selection and appointment, which are essential to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the judges serving in the Constitutional Chamber.
The decision to dismiss the judges was taken by a qualified majority of legislators, shortly after the new legislative assembly started its functions, in a swift procedure that lasted just a few hours.
The ICJ urges the government of El Salvador to restore respect to fundamental rule of law principles to prevent the arbitrary use of power and impunity.
The country is particularly vulnerable to impunity for human rights violations, where an independent judiciary is not in place to assess the lawfulness of government actions.
The ICJ calls on the responsible authorities of the Inter-American Commission for human rights and the United Nations human rights system to address the situation as a matter of priority.
Sep 10, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern that a Government anti-corruption agency has engaged in acts of intimidation against the Chairperson of the Union of the Lawyers of the Republic of Tajikistan, Saidbek Nuritdinov, and 15 other lawyers.
The intimidation apparently relates to the lawyers’ defence of Abdulaziz Abdurahmonzoda, a lawyer facing trial on charges of fraud, who was allegedly ill-treated in detention by officers of the city Department of the Agency for Financial Control and Combating Corruption of the Republic of Tajikistan (Anti-Corruption Agency).
After the lawyers representing Abdurahmonzoda alleged that he had been ill-treated, the judge of the Sino district of Dushanbe city hearing the case, Ahmadzoda Farogat, requested the Prosecutor General’s Office to investigate the allegations.
Following the initiation of the inquiry of the allegations of ill-treatment, the Head of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Dushanbe, allegedly sent requests to a number of district courts of Dushanbe to obtain information about civil and criminal cases in which Saidbek Nuritdinov had participated as a lawyer.
The requests are said to seek information such as the names and, place of residence of clients: subject matter of civil cases, and details of the charges against his previous clients. In addition, it was reported to the ICJ that Judge Akhmadzoda Farogat, transmitted a list of the fifteen lawyers and copies of their official orders, the documents authorizing the representation of the lawyer, to the Anti-Corruption Agency at its request.
The ICJ notes, that while this information is not confidential per se, previous such investigations of the Anti-corruption Agency have led to criminal prosecution and conviction of lawyers.
“In this case, representation of a lawyer subject to criminal proceedings was undertaken by a group of his colleagues, including the head of the association of lawyers, in line with professional ethics, said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ. “Such representation is consistent with international standards on the role of lawyers as well as national law of Tajikistan”.
“If the investigation is related to the lawyers’ representation in the case of Abdurahmonzoda, it would constitute a means of intimidation of the lawyers. And as such it should be ceased, and the lawyers should be able to continue to act freely and diligently in accordance with the national law and international law and standards on the role of lawyers”, Shakirov added.
Background
The criminal case against lawyer Abdulaziz Abdurahmonzoda was initiated under article 247.2, of the Criminal Code (fraud) on 17 April 2019. At the court hearings observed by the ICJ, Abdurahmonzoda insisted on his innocence and alleged breaches of the criminal procedure in course of the preliminary investigation: initiation of a criminal case without legal grounds (the case was said to lack the victim’s statement about the fraudulent actions committed on the part of Abdurahmonzoda); violation of the procedure of the preliminary investigation and submission to the court of evidence knowingly obtained by illegal means. The ICJ is observing the trial.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments “shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and they should not “suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”(Principle 16).
Furthermore, interference or obstruction of lawyer’s activity is prohibited by the Law of the Tajikistan on Lawyers and Lawyers’ Activities. According to the law, a lawyer cannot be held liable for any opinion expressed by him/her as part of his/her lawyers’ activity, with the exception of actions that may constitute a crime. The request from lawyers or lawyer’s unions of information related to the provision of legal assistance in specific cases is not allowed.
According to the Draft Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice (“Singhvi Declaration”), enable the Bar Association to fulfil its function of preserving the independence of lawyers, they should “be informed immediately of the reason and legal basis for the arrest or detention of any of its members or any lawyer practising within its jurisdiction”. In these cases, bar associations are “ entitled to be represented by its president or nominee to follow the proceedings and in particular to ensure that professional secrecy and independence are safeguarded”.
Mar 21, 2019 | News
In a letter to Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Andrew Gilmour, the ICJ, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) call on the UN to address a clear case of intimidation and threat of reprisal by U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
In remarks to the press on 15 March 2019, Pompeo explicitly threatened to revoke or deny visas to International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel who attempt to investigate or prosecute alleged violations committed by American nationals or against citizens of U.S. allies.
The ASG is mandated to lead efforts within the UN system to end all intimidation and reprisals against those cooperating with the UN on human rights. In keeping with this mandate, the ACLU, ICJ and ISHR call on the ASG to take urgent action, including by publicly denouncing the comments, and urging U.S. representatives to refrain from adopting any legislation, policy or practice that has the effect of undermining unhindered access to and communication with the ICC and other international bodies.
The letter states that ‘The purpose of the visa restrictions is to block and deter legitimate criminal investigation into serious crimes under international law. Not only might they have a chilling effect on ICC personnel and others advocating for accountability, but they will set a dangerous precedent with serious implications on the overall fight for impunity, especially the right of victims and their legal representatives to seek justice and reparations without fear of retaliation.’
A similar communication has also been sent to three UN experts – the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The experts are similarly called on to publicly denounce the comments and send a formal communication to the U.S.
“The policy announced by Pompeo is part and parcel of a concerning attack by the current U.S. administration on multilateralism, international rule of law, and global and regional bodies mandated to monitor and investigate human rights violations and fight impunity,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
Pompeo’s announcement comes on the heels of threats made by U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton in a 10 September 2018 speech to the Federalist Society.
In that instance, Bolton explicitly threatened ICC judges, prosecutors, and personnel if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence forces in Afghanistan, as well as any company or state that assists the ICC.
