International Judicial Monitor - Justice in Profile

ILIB

African Court on Human and People’s Rights Denies Reparations in Mtikila Case (June 13, 2014)

On June 13, 2014, the African Court on Human and People’s Rights (the Court) issued its ruling on reparations in Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania. The Court held that Reverend Mtikila was not entitled to reparations for Tanzania’s enactment of a Constitutional amendment requiring election candidates to be a member of a political party, which the Court found, in its earlier judgment of June 14, 2013, to breach Articles 2 (freedom from discrimination), 3 (equal protection), 10 (freedom of association), and 13(1) (right to participate in government) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. The Court held that the applicant had “failed to produce any evidence” to support his claim that both pecuniary and moral damage had been caused to him by the facts of this case.

East African Court of Justice Rules in Serengeti Highway Case (June 20, 2014)

On June 20, 2014, the East African Court of Justice at Arusha, First Instance Division (the Court), issued its decision in African Network for Animal Welfare v. Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court held that the proposal by Tanzania to build a highway across the Serengeti National Park was unlawful and issued an injunction restraining Tanzania from operationalizing the proposal. According to the press release, the Court found that the proposal infringed multiple articles of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, including Article 5(3)(c), which provides for “the promotion of sustainable utilization of the natural resources . . . and the taking of measures that would effectively protect the natural environment of the Partner States.”

Defense and Prosecution Discontinue Appeals Against ICC Judgment in Katanga Case (June 25, 2014)

On June 25, 2014, both the Defense and the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga case gave notice of the discontinuance of their appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (the Court) against the judgment (French language only) rendered by Trial Chamber II on March 7, 2014 (see this previous ILIB post). According to the press release, Germain Katanga “accepted the judgment of the Court and its conclusions on its role as well as his conduct,” and also indicated that he did not intend to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the Court in its judgment (French language only) of May 23, 2014. Trial Chamber II will render a decision in due course on “the possibility of reparations to victims of the crimes for which Germain Katanga was convicted.”

European Court of Human Rights and EU Fundamental Rights Agency Launch Updated Guide to European Law on Asylum, Borders and Immigration (June 25, 2014)

On June 25, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights launched an update to its Handbook on European Law Relating to Asylum, Borders and Immigration. According to the press release, the Handbook is “the first comprehensive guide to European law in the areas of asylum, borders and immigration, taking into account both the case-law of the [European Convention on Human Rights] and that of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” It also contains the relevant EU Regulations and Directives, as well as references to the European Social Charter (ESC) and other Council of Europe instruments.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Publishes Report on Freedom of Expression and the Internet (June 27, 2014)

On June 27, 2014, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a report on freedom of expression and the internet. According to a press release, “[t]he report lays out the general principles that must serve as a guide for the protection of the right to freedom of thought and expression in the digital environment, systematizes standards on this issue, and analyzes relevant best practices and international doctrine and jurisprudence.” The report was published “[i]n light of the great challenges to full protection of fundamental rights,” and will serve as a tool for those “who must face the challenges involving the defense of human rights in the digital realm.”

U.S. Ambassador Makes Statement Regarding Shift in Antipersonnel Land Mine Policy and Ultimate U.S. Accession to Mine Ban Treaty (June 27, 2014)

On June 27, 2014, the U.S. ambassador to Mozambique made a statement regarding a shift in U.S. antipersonnel land mine policy and the prospect of U.S. accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Convention). According to a news article, on the last day of the Third Review Conference of the Convention, the ambassador stated that the U.S. was “diligently pursuing solutions that would be compliant with the convention and that would ultimately allow [the U.S.] to accede to the convention.” The ambassador also pledged that the U.S. will “no longer produce or acquire antipersonnel land mines or replace old ones that expire, which will have the practical effect of reducing the estimated 10 million mines in the American stockpile.”

Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Upholds French Ban on Full Face Veil (July 1, 2014)

On July 1, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued its judgment in S.A.S. v. France, holding that France’s 2010 law “prohibiting the concealment of

one’s face in public places” did not breach Article 8 (private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to the press release, the applicant complained that the law prevented her from wearing a full-face veil in public “in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions.” The Court held that the law pursued the legitimate aim of “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others,” and in particular respect for the “minimum requirements of life in society (or of ‘living together’).” The Court held that “the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face was perceived by [France] as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier.” The Court also reasoned that the ban was proportionate to the aim pursued, despite “the risk of contributing to the consolidation of the stereotypes which affected specific groups of people and of encouraging the expression of intolerance.”

International Labour Organization Approves Amendments to the Maritime Labor Convention (June 11, 2014)

On June 11, 2014, the International Labour Organization (ILO) approved amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention. According to a press release, the amendments were adopted at the 103^rd International Labour Conference, with the “aim to further protect seafarers from abandonment and ensure rapid compensation in case of death or disability.” As such, “ships will be required to carry certificates or other documents to establish that financial security exists to protect seafarers working on board.”

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Appeals Chamber Delivers Judgment in Bizimungu Case (June 30, 2014)

On June 30, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (the Court) delivered its judgment on the appeals lodged by Augustin Bizimungu, a former Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army, and the Prosecution against Trial Chamber II’s judgment in The Prosecutor v. Augustin Bizimungu. According to the press release, the Court “affirmed, in part, Bizimungu’s convictions for genocide, extermination, murder, and rape,” in relation to certain incidents but reversed in relation to others where “the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of evidence.” The Court nonetheless affirmed the sentence of thirty years of imprisonment, “in view of the serious nature of the remaining convictions.” A summary of the appeals judgment is available here.

Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Rules on Russia’s Expulsion of Georgian Nationals (July 3, 2014)

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia (I), finding that the arrest, detention and expulsion from Russia of large numbers of Georgian nationals from September 2006 until January 2007 violated Russia’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to the press release, the Court found, upon examining the evidence, that “a coordinated policy of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals, amounting to an administrative practice, had been implemented in Russia,” which violated Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibiting the collective expulsion of aliens), Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to judicial review of detention), Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and Article 38 (obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for the effective conduct of an investigation).

Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Awards Iran Compensation for Legal Expenses Incurred in U.S. Courts (July 2, 2014)

On July 2, 2014, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) issued Award No. 602 in Cases A15 (IV) and A24. The Tribunal awarded $842,468.14 to Iran to compensate for legal expenses that Iran incurred when it was “reasonably compelled in the prudent defense of its interests to make appearances or file documents in United States courts.” The Tribunal held that the United States had not complied with its obligations under General Principle B of the General Declaration to “terminate all litigation as between the government of [Iran and the United States] and to bring about the settlement and termination of all such claims through binding arbitration,” or its obligations under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Claims Settlement Declaration, which provides, inter alia, that “[c]laims referred to the arbitration Tribunal shall . . . be considered exclude from the jurisdiction of the courts of Iran, or of the United States, or of any other court.”

India Becomes First to Ratify Marrakesh Treaty for the Visually Impaired (June 30, 2014)

On June 30, 2014, India became the first to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. According to a press release, more than seventy-five World Intellectual Property Organization member states have signed the Treaty. The treaty, adopted on June 27, 2013, “require[s] its contracting parties to adopt national law provisions that permit the reproduction, distribution and making available of published works in accessible formats—such as Braille—through limitations and exceptions to the rights of copyright rightholders.”

Arbitral Tribunal Renders Award in Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration Between Bangladesh and India (July 7, 2014)

On July 7, 2014, the Arbitral Tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Tribunal) rendered its award in the case of Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration Between Bangladesh and India, regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two states. According to the press release, the Tribunal, upon accepting jurisdiction, unanimously “identif[ied] the location of the land boundary terminus between Bangladesh and India and in determining the course of the maritime boundary in the territorial sea.” By a vote of four to one, the Tribunal agreed upon “the course of the maritime boundary line between Bangladesh and India in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles.”

