Jun 16, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Four years after the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism came into force, more effort is needed to ensure it is implemented in accordance with human rights law obligations, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) and the European Network against Racism (ENAR) said today. The organizations called for the European Commission’s review of the Directive’s implementation to prioritize scrutiny of its impact on human rights.
In assessing the value of the Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) in the Member States, the European Commission must scrutinize how it has affected the human rights of victims, suspects, as well as the wider community and civil society, the organizations said.
The Directive, enacted in 2017 after an expedited legislative process, criminalizes a wide range of conduct related to terrorism. The Directive establishes an overly broad definition of terrorism and requires states to include in their criminal law offences that are often not closely linked to the perpetration of a terrorist act. These include offences of travel for the purpose of terrorism, participation in a terrorist group, and public provocation to commit acts of terrorism. Because the terms of the offences are so widely drawn, safeguards in national law and practice are essential to ensure that they are not applied where there is no clear link to a principal offence of terrorism and/or no intent to contribute to such a principal offence, to prevent arbitrary application, including action based on racial prejudices of perceived dangerousness.
However, the organizations are concerned that EU member states are applying national laws on counter-terrorism in ways that unnecessarily or disproportionately limit the exercise of human rights, including freedom of expression and association, and freedom of religion or belief, and that discriminate against some ethnic or religious groups, in particular Muslims.
The implementation of the Directive by member states is now being reviewed by the European Commission, including through a consultation process, which concludes today.
As the review of the Directive is taken forward, the organizations urge the European Commission to consider in particular:
- Whether and how the Directive can help to ensure effective accountability for internationally recognized crimes and the right to effective remedy and reparation for victims of terrorism, both within and outside of the EU;
- To what extent national authorities have applied international, EU, as well as domestic human rights law in their transposition and implementation of the Directive;
- What safeguards have been or should be introduced to prevent human rights violations in practice in the implementation of the Directive, in particular regarding freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, rights to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of movement and rights to political participation;
- How the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty are being upheld in the implementation of the Directive’s offences within the member states’ justice systems, and what measures are needed to strengthen protection for these rights;
- What safeguards have been or should be introduced to protect against the discriminatory application or impact of the Directive;
- Whether civil society, including those representing victims of terrorism and groups affected by counter-terrorism measures, have been meaningfully consulted in the implementation of the Directive.
Background
The EU Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) came into force in April 2017 and was required to be transposed into member state law by September 2018.
The Commission is due to report to the European Parliament on the added value of the Directive, and whether it is fit for purpose, including on its impact on fundamental rights in October 2021.
Several of the NGOs have made submissions to the EU Consultation as part of its review.
The Fundamental Rights Agency is currently also working on a report on the impact of the EU Counter-terrorism Directive on human rights across the EU.
For further commentary on the Directive and on counter-terrorism and human rights in Europe, see:
ICJ, Counter-Terrorism and human rights in the courts: guidance for judges, prosecutors and lawyers on the application of EU Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism https://www.icj.org/eu-guidance-on-judicial-application-of-the-eu-counter-terrorism-directive/
ENAR, research on the impact of counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation policies and measures: https://www.enar-eu.org/ENAR-research-on-the-impact-of-counter-terrorism-and-counter-radicalisation
ECNL, Civic space in the era of securitized Covid-19 responses, https://ecnl.org/publications/civic-space-era-securitised-covid-19-responses
Download the statement here: EU combating directive statement_160621_ENG-2021
Mar 17, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ joined Amnesty International and other 14 NGOs to express concern at continued attacks on the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council by some States and at efforts to undermine their independence.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
Amnesty International delivers this statement on behalf of 15 NGOs.
We are deeply concerned by continued attacks on the Special Procedures and efforts to undermine their independence. We urge all states to affirm their commitment to human rights and the effectiveness of the international human rights system, by rejecting and condemning these efforts.
We welcome the continued efforts of the Coordination Committee to address objective non-compliance of mandate holders under the Internal Advisory Procedure, including in response to the failure of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy to submit his reports to the Council in time for their consideration at this session. We urge all states to support the Coordination Committee in their efforts to respond to concerns related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, as well as complaints against individual mandate holders.
At the same time, we deplore the efforts of some states to use this process as a cover to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the Special Procedures for political reasons. As on numerous previous occasions, certain states repeatedly accuse the Special Procedures of politicization but fail to substantively address the human rights concerns they raise.
We particularly regret the Russian Federation’s efforts, on 5 March, to suspend the HRC session altogether and their continued attempts, together with other states, to introduce unwarranted state oversight on the Special Procedures.
We were also alarmed to witness personal attacks on the Special Procedures, most worryingly against the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, by the Chinese delegation, who during the interactive dialogue accused the mandate holder of ‘spread[ing] false information’ and ‘lack[ing] minimum professional ethics.” Such ad hominem attacks are unacceptable, and the Council must respond in the strongest terms to condemn such incidents. They also reveal a broader rejection of dialogue on human rights challenges – despite repeated statements urging the Council to privilege ‘dialogue and cooperation’ – and a lack of willingness on the part of the state concerned to take action to protect human rights.
It is time for states at this Council to take a strong proactive stand for its independent mechanisms, ensuring that they have the support and resources needed to fulfil their mandates and to hold states accountable when they commit human rights violations.
Thank you.”
The signatories of the statement are:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Forum Menschenrechte e.V.
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Privacy International
- Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Jan 15, 2021 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted today to the European Court of Human Rights their intervention in the case of Judge Igor Tuleya who alleges that the seven disciplinary proceedings brought against him have affected his reputation as a judge and undermine the authority of the judiciary.
Judge Igor Tuleya contests that the disciplinary proceedings brought against him were in violation of his right to respect for private life and of his right to an effective remedy against violation of human rights.
The case takes place in the context of the “reform” of the judiciary in Poland, involving policy measures and legislative changes approved between late 2015 and 2020, which have seriously compromised the independence of the judiciary.
The intervention focuses on three main issues:
- The scope of application of Article 8 and Article 13 in cases relating to disciplinary proceedings against judges, in light of international standards on disciplinary proceedings and measures and effective domestic remedies; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
- The situation of the independence of the judiciary in Poland as the context in which to assess the application of Articles 8 and 13.
- The scope of Article 10 as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Tuleya_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Jul 22, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judges Mariusz Broda and Alina Bojara.
The case concerns the premature termination of their mandates as vice-presidents of the regional tribunal of Kielce in Poland. The two judges, that had been appointed to six-year terms in 2014, had their position revoked by the Minister of Justice in 2018.
The revocation was based on article 17.1 of the Law of 12 July 2017 modifying the Law on the Judicial System. This provision, presented and approved by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), gave the Minister of Justice the power to revoke courts’ presidents and vice-presidents without justified grounds and with no possibility of appeal.
The two judges applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that they had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of their mandate .
In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence, including as regards the role court presidents and vice-presidents, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Read the full intervention here: Broda_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ICJ&AI-Cases-2020-ENG.
