Oct 26, 2020 | News
A new bogus indictment against human rights defender and businessman, Osman Kavala, and US academic, Henri Barkey, for allegedly spying and attempting to overthrow Turkey’s constitutional order is politically motivated and bereft of legal credibility, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
The indictment, alleging the two were involved in the July 15, 2016, attempted military coup, demonstrates Turkey’s blatant refusal to abide by a European Court of Human Rights judgment, finalized in May 2020, which ordered Kavala’s release, and not only prolongs ongoing violations of his rights but gives rise to new ones.
An Istanbul court on October 8 accepted the indictment and has scheduled a first trial hearing against Kavala, who was been in Istanbul’s Silivri Prison since November 2017, and Barkey, who lives in the US, for December 18.
“The new case against Osman Kavala and Henri Barkey demonstrates the Turkish authorities’ flagrant misuse of the courts for political ends and their fundamental disregard for the basic principles of criminal justice,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“Defying the European Court of Human Rights order to release Kavala has confirmed the Court’s conclusion that Turkey is using detention and prosecution to silence a human rights defender.”
The 64-page prosecutor’s indictment, dated September 28, accuses Kavala and Barkey of “securing for purposes of political or military espionage information that should be kept confidential for reasons relating to the security or domestic or foreign policy interests of the state” (under Turkish Penal Code article 328), punishable with up to 20 years in prison, and “attempting through force and violence to overthrow the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey or introduce a different order or prevent this order” (article 309), punishable with life in prison without parole.
The indictment recycles unsubstantiated accusations, which previously circulated in the pro-government Turkish media, that Kavala and Barkey were involved in espionage and in the 2016 attempted military coup. The indictment provides no credible evidence linking them with any criminal activities. (Further details about the content of the indictment are provided below.)
In a December 2019 judgment, which became final on May 11, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the evidence on which Kavala was detained for the Gezi protests and the 2016 coup attempt was insufficient and agreed that Kavala’s detention and the charges against him “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as a human rights defender.”
On September 3, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, acting in its supervisory capacity for the implementation of European Court judgments, issued a decision ordering the Turkish government to ensure Kavala’s release, pointing to “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”
On September 29, pro-government media reported that the Istanbul prosecutor’s office had prepared the new indictment against Kavala and Barkey. On the same day, Turkey’s Constitutional Court postponed its review of Kavala’s application regarding the legality of his continuing detention, which had been scheduled for that day.
On October 1, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issued a second decision calling on Turkey to ensure Kavala’s immediate release, expressing “deep concern that the applicant has still not been released” and announcing that an interim resolution would be issued at the Committee of Ministers’ December 1-3 session if Kavala had not yet been released.
“Turkey is bound by the ruling from European Court to free Kavala immediately, and the ruling covers his detention under the latest case against him,” said Roisin Pillay, director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The new indictment presents no new grounds to justify his detention, and it is imperative that Turkey ends the persecution campaign against him by releasing him and dropping all charges.”
For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Turkey, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
For more ICJ work on Turkey, please visit:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Turkey-Kavala case-News-press release-2020-ENG (story with additional information, in PDF)
Oct 19, 2020 | News
Tunisian Parliament should reject the revised Draft Law No. 91-2018 on the state of emergency when it is tabled in the plenary session starting tomorrow, said the ICJ today.
The Draft Law is inconsistent with the rule of law and Tunisia’s international human rights obligations and should be considered further to ensure its compliance with international law and standards.
The Draft Law was approved by the Parliament’s Committee on Rights, Freedoms and External Relations on 15 May 2019. Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Draft Law authorize the President to declare a state of emergency for one month, renewable once, “in the event of catastrophic events” or “imminent danger threatening public order and security, the security of people and institutions and the vital interests and property of the state.”
Tunisia has remained under a continuous state of emergency since 24 November 2015.
“The Draft Law would entrench the President’s power to unilaterally determine what constitutes an emergency on broad grounds,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“It should be amended to enhance legislative oversight over the declaration of the state of emergency, provide for effective judicial review over emergency measures, and ensure that such measures do not unlawfully infringe on the enjoyment of recognized rights and freedoms.”
Under the law, regional governors could impose restrictions on movement and prohibit gatherings where necessary for “the maintenance of security and public order.” They could suspend the activities of associations that they decide act in a manner “contrary to public order and security” that “obstructs the work of the public authorities”. The Minister of Interior may also order house arrest and other measures against anyone deemed to “hamper public order and security”, including by summoning them to appear at the police station twice a day and intercepting their communications and correspondence.
The ICJ stressed that these measures risk interference with a number of rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement and the rights to liberty.
“The proposed law would entrench opportunities for Tunisian authorities to continue perpetrating abuses of human rights under arbitrarily imposed states of emergency,” said Kate Vigneswaran, ICJ’s MENA Senior Legal Adviser.