“This is an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well-documented war crimes. It reeks of the very totalitarian practices that are characteristic of the worst human rights abusers, and is a blatant effort to intimidate and retaliate against judges, prosecutors, and advocates seeking justice for victims of serious human rights abuses,” said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program.
The letter cites Human Rights Council Resolution 36/21 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which reaffirm the right of everyone, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies.
“This latest attack by the US demands the strongest response from the UN, which until now has remained silent on the US’ bullying of the ICC,” said Madeleine Sinclair, Legal Counsel and New York Director of ISHR.
“Pompeo’s threats are a blatant violation of the right to cooperate with the ICC, undermine the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility, and amount to an attack on the international system itself,” she added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, International Commission of Jurists, e: sam.zarifi@icj.org ; t: +41 22 979 38 00
Abdullah Hasan, American Civil Liberties Union, e: ahasan@aclu.org, t: +1-646-905-8879
Madeleine Sinclair, International Service for Human Rights, e: m.sinclair@ishr.ch, t: +1-917-544-6148
Apr 10, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned a threatening statement made by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte attacking Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of the Philippines Supreme Court.
The ICJ said that the President’s remarks constituted an assault not just on the Chief Justice, but on the independence of the judiciary in the country.
The ICJ urged President Duterte to respect judicial independence and not to exert political pressure on any government official or agency to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
In a press conference on 9 April 2018, President Duterte told reporters: “I’m putting you on notice that I’m your enemy and you have to be out of the Supreme Court.”
He also called on the House of Representatives to expedite impeachment proceedings presently underway against Chief Justice Sereno.
“It is absolutely unacceptable for President Duterte to make such a statement not only because it constitutes direct intimidation of the Chief Justice, but the chilling effect it may have on other independent judges who carry out their professional duties,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ.
“By expressing his personal feelings against the Chief Justice and by directing the House of Representatives to accelerate the impeachment proceedings, the President is actively influencing and interfering with the functions of other co-equal branches of government,” Gil added.
The ICJ reminds President Duterte that as enunciated in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[i]t is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”
The Principles affirm that the judiciary must be able to carry out its work “without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
The ICJ strongly urges President Duterte to retract his comments and to refrain in the future from making any statements attacking individual judges or in any way interfering with the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org.
Background
In September 2017, two impeachment complaints against the Chief Justice were filed before the Committee of Justice of the House of Representatives, the Lower House of Congress.
The Committee of Justice approved only one of the complaints, which is scheduled to be put before the plenary of the House of Representatives in May 2018 when Congress resumes its session.
If it obtains one-third vote of all members in the House of Representatives, the articles of impeachment will be transmitted to the Senate, which is the Upper House of Congress.
Any impeachable officer may be removed from office by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate sitting as the impeachment court.
Some of the points raised in the approved impeachment complaint are the Chief Justice’s failure to report certain income in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), allegations of use of public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle, and manipulation of judicial appointments for personal and political reasons, among others.
The Chief Justice maintains she correctly filed her SALNs. She also further claims that the other allegations in the impeachment complaint are baseless or mere fabrications.
In March 2018, the Philippines’ Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the Chief Justice’s appointment due to her alleged failure to fully disclose her wealth. Oral arguments on this petition were made on 10 April 2018.
Feb 7, 2018 | News
The judgment yesterday by three Supreme judges of a rump Supreme Court that overturned order of the full Supreme Court to release nine members of opposition political parties lacks legitimacy, the ICJ said today.
On 1 February, the Supreme Court had ordered the release of nine members of the opposition parties, who had been convicted for or charged with a wide range of offences, and held the cases required “retrial and judgments pursuant to the law”.
The petitioners had alleged the criminal proceedings against them were based on “political motivations” and were in violation of the Constitution of the Maldives and its international human rights obligations.
Instead of implementing the judgment, the Government responded by declaring a state of emergency and suspending a range of human rights protections.
On the night of 5 February, the national defense forces and the police forcefully entered the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice held members of the forces in contempt of court, after which they dragged the Chief Justice out of the Court premises.
The Chief Justice and Justice Ali Hameed were later arrested on charges of corruption and “obstructing administration of law or other government function”.
On 6 February 2018, the remaining three judges of the Supreme Court overturned parts of the 1 February judgment, including the directions to release members of the opposition parties, “in light of the concerns raised by the President.”
“The judgment by three judges on Tuesday, reversing an order by the full court, lacks legitimacy. By unlawfully arresting two members of the Court, including the Chief Justice, the Government has effectively stripped the Supreme Court of all its independence and impartiality,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The arrest of judges Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed for carrying out their proper and legitimate judicial functions would have sent a clear message to the remaining judges that any exercise of independence that was contrary to wishes of the governments would not be tolerated,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ also highlighted that conduct of the remaining judges of the Supreme Court suggests a risk that they themselves could become complicit in ongoing human rights violations.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the health of Justice Ali Hameed, who was taken to the hospital on Tuesday night and is feared to be in critical condition.
His family has reportedly been denied access to him.
The ICJ has also learned that Justice Ali Hameed’s family members have been detained and are being denied access to lawyers.
There are also credible reports that suggest Justice Ali Hameed is being detained in very small cells with poor ventilation that get very hot because of direct sun exposure for prolonged periods – which could be a possible cause of his health condition.
“The detention of judges and their family members and their possible ill-treatment smacks of retribution, which is prohibited under Maldivian and international law,” said Seiderman.
The ICJ urged the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court and all other political prisoners, implement the 1 February ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman(at)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(at)icj.org
Additional information
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.
Furthermore, international standards provide that all complaints against judges in their judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure; they shall have the right to a fair hearing; and they shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
