Jul 18, 2016 | News
At a critical moment for Turkish democracy, the ICJ today urged the government to uphold the rule of law and respect Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law.
The ICJ condemns what appears to be a wholesale attack on the judiciary, implemented within hours of the failed coup attempt of 15 and 16 July.
“At such moments of crisis, it is crucial that the independence and security of tenure of judges is respected, so that public confidence can be maintained in the fairness of the justice system,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ Secretary General.
“Purging the judiciary now endangers the deepest foundations of the separation of powers and the rule of law. An independent judiciary will be critical to ensure a functioning administration of justice for all people in Turkey as the country emerges from the crisis,” he added.
Reports indicate that on 16 July 2,745 judges were suspended by the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). Arrest warrants were issued for more than a hundred judges.
Two judges of the Constitutional Court, and ten members the HSYK itself, are reportedly among those detained. The ICJ fears that many of these detentions may be arbitrary.
Allegations that the judges concerned were linked to the attempted coup have not been supported by evidence, and it defies credulity that such a high number of judicial authorities could have been involved in the planning or execution of the military coup d’etat.
According to the ICJ, the measures are arbitrary, and contrary to fundamental rule of law principles.
In June, an ICJ report, Turkey: the judicial system in peril, analysed the increasing government control of the Turkish judiciary, including the HSYK, and arrests and dismissals judges, in violation of international standards.
“This weekend’s mass suspensions and arrests of judges represent a dramatic escalation of an attack on judicial independence that was already underway,” said Tayler.
“Disciplinary proceedings against judges should not proceed until it is clear that they will be heard by a body that is fully independent of the executive, and in accordance with the right to a fair hearing,” he added.
The ICJ is also deeply concerned at suggestions by the government that the death penalty may be introduced for those involved in the failed coup.
Re-introduction of the death penalty would violate Turkey’s obligations under Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute in all circumstances a violation of the right to life and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +32 476 974263 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Additional information:
Under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The ICJ recently published its Practitioners’ Guide N°13 on Judicial Accountability, a major study on international law and standards on the accountability of judges.
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.
Jun 25, 2016 | Advocacy
The ICJ today published a General Guidance aimed at assisting judges and others in the justice sector to effectively incorporate a gender perspective in their work.
The General Guidance is especially significant as it reaffirms that customs and traditions should not be invoked to justify discrimination against women.
The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges in Applying a Gender Perspective was discussed and adopted by judges from Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Indonesia, at a gathering in Bangkok from 24 to 25 June 2016, hosted by the ICJ and UN Women.
During the workshop, judges from the four Southeast Asian countries deliberated extensively how best to assist judges in employing a gender perspective in deciding cases before them.
“The Bangkok General Guidance can make a powerful contribution towards achieving gender equality under the law in Southeast Asia,” said Sam Zarifi, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific at the ICJ. “It is crucial that judges now work to implement this General Guidance in their home countries.”
The idea to initiate the development of th Bangkok General Guidance emerged from the ASEAN Regional Dialogue on Judging with a Gender Perspective, which was held in Jakarta, Indonesia in 2015.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines offered to take the lead on the project during that regional judicial dialogue.
“Women have a right to equal treatment and equal protection and non-discrimination under the law. It is our responsibility as judges to ensure that women receive equal treatment in law and in practice,” said Justice Teresita de Castro of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Judges attended several sessions over the course of the two-day workshop, participating in exercises focused on identifying and addressing gender stereotypes.
“Women in the region face many obstacles in accessing justice,” said Roberta Clarke, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific at UN Women.
“But judges may be either unaware of these issues or unsure how to address these issues through the legal process,” she added.
The Bangkok General Guidance will make judges aware of means to consider evidence without resorting to gender stereotypes and decide cases based on the principle of equality recognized under international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
Recommendations for institutional policies that should be adopted by courts to help them become more gender sensitive and gender responsive are also set out in the General Guidance.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Southeast Asia-Bangkok-Guidance-Advocacy-2016-ENG (full PDF, in English)
Southeast Asia-Bangkok-Guidance-Advocacy-2016-BUR (full PDF, in Burmese)
Southeast Asia-Bangkok-Guidance-Advocacy-2016-MON (full PDF, in Mon language)
Southeast Asia-Bangkok-Guidance-Advocacy-2016-SHAN (full PDF, in Shan language)
Jun 23, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that the removal from office of Hungarian Supreme Court President András Baka violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court found that the pre-mature termination of his appointment deprived him of a fair process and was based on public statements he made that were critical of certain justice system reforms.
The ICJ intervened as third party in this case. The judgment is expected to be influential around the world in cases involving judicial independence and expression.
“Today’s judgment is a vindication for the security of tenure and freedom of expression of judges not only in Hungary, but around the world,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Europe Programme Legal Adviser.
