Experts Present Principles for International Criminal Judges

By: Sarah Sandoval 

Impunity News Staff Writer 

The Hague, Netherlands – For the past eight months, the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, and the Siracusa International Institute for Criminal Justice and Human Rights have been working on a project designed to unify a code of ethics for the international criminal justice system. This project, “Ethica – The path to a common code of ethics for international criminal judges,” is a result of the 2017 Paris Declaration on the Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice. 

 
Cover page of the Ethica pamphlet, which was created as part of the Ethica project | Photo Courtesy of the Nuremberg Academy
  

According to the Siracusa International Institute, the project “aims at identifying the ethical rules applicable to international criminal judges, based on concrete cases that [arose]before international criminal jurisdictions.” The principles that the project outlines have been established by a group of highly regarded international experts, who held two seminars for this purpose; one in Nuremberg on February 6, 2023, and the other in Paris on May 15, 2023. 

Though the official launch of the project is scheduled for later this month, the principles are available for viewing now on the International Criminal Court, International Nuremberg Principles Academy, and France Diplomacy websites. The pdf pamphlet outlines 25 principles in three different categories. The category of “Independence and Impartiality” includes tenets such as that “[International Criminal Judges] should exercise caution when interacting with State representatives and in particular when deciding whether to attend events organized, sponsored or cosponsored by States that may have an interest in a pending case or investigation or one likely to become so,” while one of the principles listed in the “Dignity, Integrity, and Probity” category advises International Criminal Judges to be aware of how they and their families present themselves on social media. The final category, “Career and Professional Conscience” includes a principle that states “ICJs should be physically and mentally fit to perform their functions throughout their mandate and should report any doubt about their ability to perform their judicial functions to the presidency of the tribunal.” 

The pamphlet also includes background information about how these principles should be interpreted. Specifically, it states that the ethical principles are a living document, designed to be interpreted within the broader context and “shaped by the evolution of society, technology and the needs of international criminal justice.” The principles will be presented within the next couple of months, first in Siracusa, Italy on October 13th, followed by New York, United States on October 24th, before the final presentation on November 15 in The Hague, Netherlands. 

For further information, please see: 

Ethica – Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – September 22, 2023

France Diplomacy – France supports the Ethica project on ethical issues in international criminal justice – September 2023

ICC – ICC President contributes to Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – September 26, 2023

INPA – New publication: Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – 

SII – “Ethica, towards a common code of ethics for international criminal judges” – May 2, 2023

 

ECHR Finds Turkish Court Violated Right to Freedom of Expression

By: Jacob Samoray

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations Associate Article Editor

STRASBOURG, France – In reviewing the sentencing of two Turkish nationals, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the convictions violated their Article 10 right to freedom of expression. Baran Durukan and İlknur Birol were sentenced by a domestic court for their prior social media posts. Mirroring the Turkish Constitutional Court’s holding, the ECHR also found that the practice of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgement (SPJ) was unconstitutional, striking it from Section 231 of the Turkish Constitution.

 
The Anayasa Mahkemesi, Turkey’s Constitutional Court | Photo courtesy of BBC News: Türkçe
  

Durukan was sentenced in 2018 to over a year of imprisonment for a series of posts deemed to be “propaganda in favor of a terrorist organization.” The posts included pictures and statements supporting the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and the People’s Protection Units, both listed by the government as terrorist organizations. Birol was sentenced to a ten-month internment in 2019 for an offensive tweet made in 2015 referring to the Turkish president as a “filthy thief.” Following both proceedings, the domestic court offered to suspend Durukan and Birol’s judgements under Article 231 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, which would reduce their convictions to three and five years of probation, respectively.

The ECHR, in reviewing the domestic and Constitutional Court’s findings, found that both the sentences and suspension would likely cause a “chilling effect” upon future expression, and so held that they constituted a violation of each applicant’s freedom of expression. Findings by both courts showed a lack of adequate reasoning by lower courts for suspension of judgements, as well as improper consideration of defendants’ arguments. Requests by defendants for the gathering and examination of evidence were also regularly set aside on irrelevant grounds. In addition, the ECHR noted the common practice of asking defendants to consider SPJ at the outset of litigation, likely as a means of pressuring defendants to accept the suspension to avoid a harsher conviction, while encouraging them to implicitly accept guilt for their charges.

The procedure for objecting to SPJ, the only available remedy, was also found to be ineffective, with both the Constitutional Court and the ECHR finding that sentencing courts rarely relied upon sufficient reasoning in upholding suspensions. The Constitutional Court found that neither Article 231 nor any other applicable legal provision could adequately remedy the chilling effect of SPJ, and so struck the offending language of Article 231 as unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to amend the article to eliminate the issue. The Turkish legislature, in following this order, amended the article to require that any reviewing first instance court must review SPJ decisions on the merits of the case. This amendment has been in effect since April 5, 2023.

