The setting up of a tribunal must be consistent with the rule of law and the Constitutional safeguards that are afforded to everyone in the country concerned. The judiciary like other members of society may not be subjected to violations of their fundamental human rights no matter what the charges are against them. The existence of an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cardinal features of any country governed by the rule of law. By virtue of its membership of the Commonwealth, Botswana is committed to the shared fundamental values and principles of the Commonwealth, at the core of which is a shared belief in, and adherence to, democratic principles including an independent and impartial judiciary. Any measure which is capable of being seen as eroding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, or the fundamental rights that they are entitled to as citizens or residents of the Botswana is a matter of serious concern. Continue reading CMJA Statement on the setting up of a tribunal to impeach four Justices in Botswana→
In het magazine Rechtspraak (september 2015 #03) werd aandacht besteed aan Matters of Principle en staat een interview met voorzitter Tamara Trotman.
Opkomen voor buitenlandse rechters in nood. Dat is de missie van de stichting Rechters voor Rechters. Voorzitter Tamara Trotman: ‘Je staat er soms versteld van hoe dapper die collega’s zijn.’
Een rechter die wordt ontslagen, overgeplaatst of gearresteerd. Reden: hij of zij deed een uitspraak die de machthebber niet aanstaat, ook al was het vonnis juridisch correct. Er zijn landen waar het gebeurt. ‘Omdat rechters
simpelweg hun wérk doen’, zegt een verontwaardigde Tamara Trotman, raadsheer bij het gerechtshof Den Haag en voorzitter van de Nederlandse stichting Rechters voor Rechters. Doel van deze stichting: het aan de kaak stellen van situaties waarbij de onafhankelijkheid van buitenlandse rechters in het geding is.
In het magazine Rechtspraak (september 2015 #03) werd aandacht besteed aan Matters of Principle en staat een interview met voorzitter Tamara Trotman.
In Nederland hebben we het goed voor elkaar: ons rechtssysteem behoort volgens allerlei onderzoeken tot de wereldtop. Dat rechters integer te werk gaan en te allen tijde onafhankelijk moeten kunnen zijn, vinden we niet meer dan logisch. Maar dit is niet overal in de wereld vanzelfsprekend. Wat er nodig is voor een goed rechtssysteem en aan welke gedragsregels rechters zich moeten houden, is te lezen in de nieuwe editie van Matters of Principle, Codes on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, een uitgave van stichting Rechters voor Rechters. Onafhankelijkheid, autonomie, onpartijdigheid, integriteit, deskundigheid en professionaliteit: zonder deze kernwaarden bestaat er geen goede rechtspraak, is uit het boek op te maken. ‘Matters of Principle laat de samenleving zien wat van de Rechtspraak verwacht mag worden en waar rechters voor staan. Ook bevat het verplichtingen voor staten om een goed functionerende rechterlijke macht te garanderen’, vertelt Tamara Trotman, voorzitter van de stichting Rechters voor Rechters. De organisatie zet zich in voor rechters in het buitenland die vanwege hun werk in moeilijkheden zijn of dreigen te komen. ‘Met dit boekje proberen we ook rechters in buitenlanden die het moeilijk hebben een hart onder de riem te steken’, licht Trotman toe.
The report covers the organisations’ concerns regarding the continued suppression of freedom of expression, association and assembly in the country; violations of the rights of arrested and detained persons; the absence of the rule of law, lack of external and internal independence of the judiciary; as well as the failure of Swaziland to guarantee effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession as set out in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Op uitnodiging van Monica Pinto, de speciale rapporteur voor de onafhankelijkheid van rechters en advocaten bij de Verenigde Naties, vond op 16 september 2015, eveneens in Genève, een informele bijeenkomst plaats waarvoor NGO’s als International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), Human Right Watch (HRW)) en ook Rechters voor Rechters (RR) waren uitgenodigd. In totaal waren vertegenwoordigers van zo’n 15 NGO’s aanwezig. RR werd vertegenwoordigd door bestuurslid Evert van der Molen.
Rechters voor rechters bij bijeenkomst Genève op 15 september 2015 ter gelegenheid van 25/30 jaar Basic Principles on the Independence van rechters en advocaten
Op uitnodiging van de International Bar Association’s Human Right Institute (IBAHRI) en de International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) werd op dinsdag 15 september 2015 met een bijeenkomst in het Palais de Nations in Geneve de 25/30 ste verjaardag gemarkeerd van de Basic Pinciples. Namens Rechters voor Rechters was bestuurslid Evert van der Molen hierbij aanwezig. De bijeenkomst was een “side-event” van de Mensenrechtenraad.
Judges, lawyers, prosecutors and human rights: 30 years of UN action
Tuesday 15 September 2015, 1600 – 1800
Room XXII, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Followed by a drinks reception hosted by the IBA’s Human Rights Institute
in Bar Serpent, Palais des Nations
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) invite you to attend a side event at the Palais des Nations marking the 30th Anniversary of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the 25th Anniversary of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. This side-event, taking place during the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, will look back on the progress that has been made in the protection of judges, lawyers and prosecutors over the past 30 years and the continuing challenges for implementation of the UN standards. Continue reading UN Side Event: 30 Years Protecting Legal Professionals→
The Dutch Foundation Judges for Judges — which aims to support fellow judges abroad who have experienced or may experience problems related to their profession — kindly draws your attention to the case of our Turkish colleague Murat Arslan.
