Sep 12, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Venezuelan Supreme Court has ceased to act as an independent court upholding the rule of law, but has become an arm of an authoritarian executive, the ICJ said in a new report released today.
The ICJ report The Supreme Court of Justice: an instrument of executive power says that through a series of rulings issued since December 2015, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has progressively dismantled the rule of law, undermined human rights and failed to faithfully apply key elements of the country’s Constitution.
In rulings on 27 and 28 March 2017 (Sentencias 155 and 156), the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) delivered a blow to the rule of law, effectively claiming legislative powers for itself, depriving the National Assembly of its Constitutional powers and granting sweeping arbitrary powers to the executive, the ICJ notes.
“These decisions amount to a coup d’état against the Constitutional order and have ushered in a new reign of arbitrary rule,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
The report analyses SCJ jurisprudence issued since December 2015 in the light of international law and standards, rule of law principles and the Venezuelan Constitution, and in relation to the Constitutional functions and faculties of the legislative power, parliamentary oversight, states of emergency and the amnesty.
It finds that:
- The SCJ has been decisively co-opted by the Venezuelan executive;
- The Court’s members are mainly from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) and/or ex-Government officials; and
- It has become a political instrument increasingly used against the political and social opposition.
The report also says the Court has interpreted the Constitution in an arbitrary manner, omitting to analyse key Constitutional standards while granting a supra-Constitutional status to standards of lesser rank.
It has abrogated due process and judicial review and so stripped the National Assembly of its Constitutionally mandated functions with regard to legislative matters, parliamentary oversight, regulation and internal administration in order to benefit the government politically, the ICJ adds.
“The rulings have not been issued with impartiality on the basis of facts and in accordance with law, as required under rule of standards,” Zarifi said.
“They are in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan Constitution. The SCJ has issued its decisions based on political considerations and ideological and party loyalties to the executive power,” he added.
The report also outlines key recommendations on the administration of justice which various UN and Inter-American procedures and bodies have made to Venezuela going back a number of years.
None of these recommendations appear to have been taken into account by the Venezuelan authorities. These include reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which are binding on Venezuela as a matter of law.
“The Venezuelan authorities are in breach of its international obligation to cooperate in good faith with international human rights bodies and procedures,” Zarifi said.
Finally, the report concludes that the SCJ has undermined the rule of law by violating the principle of the separation of powers and infringing upon the Constitutional functions and autonomy of the legislative power.
As a consequence of its decisions based on the political interests of the executive power, the SCJ has lost the essential attributes of an authentic judicial power, such as independence, impartiality, autonomy and legitimacy.
“The SCJ has assumed the role of giving an appearance of judicial legitimacy to the arbitrary political actions of the executive thus abandoning the exercise of its Constitutional function as the guarantor of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Zarifi added.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t +41 79 726 44 15 ; e sam.zarifi@icj.org
Federico Andreu-Guzman, ICJ South America Representative, t +57 311 481 8094 ; e federico.andreu@icj.org
Download the report:
Venezuela-Suprem Court-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Further readings:
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Jun 23, 2017 | News, Op-eds
An opinion editorial by Belisário dos Santos Júnior, a Brazilian lawyer who is a member of ICJ’s Executive Committee.
When assessing the Brazilian political situation, it is important to always mention the date, since the situation changes almost every minute, following the rhythm of denunciations and accusations.
Over the past three years, the main preoccupation of most people living in Latin America has been the level of violence in their countries.
In Brazil, however, although political and criminal violence is high, corruption has been the primary concern of the population, before health and with violence coming in only third position of the population’s concerns (source: Latino barômetro).
The yearly global corruption perception index of Transparency International put Brazil in the 79th position, of 176 countries rated (where 1st position is given to the country with the lowest perception of corruption and 176th given to the country with the highest perception of corruption) with a grade of 40 (0 is for the most corrupted countries and 100 for the cleanest ones).
Brazil was sharing its position with countries such as China, India and Belarus. Its grade was 3 points below the world average.
The report mentioned a clear relationship between corruption and inequalities, creating a vicious circle between corruption, unequal distribution of power and unequal distribution of wealth. How can we correct this?
