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.
Adan Guillermo López Lone and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanze with Katrien Witteman in the court room
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’.”
The special reporter on the independence of judges and lawyers to the UN, Gabriela Knaul, has urged the Tunisian authorities in December 2014 to implement provisions concerning the judiciary in the new constitution. This concerns in particular the provisions guaranteeing the independence of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, such as the establishment of a Supreme Judicial Council and Constitutional Court. The achievements of the new constitution must become a reality. This must be done in accordance with the timetable set out in the constitu-tion, said Knaul. She makes this statement after a fact-finding mission of nine days in Tunesia. Based on these findings, Knaul will issue a report to the Human Rights Council in June. She has requested renewed attention to the dismissal of 80 judges in 2012. 32 of these judges have appealed this decision. Knaul says that these procedures are not considered to be fair and honest and she asks the parliament to ensure due process. Judges for Judges investigating the possibility look after the interests of these judges.
Read Knaul’s speech to the Tunisian authorities at the end of her visit: [www.ohochr.org].
On February 2, 2015, five years after his dismissal as judge of the Supreme Court and two years after the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Oleksandr Volkov was reinstated as judge of Ukraine´s Supreme Court. It was a wonderful ´Christmas present´ that the Ukrainian Parliament on December 25, 2014reversed the decision of January 17, 2010 to dismiss Volkov, thereby giving effect to the following part of the Strasbourg judgement:
208. Having said that, the Court cannot accept that the applicant should be left in a state of uncertainty as regards the way in which his rights should be restored. The Court considers that by its very nature the situation found to exist in the instant case does not leave any real choice as to the individual measures required to remedy the violations of the applicant’s Convention rights. Having regard to the very exceptional circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violations of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the Court holds that the respondent State shall secure the applicant’s reinstatement to the post of judge of the Supreme Court at the earliest possible date.
What follows is the message published by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), the organisation that supported Volkov in the Strasbourg procedure) on the occasion of Volkov´s reinstatement:
Over the last years there have been more and more reports that the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka has been under pressure. Judges who took decisions that were not politically expedient had a difficult time. This cumulated into the dismissal in January 2013 of the Chief Justice of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, Mrs. Bandaranayake. This dismissal was politically motivated. She was replaced by Mohan Peiris, who had very close links with the political leadership at the time. This was reason for Judges for Judges to concern ourselves with the fate of our fellow-judges in Sri Lanka. In an open letter dated January 23, 2013, signed by more than 50 (prominent) judges worldwide, including a number of Dutch judges, the International Commission of Jurists, labelled the dismissal as ‘illegal’.
Judges for Judges is very concerned by the arrest and ongoing detention of two Turkish judges Metin Özçelik and Mustafa Başer since April 30th and the 1st of May respectively.
In a society based on the rule of law it is the duty of the government to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. But we are alarmed by this apparent serious interference with the work of these judges in politically sensitive cases.
This because there are serious indications that these two judges were arrested and detained as a result of decisions they made while discharging their professional duties rather than on evidence of criminal activity.
Tamara Trotman had a meeting in Istanbul on July 27th 2015 with Başer’s and Özçelik’s lawyers Hacer Yilmaz and Önder Durdu. Afterwards there was a pressconference in front of the Court in Istanbul where both lawyers made statements about the cases of their clients.
Op dit moment (15 juni – 3 juli 2015) vindt in Geneve de 29ste sessie plaats van de Human Rights Council (HRC) van de Verenigde Naties. Nederland is van 2015- 2017 lid van deze Mensenrechtenraad.
Deze week presenteert ook Gabriela Knaul, de Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers haar nieuwste rapport ‘Protecting Children’s Rights in the Justice System’.Rechters voor Rechters is voor een aantal bijeenkomsten uitgenodigd die in de marge van deze grote internationale vergadering plaatsvinden. Immers niet alleen de landendelegaties zijn op dit moment in Geneve, ook vele vertegenwoordigers van NGO’s op mensenrechtengebied verblijven deze weken korter of langer in deze mooie stad.