Court of Justice of the European Union Finds Unlawful Legislation Requiring Basic Knowledge of the German Language for the Issue of a Visa (July 10, 2014)

On July 10, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) issued a preliminary ruling in Naime Dogan v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, finding unlawful the introduction of legislation requiring a basic knowledge of the German language as a condition for the issue of a visa to a non-resident spouse wishing to join his or her sponsor in Germany. The Court held that the legislation constituted a “new restriction” breaching the “standstill” clause in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol (unofficial translation) to the Agreement Establishing an Association Between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which prohibits the introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services. According to the press release, the Court held that the legislation was not justified by an overriding reason in the public interest because “the language requirement at issue goes beyond what is necessary” to achieve the objective of “the prevention of forced marriages and the promotion of integration.”

UNCITRAL Approves Draft Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration (July 10, 2014)

On July 10, 2014, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) approved the draft Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration (draft Convention) at its 47^th session in New York. According to a press release, “[t]he purpose of the convention on transparency is to provide a mechanism for the application of the [UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration] to arbitration cases arising under the almost 3,000 investment treaties concluded before 1 April 2014.” In light of UNCITRAL’s approval, the draft Convention “will now be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly for final consideration and adoption at its 69th session this Fall.”

ICC Appeals Chamber Rejects Appeals of Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo (July 11, 2014)

On July 11, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (the Court) confirmed by majority (Kilolo, Babala, Mangenda) the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II, which rejected the requests of Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo for interim release (Kilolo, Babala, Mangenda). According to the press release, the majority “found no clear errors materially affecting the Pre-Trial Chamber's decisions.” Judges Anita Ušacka and Erkki Kourula each wrote dissenting opinions (Kilolo, Babala, Mangenda). The accused are detained on charges of offences against the administration of justice in the case of The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo.

IACHR Welcomes New Law Banning Physical Punishment of Children in Brazil (July 11, 2014)

On July 11, 2014, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights welcomed the passing of Law No. 13.010 (Portuguese only) in Brazil. According to a press release, the law “guarantees the right of children and adolescents to education without the use of physical punishment as a form of correction or discipline or for any other pretext.” The law applies to “fathers, mothers, other members of the family, educators, public agents responsible for implementing socio-educational measures, and any other individuals in charge of caring for children, treating them, educating them, or protecting them.”

World Trade Organization Finds United States Violated Global Trade Rules by Imposing Countervailing Duties on Chinese and Indian Products (July 14, 2014)

On July 14, 2014, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued two panel reports in the cases United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (India case), and United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (China case). The WTO concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with global trade rules, and in particular certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, when it imposed countervailing duties on certain products imported into the United States from India and China. According to a news article, the United States argued that “it imposed the tariffs to combat artificially low prices on products from India and China's state-subsidised industries,” and has the right to appeal the ruling. Summaries of the key findings are available here (India case) and here (China case).

Dutch Court Finds Netherlands Liable For Deportation of Bosniak Men and Boys in Srebrenica (July 16, 2014)

On July 16, 2014, the Hague District Court (the Court) in Mothers of Srebrenica v. The Netherlands and The United Nations ruled (unofficial English translation) that the Netherlands is liable for the deportation of more than 300 Bosniak men and boys who were subsequently killed in Srebrenica in July 1995. According to the press release (unofficial English translation), the Court found that “[g]iven the information Dutchbat had about the fate of the male refugees at the time and because of the special position of the compound—a fenced-in area where they had full control—they should not have participated in the deportation.” The Court also found that “the able-bodied men staying at the compound would have survived if Dutchbat had not cooperated with their deportation.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Change of Marital Status for Transsexuals (July 16, 2014)

On July 16, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Hämäläinen v. Finland that it was not a human rights violation to require a transsexual to change her marriage to a registered partnership as a precondition to legally changing her gender from male to female. According to the press release, the Court held that there was “no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; that there was no need to examine the case under Article 12 (right to marry) of the Convention; and, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 12.” In its decision, the Court reiterated that the Convention “cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage” and that if the applicant’s claim were accepted, it “would in practice lead to a situation in which two persons of the same sex could be married to each other.”