Brazil is currently reacting to the problem with new laws, new police investigations and legal proceedings, which are important.
But these measures alone will not be enough to change a culture of bypassing laws into a culture of integrity and respect of honesty.
The last elected government, elected in 2014, with Dilma Rousseff as President and Michel Temer as Vice-President (photo), should have lasted until 2018 but fell in 2016 with the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff led by the President of the Federal Supreme Court and decided by the National Congress after two ballots.
Rousseff was accused of having manipulated the federal budget to hide the country’s real economic situation. Michel Temer assumed office as President following Rousseff’s impeachment.
Lula da Silva, the former President (2003-2010), ended his term in the middle of a legal storm when the Federal Supreme Court issued its judgment on the Criminal Lawsuit 470 (corruption of parliamentarians to maintain the influence of the Government in the Congress) and sentenced to prison ministers, businessmen, leaders of Lula’s Workers’ Party and other party leaders.
With the progressive use of the system of delação premiada (which is where a defendant is granted a reduced sentence or other beneficial measure for providing evidence against other persons), a measure included in the new Brazilian law to combat criminal organizations, and a series of police operations (the most famous of which is the operation Lava Jato, or ‘Car Wash’ in English), even more politicians and businessmen have been arrested and/or tried for corruption or money laundering.
More than one third of the National Congress’s members have been targeted by police operations for being implicated in controversial acts, either as agents or beneficiaries.
The current President, Michel Temer, and some of his ministers are under investigation by the Federal Police and on the verge of being denounced by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office for passive corruption.
The last two delação premiada, those of the CEOs of two Brazilian transnational corporations (Odebrecht and JBS), have overturned the political order, and so did the information that more than 2000 politicians received money from slush funds to finance their election campaigns.
Two governors and various parliamentarians are already in jail, including the former President of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha.
Lula da Silva himself is already facing various legal proceedings for corruption.
The winning ticket of the 2014 presidential election was recently judged in a case concerning potential abuse of economic power during their campaign.
Following a very close vote (4 against 3), the Superior Electoral Court rejected claims that illegal money was used in the Rousseff-Temer campaign.
If convicted, Michel Temer would have been forced out of the presidency.
The claim of economic power abuse was rejected only on a procedural matter: the evidence gathered – recordings, pictures, content of delação premiada – was considered inadmissible.
Aécio Neves, the opposition leader who competed against the Rousseff-Temer ticket in 2014, is in no better situation: a few weeks ago, a judicial decision deprived him of his mandate in the Federal Senate.
His sister and his cousin are already in jail and he himself is at risk of being sent to prison if the Federal Supreme Court requests this from the National Congress.
The Brazilian institutions are under investigation, but they are still functioning. Even members of the judiciary and the prosecutor’s office are being investigated.
There is still a decent level of trust in the work the current economic team is doing.
The National Congress gave its approval for the Constitutional Amendment on the Expenditure Ceiling, which will impose a series of conditions to public spending over the next few years. This somehow increases the credibility of the country’s economy.
On the agenda of the Congress, but affected by the series of denunciations for corruption that have hit parliamentarians, are the social security and labour reform bills considered essential for the future of the country by all the economic experts.
But it must also be noted that in the name of the fight against corruption, the Police and Federal Prosecutor’s Office have committed some abuses, to the point that a judge of the Supreme Court said Brazil was on the way to turning into a police state.
Corruption has reached such a level of intensity in the Brazilian political world that people are left in a severe and dangerous state of disappointment and despair. Already the current President is reaching a mere 1% approval rating…
Only elections would improve such a situation. The next presidential election is scheduled in 2018. But who will be eligible to run for it? The law prevents anyone who has a police record from applying.
However, society is reacting, taking various initiatives that value integrity measures, compliance actions, measures linked to education, in addition to the holding of intense debates demanding respect for democracy and human rights and calling for political reform.
Some people want direct elections now but this is contrary to the Constitution. However, 2018 is a long way to go and in the meantime there will be many public demonstrations.
But one thing is sure: Brazil is greater than the crisis it is facing now. This country has survived worse situations, including two long periods of dictatorship. Brazil will battle against this new agony. Respect for democracy, the Constitution and rule of law will prevail at the end.
