ICJ highlights rights of judges and prosecutors to speak out for rule of law and human rights

ICJ highlights rights of judges and prosecutors to speak out for rule of law and human rights

At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the rights and duties of judges and prosecutors to exercise their freedoms of expression, assembly and association to defend the rule of law and human rights.

The oral statement was delivered in a Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

It read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of judges and prosecutors.[1]

As the report acknowledges, exercise of these rights can be subject to restrictions arising from the fundamental need for judges and prosecutors to be perceived as independent and impartial. At the same time, as the report also emphasizes, any such restrictions must be provided by law and be demonstrably necessary to such legitimate aims, which in turn crucially requires proportionality.[2] These standards have been recognized both globally and in all regions of the world.[3] Any such restrictions on judges should be adopted and enforced by the judiciary itself.

We particularly welcome the recognition in the report that in situations where democracy and the rule of law are under threat, judges and prosecutors have not only the right, but potentially a duty, to speak out and organize in defence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and that this can include participating in peaceful public demonstrations.[4]

Far too often in the ICJ’s work around the world, we see Executive and Legislative bodies, as well as compromised judicial hierarchies, arbitrarily or selectively targeting judges and prosecutors for removal, demotion or other disciplinary measures, precisely for exercising these rights to defend against threats to the rule of law. Examples highlighted in our submission to your study included Egypt, Morocco, Honduras, Hungary and Bulgaria.[5]

Mr. Rapporteur, how can judiciaries, governments, and civil society organisations (including international or regional legal professional associations) act internationally to support judges and prosecutors who are facing such abuse in another country?

The ICJ also welcomes the reports of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We urge all States to strongly support the renewal of this essential mandate at the current session.

Thank you.”

[1] ICJ’s detailed submission to the Special Rapporteur’s consultation is available at: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/

[2] Paragraphs 39, 45, 46, 89.

[3] In addition to the global and European, Asian, and American standards cited in the report, see the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2005), paras A(4)(s) and (t), and F(d) and (e).

[4] Paragraphs 61, 69, 90, 102.

[5] See for further information: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/

Threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Azerbaijan and South Sudan (UN statement)

Threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Azerbaijan and South Sudan (UN statement)

The ICJ today highlighted threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary and Azerbaijan, and the need to address corporate complicity in South Sudan, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, delivered during general debate, read as follows:

“The situation remains grave for the rule of law and legal protection of human rights in Turkey and Poland.

In Turkey, constitutional reforms in 2017 that undermined the independence of the judiciary should be abolished. Civil society members are prosecuted under overbroad and vague terrorism offences.

In Poland, the Legislature is trying arbitrarily to remove one third of the Supreme Court, a measure that is on hold only temporarily. Unjustified disciplinary proceedings are also being pursued against Polish judges for having sought a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU.

Elsewhere, in Hungary civil society is ostracized and subject to legislation that risks criminalizing their legitimate activities. In Azerbaijan, as one example of a broader pattern of interference with lawyers and other human rights defenders, lawyer Elchin Sadigov was reprimanded for advising in a confidential manner to his client in detention to complain about torture to which he allegedly had been subjected.

The ICJ is also concerned at the findings by the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (A/HRC/40/69, A/HRC/40/CRP.1) that point to the oil industry as a “major driver” in the continuation of the armed conflict and resulting human rights violations. Potential corporate complicity with crimes under international law demand investigation and a strong monitoring mechanism for the use of oil revenues should be established.”

Hungary: ICJ calls for re-consideration of the Law on the Administrative Courts

Hungary: ICJ calls for re-consideration of the Law on the Administrative Courts

The ICJ today called on Hungarian President Áder János not to sign the Law on the Administrative Courts but to send it back to the Parliament for further review and discussion. In particular, the law should be re-considered in light of international standards as well as the forthcoming reasoned opinion of the Venice Commission, the ICJ said.

