Venezuela: ICJ highlights impunity in dialogue with UN Fact-Finding Mission
The ICJ today highlighted the continuing impunity in Venezuela, reinforced by lack of judicial independence, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
ICJ Co-Hosts Symposium on Judicial Independence in East and Southern
On 6-7 August the ICJ co-hosted a symposium on threats to judicial independence in East and Southern Africa.
The event was held with the collaboration of the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum, the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists Kenya Section, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, Southern Africa Development Community Lawyers Association, Malawi Law Society, Pan African Lawyers Association, East Africa Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association.
Recent actions taken to undermine judicial independence in East and Southern Africa include proposed constitutional amendments, executive interference with the functioning of the Judicial Service Commissions and verbal as well as physical threats against judges.
Participants in the symposium included judges, lawyers, academics and civil society representative. ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of Kenya Dr Willy Mutunga, and Professor Jill Ghai of Katiba Institute delivered the key note addresses.
Dr Willy Mutunga speaking to challenges of judicial independence in the political context of Kenya in his keynote address, said “I believe that the independence of the judiciary… is about the integrity of the judicial officers… Building peoples’ confidence in the judiciary and the judicial officers depends on the integrity of the institution and its judicial officers and staff.”
In her address, Professor Jill Ghai evaluated various ways in which independence of the judiciary is undermined, taking into account examples from various countries.
“We must not relent in letting the Executive know that we are watching whenever there are attempts to undermine the judiciary,” Ghai said in closing.
ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi that judicial independence was facing genuine threats, not just in Africa but throughout the world.
“The issue of judicial independence has been at the heart of the ICJ’s work for the last 70 years almost… We have been defending the rule of law and human rights. For both of those the independence of the judiciary is absolutely essential,” Zarifi said.
On the second day of the symposium, participants into four groups discussed the nature of challenges and weaknesses in the Executive-Judiciary relations, litigation as a strategy for protecting judicial independence, strategies for increasing social and political activism in defence of judicial independence, and the prospects and strategies for regional and international advocacy in the age of COVID-19 respectively.
In his closing remarks, outgoing ICJ Regional Director Arnold Tsunga flagged Malawi as a recent case study where the judiciary had demonstrated its independence when the Constitutional Court nullified the 2019 presidential election results, citing widespread irregularities.
Watch the proceedings of the symposium here:
Contact:
Justice Mavedzenge (ICJ Legal Advisor) t: +27793889990 e: justice.mavedzenge(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim (ICJ Media Officer) t: +27716706719 e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
Russian Federation: constitutional amendments undermining human rights protection should be withdrawn
Following the decision to postpone a referendum on amendments to the Russian Constitution, the ICJ calls on the authorities of the Russian Federation to refrain from adoption of the amendments or revise those amendments which are likely to have a detrimental effect on the rule of law and human rights protection.
“Amongst the wide range of amendments proposed, are some that would restrict the implementation of international human rights law, and in particular the decisions of international human rights courts, in the Russian Federation,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme of the ICJ.
“Other amendments would damage the independence of the Russian judiciary through changes to judicial appointments and dismissal procedures.”
The ICJ draws attention to these issues in a briefing paper on certain amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, published today.
“We urge the Russian authorities to use the opportunity presented by the postponement of the referendum, to reconsider amendments that would damage the ability of the justice system to provide an effective remedy to people whose human rights have been violated,” added Pillay.
Background
On 15 January 2020 the President of the Russian Federation announced a decision to introduce more than forty amendments to the Constitution adopted in 1993. They are to be adopted through an extraordinary procedure which includes public vote, organised specifically for these amendments.
The amendments touch upon a range of issues not necessarily connected with each other. They among other things erode the role of international law and tribunals as well as weaken the independence of the national judiciary.
On 25 March, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin announced that a planned referendum on the constitutional amendments would be postponed due to COVID-19.
This ICJ briefing paper analyses how these amendments may run contrary to international commitments of the Russian Federation and further impede the judicial independence. The briefing paper addresses three particular changes proposed to the 1993 Constitution:
- The role of international law and of decisions of international courts or other mechanisms (Article 125 of the Constitution)
- Appointment of judges (Article 83 of the Constitution)
- Procedures of appointment and removal for judges (Articles 83, 102 and 128 of the Constitution).
Full Briefing Paper (in PDF): Russia-constitution changes-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2020-ENG
Poland: end unjustified disciplinary proceedings against judges
The ICJ calls on the Polish authorities to put an immediate end to unjustified disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”.
The ICJ considers that the disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz’ was initiated because of his questioning of the Polish government’s “reforms” that have severely eroded the independence of the judiciary in Poland.
“The disciplinary action taken against Judge Markiewicz for his criticism of the government’s attack on judicial independence violates international standards on the independence of the judiciary and should be ended immediately”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Judges have a right to freedom of expression and to form and take part in associations of judges. They have a particularly important role in speaking up to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which is undermined by arbitrary disciplinary proceedings such as those against Judge Markiewicz”, she added.
By order of the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner of the ordinary court judges, on 4 December, disciplinary proceedings alleging 55 instances of misconduct were initiated against Judge Krystian Markiewicz. These include: inciting disrespect for Poland’s legal order by questioning the independence and legality of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), and the constitutionality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; and calling for appeals to the Disciplinary Chamber to be suspended.
The disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz comes within a week of the decision to suspend with immediate effect district Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn, who, in presiding over an appeal, questioned the impartiality of the judge who had delivered the original verdict as a result of being elected by the National Council for the Judiciary. On 1 December 2019, the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia organized rallies in support of Judge Juszczyszyn.
The ICJ stresses that such actions taken against judges are inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the State to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. The ICJ calls for Judge Juszczyszyn to be immediately re-instated in his post.
On 4 December 2019, the labour law chamber of the Supreme Court, in implementation of a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the UE, held that the NCJ is not an impartial and independent body, and that the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court is not a “court” under EU or Polish law, thereby confirming the concerns raised by both Judge Juszczyszyn and Judge Markiewicz.
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
ICJ concerned at constitutional crisis in Moldova
The ICJ today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova, which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.
During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.
These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.
In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.
The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.
“The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”
Background
The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.
The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament. This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.
The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.
Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.
Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.
According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.
Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.
Article 85 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the procedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.
(2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.
(3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.
(4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser: t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Recent News
Sri Lanka: ICJ calls for repeal or substantial revision of Online Safety Act18 Sep 2025
The International Commission of Jurists Welcomes Our New Commissioners17 Sep 2025
Lebanon: Ensure draft media law upholds free expression16 Sep 2025
Nepal: Protesters Demand Integrity, Rights, Rule of Law13 Sep 2025