“Judges should never be precluded from exercising their right and duty to speak out in protection of judicial independence,” he added.
In its ruling, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that, by ending his prescribed term in office pre-maturely through a targeted legislative reform because of his public criticism, Hungary had violated his right to freedom of expression, under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court held that expressing statements on the reform of the judiciary and other legislation was not only Judge Baka’s right, but also his duty.
The Court further ruled that former Supreme Court President András Baka had enjoyed a right to access courts to challenge his dismissal, and that his removal from office by a law that precluded such challenges violated article 6 of the ECHR on the right to a fair hearing.
In its judgment, the European Court cited a wide range of United Nations, European, Inter-American, and other international instruments and standards on judicial independence and freedom of expression.
The International Commission of Jurists anticipates that the Court’s ruling and reasons will have an important influence on cases concerning judicial independence and expression around the world.
Background:
Judge András Baka, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights from 1991 to 2008, had been appointed as President of the Supreme Court of Hungary on 22 June 2009.
His term in office, which was on his appointment guaranteed by law to continue until 22 June 2015, was prematurely terminated on 1 January 2012 following the entry into force of the Transitional Provisions of the new Hungarian Constitution.
This rule modified the eligibility requirements for the position of President of the Supreme Court, effectively excluding judge András Baka from the position.
Judge András Baka was also President of the National Council of Justice, and had publicly expressed criticism concerning various legal reforms brought on by the Hungarian Government that he considered to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The judgment can be downloaded in PDF format.
Read also:
ICJ third party intervention
The ICJ also recently published a comprehensive analysis of relevant global standards in its Practitioners Guide No. 13 on judicial accountability.
An online compilation of global and regional standards on independence and accountability of judges, lawyers and prosecutors is also available here.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
May 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported resignations of federal judges in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation following apparent pressure by the acting Head of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who had suggested that resignation would be the “most correct decision of their lives”.
The ICJ considers these statements, which appear to have led directly to the resignations of federal judges, to be inappropriate interference with the functioning and independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ calls on the Russian Federation judicial authorities to take all measures within their power to ensure that all judges’ security of tenure is preserved and that any allegations of misconduct are addressed through appropriate disciplinary proceedings that respect the right to a fair hearing.
The ICJ further calls on the executive authorities to refrain from any comments which may undermine the independence of the judiciary.
On 5 May, Ramzan Kadyrov, currently acting Head of the Chechen Republic, recommended that several named judges should step down.
In his post on social media, Kadyrov identified as problems unfair decisions of courts, procrastination in criminal cases, decisions regarding housing and inconsistent decisions.
He mentioned that although examples of such decisions were sporadic, they did not help build trust in the judiciary.
He then recommended that the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, Magomed Karatayev (photo) and three other judges, Takhir Murdalov, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, should resign “if they had a notion of honour and professional ethics”.
It was reported that two judges of the Urus-Martan City Court and Grozny District Court, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, submitted their resignations on the same day.
The President of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, Magomed Karatayev, and his deputy Takhir Murdalov, are reported to have already filed a request for resignation.
The resignations, apparently in direct response to criticism by the executive, undermine the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation.
Under international law, including the right to a fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.
The UN Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary enshrines “the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary” and provides the judiciary shall not be subject to “any restrictions, improper influences…pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason.”
While judges have an obligation to adhere to judicial ethics and should be held accountable for professional misconduct, the representatives of the executive must refrain from statements which jeopardize the independence of the judiciary.
The Council of Europe’s Recommendation on judges specifies that “the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary.”
Public pressure from the executive on judges to resign can nullify the security of tenure of judges protected under national and international law and standards.
According to Principle 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.”
Under international standards, allegations of misconduct against judges should be dealt with by the self-governing institutions of the judiciary, through fair disciplinary procedures.
Under the Basic Principles, the only basis for removal of judges is “incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The comments by Ramzan Kadyrov also run contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, which spells out in detail the procedure for disciplinary measures against judges in case of alleged professional misconduct.
RUSSIA-Chechen judges statement-News-web story-2016-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Apr 2, 2016 | News
The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe held the End of Term Symposium for the judiciary of Zimbabwe at the Troutbeck Inn in Nyanga, 31 March – 2 April 2016.
Chief Justice Chidyausiku in his opening remarks at the End of Term Symposium, stated that the Symposia are important because they give judges an opportunity to meet and engage with each other on various issues of interest or concern.
Additionally the purpose of the Symposium is to improve the quality of service in terms of judgments and the speedy outcome of cases.
In attendance at the Symposium were 72 delegates including judges from the Supreme Court, High Court and Labour Court, as well as representatives from the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
The programme included a joint session with all the courts in attendance, to discuss topics of judicial ethics and case management.