Court of Justice of the European Union Rules on Detention of Third-Country Nationals (July 17, 2014)

On July 17, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) issued a preliminary ruling in the joined cases of Adala Bero v. Regierungspräsidium Kassel and Ettayebi Bouzalmate v. Kreisverwaltung Kleve that the detention of a third-party national must, as a rule, take place in a specialized facility and may only take place in a prison on exceptional basis. The Court held that the Directive 2008/115/EC, which provides the common standards and procedures in EU Member States for returning third-country nationals, requires “a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility.” According to the press release, this rule “applies even if the third-country national concerned has given his consent to being accommodated in prison.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Use of Metal Cages During Court Hearings in Russia (July 17, 2014)

On July 17, 2014, The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia that holding remand prisoners in metal cages during their court hearings violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). According to the press release, “the Court found that the applicants had been subjected to distress of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in their detention during a court appearance, and that, therefore, their confinement in a cage had attained the ‘minimum level of severity’ to bring it within the scope of Article 3.” The Court also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, noting that despite the complexity of the case, the length of the criminal proceedings, “which had lasted six years and ten months in the case of Mr Svinarenko and six and a half years in the case of Mr Slyadnev,” were unreasonable.

UN Reports Human Rights Violations and Possible War Crimes in Iraq (July 18, 2014)

On July 18, 2014, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report finding evidence that both the State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) committed human rights violations and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report found ISIL responsible for the “deliberate or indiscriminate targeting of civilians in a systematic manner, the use of civilians as shields, and hindering civilians from access to humanitarian assistance or areas of safety,” which “constitute serious violations of IHL, IHRL, and the laws of Iraq and may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Similarly, the report found that ISF and affiliated forces committed violations that may constitute a war crime, “including summary executions/extrajudicial killings of prisoners and detainees” as well as, “on occasion, lack of adherence to the principle of distinction and proportionality or failures to take necessary precautions to protect civilians in carrying out military operations.”

UNHCHR Releases Report on Privacy in the Digital Age (July 18, 2014)

On July 18, 2014, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report entitled “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age.” The report concludes, inter alia, that “[i]nternational human rights law provides a clear and universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data.” It also finds, inter alia, a “disturbing lack of governmental transparency associated with surveillance policies, laws and practices, which hinders any effort to assess their coherence with international human rights law and to ensure accountability.” In December 2013, the UN General Assembly had requested UNHCHR “to submit a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance and/or the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data, including on a mass scale.”

US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves Disability Treaty (July 22, 2014)

On July 22, 2014, in a vote of twelve to six, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The purpose of the Treaty “is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” Currently, 147 countries are parties to the Treaty.

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution Authorizing Aid to Syria (July 14, 2014)

On July 14, 2014, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2165, in which it decided “that the United Nations humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners are authorized to use routes across conflict lines and the border crossings of Bab al-Salam, Bab al-Hawa, Al Yarubiyah and Al-Ramtha, in addition to those already in use, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance.” It also “[s]trongly condemn[ed] the continuing widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities, as well as the human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law by armed groups.” As noted previously, earlier this year the Syrian government refused consent to cross-border aid despite Security Council Resolution 2139, which demanded humanitarian access across conflict lines and borders.

Arbitral Tribunal Issues Award of $50 Billion in Three Arbitrations Between Russia and Former Shareholders of Yukos (July 18, 2014)

On July 18, 2014, arbitral tribunals established under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ruled in three arbitrations that the Russian Federation must pay $50 billion for expropriating the assets of OAO Yukos Oil Company (Yukos). According to the press release, “the arbitral tribunals unanimously held that the Russian Federation had taken measures with the effect equivalent to an expropriation of Claimants’ investments in Yukos and thus had breached Article 13(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty.” A news article stated that the decision was in relation to “decisions made under President Vladimir Putin's rule during his first term as president to nationalise Yukos” and that the arbitral tribunals determined “Russian authorities had subjected Yukos to politically-motivated attacks.”

