Sep 26, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ, in cooperation with the Institute of Law and Public Policy (ILPP) held a round table discussion “Independence, effectiveness and quality of justice: comparative perspectives” in Moscow.
Judges from Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Russian and German legal scholars took part in the event.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Tamara Morschakova moderated the seminar.
Assessing the independence of judges, quality of judgements and enforcement of judgements were discussed among other topics.
The agenda of the event an be downloaded here.
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.
The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.
On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.
The petition had objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.
The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.
The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.
On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.
The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.
The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”
On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.
The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.
On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.
The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.
On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.
Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.
These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.
Read mor
botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Sep 19, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today expressed concern at the UN for the independence of the judiciary, human rights, and the rule of law in Turkey, highlighting measures taken by the government, almost immediately after a failed coup in July, to suspend or dismiss thousands of judges and prosecutors.
The statement, which was delivered in General Debate on country situations, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement read as follows:
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) wishes to draw the Council’s attention to the crisis of the rule of law in Turkey, and its serious consequences for the protection of human rights.
Within hours of the failed coup attempt in July, the Government initiated a purge of the judiciary on an unprecedented scale.
At least 3,300 judges and prosecutors have been dismissed or suspended, and hundreds have been arrested, including members of the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors.
Many of these measures appear to be arbitrary and fail to respect the right to a fair hearing before an independent authority.
These actions have done severe damage to the already fragile independence of the judiciary in Turkey, and threaten the right to a fair trial.
They represent a dramatic escalation of the attack on judicial independence that was already underway before the attempted coup, documented in an ICJ report published in June.
State-of-emergency decrees further undermine protection of human rights.
Periods for pre-trial detention have been extended and detainees’ confidential access to lawyers has been restricted. There are credible reports of ill-treatment of detainees, and of harassment of lawyers representing them.
The ICJ recalls that certain rights, including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, and essential elements of the prohibition of arbitrary detention and right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal, can never be derogated from, even in the most serious states of emergency.
The ICJ urges Turkey to take measures to restore the rule of law and ensure respect for human rights under the state of emergency.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-oralstatement-gditem4-turkey-2016
Sep 16, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today emphasized the role of judges and lawyers in securing human rights and the rule of law for refugees and migrants, including in situations of large-scale movements.The statement, delivered during a general debate, read as follows:
As the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on Promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants in the context of large movements (UN doc A/HRC/33/67), recognizes, all such persons must have “access to justice”, including effective access to courts and lawyers.
This includes fair and effective individualized procedures in relation to key decisions such as: entitlement to refugee status or other international protection; detention or criminal proceedings based on entry or presence in the country; and expulsion or onward transfer.
The roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary in such situations has been debated in many countries. In some cases, governments have invoked the concept of “crisis” or “emergency” to justify radical departures from ordinary procedures, including reducing effective access to independent judges and lawyers.
In the experience of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), over many decades and in all regions of the world, the role of judges and lawyers in securing human rights and the national and international rule of law is in fact even more important in times and circumstances perceived to be “exceptional”, or of “crisis” or “emergency”. The ICJ is therefore deeply concerned about any reduction of the role of judges and lawyers in relation to large-scale movements of refugees and migrants.
The seventh annual ICJ Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, 17-18 November 2016, will bring together judges, lawyers, and refugee and migration experts from around the world, as well as relevant UN, regional, and other agencies, to discuss the role of judges and lawyers in situations of large-scale movement of refugees and migrants. Based on the discussion, the ICJ will produce and disseminate guidance on the important role of judges and lawyers to protect human rights and the rule of law in all such circumstances.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-oralstatement-gditem3-migrantsrefugees-16092016
Jul 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ urges Turkish authorities to fully respect the rule of law and human rights under the recently declared state of emergency.
The ICJ is concerned that yesterday’s declaration of a state of emergency could further exacerbate the ongoing attack on institutions and professions that are guardians of the rule of law in Turkey, including the judiciary, the media and academia.
The ICJ reiterates its concern at the ongoing purge within the judiciary that led to the suspension of 2,745 judges and the arrest of hundreds.
Since then, Turkish authorities have summarily suspended, dismissed or arrested more than 50,000 academics, judges, including military judges, and public officials.
The ICJ is concerned that many of these measures are arbitrary and unlawful.
“Turkey needs to respect the tenets of the rule of law and human rights law during the state of emergency,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General.
“There are human rights that can never be restricted even in a state of emergency, notably the right to life, the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, and the essential elements of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to a fair trial,” he added.
“The current allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees and arbitrary arrests already point to serious violations of human rights. Widespread arrests and suspensions of judges, which began before the declaration of any state of emergency, threaten the right to a fair trial,” Tayler further said.
“The state of emergency must not be used as a means to subvert the rule of law and human rights.”
The ICJ remains concerned at President Erdoğan’s statements that he would allow for a reinstatement of the death penalty.
The ICJ firmly opposes the death penalty under any circumstances, and its reintroduction in Turkey which would also be incompatible with Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Background information
The Council of Ministers, chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declared yesterday a three-month state of emergency throughout the whole territory of Turkey in accordance with article 120 of the Turkish Constitution.
The declaration must be ratified by the National Assembly. He has not yet announced what specific measures will be introduced.
Turkey is a party to many human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Under these treaties, the declaration of a state of emergency must remain within the strict boundaries of the law, in particular constitutional and international law.
Any measures derogating from them must be strictly necessary to meet a threat the life of the nation.
Certain human rights obligations cannot be derogated from even under a state of emergency. All rights must continue to be respected, although lawful derogating measures may restrict their scope of application.