“It’s up to Parliament to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place which clearly limit the basis for imposing any restrictive measure to objective criteria and a real risk of harm, not the whims and political desires of the executive.”
The ICJ said that notwithstanding the inclusion of procedural safeguards – including registration of such decisions with reasons with the Public Prosecutor – the broad basis for the imposition of house arrest is concerning given Tunisian authorities’ abusive use of house arrest in the past.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +31-62-489-4664; e: kate.vigneswaran(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Law of Emergency-News-2020-ENG (story with additional information, PDF)
Tunisia-Law of Emergency-News-2020-ARA (story in Arabic, PDF)
Sep 18, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ called upon the responsible authorities to ensure that prompt, transparent, thorough, impartial and effective investigations are carried out of allegations of extrajudicial killings and other serious human rights violations by the Colombian police during recent street protests.
The ICJ stressed that any official responsible should be prosecuted and brought to justice and victims of any violations be provided an effective remedy and reparation.
From 9 September to 10 September 2020, mass protests against serious human rights violations by Colombian police took place in Bogota, following the death of Javier Ordóñez. Ordoñez died in police custody after he had been subjected to severe ill-treatment, including by prolonged taser shock.
The protests were met with acts of unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force by police. The protests left 13 people dead, and more than 200 injured.
The incidents have been condemned by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which pointed to allegations of unlawful detention and ill-treatment of persons arrested following the demonstrations. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also expressed concern at the allegations the use of excessive force during the protests.
According to witness accounts, police opened fire against people who were protesting peacefully. Some of the victims killed were said to be people who had not taken part in the protests and died due to stray bullets. Some videos of police conduct have been circulated on social media.
Similarly, Bogota Mayor, Claudia López Hernández, has affirmed that she had handed over videos of police shooting indiscriminately against people during the protests to the Office of the Attorney General and other authorities. In addition, she shared part of the videos on her Twitter account.
The ICJ recalls that under international standards governing the use of force by law enforcement officials, lethal force may never be used unless strictly necessary to protect life.
The ICJ stresses that investigations must be impartial and the need for investigators to be independent of the police. Equally important, the investigations must take place within the civilian rather than the military justice system.
The ICJ is also concerned at the threats received by human rights lawyers who have been working working to document possible human rights violations during the protests.
Background
The protests were triggered by the death of Javier Ordoñez, who died at a police facility (Comando de Acción Inmediata, CAI), on the early morning of 9 September.
A video shows that before being transferred to the facility, Ordoñez was repeatedly shocked by policemen with a stun gun while on the ground and did not represent any threat to life or safety the police or other persons. Initial results of the investigation, including the autopsy report, indicate that Ordoñez was hit in the head, neck, shoulders, and chest inside the police facility.
On 11 September 2020, the Police and the Ministry of Defence offered an “apology” for any violation of the law that may have been committed by the police, without acknowledging any specific wrongdoing.
Subsequently, on 16 September, the Minister of Defence recognized that Javier Ordóñez was murdered by the police. Although he stated that the Police respect peaceful protests, he also said the protests of September 9 and 10 were a massive and systematic attack against the police.
Along the same lines, on 13 September 2020, the office of the Mayor of Bogotá held a ceremony of “forgiveness and reconciliation”. The ceremony had the participation of some of the victims, who demanded justice.
On 17 September 2020, the Office of the Attorney General filed arrest warrants against two policemen involved in the murder of Ordóñez. The warrants have been granted by a judge. Both policemen had been arrested.
In accordance with Colombia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, investigations “must always be independent, impartial, prompt, thorough, effective, credible and transparent”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials require that any the use of force is exceptional, necessary, and proportional and that lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to protect life.
Colombia has been recently facing a significant increase in serious human right violations and abuses, including unlawful killings. For example, since the Peace Agreement was signed in November 2016, there has been an upward trend in the killings, death threats, and harassments against human rights defenders.
As of December 2019, the UN Verification Mission in Colombia verified 303 killings of human rights defenders and social leaders since the signature of the Peace Agreement. So far, during 2020, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia has documented 47 killings of human rights defenders and is reviewing other potential 44 cases.
Contact:
Carolina Villadiego, Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America. Email: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Rocío Quintero M, Legal Adviser, Latin America. Email: rocio.quintero(a)icj.org
Sep 7, 2020 | News
Ongoing attacks by United States officials on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its staff amount to a full-frontal assault on international justice and the rule of law, said the ICJ, today.
On 2 September 2020, the US Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, describing the ICC as a “thoroughly broken and corrupted institution,” indicated that the US would place on sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC’s Head of Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko, “for having materially assisted Prosecutor Bensouda” pursuant to the President’s 11 June 2020 Executive Order.
“The US must end these despicable and destabilizing attempts to interfere with the independence of the ICC and the functioning of its mandate to pursue justice for victims of the most serious crimes under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative.
“It is imperative that the 123 countries that are States Parties to the Rome Statute continue to work in solidarity to defend the Court and show the world that even individuals from a global superpower are subject to the rule of law.”
“Retaliating against individual ICC staff for merely working to fulfill the mandate of the Court sets a dangerous precedent and must be condemned specifically in the strongest possible terms,” added Abbott.
Background
On 21 September 2018, the ICJ, together with ten other organisations, sent a joint letter to UN Special Procedures regarding threats made by the then US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, against the ICC and its staff.
On 22 March 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst, and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, issued a press release expressing concern at Bolton’s remarks, reaffirming the important mandate of the ICC and saying they were in contact with the US authorities on the issue.
On 11 June 2020, the ICC issued a statement expressing “profound regret at the announcement of further threats and coercive actions, including financial measures, against the Court and its officials, made earlier today by the Government of the United States.” The Court said the US action “represents an attack against the interests of victims of atrocity crimes, for many of whom the Court represents the last hope for justice.”
On 18 June 2020, the ICJ urged the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures to act in response to steps taken by the United States against staff of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and their families.
On 25 June 2020, UN Human Rights Special Procedures experts issued a statement condemning US attacks on the ICC and its staff saying they “have been in contact with the US authorities on the issues.”
On 2 September 2020, the ICC issued a statement condemning the economic sanctions imposed on the Prosecutor and Phakiso Mochochoko, saying that the attacks “are unprecedented and constitute serious attacks against the Court, the Rome Statute system of international criminal justice, and the rule of law more generally.”
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 29, 2020 | Advocacy
The Sri Lankan government should end the targeted arrests, intimidation and threats against the lives and physical security of lawyers, activists, human rights defenders and journalists, the ICJ and 9 other international human rights organizations said today.
A campaign of fear has intensified since the 2019 presidential election, and has cast a shadow over the 2020 parliamentary election campaign.
The United Nations, as well Sri Lanka’s partners and foreign donors, should immediately call for full respect, protection and fulfillment of the human rights of all Sri Lankans, and particularly to halt the reversal of fragile gains in the protection of human rights in recent years.
Numerous civilian institutions, including the NGO Secretariat, have been placed under the control of the Defence Ministry. Serving and retired military officers have been appointed to a slew of senior government roles previously held by civilians.
The authorities have recently established military-led bodies such as the Presidential Task Force to build “a secure country, disciplined, virtuous and lawful society,” which has the power to issue directives to any government official. This represents an alarming trend towards the militarization of the state.
Many of those in government, including the president, defense secretary, and army chief, are accused of war crimes during the internal armed conflict that ended in 2009.
Since the presidential election in November 2019, anti-human rights rhetoric intended to restrict the space for civil society has been amplified by senior members of government.
On 6 July 2020, at an election rally, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stated that “NGOs will be taken into a special attention under the new government formed after the General Election, specifically, how foreign monies and grants are received to the NGOs from foreign countries and further, activities of the international organizations will be observed.”
The government has also announced a probe into NGOs registered under the previous government.
In the months following the November 2019 presidential election, a number of organizations reported visits from intelligence officers who sought details of staff, programs and funding, in particular, organizations in the war-affected Northern and Eastern provinces of the country. Such visits are blatant attempts to harass and intimidate Sri Lankan civil society.
In February, the acting District Secretary in the Mullaitivu District (Northern Province) issued a directive that only non-governmental organizations with at least 70 percent of their activities focused on development would be allowed to work, effectively enabling arbitrary interference with and prevention of a broad range of human rights work.
A Jaffna-based think-tank was visited several times, including soon after the Covid-19 lockdown, and questioned about its work, funding and staff details.
Lawyers taking on human rights cases have been targeted through legal and administrative processes and have faced smear campaigns in the media.
Journalists and those voicing critical opinions on social media, have been arbitrarily arrested. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed alarm at the clampdown on freedom of expression, including the 1 April announcement by the police that any person criticizing officials engaged in the response to Covid-19 would be arrested.
It is unclear whether there is any legal basis for such arrests. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has cautioned against “an increasing number of such arrests since the issuing of a letter dated 1 April 2020”.
The targeting and repression of journalists and human rights defenders is not only an assault on the rights of these individuals, but an attack on the principles of human rights and the rule of law which should protect all Sri Lankans.
These policies have a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association, which are crucial for the operation of civil society and fundamental to the advancement of human rights.
Those working on ending impunity and ensuring accountability for past crimes, and especially victims, victim’s families, members of minority communities, and networks in the Northern and Eastern provinces, are particularly at risk of intimidation and harassment.
The Sri Lankan authorities must end all forms of harassment, threats, and abuse of legal processes and police powers against lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists. Human rights defenders living and working in Sri Lanka should be able to carry out their peaceful human rights work without fear of reprisals, which requires a safe and enabling environment in which they can organize, assemble, receive and share information.
Download:
Sri Lanka-Harassment civil society-Advocacy-2020-ENG (the full statement with additional information, in PDF)
