The guidance recognizes the challenges faced by judiciaries in balancing the right to health of judges and others involved in court proceedings, with the fundamental role of the judiciary in securing access to justice, legal protection of human rights, and the rule of law.
It sets out a series of recommendations based on an analysis of relevant provisions of treaties and other international instruments, as well as international and regional jurisprudence.
While encouraging judiciaries and other authorities to seek to ensure availability of videoconferencing capabilities for litigants who voluntarily choose to use it, as well as in certain other circumstances, the guidance also highlights limits on the non-consensual imposition of videoconferencing on certain kinds of hearings, particularly criminal trials and judicial review of deprivation of liberty.
Among the topics covered are the following:
– ensuring public access to proceedings conducted by videoconference;
– the scope for videoconferencing in criminal proceedings, and the particular issues with its use in criminal trials;
– serious concerns with non-consensual imposition of videoconferencing for the judicial review of deprivation of liberty;
– essential considerations for ensuring the right to a lawyer in any use of videoconferencing.
Read also
The guidance is part of a wider body of ongoing work by the ICJ on human rights, the rule of law, and COVID-19. Other publications can be found here.
On 2-3 December 2020, the ICJ will convene the 11th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, on the Role of Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems in Access to Justice, the Rule of Law and Human Rights.
The Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) through its Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
The 8th Forum, in 2017, the 9th Forum in 2018 in Bangkok, and the 10th Forum in 2020 in Nairobi, considered the role of indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems at the global level, as well as in the particular regional contexts of Asia and Africa.
As a reference for the Forum discussions and to assist the broader range of stakeholders, the ICJ published, and has subsequently updated, a Compilation of International Sources on Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems, including relevant provisions of global and regional treaties, UN and other inter-governmental declarations, and the jurisprudence and recommendations of expert Committees and Special Procedures established by treaties and the UN Human Rights Council.
The culmination of the Geneva Forum process on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems will be the 11th Geneva Forum on 2 and 3 December 2020, followed by publication by ICJ of a final set of global recommendations.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 11th Geneva Forum will be convened online, with participants from around the world.
Participation in the Forum is by invitation only and the Forum discussions will not be broadcast.
As the sixth session if the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEWG) working on a draft treaty convenes, the ICJ welcomes the Revised Draft treaty and calls on States to work to overcome political obstacles an make substantial progress towards completing its work on this much needed treaty.
The session, which takes place from 26 to 30 October, has before it a second Revised Draft of a Legally Binding Instrument, presented by the Chairmanship of the OEWG. The ICJ welcomes this draft as a very good basis for negotiations, though it considers that certain provisions still require revision and refinement.
The session takes place in the difficult and uncertain backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, with its serious impacts on human rights such as the right to health and strains on the capacity of States and society to tackle its consequences.
The ICJ is especially concerned at the adverse impact of the restrictions imposed on civil society participation deriving from the rules adopted by the UN for the holding of meetings, while at the same time understanding that meetings cannot be held in the normal manner particularly given the recent increase of COVID cases in Geneva.
In general and with some exceptions, the Second revised Draft LBI reflects changes in the text, structure and organization of the draft articles that improve its potential to serve as an effective protective instrument, as well as increase its overall coherence. The ICJ considers the second Revised draft as a good starting point for negotiations which states should engage into without further delay.
The ICJ and Cordaid are convening a webinar series to foster dialogue among women human rights defenders and religious and customary justice actors.
This public online event takes place 20 & 21 October 2020 11:00-13:30 (CEST) / 16h00 – 18h30 GMT+7
Women’s empowerment in every aspect of their lives is reliant upon ensuring that systems of law and justice work for women. Over the years, many countries have seen an expansion of women’s legal entitlements and enhancement of their right to access justice; however, in many contexts, there is also a growing trend of invoking religion and custom to violate women’s human rights. It is in these contexts where laws and policies exist that expressly discriminate against women, posing a continuing serious challenge to women’s ability to access justice.
In response, Cordaid and the ICJ will convene a webinar series to foster dialogue among women human rights defenders (WHRDs) and religious and customary justice actors.