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Publishes Report on Violence Against Journalists and Media Workers (July 21, 2014)

On July 21, 2014, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a report, entitled “Violence Against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators.” According to a press release, the report was created “[i]n response to the grave acts of violence committed against journalists and media workers in the region,” and “reviews international standards and domestic best practices on the prevention of crimes against journalists, the protection of journalists, and the struggle against impunity in crimes against them.” It also includes “recommendations . . . to improve protection of journalists and further the fight against impunity for the crimes that have been committed.”

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution Regarding Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 (July 21, 2014)

On July 21, 2014, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2166 in response to the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 in Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Condemning “in the strongest terms the downing of” the flight, the resolution “[r]eaffirm[s] the rules of international law that prohibit acts of violence that pose a threat to the safety of international civil aviation,” and “[d]emands that those responsible for this incident be held to account and that all States cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability.” As such, the Security Council “demands that the armed groups in control of the crash site and the surrounding area refrain from any actions that may compromise the integrity of the crash site. . . and immediately provide safe, secure, full and unrestricted access to the site and surrounding area for the appropriate investigating authorities.”

UN Compensation Commission Makes Available $1.2 Billion in Reparations to Kuwait (July 24, 2014)

On July 24, 2014, the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) made $1.19 billion available to the Government of Kuwait as part of the $14.7 billion it previously awarded the Kuwaiti Government for a claim it submitted on behalf of the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. According to the press release, the Commission “awarded $14.7 billion in 2000 for oil production and sales losses as a result of damages to Kuwait’s oil field assets.” The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII, established the UNCC in 1991 to process claims and pay compensation for losses stemming from Iraq’s 1990 unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. To date, the UNCC has awarded approximately $52.4 billion to over 100 Governments, international organizations, and individuals for distribution to 1.5 million claims.

European Court of Human Rights Rules on CIA Secret Rendition and Detention in Poland (July 24, 2014)

On July 24, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Chamber judgments on Al Nashiri v. Poland and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland that Poland had violated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) in regard to the two applicants’ allegations of torture, ill-treatment, and secret detention at a CIA “black site” in Poland after they were suspected of terrorist acts. According to the press release, the Court found in both cases that Poland had failed to comply with Article 38 of the Convention (obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for the effective conduct of an investigation), and that in both cases there had been “a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, in both its substantive and procedural aspects; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security); a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).” In Al Nashiri, the Court also held that Poland had violated “Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 (abolition of the death penalty).”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Cyber Crime Suspect’s Extradition to the US (July 24, 2014)

On July 24, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Čalovskis v. Latvia that a suspect indicted for cybercrime-related offenses would not be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if he was extradited to the U.S. The Court held the applicant’s argument that “if extradited to the United States he would be subjected to torture and a disproportionate prison sentence” did not reach the threshold required to show a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). According to the press release, the Court also found “a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of Mr Čalovskis being placed in a metal cage during a court hearing; a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) as concerned the lack of judicial review of Mr Čalovskis’ pre-extradition detention; and . . . by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) as concerned the authorisation of Mr Čalovskis’ pre-extradition detention.”

Assembly of the African Union Adopts Legal Instruments at its 23rd Ordinary Session (June 27, 2014)

From June 26–27, 2014, the Assembly of the African Union at its 23rd Ordinary Session adopted the Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. According to a news story, the proposed amendments include a provision that “[n]o charges shall be commenced or continued before the Court against any serving African Union Head of State or Government, or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity, or other senior state officials based on their functions, during their tenure of office.” The Assembly also adopted, inter alia, the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Monetary Fund, African Convention on Cross Border Cooperation (Niamey Convention), and the Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the African Union on the Pan-African Parliament.

ICC Appeals Chamber Confirms Inadmissibility of Case Against Abdullah Al-Senussi (July 24, 2014)

On July 24, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed in The Case of the Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I declaring inadmissible the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi. According to the press release, the Appeals Chamber determined “that there were no errors in the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber that Libya is not unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute Mr Al-Senussi, or in the exercise of its discretion in the conduct of the proceedings and in the evaluation of the evidence.” Judge Sang-Hyun Song and Judge Anita Ušacka wrote separate opinions.