As part of its judgement, the ECHR has also required the Turkish government to compensate each applicant €2,600 in non-pecuniary damages.

 For further information, please see:

ECHR – AFFAIRE DURUKAN ET BİROL c. TÜRKİYE – 03 Oct. 2023

ECHR – Judgment Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye – conviction of applicants “with judgment suspended” in freedom of expression cases – 03 Oct. 2023

Library of Congress – Turkey: Constitutional Court Strikes Down Rule Allowing Suspension of Pronouncement of Judgment in Criminal Cases – 18 Aug. 2023

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye – Press Release concerning the Decision Annulling the Provision Governing the Suspension of the Pronouncement of the Judgment – 03 Aug. 2023

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Condemns Rising Violence Against Journalists in Haiti

By: Molly Osinoff 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – On October 3, 2023, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (RELE) of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) published a statement condemning the increasing violence against journalists and media outlets in Haiti. The statement further urged Haitian authorities to “investigate in a thorough, effective, and impartial manner what happened, to prosecute and punish those responsible…”  

 
People carry a journalist who was tear gassed by the police during a protest over the death of journalist Romelo Vilsaint in Port-au-Prince | Photo Courtesy of the Associated Press
  

Haitian journalists have faced increasing violence in Haiti. Numerous journalists have been the victims of threats, abuse, and murder. In September 2022, while reporting in an area in the capital controlled by gangs, two reporters were fatally shot, and their bodies were set on fire. In August 2023, gunmen set fire to journalist Arnold Junior Pierre’s home. He had, weeks earlier, been assaulted by a group of unidentified people. In September 2023, at least twelve journalists fled their homes in the Carrefour Feuilles district, which is home to many journalists, in the wake of increased violence by gangs controlling the area. Media facilities have also been subject to attack. Gang members allegedly set a radio station facility on fire in July 2023. 

Haiti’s Constitution specifically addresses the right to freedom of expression. Article 28 of the Haitian Constitution protects the right to express one’s opinion freely by any means. Furthermore, the Constitution also addresses journalists. Article 28-1 states: “Journalists shall freely exercise their profession within the framework of the law. Such exercise may not be subject to any authorization or censorship, except in the case of war.” To further support journalists, the Constitution states that offenses involving the press and abuses of freedom of expression are to be considered under the code of criminal law.  

The violence journalists face is part of the rising gang violence that has been overwhelming Haiti since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Since then, no leader has been elected. Armed gangs have taken control of up to 90 percent of Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital, engaging in widespread public killing, rape, and displacement. Between January 2023 and early August 2023, according to the United Nations, more than 2,400 people in Haiti were reported killed, and more than 950 people in Haiti were kidnapped. Over 200,000 people have fled their homes. Because journalists cover the extent of gang violence, they are often the victims of brutal attacks or murders by armed gangs seeking to maintain their power. 

As RELE emphasizes, violence against journalists violates the fundamental rights of individuals and freedom of expression. Violence affects more than the journalists themselves and their family members. Instead, the violence against journalists affects society as a whole by preventing citizens from being informed about issues that truly affect their lives and poses a threat to freedom of expression. 

For more information, please see: 

AP News – 2 Journalists Killed in Haiti While Reporting on Violence – 13, Sept. 2022. 

AP News – Witnesses: Journalist Killed After Police in Haiti Open Fire – 30, Oct. 2022. 

Constitution of Haiti (1987). 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – RELE Condemns the Escalation of Violence Against Journalists in Haiti and Calls for Comprehensive Solutions with the Accompaniment of the International Community – 3, Oct. 2023. 

New York Times – Kenyan-Led Security Mission in Haiti: What to Know – 2, Oct. 2023. 

Reuters – Americas Rights Court Condemns Violence Against Haiti Journalists – 3, Oct. 2023. 

Washington Post – U.S. Embassy in Haiti Tells Americans to Leave “As Soon As Possible” – 31, Aug. 2023.  

European Court of Human Rights Finds Justice Despite Russia’s Failure to Prevent and Investigate Hate-Motivated Attacks on Members of the LGBTQ+ Community

By: Patrick Farrell,

Senior Associate Member, Journal of Global Rights and Organizations

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights issued a release on September 12, 2023, announcing its Chamber judgement in the case of Romanov and Others v. Russia (application no. 58358/14). The case concerns Russia’s failure to protect the case applicants (complainants), all members of the LGBTQ+ community from homophobic attacks at a public demonstration.  In addition, the case evaluated Russia’s failure to conduct an appropriate investigation into the incidents. 

 
The European Court of Human Rights hears cases of alleged violations of civil and political rights | Photo Courtesy of ECHR
  

The Court held that Russian authorities failed to take effective measures to prevent and respond to the hate-motivated attacks, which caused physical injury to the complainants.  Also, the Court held that Russian authorities failed to take the proper course of action to address the applicants’ complaints in Russian courts and to Russian authorities.  Importantly, the Court noted that this appeared to be common, albeit unfortunate, practice for addressing hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ+ community in Russia. 

