Sep 20, 2019 | News
The ICJ welcomes this week’s visit to Uzbekistan of the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayan, during which he will assess reforms of the judicial system, the independence of the judiciary and the independence and role of lawyers.
“The visit of the Special Rapporteur to Uzbekistan, at the invitation of the government, is an indication that the Uzbekistan authorities are serious about the ongoing reforms of the justice system. This visit is only a starting point for the deep reforms needed to establish an independent and fair justice system in Uzbekistan. Realising these reforms will require sustained commitment of all institutions of government, lawyers and civil society,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The ICJ, along with other NGOs and IGOs, met with the Special Rapporteur in Tashkent yesterday on the first day of his visit, and drew his attention to issues concerning the independence of judges and lawyers in Uzbekistan.
“The visit will be followed by the report of the Special Rapporteur containing findings and recommendations. These recommendations should be effectively implemented and the ICJ is committed to provide expert and other support in the Uzbekistan’s effort to bring its justice system in line with the recommendations,” Shakirov added.
Background
The visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers takes place from September 19-25, 2019.
The Special Rapporteur will hold meetings with representatives of the government, judiciary, prosecutors, lawyers and civil society and is expected to issue a report analyzing the independence of judges and lawyers in Uzbekistan, following his visit.
The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers is one of the special procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, appointed as an independent expert to monitor the compliance of UN Member States with international standards on the independence of judges and lawyers.
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”.
Aug 14, 2019 | News
Today, ICJ Commissioner and former Constitutional Court Justice Justice Yvonne Mokgoro delivered the Keynote Address on Women’s Socio-Economic Rights at an event organized by ICJ and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
The event, which marked Women’s Month in South Africa, was aimed at promoting the contributions of women human rights defenders and public interest lawyers in advancing women’s socio-economic rights in South Africa.
Justice Mokgoro, the first black women Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, called on human rights defenders, lawyers and judges to recommit to fighting the feminization of poverty in South Africa.
“The indignities suffered by women exposed to poverty in our country are graphic, trauma-inducing and all encompassing. The dire need of women in our patriarchal society must be addressed,” she said.
With reference to the South African Constitution, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Justice Mokgoro implored judges and lawyers in particular to “engender” the full range socio-economic rights by defining their content in a manner which takes into account the impact of human rights violations on women and girls.
The event featured a panel discussion , which included remarks by Tumelo Matlwa and Amelia Rawhani-Mosalakae, lawyers at CALS, who identified who a range of legal provisions and banking practices relating to matrimonial property have a disproportionate impact on women’s rights to property.
The presentation concluded that “poverty is a form of economic violence that has a disproportionate effect on women”.
Fatima Shabodien, Strategy Director at Raith Foundation, focused her presentation on sexual harassment faced predominantly by women in the public interest law sector in South Africa.
Quoting from Indian author Arundathi Roy, Shabodien observed that “there is no such thing as the voiceless only the deliberately silenced”.
Women, she added, “have not been silent in this sector they have been deliberately silenced”. She urged human rights defenders and public interest lawyers to take allegations of sexual harassment seriously.
Nonhle Mbuthuma, a community activist from the Amadiba Crisisis Committee described the difficulties of being a women human rights defender: “I am a human rights activist and it is a difficult task. You are called a lot of names for challenging the government.
All the names don’t scare me – my mother gave me only one name”, she said. Referring to a judgment of the High Court affirming her community’s right to free, prior and informed consent before the commencement of a mining development, she concluded: “I am very proud of the Constitution and judges who said we have the right to give consent to [whether] mining [can take place]. Not the government or big companies. The people.”
She emphasized that women were, and continue to be, at the forefront of the struggle for access to land in South Africa.
Jul 19, 2019 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Emerlynne Gil, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia-Pacific Programme.
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution expressing concern over the human rights situation in the Philippines. It specifically expressed grave concern over the killings and disappearances arising from the drug war of the current administration.
Since 2016, when the government began its campaign against illegal drugs, there have been reports of thousands of killings of people who were allegedly involved in the drug trade and drug use.
Furthermore, in the recent report of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), there have been more than 40 lawyers killed under the current administration.
The resolution was, in fact, restrained in tone and content. Human rights groups like the ICJ had hoped that it would establish an international mechanism to investigate the killings and other human rights violations.
However, the Council held back and merely urged the Philippine government to “take all necessary measures to prevent extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances”.
It also asked the Philippine government “to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights” and other international human rights mechanisms, and requested the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council for discussion in June 2020.