On 12 December, the Hungarian Parliament adopted, in a highly contested process, the Law on the Administrative Courts (T/3353). The vote took place despite the fact that an opinion of the Council of Europe Venice Commission on the new law is still awaited.

The administrative courts will have significant competencies in matters of public interest concerning the action of the executive and other public institutions. They will have jurisdiction over “administrative disputes” as well as other issues transferred to their jurisdiction by law (Article 1(3)).

The ICJ is concerned at the significant powers conferred on the executive over the proposed Administrative Courts, in particular the Minister of Justice’s powers in the appointment of administrative judges (Article 72(2)) as well as the powers of the Minister of Justice and of the Parliament in regard to the annual budget of these courts. Under the new law, judges of the administrative courts would be appointed by the Minister of Justice on the advice of a newly-established National Administrative Judicial Council, with the Minister having a discretion to reject the first-ranked nominee of the Council. In a context where the independence of the Hungarian judiciary is already being eroded, this role of the executive raises significant concerns regarding the independence of the new courts.

The new law comes at a time when measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.

The ICJ recalls that judicial independence and the separation of powers are the bedrock of the rule of law. International law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and other international standards such as the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, reflect the fundamental role of an independent judiciary in protecting human rights and the rule of law.

Threats to the rule of law in Europe (UN statement)

Threats to the rule of law in Europe (UN statement)

The ICJ today put the spotlight on serious threats to the rule of law in Hungary, Poland and Turkey, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, made during general debate on situations that require the Council’s attention, read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) would like to bring to the Council’s attention the serious threats to the rule of law in Hungary, Poland and Turkey.

In Poland, the Government has adopted legislation to arbitrarily force into involuntary “retirement” one third of its Supreme Court Justices, delivering a fatal blow to the independence of the judiciary, already strained by past reforms.

In Hungary, multiple legal reforms have weakened judicial independence and effectively criminalized the activities of certain human rights NGOs and curtailed their financing.

Finally, in Turkey, consolidation of emergency measures in ordinary law, regressive constitutional reforms, and the mass dismissal of judges and prosecutors have removed essential protection for the independent functioning of the judiciary.

The ICJ is further concerned by the protest ban against the Saturday Mothers to hold weekly protests in memory of their disappeared family members, in breach of their right to freedom of assembly.

The ICJ is alarmed at the escalation of such threats to the very basic tenets of the rule of law in Europe, without specific action being taken by this Council to address them.

The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments, which indeed form part of a broader global attack on the rule of law,[1] and to keep under observation the human rights situation in these countries.”


[1] See ICJ, “The Rule of Law under Global Threat” (statement in general debate on the oral update of the High Commissioner), 11 September 2018: https://www.icj.org/hrc39-gd2-hc/

Hungary: the European Parliament should vote to trigger the Article 7 procedure to defend the rule of law

Hungary: the European Parliament should vote to trigger the Article 7 procedure to defend the rule of law

The ICJ today called on all MEPs to vote in favour of the draft resolution and report by rapporteur Judith Sargentini MEP, before the European Parliament, which would activate Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union in respect of Hungary. 

A vote for the resolution would mean that, under Article 7.1, the Council would determine whether there is a clear risk of serious breach by Hungary of the founding values of the EU.

Ultimately, if the situation persists, this would allow the Council to take more robust measures, including suspension of voting rights, to address the situation.

The vote, scheduled for 12 September, is crucial for the rule of law in Hungary and throughout the European Union.

The Parliament will vote on whether to activate the process under Article 7, by calling on the Council to identify a risk of serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s founding values, including the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The ICJ considers that the measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.

Cumulatively, these measures pose a grave, systemic threat to the protection of the human rights of all people in Hungary.

“The European Parliament should respond to the critical situation in Hungary by using the powers available to it under Article 7 TEU to defend human rights and the rule of law. Not to do so would be to abandon Hungary to an increasingly dangerous path, and would set a damaging precedent for all of Europe,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.

Read the full statement and key concerns here: Hungary-triggering Art 7-Advocacy-2018-ENG (in PDF)

Translate »