A versão portuguesa pode ser descarregada abaixo:
Brazil-Corruption crisis-News-Op-ed-2017-POR (em PDF)
Jun 12, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today highlighted judicial corruption and threats to judges and lawyers in Turkey and Azerbaijan, as well as regressive steps on violence against women in the United States of America and Russian Federation.
The statement, delivered during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, was as follows:
“The ICJ warmly welcomes the new Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers. As he has highlighted, ensuring judges are accountable for corruption and human rights violations, while respecting judicial independence, should be a global priority. Our Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, published last year, should be of particular use to the Rapporteur and other actors in this regard.
Several situations serve as stark examples of other issues raised in his report. In Turkey, recent constitutional amendments give the President and Parliament control over the judiciary’s governing body. This has undermined the judiciary’s independence, already threatened by the mass dismissal of judges and the state of emergency. Lawyers and legal scholars, among others, are routinely dismissed or threatened by the authorities.
In Azerbaijan, the Bar Association is not independent and does not protect its members against undue interference with the exercise of their professional duties. Rather, it often serves as a tool of retaliation against independent human rights lawyers, including through disbarment proceedings that contravene international standards.
We would ask the Special Rapporteur for his views on the role his mandate can play in these and similar situations.
The ICJ also welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.
Despite increasing global acknowledgement of the grave and systemic nature of violence against women, some States continue to introduce regressive legislation undermining protections for women. For example, the Russian Federation’s decriminalization of certain forms of domestic violence, and attempts in some parts of the United States of America to restrict availability of sexual and reproductive healthcare, particularly impact on victims of sexual violence. The Philippines’ President’s public statements disregarding the gravity of sexual violence are another example. The ICJ would ask the Special Rapporteur what can be done to prevent such backsliding?”
Apr 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today warned that proposed amendments to Turkey’s Constitution to be voted on in the referendum of 16 April could irremediably compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The amendments would introduce significant changes to the institutional framework governing the Turkish judiciary, with far reaching consequences for the separation of powers.
The ICJ is concerned that the proposed constitutional amendments, if approved, would enshrine in Turkish Constitution measures that would be severely damaging the rule of law in Turkey for the long term.
The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental components of the rule of law.
Under the proposals, the President of the Republic would be empowered to appoint six out of thirteen members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, including four ordinary members as well as the Minister of Justice, (who would act as President of the Council) and the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
The remaining seven members would be appointed by the National Assembly.
None of the members of the Council would be appointed by judges or public prosecutors.
The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is the institution entrusted with the appointment, transfer, promotion, discipline and dismissal of judges and public prosecutors in Turkey.
It is the role of such a Council to act as a guardian of judicial independence and to protect the judiciary from interference by the executive and legislative powers.
The proposed Constitutional amendments are clearly contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary, which affirm that at least half of the members of a judicial council should be judges elected by their peers.
The amendments, if passed in the forthcoming referendum, would be enacted in a context where judicial independence has already been severely compromised.
Under the State of Emergency in place since the attempted coup of July 2016, approximately one fifth of the judiciary has been arbitrarily dismissed, and thousands of prosecutors and lawyers have been detained.
As the ICJ has previously highlighted, such measures have had a devastating effect on the independence of the judiciary at every level, compromising the courts’ ability to provide fair trials or an effective remedy for violations of human rights.
The ICJ understands that Turkey faced a serious threat to its democratic institutions in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
Nonetheless, it stresses that measures meant to meet this threat must be undertaken within the framework of the rule of law and the country’s human rights obligations.
The ICJ reiterates its call on the Turkish authorities to lift the State of Emergency and the derogations from its international human rights law obligations that it has made as a matter of high priority.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe Programme Director, t: +32 2 734 84 46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Background
An ICJ briefing paper of June 2016, the Turkey: the Judicial System in Peril , raised concern at measures eroding the independence of the judiciary, prosecution, and legal profession in Turkey, with serious consequences for protection of human rights.
The Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, states:
- Not less than half the members of [councils for the judiciary] should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
Under international human rights law Turkey may derogate from certain human rights during a justified state of emergency only to the extent that derogating measures are strictly necessary to meet a current threat to the life of the nation.