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Question of Just Satisfaction in Yukos v. Russia Case (July 31, 2014)

On July 31, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled on the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention on Human Rights in Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, ordering the Russian Federation to pay 1,866,104,634 euros in pecuniary damages to the shareholders of Yukos and another 300,000 euros for costs and expenses to the Yukos International Foundation. According to the press release, “the case concerned the tax and enforcement proceedings brought in 2004 against the Russian oil company, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (Yukos), which eventually led to its liquidation in 2007.” The Court’s decision comes in the wake of a ruling by an arbitral tribunal at the Hague that Russia must pay a group of Yukos shareholders $50 billion for expropriating its assets.

The Istanbul Convention Enters into Force (August 1, 2014)

On August 1, 2014, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention, entered into force. Adopting legally-binding standards, the Convention, “appl[ies] to all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, which affects women disproportionately.” According to a news article, “[t]his is the first time that gender-related persecution is explicitly mentioned in an international convention.” As such, the Convention “requires state parties to ensure that gender-based violence against women may be recognized as a form of persecution and to ensure that the grounds for asylum listed in the 1951 Refugee Convention are interpreted in a gender-sensitive manner.”

UN Secretary-General Condemns Attack Near UN School in Gaza as a Violation of International Law (August 3, 2014)

On August 3, 2014, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the shelling outside of a United Nations School in Gaza, which was housing thousands of civilians, as a violation of international humanitarian law. According to a news article, the Secretary-General stated that “[t]he attack is yet another gross violation of international humanitarian law, which clearly requires protection by both parties of Palestinian civilians, UN staff and UN premises, among other civilian facilities.” The statement was released “after the collapse . . . of a humanitarian ceasefire brokered by the United Nations and the Unites States, and in the wake of two earlier reported attacks near schools managed by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.”

UN Praises Annulment of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Law (August 1, 2014)

On August 1, 2014, the UN welcomed the decision of the Constitutional Court of Uganda (the Court) to annul the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act. According to a news article, the anti-homosexuality law, which was promulgated in February, made “aggravated homosexuality” punishable by life in prison. The Court ruled that the law “was invalid because it had been passed by Parliament without proper quorum.” The Court’s ruling “on narrow technical grounds, preserv[es] the possibility that the measure could be revived.”

ICC and MERCOSUR Parliament Conclude Framework Cooperation Arrangement (August 4, 2014)

On August 4, 2014, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Parliament of MERCOSUR concluded an Exchange of Letters for the establishment of a Framework Cooperation Arrangement between the two entities. According to the press release, “the two organisations agreed to develop their mutual cooperation on matters of common interest” and foresee the Arrangement as helping to “intensify the involvement of MERCOSUR and its Member States in the international criminal justice system.” In his remarks at the signing ceremony, ICC President Sang-Hyun Song noted that “every one of the 12 MERCOSUR Member States is a State Party to the Rome Statute.”

Argentina Seeks to Institute Proceedings Against the US Before the ICJ (August 7, 2014)

On August 7, 2014, Argentina submitted an application to the International Court of Justice (the Court) regarding a “[d]ispute concerning judicial decisions of the United States of America relating to the restructuring of the Argentine sovereign debt.” According to the press release, Argentina “contends that the United States of America has committed violations of Argentine sovereignty and immunities and other related violations as a result of judicial decisions adopted by US tribunals concerning the restructuring of the Argentine public debt.” The Court has transmitted the application to the US Government, though “no action will be taken in the proceedings unless and until the United States of America consents to the Court’s jurisdiction in the case.”

ECCC Sentences Khmer Rouge Leaders to Life in Prison (August 7, 2014)

On August 7, 2014, the Trial Chamber of the UN-backed Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (the Court) found Nuon Chea and Kieu Samphan, leaders of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge regime, guilty of crimes against humanity committed between April 1975 and December 1977 and sentenced them to life in prison. According to the press release, the Court found that both Nuon Chea and Kieu Samphan “were, through their participation in the joint criminal enterprise, found to have committed the crimes against humanity of murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts [. . .]; political persecution and other inhumane acts [. . .]; and murder and extermination through executions of Khmer Republic officials at Tuol Po Chrey.” In referencing the victims of the crimes, the Court also “endorsed the implementation of 11 reparation projects that have been designed to appropriately acknowledge the harm suffered by Civil Parties as a result of the commission of the crimes at issue.”

