Nov 21, 2016 | News
Forty distinguished judges and lawyers from around the world have reaffirmed the essential role of judges and lawyers in securing the rule of law and human rights in relation to large movements of refugees and migrants, at the 7th annual ICJ Geneva Forum, 17-18 November 2016.
The 2016 Forum concluded with substantial agreement and reaffirmation of the essential role that judges and lawyers must be enabled to play, and must fulfil in practice, if the rights of refugees and migrants and the rule of law are to be secured, including in the context of large movements.
Participants exchanged challenges and solutions, and deliberated on a wide range of issues, including:
- on methods for best assessing evidence and credibility;
- on means for overcoming the legal, policy, and practical challenges when judges and lawyers face large numbers of claims and cases;
- on reforms to better enable immigration judges to meet basic standards of independence and impartiality;
- on the need for judiciaries and legal professions to ensure practitioners receive appropriate training and better access to information about international standards and reliable information about country situations;
- on the importance of effective access to competent legal advice and representation, including free of charge when necessary, for refugees and migrants to be able to exercise their rights and for judges to be able to decide cases in an efficient and just manner;
- on ways of supporting judges who courageously exercise their independence to uphold the rule of law and human rights, including in the face of interference or reprisal from the executive or legislative branches of government, or intense media criticism or majoritarian pressure;
- on ensuring that refugees and migrants who are victims of crime or victims of human rights violations are able to have effective access to justice and effective remedy, without discrimination arising from their status;
- on the importance of ensuring that legal processes are sensitive to the particular situation of women and children migrants, and migrants in detention.
Based on the discussions,the ICJ will develop and disseminate a set of Principles and recommendations on the role of judges and lawyers in situations of large-scale movement of refugees and migrants. The Principles will complement ICJ’s 2011 Practitioners’ Guide No 6 on Migration and International Human Rights Law.
More information about the Geneva Forum is available here.
For further details, please contact Matt Pollard, senior legal adviser, matt.pollard(a)icj.org
The 2016 Geneva Forum has been made possible with the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva.
The ICJ is also grateful for the assistance of the Le Centre d’Accueil – Genève Internationale (CAGI) and Swiss Confederation.
Nov 11, 2016 | Agendas, Events
The ICJ and Foundation Raices are holding a training on the rights of migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms from 11 to 12 November in Madrid (Spain).
The training aims to support the strategic use of national and international mechanisms to foster children’s access to justice.
The training will focus on accessing the international mechanisms in order to protect and promote the rights of migrant children, the child’s right to be heard and related procedural rights, the best interests of the child, age assessment and the presumption of minority.
Trainers will include representatives of the ICJ and Foundation Raices, as well as experts from the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Spanish Constitutional Court and the office of the Spanish Ombudsman.
The training is based on draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published in the second half of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
The training is organized as part of the FAIR project co-funded by the Justice and Equality Programme of the EU and OSIFE.
Download the agenda of the training here:
spain-fair-training-events-agenda-2016-eng (in PDF)
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
Jun 29, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ, joined by FIDH, Franciscans International, and IMADR, today delivered a statement to the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement was on the situation of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and on the need for active participation by international judges in the judicial mechanism to be adopted in Sri Lanka as part of the process of accountability and reconciliation.
The organizations stated, during general debate on an oral update on Sri Lanka from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Commissioner’s report on the situation of Rohingya in Myanmar, that:
The Government of Myanmar has persecuted the Rohingya, refused to extend basic citizenship rights, and Parliament passed legislation entrenching discrimination such as the Race and Religion Protection laws. This has displaced thousands within Rakhine State and driven the Rohingya to sea and neighbouring countries. The ICJ, FIDH, Franciscans International and IMADR call on Myanmar:
- to repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law or amend it in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, to grant Rohingya full citizenship and accompanying rights;
- to develop a citizenship plan based on non-discrimination;
- to reject the Rakhine State Action Plan in its current form;
- to repeal laws that discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities;
- to diligently prosecute all acts of violence fuelled by discrimination, and hate speech that incites discrimination, hostility or violence; and
- to improve basic living conditions for the Rohingya and Arakanese in Rakhine State by enhancing protection of their economic, social, and cultural rights.