Certain human rights, including freedom from torture, the right to life, and certain essential elements of the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy may never be restricted, even in an emergency situation.
Further guidance on relevant international law and standards can be found in the ICJ Legal Commentary to the Geneva Declaration on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis.
Mar 30, 2017 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, to refrain from signing into law amendments to the law that regulates the country’s High Judicial Council (HJC). The amendments were adopted on Tuesday 28 March 2017 by the People’s Representatives Assembly.
The ICJ also urged the Head of the Cabinet, Youssef Chahed, to act, as a matter of highest priority, on the nominations by the Instance Provisoire de la Justice Judiciaire (IPJJ) with a view to filling the positions of the First President of the Cassation Court and its General Prosecutor.
The ICJ expressed concern that the amendments revising the country’s 2016 HJC law would weaken the effective functioning of the judiciary and the administration of justice in several respects
- The amendments would strip the IPJJ President of the authority to convene the HJC’s first meeting and instead provide the President of the Parliament with such power. This would constitute an inappropriate interference of the legislative branch into the management of the judiciary in clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence.
- The amendments would explicitly exclude any possibility of challenge or judicial review of such action of the President of the Parliament. The ICJ considers that the judiciary must be able to review such decisions to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily or outside the law.
- The amendments would also reduce the quorum required for the validity of HJC meetings from one-half to one-third of its members. This could lead to situations where non-judicial members of the HJC have the power to take decisions over the judiciary, in contravention of international standards.
“Instead of using legislative tactics and procedures to weaken the independence and the effective functioning of the HJC, the Tunisian Head of Cabinet should act on the IPJJ’s nominations to fill the positions of the President and the Prosecutor General of the Cassation Court as a matter of urgency, and ensure that until the HJC is properly established, the IPJJ continues to fully exercise its competencies in overseeing and managing the judiciary,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) Programme.
Indeed, irrespective of the amendments, the ICJ recalls that article 148(8) of the Constitution clearly states that the IPJJ is to carry out its mandate until the seats on the HJC have been filled. This is further affirmed under article 74 of the 2016 HJC Law and article 19 of the 2013 IPJJ Law. Both of these laws make the end of the exercise of the IPJJ’s functions dependent on two conditions, namely that the HJC be fully composed and established.
The ICJ considers that the delay in acting on the IPJJ nominations of senior judges risks undermining the effective functioning of the judiciary, as well as adversely affecting the functioning of other institutions that are essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Tunisia. The adopted amendments are no answer to this problem.
“The ongoing crisis is political and not judicial,” Benarbia said.
“Solving it does not require the introduction of legislative amendments that erode the rule of law and judicial independence, but rather the compliance with existing laws and the Constitution,” he added.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle-East and North Africa Programme, t: +33 6 42837354, e: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Background
The amendments were introduced and adopted amid a continuing crisis and functional paralysis of the judiciary that also impact on the effective functioning of other State institutions, including the body in charge of reviewing the conformity of laws with the Constitution.
In particular, two key positions have been left vacant as neither the First President of the Cassation Court, nor its General Prosecutor, have been appointed, and both of these positions also serve as ex officio members of the HJC.
In October 2016, elections were organized to choose the members of the HJC. A swearing-in ceremony before the President of the Republic followed in 14 December 2016, in which not all the HJC Members participated.
In November 2016, the IPJJ proposed candidates including to fill these two positions. Under the Tunisian Law, the Head of the Cabinet must confirm these nominations.
Alternatively, this official may request new nominations from the IPJJ until agreement is reached, as provided for in article 12 and 14 of the IPJJ Law No.13 of 2013. So far, the Head of the Cabinet has failed to act on the IPJJ’s nominations and uncertainty prevails as to whether the HJC has been properly established.
Under the Tunisian Constitution and laws, the President of the Cassation Court is also the President of the Instance Provisoire de Contrôle de la Constitutionnalité des Projets de Loi, the body in charge of assessing the conformity of laws with the Constitution during the transition period.
When established, the HJC will be charged with appointing four members of the Constitutional Court.
Tunisia-Statement new HJC Law-News-Web stories-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