The applicants were a group of eleven Russian nationals, all members of the LGBTQ+ community.  Between May 2012 and June 2013, seven of the applicants were attacked by counterdemonstrators while taking part in a specifically authorized LGBTQ+ demonstration in St. Petersburg. The police did not intervene. As a result, many of the applicants suffered serious injuries, including chemical burns, damage to their eyes, and physical assaults with weapons, as well as harassment and verbal abuse.  Russian authorities largely dismissed complaints about the incidents without the attackers being identified. Further, Russian authorities, without conducting a determinative investigation, denied that homophobia motivated the violence.   

Ultimately, the Court determined unanimously that Russian authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights on numerous different accounts. Such violations include: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, read in the light of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); a violation of Article 3 (effective investigation) read in the light of Article 14; a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) taken alone and read in the light of Article 14; a violation of Article 5 §1 (right to liberty and security); and a violation of Article 11.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Judgement Concerning Russian Federation – 23 Sep. 2023

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

ECHR – Judgement Romanov and Others v. Russia – 23 Sep. 2023

 

ICJ Hears First Round of Oral Arguments for Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States Intervening

By: Lauren Hile

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations Associate Articles Editor

 THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On September 18, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began hearing oral arguments for Ukraine v. Russian Federation. Ukraine brought this case against the Russian Federation in February 2022 to establish two provision measures: (1) not to be subject to false claims of genocide by Russia, and (2) not to be subjected to other state’s military operations on its territory. In presenting its claim, Ukraine relied on the Genocide Convention (the Convention) to argue that Russia has been relying on false claims of genocide by the Ukrainian government as a way to legitimize its invasion. Russia responded by arguing that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim because the ICJ may only hear claims of genocide. Claims that genocide is not happening is outside the scope of the court’s jurisdiction.

 
The International Court of Justice is in the process of hearing oral arguments for Ukraine v. Russian Federation, where 32 states have intervened on behalf of Ukraine | Photo Courtesy of Reuters.
  

The oral arguments began last week with Russia. In arguing that the ICJ lacks subject-matter jurisdiction for this claim, Russia asserted that because Ukraine insists that no genocide has occurred, and because Russia claims to have never accused Ukraine of these acts, the case should be rejected. Further, Russia argued that by bringing this claim under the Convention, Ukraine is attempting to expand the Convention to cover the legality of military operations between two states.

In its argument, Russia also stated that it invaded Ukraine in 2022 because had a right to self-defense after conflict escalated in the Donbass region of Ukraine, where the ethnicity is mostly Russia. However, when giving reasons why conflict escalated in this region, Russia cited threats of genocide coming from the “anti-Russian, neo-Nazi Kiev Régime”.

Ukraine responded to Russia’s arguments on September 19, 2023. After stating that Russia has been falsely accusing Ukraine of genocide since 2014 to lay the groundwork for its 2022 invasion, Ukraine offered four reasons why the ICJ has jurisdiction over its claim. First, the Convention has broad jurisdiction, and includes disputes that relate to how countries fulfill their treaty obligations. Second, the court’s jurisdiction is extended to disputes that are related to the Convention. Ukraine explained that Russia’s allegations that Ukraine committed genocide in violation with the convention are obviously connected with the Convention. Third, jurisdiction is extended to “particular disputes relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide.” Here, particular disputes would include whether Ukraine is really responsible for genocide, or whether Russia is violating its duties by falsely alleging genocide as an excuse to invade Ukraine. Lastly, per the Convention, “any of the parties” to a dispute under the Convention may submit the dispute to the Court to be heard. Ukraine argued “if, as Russia acknowledges, a State that levels allegations of genocide against another can ask the Court to resolve that dispute, there is no reason why a State such as Ukraine – that disputes allegations of genocide against it and illegal actions based on pretextual allegations – cannot do the same”.

Over the past year and a half, thirty-two countries have intervened in this case on behalf of Ukraine. As Germany stated in its oral observation, this unprecedented intervention “shows that the parties to the Genocide Convention have a very strong interest in its proper interpretation in the case.” Many of these countries presented oral arguments last week, echoing Ukraine’s reasoning for why the ICJ has jurisdiction over this subject-matter.

The second round of oral arguments were on September 25, with Russian opening. 

For further information, please see:

ICJ – Germany Oral Consideration Round 1 – 20 Sept. 2023

ICJ – Lithuania Oral Consideration Round 1 – 20 Sept. 2023

ICJ — Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by Ukraine — 25 Feb. 2022.

ICJ – Russian Federation Oral Argument Round 1 – 18 Sept. 2023

ICJ – Russian Federation Response to Ukraine Provisional Measures and Motional for Dismissal – 7 March 2022.

ICJ – Ukraine Oral Argument Round 1 – Sept. 19, 2023