UN Launches Youth Mental Health Report Coinciding with International Youth Day (August 12, 2014)

On August 12, 2014, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs launched its publication, “Mental Health Matters: the Social Inclusion of Youth with Mental Health Conditions.” According to a news article, the report was “launched to coincide with International Youth Day which this year shines a spotlight on the importance of mental health.” Noting that “one-fifth of the young people around the world experience a mental health condition,” the report seeks “to draw on available research to raise awareness of youth mental-health conditions among relevant stakeholders and to start a global conversation regarding strategies for addressing the challenges faced by young people, with the overarching goal of fostering their economic and social integration.”

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution Approving Sanctions Against Militants in Iraq and Syria (August 15, 2014)

On August 15, 2014, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2170, “[e]xpressing its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF).” Acting under Chapter VII, the Security Council “[d]eplores and condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist acts of ISIL and its violent extremist ideology, and its continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.” According to a news article, the “[o]ngoing turmoil in northern Iraq has led the UN to designate its highest level emergency – ‘Level 3’ – for the resultant humanitarian crisis, citing the scale and complexity of the situation, which is impacting tens of thousands of people that have been forcefully displaced by the armed group, Islamic State.”

IACHR Publishes Report on the Human Rights of Migrants and Others in Mexico (August 18, 2014)

On August 18, 2014, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a report titled “Human Rights of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in Mexico.” The report’s purpose is to “assess the human rights situation of the international and domestic migrants in the context of human mobility in Mexico and to make recommendations to ensure that the migration and immigration policies, laws and practices in the United Mexican States . . . comport with the international human rights obligations it has undertaken to protect migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, victims of human trafficking and the internally displaced persons.” According to the report, “[a]t the present time, the extreme vulnerability of migrants and other persons to the heightened risks of human mobility in Mexico is one of worse human tragedies in the region, involving large-scale and systematic human rights violations.”

WTO Panel Rules Against Argentina in Import Restrictions Decision (August 22, 2014)

On August 22, 2014, an independent panel at the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against Argentina in response to complaints brought by the United States, the European Union, and Japan regarding “certain measures imposed by Argentina on the importation of goods.” According to a news article, “[t]he panel of three independent arbitrators found that Argentina's licensing rules violated WTO agreements, and urged the government of President Cristina Fernandez to bring them in line with international trade rules.” Argentina now has sixty days to submit an appeal of the panel’s decision to the WTO.

UN Security Council Renews Mandate of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (August 26, 2014)

On August 26, 2014 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2172, which extends the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) until August 31, 2015. According to a news article, the Security Council “strongly called on all parties concerned to respect the cessation of hostilities, to prevent any violation of the Blue Line and to respect it in its entirety and to cooperate fully with the UN and the peacekeeping force.” UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force, “which was first established in 1978, [and] is tasked with ensuring that the area between the so-called Blue Line separating Israel and Lebanon and the Litani River is free of unauthorized weapons, personnel and assets.”

Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone Grants Moinina Fofana Conditional Early Release (August 11, 2014)

On August 11, 2014, the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone (RSCSL) granted Moinina Fofana Conditional Early Release, to be implemented after he has served six more months in prison. According to the press release, during his six remaining months in prison, the RSCSL Registrar and the Rwandan Prison Authorities “will certify that he understands the nature and seriousness of the crimes for which he was convicted, that he understands that what may be a legitimate cause does not justify the use of illegal means, and that he acknowledges his own responsibility and the leadership role he played in the armed conflict in Sierra Leone.” The decision will also “allow Fofana to eventually serve the remainder of his sentence in his community, subject to strict conditions and monitoring.” Fofana, who was the former Civil Defence Forces Director of War during the armed conflict in Sierra Leone, was originally sentenced to five years in prison for crimes against humanity in 2007, which was raised to fifteen by the Appeals Chamber in 2008. Fofana is the first individual convicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone to receive Conditional Early Release.