We welcome recent initiatives by the Government of Sri Lanka towards implementing Resolution 30/1, including the establishment of an Office of Missing Persons, and ratification of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
However, many of the commitments in the resolution remain unfulfilled. The other three transitional justice mechanisms envisioned by the resolution – an office of reparation, a truth-seeking commission, and a judicial mechanism – are yet to be established.
We call on Sri Lanka to implement, without delay, all elements of Resolution 30/1, including particularly the establishment of a credible judicial mechanism with full participation of international judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We agree that international participation is “a necessary guarantee for the independence and impartiality of the process in the eyes of the victims” (High Commissioner’s Oral Update, A/HRC/32/CRP.4, paragraph 32).
Rapid progress on this and other key elements of the resolution is essential to the credibility of the overall process of transition in Sri Lanka.
The statement can be downloaded in full, in PDF format, here: HRC32-OralStatement-SriLankaMyanmar-2016
Mar 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expresses serious concern that the deal concluded on Friday 18 March between the European Union and Turkey on the return of migrants and refugees to Turkey is likely to lead to serious violations of international and EU human rights and refugee law.
“This initiative carries high risks of infringing the right of asylum and the prohibition of non-refoulement, as well as the right to an effective remedy for potential violations of these rights”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
All EU Member States, including Greece, have obligations to protect these rights under international human rights law, and Member States and EU institutions have similar obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The agreement seeks to establish swift return from Greece to Turkey of any migrant or asylum seeker attempting to reach Greece who does not apply for international protection there or whose application is deemed unfounded or inadmissible.
In order to facilitate such returns, Turkey may be declared to be a “safe third country” which could allow for the dismissal of asylum requests in Greece based on this element alone, and the rapid return of applicants.
The EU and Turkey, in their joint statement, contend that these operations will not be carried out in violation of international and EU law, including the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits return to a country where the returned person faces a real risk of torture or other serious violation of human rights.
It is nevertheless unclear how the system proposed could lead to swift returns, while respecting international human rights and refugee law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Asylum Procedure Directive, for a number of reasons.
First, the ICJ stresses that Turkey cannot be considered a “safe third country” for the return of migrants and refugees.
Authoritative reports and international jurisprudence on Turkey demonstrate that neither the general human rights situation in Turkey, nor its asylum procedure and reception system are in line with international law, including Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment in article 3 ECHR.
Second, the ICJ affirms that the commitment of Turkey to adapt its asylum system to comply with international law and standards does not in itself allow for returns from EU countries in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.
International and EU law binding on Greece and other EU Members States requires an assessment of the situation in the country of return at the moment the return is effected to determine whether there is a real risk of violations of human rights.
Therefore, at present, and irrespective of the commitments made on reform, any return to Turkey would be at high risk of infringing the principle of non-refoulement and the returning country’s legal obligations.
Crucially for the prospects of the new system, it is also clear that the Greek asylum system is not in a position to proceed to a swift consideration of asylum applications in compliance with human rights, including procedural guarantees.
“As is clear from ongoing Council of Europe discussions about implementation of European Court decisions against Greece, the Greek asylum procedure cannot yet provide for an effective remedy for cases of arbitrary refoulement. Without respect for such guarantees, many migrants will be left vulnerable,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser at the ICJ.
The ICJ emphasises that, whatever co-operative arrangements are put in place, Greece and Turkey will have responsibility under international human rights and EU law as regards the rights of persons subject either to Greek or Turkish territorial jurisdiction or to Greek or Turkish authority and/or control.
Furthermore, through its direct involvement in and financing of these arrangements, the EU itself may be complicit in any breach of the right of asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsions, the prohibition of non-refoulement or the right to an effective remedy.
The ICJ is further concerned at the “one for one” resettlement mechanism that will be established to settle one Syrian refugee in a EU country for every Syrian returned to Turkey.
It is of serious concern that this mechanism contemplates the return of Syrians to Turkey. Syrians are prima facie entitled to international protection and would likely fall within one of the grounds of international protection of the EU Qualification Directive.
It would therefore be unlawful under EU law to return them to Turkey.
Full text and additional information on the content of the deal available here.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser, Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