Murat Arslan, chairman of Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV) was recently removed from his duty as reporter in the Constitutional Court. He was informed earlier this month by the Court’s Secretary-General that he had been relieved of his post which he had held for the past 10 years. No reasons therefore were given.
[…]
We condemn the unreasoned removal of Murat Arslan against his will to his former judicial post, we therefore ask you as the President of the Constitutional Court for reinstatement of Murat Arslan to his duty as reporter in your Court.
Guillermo Lopez Lone and Tirza Flores Lanza visited our country in November 2010. Tirza and Guillermo, appeal court judge and judge in the district court of San Pedro Sula,Hondurascalled for attention from Judges for Judges, a.o., for their then recent disciplinary dismissal. Together with two colleagues they both had taken part in a demonstration against the coup in 2009, which deposed of president Zelaya. The coup had been whitewashed by many at the time: Zelaya was supposed to have pushed an unconstitutional referendum, enabling him to extend his term of office. The Corte Suprema of Honduras supported those committing the coup. In the end the international community called the coup illegal.
Guillermo was not only a judge, but also the chairman of the Honduras’ Association of Judges Asociación de Jueces por la Democratia (AJD), which position he could no longer hold as a result of his dismissal.
Last 2nd and 3rd February the case ‘Lopez Lone and others vs Honduras’ finally came before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in de Costa Rican capital of San José. This court is a part of the Organisation of American States OAS and is charged with the duty of applying and interpreting the American Human Rights Treaty. Although there are large differences, this court is the Latin-American counterpart of ‘our’ human rights court in Strasbourg. The most important difference is that a civilian cannot bring his case before the court in San José directly. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington (DC) works as a filter. This commission is so ‘effective’, that only a handful of cases reaches the court every year.
The Commission presented the case to the court orally at the hearing. The court heard four experts on international human rights, called by the plaintiffs. These experts dwelled at length on the difference between declared enforceable rules of conduct on one hand, and the more open, ethical rules on the other. Also they referred to the question whether members of the bench are fully entitled to universally recognised human rights and liberties, or whether our profession forces us to put up with limitations of our rights. The plaintiffs referred to the experts’ arguments and claimed that the disciplinary proceedings, culminating in their dismissal, had violated the principles of fair trial, the principle of legality and their freedom of speech and assembly.
The government of Honduras rebutted that it does not suit a judge to take a political stand so explicitly. The disciplinary rules forbid to take part in political demonstrations and other behaviour that can harm the esteem of the office, and the plaintiffs just had to abide by the rules.\
The plaintiffs replied that it had been the Corta Suprema itself that had through the justice intranet called upon all to take part in a manifestation to support the coup. This was a rather explicit remark. In Honduras it is virtually impossible to keep one’s distance of political debate, just as it is in other Latin-American countries. The judges associations are politically coloured as well. The largest association in the country, the Asociación de Jueces y Magistrados de Honduras, is being reproached to rub to the government too closely, e.g. to do too little to protect its members during the recent ‘cleaning up’ of the judiciary in the ‘depuration’. This meant the dismissal or forced transfer of a great number of judges on account of actual or suspected –but unfounded- accusations of corruption. The ADJ wants to be independent, but by criticizing the government’s justice policy and in view of the government’s attacks on the independence of the judiciary, ADJ places itself in the opposition’s camp.
Aftre the oral hearing, parties have been granted an adjournment until the end of March 2015 to present their written observations to the Corta Suprema and to answer the questions raised by the Corta during the hearing. The Corta will consider the case. De judgment is expected coming June.
It was not in any way distrust in the Inter-American Court that let Judges for Judges decide to have a judge travel to Costa Rica. All together some thirty observers had been invited by the ADJ, among which, apart from Latin-American judges, colleagues from Germany, Spain, Norway and Denmark. Of course, our presence there provided important support for our four affected Honduras’ colleagues, but the subject touches all of us. In The Netherlands as well, legislation is in process allowing for an extension of the scope of disciplinary measures against judges. It is most omportant that we should realize that this may be a relatively harmless instrument in the hands of a decent administration, but it may be used against us in times of political changes for the worse.
By Katrien Witteman
Penal judge in the District Court of Noord-Holland.
“The Afiuni case has created an atmosphere of fear amongst judges, known as the ‘Afiuni effect’. Prior to the case, the IBAHRI found that Venezuelan judges were fearful of disciplinary proceedings or dismissal if they returned decisions unpopular with the executive.
As a result of the Afiuni case, in particular the multiple violations of the Covenant that have occurred throughout the process and the above-mentioned statement that her case should be considered exemplary, Venezuelan judges are now fearful of criminal proceedings and/or losing their liberty. This has caused significant damage to judicial independence in the country and as reported by the IBAHRI following its 2011 visit to Caracas, ‘Nobody wants to be the next Afiuni’.”