Jun 19, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in calling for the UN Human Rights Council to establish an international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines.The call came in a joint oral statement to the Council, delivered by Franciscans International on behalf of the group of NGOs. The statement, part of the general debate on a global update provided to the Council by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, read as follows:
“Mr President, we welcome the High Commissioner’s update. We are pleased to hear about positive developments that several States have made in granting access to Special Procedures. However, we deeply regret that this is not the case for the Philippines, a member of the Human Rights Council, which has refused access to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, in spite of the thousands of killings in the government’s ongoing ‘war on drugs’, and the lack of independent and impartial investigations in the country.
We are further concerned that the lack of cooperation with Special Procedures has been further compounded by the Philippine President’s threats and verbal attacks against several mandate holders and the High Commissioner himself. In the absence of cooperation with Special Procedures, we call on the Council to establish an independent international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines.
As this was the last update of the High Commissioner to the Council, we would like to express deep appreciation for his hard work and dedication over his four year term, and the attention he has drawn to threats to human rights defenders and their work in the Philippines. We call on the Council to follow up on this work by mandating the OHCHR to monitor the deterioration in the situation of human rights and attacks on democratic institutions, as well as the Philippine government’s moves toward authoritarianism, and ask the OHCHR to report on this to the Human Rights Council.”
In 2016 the ICJ released a briefing paper on investigation of extrajudicial executions in the Philippines, which among other things called for an independent commission of inquiry, after having earlier written directly to President Duterte.
Apr 16, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and ECRE have presented today to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants a submission on access to justice for migrants in Europe.
The submission is an input for the forthcoming report of the UN Special Rapporteur on access to justice for migrants to the UN General Assembly.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) have provided a brief overview of aspects of access to justice for migrants, with a particular focus on asylum seekers and migrant children, in European countries.
The issues dealt with include:
- obstructions to access to justice in relation to access to the territory;
- the undue use of national security exceptions to weaken access to justice in immigration procedures;
- concerns with access to justice in expulsion and detention procedures;
- specific obstacles to access to justice for asylum seekers, including when appealing the rejection of their claims by first instance asylum authorities before a judicial or administrative appeal body;
- specific obstacles to access to justice for undocumented minors.
ICJECRE-NonLegalSubmission-SRMigrants-Access2JusticeEurope4Migrants-2018-ENG (download the submission)
Mar 5, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on transitional justice, prevention and impunity, highlighting the continuing problem of impunity in Nepal.
The statement, which was made during a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remains deeply concerned by continuing impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world, which undermines the potential for transitional justice to contribute to prevention as outlined in the Joint Study (A/HRC/37/65).
For example, in Nepal, more than ten years after the civil war, political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability. There has been near absolute impunity for those responsible for serious crimes under international law.
Transitional justice mechanisms – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CoID) – have fallen short of international standards, both in their constitution and their operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to enforce the standards.
The Commissions’ deeply flawed mandates, among other problems, allow them to recommend amnesties for gross human rights violations. In addition, their non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.
The Government continues to flout its obligation, both pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders and under international law, to enact domestic legislation to criminalize serious crimes in accordance with international standards.
As highlighted by in the Joint study, turning a blind eye on past atrocities signals that some perpetrators are above the law, which further discredits State institutions and “breeds a (long-standing) culture of impunity in which atrocities may become ‘normalized’, rendering prevention significantly more difficult.” (para 43)
That, indeed, is the experience in Nepal: continuing impunity for gross human rights violations perpetrated during the conflict is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in the country. Ending impunity is essential to preventing further violations.”
Video of the statement is available here:
The delegation of Nepal exercised its right to reply later in the day. Its reply is here:
The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.
Mar 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on attacks on lawyers and the legal profession in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and China.
The statement, which was made during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, read as follows:
Our organizations welcome that the main report (A/HRC/37/51, para 13) and communications report (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, e.g. paras 278-297, 431, 508-510) of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders recognizes the role of lawyers as human rights defenders. In this regard, we would highlight the global problem of continued attacks on lawyers and threats to the independence of their profession, including for example as is well known in China (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, paras 278-297), but also in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
In Azerbaijan, lawyers face criminal prosecution, suspension or disbarment for statements clearly constituting protected freedom of expression. The lack of independence of the Bar Association is a serious concern, even more so now that new legislation prohibits lawyers from representing clients before courts unless they become a member.
In Kazakhstan, a proposed new law threatens the independence of lawyers by providing for representatives of the executive to be included on disciplinary bodies of the legal profession, contrary to international standards.
Finally, the situation of lawyers in Turkey under the current state of emergency is of particular concern. In particular, echoing the recent statement of five UN special procedures mandate holders for his release, we expresses concern at the current detention of Taner Kılıç, lawyer and president of Amnesty International Turkey.
These arrests, trial and disbarments as well problematic legislative changes have a chilling effect on the work of lawyers. They undermine access to effective and independent legal assistance to protect human rights, in contravention of the rights of both the lawyers and their clients, including as mentioned in the report of the visit to Turkey by the Special Rapporteur on Torture (A/HRC/37/50/Add.1, paras 24, 26, 41, 63-66, 71, 101(d)(e)(h), 106(c)).
Our organizations urge the Council to address these worrying developments threatening the rule of law.
The following organizations joined the statement, in addition to the ICJ:
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
- Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)
- Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L)
- the Law Society of England and Wales
- Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), and
- the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC).
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-JointOralStatement-LawyersHRDsTorture-2018
Feb 14, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has set out key principles and sources on judicial councils and other national mechanisms for selecting, appointing, promoting, transferring, suspending or removing judges, in a submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.The submission was made in response to a call by the Special Rapporteur for input to a report he will present at the June 2018 session of the Human Rights Council.
The ICJ submission highlights that judicial councils are a proven means of safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring judicial accountability. It recommends that, even in countries where judicial independence and accountability have traditionally been secured by other means, consideration should be given to the establishment of a judicial council.
The submission stresses that judicial councils must be fully independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, and notes several key safeguards to help secure such independence.
The ICJ recommends that such judicial councils should in principle be responsible for all decisions relating to the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, suspension and removal of judges.
The submission also highlights the need for diversity of membership of such councils to ensure its representativeness of the society the judiciary is to serve, that it reflects a cross-section of the judiciary as a whole, and that it has the experience and expertise needed to be effective.
The full submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: Global-UN-SRIJL-JudicialCouncils-2018
Most of the sources cited in the submission are available here.
Related and more detailed guidance is available in the ICJ’s 2016 Practitioners’ Guide no. 13 on Judicial Accountability, as well as the 2007 Practitioners’ Guide no. 1 on Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors.
More information about the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For more information about the ICJ and judicial councils and similar mechanisms, contact Matt Pollard (matt.pollard(at)icj.org)