The Philippine government sent a big delegation to Geneva to lobby against the adoption of any resolution. During the informal consultations among States on this resolution, there were theatrics from the delegation, which walked out during the first consultation.
At the second consultation, nobody from the delegation attended, but former Ambassador Rosario Manalo, who also previously represented the Philippines in the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and is now a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, was present.
Purporting to speak as a ‘human rights defender’, she launched an angry tirade against Iceland as the sponsor of the resolution and the other States who supported it.
She also called the Filipino human rights defenders in the room who were seated right next to her as ‘treacherous’, and accused them of peddling lies about the country.
The theatrics in Geneva did not serve the Philippine government well. In the end, the Council voted to adopt the resolution.
Now that it has been adopted, what does this mean for Filipinos? The UN Human Rights Council, like any international human rights body, has significantly limited ability to directly protect human rights on the ground.
Thus, while it has adopted this resolution, the Council will not have the power to actually stop the unlawful killings and other human rights violations being committed. The Council will be unable to compel the implementation of the recommendations in any resolution it adopts, where a State is unwilling to cooperate.
Hence, the Philippine government still holds the discretion on whether or not to implement the recommendations made by the Council.
This is where ordinary Filipinos come in. The people – as the eyes and ears on the ground – are indispensable to the work of international human rights bodies like the Human Rights Council.
The effectiveness of the Council in protecting human rights on the ground greatly relies upon the extent to which the people on the ground – including human rights defenders – are able to engage and work with them.
The information provided by the general public regarding the situation on the ground is very important to the work of international human rights mechanisms like the Council. This information gives these mechanisms a clearer and more accurate picture of the human rights situation in the country.
We should thus not be silent. We should continue pressing the government to implement the recommendations in this resolution. The key recommendation is that the government should investigate extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and hold the perpetrators accountable.
In its formal statement to the Council after adoption of the resolution a few days ago, the representative of the Philippine government at the Council vigorously claimed that the country has ‘fully functioning domestic accountability mechanisms’, ignoring the fact that authorities have been unwilling or unable to conduct effective investigation or prosecutions for any of the numerous allegations of unlawful killings.
Hence, we should press the government to demonstrate that its claim that domestic accountability mechanisms are functioning is true, and that it should then use these mechanisms by investigating the killings and disappearances and punishing the perpetrators.
It is a welcome development that the Human Rights Council passed this resolution on the human rights situation in the Philippines.
But the work does not end there. There is a symbiotic relationship between the actions of the people on the ground and the work of international human rights mechanisms like the Council.
It is now left to us to press our government for the implementation of the recommendations in the resolution.
Jul 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the raids on 11 July by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the homes and offices of Anand Grover and Indira Jaising, two lawyers prominent for frequently challenging the Indian government’s failures to respect and promote the rights of all people in India.
Grover and Jaising are both Supreme Court lawyers and co-founders of the Lawyers Collective, a non-governmental organization.
These raids were reportedly conducted pursuant to CBI’s registration of criminal charges into alleged violations of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), a much criticized law frequently used to target human rights defenders and critics of the Indian government.
“This raid seems designed to harass and intimidate two tireless advocates of Constitutional and international rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary-General of the ICJ.
“The Indian government must immediately cease harassment of the Lawyers Collective and its founders Anand Grover and Indira Jaising,” he added.
The CBI raids appears to be based on a 2016 Ministry of Home Affairs report, now under appeal in the Bombay High Court, and without any material change in circumstances since its release.
The raid has also been conducted notwithstanding a National Human Rights Commission statement seeking a status report from the CBI by 21 July 2019 to ensure that the investigation is “non-discriminatory and to avoid arbitrariness”.
The attack is emblematic of a broader pattern of official threats to and harassment of Indian civil society in general, and the Lawyers Collective in particular.
Lawyers Collective’s FCRA license was cancelled in November 2016, a decision that is under appeal in the Bombay High Court. The action relied upon overly broad and vague legal provisions of the FCRA that violate India’s legal obligation to respect and protect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
“The repeated use of the FCRA to target civil society including Lawyers Collective has had a devastating chilling effect on public comment about the government,” said Zarifi.
“The law should be repealed, or substantially amended to include safeguards against arbitrary use of its provisions, and to protect freedom of expression and association,” he added.
The ICJ supports the 2016 call by three United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the Indian Government to repeal FCRA, which decried the FCRA’s use to “silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government”.
