Apr 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s adoption, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of the Working Group’s “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court”.
Under its resolution 20/16 (2012), the UN Human Rights Council requested the Working Group to prepare draft basic principles and guidelines on habeas corpus. The Working Group set out a first draft set of principles and guidelines ahead of its global consultation on the subject in September 2014. From 2 to 5 February 2015, the Working Group met to continue its elaboration of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, resulting in the adoption of a second draft. The Working Group adopted its final iteration of the document at the conclusion of its session on 29 April 2015. The Basic Principles and Guidelines will be presented to the Human Rights Council during the Council’s 30th regular session, to be held from 14 September to 2 October 2015.
The ICJ welcomes the Basic Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus. It especially welcomes certain aspects of the document, including:
- Paragraph 68, in which applicable qualifications are set out to any derogating measures to accommodate constraints on the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- Principle 6 and Guideline 4 which reaffirm that habeas corpus petitions must be heard by courts that bear all characteristics of competence, independence and impartiality (paras 27, 70 and 72(a)), that competence includes the power to order immediate release if detention is fund to be arbitrary or unlawful (para 27), that immediate implementation of such orders is required (para 71(c)) and that courts must give reasoned and particularized decisions (para 71(d));
- Guideline 7, in which it is provided that individuals are entitled to take proceedings multiple times (paras 81 and 82), that expediency is required, including in cases of subsequent challenges, and especially in cases alleging, among other things, torture or ill-treatment (para 83) and that authorities remain obliged to ensure regular review of the continuing need for detention (para 84);
- Principle 9 and Guideline 8 concerning legal representation and legal aid;
- The clarifications in Principle 10 and Guideline that persons able to bring proceedings include counsel, family members or other interested parties, whether or not they have proof of the consent of the detainee (paras 34 and 92) and that no restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s ability to contact such persons (para 35);
- The express recognition in Guideline 12 that information obtained by torture or other forms of ill-treatment may not be used in evidence;
- Guideline 13 concerning disclosure and limitations applicable to any non-disclosure of information on security or other grounds;
- Guideline 14, reflecting authorities’ obligation to justify the need and proportionality of detention;
- Principle 15 and Guideline 16 (on remedies), reflecting the overarching right to remedies and reparation (paras 43), the need for authorities to give immediate effect to an order for release (para 44) and the right to compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (paras 109-112); and
- Principle 16 concerning the application of Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) alongside international humanitarian law (paras 45 and 47), the application of Article 9(4) to civilians in an international armed conflict (para 47), the application of habeas principles to prisoners of war (para 48), and the question of administrative detention or internment in the context of a non-international armed conflict (para 49).
The ICJ has engaged in all stages of the Working Group’s elaboration and consultations. It made written submissions in November 2013, April 2014 and March 2015. Its staff, Matt Pollard and Alex Conte, gave panel presentations at the September 2014 global consultation.
Apr 24, 2015 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the deaths of two lawyers, Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi, who recently died while in police custody in Mataria police station.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the deaths of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody are part of a widespread and sustained campaign targeting hundreds of lawyers since 2013, including those defending political opponents of the regime and human rights activists, as well as lawyers exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
“The Egyptian authorities must effectively investigate and prosecute all those responsible for the alleged torture and death of Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi while in police custody and must hold accountable any person responsible for wrongful conduct ,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA Programme.
“The authorities must bring an end to their ongoing campaign of harassing and persecuting lawyers, including arbitrary arrests and prosecutions, for simply discharging their professional duties or for speaking out against human rights violations,” he added.
Under international standards, lawyers should be able to carry out their professional duties free from hindrance, intimidation, harassment or interference, says the ICJ.
They should not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes or subject to arbitrary arrest and prosecutions as a result of the discharge of their functions.
Background:
On 10 April, Imam Afifi, a 63-year old lawyer, was assaulted and arrested in the Mataria neighborhood where a demonstration was taking place against the government.
He was detained in Mataria police station where he was allegedly subjected to torture, including a severe beating to his head.
On 11 April, he was transferred from the police station to Mataria hospital.
A medical report from the same day, to which the ICJ had access, indicates that Imam Afifi was admitted to the hospital with a massive trauma to the head. He died in hospital on 22 April.
On 22 February, another lawyer, Karim Hamdi, was arrested and questioned on suspicion of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, membership of which has been outlawed, and participating in an unauthorized demonstration against the government.
While in police custody in Mataria police station, he was reportedly severely beaten on his neck, chest and abdomen. He died two days later after being transferred to hospital.
Following a complaint by the Bar Association to the prosecutor’s office, two members of the National Security Agency were charged with torturing and murdering Karim Hamdi.
Additional information:
According to information available to the ICJ, attacks against lawyers since 2013 include the following:
On 23 April 2015, six lawyers were summoned for interrogation in relation to their participation in a demonstration on 9 March to protest against the death of Mr Karim Hamdi.
The lawyers also challenged the prosecutor’s decision to prohibit anyone from reporting on the investigation into Mr Hamdi’s case.
On 23 March 2015, human rights lawyer, Azza Soliman, was charged with breaching public order and security under the 2013 Demonstration Law after voluntarily providing testimony against police involved in the killing of Social People’s Alliance party activist, Shaimaa El Sabbagh, on 24 January 2015.
The Qasr El Nile Prosecution Office in Cairo subsequently changed her status from witness to defendant.
On 9 February 2015, a human rights lawyer, Ms Mahienour El Massry, was sentenced to two years imprisonment after she attended the El-Ramel police station in Alexandria, in March 2013, in order to defend demonstrators.
The charges against her included “insulting government employees in the performance of their duties”, “insulting representatives of the authorities” and “attempting to break into a police station”.
Three lawyers, Basma Zahran, Mahmoud Bilal and Oussama Al Mahdi, were referred for investigation, on 3 September 2014, for “disrupting and causing trouble” during trial proceedings for insisting that their client, the human rights activist Ahmed Douma, seated in a sound-proof glass cage, should be heard.
On 5 July 2013, Abdel Men’em Abdel Maqsoud was arrested while attempting to attend the interrogation of his clients, deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Brotherhood, Rachad Bayoumi, and Mohamed Saad Al Katanah.
He was detained before being released on bail on 2 September 2014.
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 44 7815 570 834, e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: 41 229 793 804, e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Deaths of lawyers-News-Press release-2015-ARA (full text of Arabic version in PDF)
Mar 20, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ today joined a call with Libyan, regional and other international NGOs for the Human Rights Council to create an independent inquiry mechanism into serious human rights and humanitarian law violations in Libya.
The escalating armed conflict and significantly deteriorating human rights situation in Libya requires a strong and urgent response from the Human Rights Council.
The statement calls for the creation of an independent inquiry mechanism with the mandate to investigate and ensure accountability for gross human rights and humanitarian law violations occurring throughout the country including attacks on civilians, the widespread use of torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and unlawful killings.
The statement outlines the ongoing impunity for those responsible for violations, the inability of the Libyan criminal justice system to deal with such crimes and it calls on the Human Rights Council to encourage Libya’s cooperation with the ICC.
Libya-HRC joint Statement-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Libya-HRC joint Statement-Advocacy-2015-ARA (full text in PDF)
Mar 16, 2015 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
The ICJ has made further submissions to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its elaboration of Draft Principles and Guidelines on habeas corpus.
In February 2015, the Working Group released for public input a revised set of ‘Draft Principles and Guidelines on remedies and procedures on the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty by arrest or detention to bring proceedings before a court without delay, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his or her detention and order his or her release if the detention is not lawful’.
The ICJ’s submission welcomes the elaboration by the Working Group of the revised Draft Principles and Guidelines as a means of assisting States to enhance, in law and in practice, respect for the right to habeas corpus and especially welcomes certain aspects of the document. It suggests means of further improving the revised Draft Principles and Guidelines, concerning:
- The temporary nature of any derogating measures impacting upon the application of some procedural elements of the right to habeas corpus;
- The competence of courts to make orders for immediate release;
- The implementation of court orders for release;
- The public nature of judicial decisions following adjudication of habeas corpus petitions;
- Guarantees applicable to specialized tribunals;
- The right to legal aid and legal assistance;
- Confirming that the procedure must be available at all times and to all detained persons, including prisoners or war, as a remedy to protect non-derogable rights such as the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment; and
- The inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture.
The Working Group will present its final draft to the Human Rights Council’s 30th regular session in September 2015.
Attachments
ICJ-WGAD-RevisedDraftPrinciplesAndGuidelines-3rdLegalSubmission-2015-EN (The ICJ’s latest submission in PDF)
WGAD-Habeas-RevisedDraftPrinciplesAndGuidelines-2015-EN (PDF)
Additional links for reference
The ICJ’s first written submissions to the Working Group in November 2013
The ICJ’s second written submissions to the Working Group in April 2014
Panel presentations at the September 2014 Global Consultation by ICJ staff Matt Pollard and Alex Conte
Mar 6, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its dismay that the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a judgment issued on 4 March 2015 declined to declare caning, a painful form of corporal punishment, to be unlawful.
The administration of caning violates the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.
Despite this prohibition, the Court of Appeal determined that any international legal prohibition had no effect on Singapore, since the legislature had not made it part of the country’s domestic law.
The ICJ emphasized that Singapore’s failure to prohibit caning in its own national law in no way makes caning a lawful act.
Under international law, caning remains wrong and illegal, irrespective of the country’s domestic arrangements.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that caning, administered as a form of judicially imposed punishment in Singapore, does not amount to torture.
The Court of Appeal stated that caning did not “breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture.”
The ICJ notes that the international prohibition against ill-treatment extends not only to torture, but also to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The ICJ considers that caning constitutes both types of ill-treatment.
The ruling was issued by the Singapore Court of Appeals in the case of Yong Vui Kong, a 26-year old man who appealed against his sentence of 15 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment imposed as a punishment for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Upon his conviction in 2011, Yong Vui Kong had initially been sentenced to death.
Following changes in the law and an application for re-sentencing to the High Court, his sentence was modified in 2013 to life imprisonment and ‘15 strokes of the cane’.
In his appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Yong Vui Kong challenged this sentence on several grounds, including that caning constitutes torture, which is prohibited under international law.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is out of step with Singapore’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and punish all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. International human rights bodies have made clear that caning and other forms of corporal punishment violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it must be prohibited,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of the ICJ.
Laws in Singapore that permit the imposition of corporal punishment are inconsistent with Singapore’s obligation to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment at all times and in all circumstances.
Consequently, in 2011 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Singapore to “prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings”.
In addition, when Singapore went under the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, several States recommended that the authorities abolish all corporal punishment, including caning.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law and international treaties binding on Singapore, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The prohibition against torture is also a peremptory norm of international law, as recognized by numerous legal authorities and by all States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions.
The peremptory character of the norm means that it overrides all other laws, international or domestic. The Court of Appeal dismissed any effect that the peremptory character of the prohibition might have on its administration in Singapore.
The ICJ calls on the lawmakers in Singapore to act without delay to outlaw corporal punishment.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66840923575 ; e emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
