Dec 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.
The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.
Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.
Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.
The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.
The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.
Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict
The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.
Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.
Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.
Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.
Download
Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)
Dec 6, 2019 | News
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.
Dec 5, 2019 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs
Today, the International Commission of Jurists published a legal briefing on the hearing on provisional measures to be held at the International Court of Justice between 10-12 December 2019 in the case of The Gambia v Myanmar.
Questions answered include:
- What allegations does The Gambia make against Myanmar?
- What provisional measures has The Gambia requested?
- What are provisional measures?
- What is the process for requesting provisional measures?
- What factors are taken into account on a request for provisional measures?
- If the Court indicates provisional measures, are they binding on the parties?
- What is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s role in the proceedings?
Download:
Myanmar-Provisional Measures Briefing-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (English)
Myanmar-Provisional Measures Briefing-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (Burmese)
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser and Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Nov 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Algerian authorities to reverse the decision of the Minister of Justice to transfer 2’998 judges, and instead ensure their right to security of tenure and protect the individual and institutional independence of the judiciary in the country.
The ICJ further called on the authorities to refrain from any unlawful or disproportionate use of force against the judges who are currently on strike in a protest against the Minister’s decision.
The call comes after security forces stormed the Oran’s Court of Appeal on 3 November 2019, using force against the judges to end the strike, and amidst the growing, legitimate demands for the establishment of the rule of law and the end the executive’s control over the judiciary.
“The Algerian authorities must end their interference in judicial affairs and ensure that all decisions pertaining to the management of the career of judges, including transfers, are taken by an independent High Judicial Council on the basis of objective criteria and transparent procedures,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Under Organic Law n° 04-12 on the High Judicial Council (HJC), the President and Vice-President of the HJC are respectively the Algerian President and the Minister of Justice. For this and other reasons the ICJ considers that the HJC as currently constituted is not independent of the executive, and consequently that the judiciary as a whole is both institutionally and in practice subordinated to the executive in contravention of international standards on judicial independence and impartiality.
“Instead of attacking judges who are seeking to defend the rule of law, the most urgent priority for Algerian authorities should be the reform of the HJC to ensure its full independence,” Benarbia added.
In 2018, the Human Rights Committee expressed, in its Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, its concerns over the insufficient guarantees for judicial independence and the need to strengthen the independence and the powers of the HJC.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Program, t: +41 22 979 38 17 ; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Algeria-Judges strike-News-2019-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
Oct 16, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
ICJ’s first ever fundraising gala took place on 14 October at the iconic setting of the Palais Eynard in Geneva.
Sami Kanaan, Counselor and former Mayor of the City of Geneva, which provided its generous support, opened the event by speaking of the importance of the ICJ cooperation with the local legal community.
Next, several speakers offered a few answers to the theme of the evening: ‘Geneva, the defense of the Rule of Law: what can I do?’.
Pierre de Preux, former Bâtonnier, explained the great value that can be brought to defending rule of law in the world by supporting the ICJ through missions, as he himself did in Tunisia in the 80s.
He was followed by ICJ Commissioners Sir Nicolas Bratza (former President of the European Court of Human Rights), who discussed backsliding on human rights in contemporary Europe; lawyer Reed Brody, who discussed his work in bringing powerful dictators to account for human rights atrocities; and Justice Martine Comte of France, who described her experience in leading ICJ missions in Central Asia.
The ICJ President Prof. Robert Goldman and ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi also addressed the attendees.
The exchange was then followed by an inspiring concert by the young virtuosi of the Menuhin Academy and a delicious Buffet cocktail provided by refugee Chefs Jena Hamza (Syrian Kurd) and Sritharan Tambithurai (Sri Lanka). All in all, a wonderful evening combining substance, beauty and friendship.
Watch the video here:
