Dec 9, 2019 | Advocacy, News
From 7 to 8 December 2019, the ICJ, in collaboration with UN Women, organized the 2019 Workshop of Judicial Committee Members on Eliminating Discriminatory Attitudes Against Women. It was held in Biratnagar, Nepal, and gathered thirty members from judicial committees in Province 1.
Judicial committees were created under Nepal’s Local Governance Operation Act, which was passed in 2017. The law laid out areas of competence of the judicial committees that gives them the potential to significantly impact the lives of women at the community level.
On the first day of the workshop, the discussions were aimed at strengthening the understanding of the members of judicial committees on women’s human rights, and the importance of eliminating gender stereotyping in their work to enhance access to justice for women. On the second day, there were more discussions on the mandate of judicial committees in Nepal and how they can take on the role of promoting and protecting women’s human rights in the country.
As ICJ’s International Legal Adviser, Ms. Boram Jang, pointed out, “Judicial committees are the first points of contact for women in Nepal when they want to access justice.”
It is because of this vital role they hold that the ICJ and UN Women have decided to focus on strengthening the capacity of judicial committee members to better understand the root causes of discriminatory attitudes towards women.
“Women victims and survivors should be able to rely on a justice system free from myths and stereotypes, and on a judicial committee whose impartiality is not compromised by these biased assumptions,” said Boram Jang.
According to Ms. Subha Gale, Programme Analyst of UN Women, “When we deprive women of their ability to access justice, we take away all their rights.”
The keynote speech during the workshop was given by Ms. Bandana Rana, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee). In her speech, she noted how Nepal has moved forward since it adopted its new Constitution, which recognizes the important role women play in the country’s development.
Ms. Bandana Rana also reminded the participants at the workshop how gender stereotypes foster narratives that are harmful for women in society. She said, “If we want to bring change, we must change these narratives. If we want equality among men and women, we must start by teaching our sons – not just our daughters – about equality and non-discrimination.”
Contact
Laxmi Pokharel, National Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists, t: +977 9851047588, e: laxmi.pokharel(a)icj.org
Dec 7, 2019 | News
The ICJ called on the Indian government to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the apparently unlawful killings by Telangana Police of the four men accused of raping and killing of Dr. Priyanka Reddy on November 27, 2019.
The men had been in police custody for over a week at the time of the killings.
“The rape and killing of Dr. Reddy is a heinous crime, and sadly only the latest in a pattern of rampant sexual violence that plagues India. The perpetrators of such acts must be held accountable,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “However, the unlawful killing of suspects in custody helps no-one. It denies victims true justice, rewards unlawful behavior by the police, and generally undermines the rule of law.”
On November 27, Dr. Priyanka Reddy, a veterinarian, was returning home when she was gangraped. Her body was subsequently burned by the perpetrators. The next day, four suspects were arrested. According to the police, they remained in custody until Friday, 6 December, when all four were shot and killed after they allegedly attempted to take weapons from the police and tried to escape during a re-enactment at the crime scene. Details of the incident remain unclear, though it has the appearance of a custodial execution.
“The suspicious circumstances of these deaths in custody, and the history of the use of extrajudicial killings in India, demands a thorough, independent and impartial investigation,” said Rawski. “The nationwide alarm at the trend of sexual violence is completely warranted. However, celebrating the unlawful behavior of police will not ultimately protect women from sexual violence or address their lack of access to justice.”
Several Indian women’s rights activist groups have also condemned the killings. A statement by the All India Progressive Women’s Association’s statement pointed out that “This is not justice. This is a ploy to shut down our demand for accountability from the police, judiciary, governments, and justice and dignity for women.” The National Human Rights Commission of India has also called for an investigation into the circumstances of the killing.
According to international standards including the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, States have a duty to investigate allegations of extrajudicial executions with due diligence and good faith, regardless of whether or not there is a formal complaint. The investigation of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions must be thorough prompt, impartial and independent, towards establishing the crime committed and prosecuting those responsible for the crimes. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India, which has condemned encounter killings, and set out guidelines for their investigation.
The ICJ urges the Indian Government to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the killings by the police, in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions, and India’s constitution and international obligations. The ICJ calls upon the courts to ensure that police officials who conduct unlawful killings are held accountable. It also calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to address the lack of an effective response from police personnel to allegations of rape and sexual violence, and to take effective lawful measures to prevent the unacceptable attacks upon victims of rape and other sexual violence seeking a remedy in the courts.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Dec 6, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.
The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.
Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.
Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.
The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.
The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.
Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict
The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.
Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.
Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.
Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.
Download
Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)
Dec 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ calls on the Polish authorities to put an immediate end to unjustified disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”.
The ICJ considers that the disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz’ was initiated because of his questioning of the Polish government’s “reforms” that have severely eroded the independence of the judiciary in Poland.
“The disciplinary action taken against Judge Markiewicz for his criticism of the government’s attack on judicial independence violates international standards on the independence of the judiciary and should be ended immediately”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Judges have a right to freedom of expression and to form and take part in associations of judges. They have a particularly important role in speaking up to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which is undermined by arbitrary disciplinary proceedings such as those against Judge Markiewicz”, she added.
By order of the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner of the ordinary court judges, on 4 December, disciplinary proceedings alleging 55 instances of misconduct were initiated against Judge Krystian Markiewicz. These include: inciting disrespect for Poland’s legal order by questioning the independence and legality of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), and the constitutionality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; and calling for appeals to the Disciplinary Chamber to be suspended.
The disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz comes within a week of the decision to suspend with immediate effect district Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn, who, in presiding over an appeal, questioned the impartiality of the judge who had delivered the original verdict as a result of being elected by the National Council for the Judiciary. On 1 December 2019, the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia organized rallies in support of Judge Juszczyszyn.
The ICJ stresses that such actions taken against judges are inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the State to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. The ICJ calls for Judge Juszczyszyn to be immediately re-instated in his post.
On 4 December 2019, the labour law chamber of the Supreme Court, in implementation of a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the UE, held that the NCJ is not an impartial and independent body, and that the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court is not a “court” under EU or Polish law, thereby confirming the concerns raised by both Judge Juszczyszyn and Judge Markiewicz.
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
Dec 6, 2019 | Events, News
This year, the ICJ collaborated with the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) to conduct workshops aimed at strengthening the ability of judicial officers, including Magistrates, to deliver judgments in line with the Constitution and international law. The workshops focused on housing rights and informal traders’ rights.
Topics covered included the social and economic context of South Africa, the role of judicial officers in ensuring the protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) and the obligation to consider international law standards.
The workshops were conducted using the ICJ Practitioners’ Guide on ESCR and tailor-made training resources that the ICJ designed and produced with SAJEI, while the European Union and the German Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen’s Zivik programme supported the training financially.
Senior magistrate and judicial educator at SAJEI Jinx Bhoola and ICJ Legal Advisor Tim Fish Hodgson facilitated the workshops with the support of ICJ Associate Legal Advisor Khanyo Farisè.
Most of the judicial officers who participated were Magistrates.
“Ensuring effective access at a magistrates’ court level is crucial as Magistrates are the judicial officers concerned with delivering justice in the majority of cases at first instance level. Besides, the majority of people living in South Africa will rarely have the means or assistance to access justice in High Courts,” Hodgson said.
The workshops aimed to introduce the international human rights law and standards framework on social and economic rights to Magistrates.
“The hope is that Magistrates will be able to more effectively perform their functions, while drawing on international law, in cases relating to housing rights and the rights of informal traders if equipped with easily accessible resources to do so,” Hodgson added.
Adding to this, Farisè said: “There is sometimes an assumption that certain groups of individuals are excluded from the rights provided for in the Bill of Rights. It must be emphasized that international human rights law and the right to dignity in the South African Constitution apply to all”.
“When considering these cases, it’s important that judicial officers including Magistrates, have a human rights approach,” Farisè added.
The workshops were well-received. “The Magistrates engaged with energy and enthusiasm with the workshop material, confident that they will be able to ensure the enforcement of socio-economic rights and the securing of access to justice for all in South Africa,” Hodgson said.
Contact:
Khanyo Farisè, Legal Adviser, e: Nokukhanya.Farise(a)icj.org
Tim Fish Hodgson (Legal Adviser), e: Timothy.Hodgson(a)icj.org
