Jun 25, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke at the UN on the role of judicial councils, judicial independence in Turkey and Poland, and on business and human rights in Peru.
The statement was made at the UN Human Rights Council during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights.
The statement on judicial councils and independence was made jointly with the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association. The whole statement read as follows:
“Mr President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (A/HRC/38/38) on the role of judicial councils and similar bodies.
Based on many decades of relevant experience around the world, we urge that:
All countries should consider establishing an independent judicial council. Reliance on constitutional customs, cultures, and traditions alone often proves insufficient if a crisis arises.
To guarantee independence, a majority of members should be judges elected by their peers. Any other members must also be independent. The Head of State, executive or legislative officials, or political candidates, should not be members. Proactive measures should address under-representation of women or persons from minority or marginalized groups.
Such bodies should be responsible for all decisions relating to the selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, suspension and removal of judges.
As an example of concern, in Turkey following constitutional reform in 2017 no member of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors is elected by their peers, contributing to a lack of institutional independence of the judiciary. We also share the concerns for lawyers in Turkey already expressed by The Law Society and other colleagues today.
On the report on the visit to Poland (A/HRC/38/38/Add.1), we concur that reforms in the name of efficiency and accountability have undermined the independence of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, and effectively placed the entire judiciary under “control of the executive and legislative branches” (para 74). Mr Special Rapporteur, how can other States assist in securing full implementation of your recommendations on Poland?
The findings of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights report on its mission to Peru (A/HRC/38/48/Add.2) are of great concern, that “large number of human rights defenders and local leaders” were reportedly killed, attacked or threatened for defending the environment and land rights, legitimate social protest is criminalized, and wide use of states of exception and the armed forces have lead to serious abuses. The ICJ urges Peru to implement the recommendations and asks the Working Group what it will do to follow up?
Thank you.”
Jun 20, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN the ICJ today addressed abuse of laws in Southeast Asia to restrict freedom of expression.The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (A/HRC/38/35), on online expression. Such concerns are reflected in the continued weaponization of laws to criminalize and unduly restrict freedom of expression in Southeast Asia. Increasingly, laws are misused to harass and intimidate civil society, journalists, politicians and ordinary individuals.
For example, in Cambodia, three persons were arrested – two charged and detained in May, and one reportedly arrested this past weekend – for sharing content on Facebook in alleged violation of a recent lèse majesté law. Another man was similarly detained, and a woman extradited from Thailand to Cambodia and imprisoned, for Facebook posts deemed critical of the government. An inter-ministerial order signed last month now allows government agencies to monitor and censor information on websites and social media.
Another example is Vietnam, where as well-known bloggers remain in jail, last week lawmakers adopted a cybersecurity law that will compel companies to store users’ data in-country, pass personal data to government authorities, and censor information online when directed to do so by the government.
A further example is Thailand, where this year alone at least 132 people were charged for “illegal assembly” after protesting for elections to be held – 27 were also charged with a sedition-like offence carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. Last week, arrest warrants were reportedly issued alleging dissemination of false information on Facebook, which may lead to charges under the Computer Crimes Act carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, despite international standards precluding imprisonment as an appropriate penalty.
The ICJ urges all States to implement the recommendations in the report of the Special Rapporteur, and to ensure the right to freedom of expression by revoking or amending all laws, orders, policies or other actions which unjustifiably restrict this fundamental freedom.”
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.