The focus of the exchange will be on ensuring the protection of women’s human rights and access to justice in contexts where religious and customary laws are prevalent, within a framework of rule of law and international human rights standards. Diverse WHRDs and religious and customary justice actors from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa will come together in two consecutive sessions:
Webinar 1 (Oct 20): Intersections between women’s human rights and custom and religion
Webinar 2 (Oct 21): Best practices, interventions, and obligations under international human rights law to ensure access to justice in cultural and religious contexts
Both sessions will be held on Zoom with simultaneous translation in Bahasa, Dari, English and French.
During the first webinar, the discussion will be focused on responding to the questions below:
How do custom and religion shape the ability of women to access justice?
Do pathways to justice based in custom and religion promote women’s human rights?
Do you perceive a clash between women’s human rights and pathways to justice based on custom and religion? If so, how?
Are there religious and cultural practices, which have an impact of exacerbating inequalities between men and women, and negatively affect women’s ability to defend their human rights?
How have women created space within customary and religious law to advocate for women’s human rights?
During the second webinar, the discussion will be focused on responding to the questions below:
What are the best practices and interventions, which can be adopted by States, international organisations and civil society to support positive impacts of custom and religion on women’s access to justice?
What practical measures can be adopted by States, international organisations and civil society to eliminate practices, which exacerbate women’s inequality and are barriers to pathways to justice?
What are the obligations of these actors when customary and religious law discriminate against women and prevents them from being able to defend their rights?
How have women successfully created space for advocacy within customary and religious contexts?
Documents:
Cordaid Publication: Diverse Pathways to Justice for All: Supporting Everyday Justice Providers to Achieve SDG16.3
ICJ Publication: Indigenous and other Traditional or Customary Justice Systems – Selected International Sources
IDLO report: Navigating Complex Pathways to Justice: Women and Customary and Informal Justice System
ICJ Publication: Access to Justice Challenges Faced by Victims and Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based violence in Eswatini
Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of Religion or Belief
Report of the 2017 Geneva Forum on traditional and customary justice systems
Report of the 2018 Geneva Forum on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia
Report of the 2020 Geneva Forum on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Africa
2019 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, on indigenous justice
Obstacles to Women’s and Girls’ Access to Justice for Gender-based Violence in Morocco (June 2019), in English and in Arabic
Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies (July 2019), in English and in Arabic
At the Human Rights Council, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted with concern renewed attacks against the Council’s independent experts, aimed at interfering with their independence.
The oral statement was delivered by Amnesty International, in the general debate on human rights bodies, on on behalf of 14 NGOs. It read as follows:
“It is with great concern that we note the renewed attacks against the Special Procedures of this Council, through which certain states seek to interfere with their independence and impose political oversight over individual experts. While we welcome the outcome of the informal discussions, we would like to raise a few issues of concern.
As we noted in our letter to you Madame President, the states signatories of the letters rely on PRST 8/2 of 18 June 2008 on the Terms of office of special procedure mandate-holders, which was originally adopted in the specific context of Council discussions on the extension of the terms of mandate holders, and should not be regarded as a wider framework for assessing the performance of mandate holders. Furthermore, the groups of states appear to have ignored the existing Internal Advisory Procedure, instead proceeding directly to attempts to impose political oversight by this Council.
We also note with great concern that several of the signatory states launched wholly inappropriate attacks of a personal nature against Special Procedure mandate holders in the past.1
The allegations presented against the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in particular, seem little more than objecting to her being especially effective and proactive in doing exactly what this Council has tasked her to do, including monitoring and reporting on violations of the right to life and bringing these to the attention of the Council, and promoting respect for the right to life more generally.
We appreciate the efforts by the Coordination Committee to address broader issues related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, and welcome its willingness to work with the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy on issues related to methodology and programming of the six outstanding country reports.
The independence of the Special Procedures is absolute in nature, and any attempts to erode that status threatens the credibility and integrity of this Council.
Thank you.”
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Center for Reproductive Rights
Child Rights Connect
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Geneva for Human Rights
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
Privacy International
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
🍪 We use cookies on our website to improve your experience. By clicking "Accept all", you consent to the use of all the cookies. If you'd like to control which cookies we use, please visit "Cookie settings". To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