IACHR Congratulates Mexican Supreme Court for Adoption of Protocol Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (August 29, 2014)

On August 29, 2014, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights congratulated the Mexican Supreme Court for the adoption of a Protocol (Spanish only) involving sexual orientation and gender identity. According to a press release, the Protocol is “aimed at aiding judges in deciding cases related to sexual orientation and gender identity in conformity with human rights and internationally recognized and binding human rights standards.” Although not binding, “the Protocol identifies some common stereotypes and misconceptions about LGBTI persons, which usually hinder their right to access to justice free from discrimination in various spheres, such as gender identity recognition, family life and relationships, work and employment, violence and the criminal system, health, education, deprivation of liberty, and freedom of expression and association.”

UN Secretary-General Urges Renewed Commitment to World Free of Nuclear Weapons (August 29, 2014)

On August 29, 2014, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a renewed commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. According to a news article, at the initiation of Kazakhstan, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/35 in December 2009, declaring August 29 the International Day against Nuclear Tests. The resolution “calls for increasing awareness and education ‘about the effects of nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions and the need for their cessation as one of the means of achieving the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.’” Accordingly, the International Day against Nuclear Tests “is meant to galvanize the UN, Member States, and non-governmental organizations to inform and advocate the necessity of banning such tests.”

Human Rights Council Holds Special Session on Iraq and Passes Resolution Requesting a Mission to Iraq (September 1, 2014)

On September 1, 2014, the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) held a “Special Session on the human rights situation in Iraq in light of abuses committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated groups” after receiving a request for a special session from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the Council. According to a press release, the Council also adopted a resolution requesting that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “urgently dispatch a mission to Iraq to investigate alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law” by these groups. In the resolution, the Council condemned “systematic violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law” and stressed that “[t]hose responsible for such violations of international humanitarian law or violations and abuses of human rights law must be held to account.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Terrorism Suspect’s Extradition to the US (September 4, 2014)

On September 4, 2014, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Trabelsi v. Belgium that Belgium’s extradition of a Tunisian national to the US, where he is being prosecuted for terrorist offenses and is liable to life imprisonment, entailed a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). According to the press release, “[t]he Court considered that the life sentence to which Mr Trabelsi was liable in the United States was irreducible inasmuch as US law provided for no adequate mechanism for reviewing this type of sentence, and that it was therefore contrary to the provisions of Article 3.” The Court noted that Belgium had acted in breach of interim measures from 2011 where the Court had “indicated to the Belgian Government that it should not extradite Mr Trabelsi to the United States.” The Court also held that Belgium is to pay the applicant €60,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €30,000 for costs and expenses.

UN Releases Guidelines for Child Online Protection (September 5, 2014)

On September 5, 2014, United Nations agencies and partners of the Child Online Protection Initiative released new guidelines entitled, “Guidelines for Industry on Child Online Protection.” The guidelines “are aimed at establishing the foundation for safer and more secure use of internet-based services and associated technologies for today’s children and future generations.” According to a press release, the guidelines, which were “developed in alignment with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Children’s Rights and Business Principles,” seek to “provide advice on how the information and communications technology (ICT) industry can help promote safety for children using the Internet or any technologies or devices that can connect to it, as well as guidance on how to enable responsible digital citizenship, learning and civic participation.”

ICC Issues Arrest Warrant Against Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain (September 11, 2014)

On September 11, 2014, Trial Chamber IV of the International Criminal Court (the Court) issued an arrest warrant against Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain regarding charges of war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur, Sudan. According to the press release, Trial Chamber IV had previously requested the Government of Sudan's cooperation to facilitate the accused's presence at trial, but because such assistance has not been forthcoming and there were no guarantees the accused would voluntarily appear before the Court, Trial Chamber IV “concluded that an arrest warrant is now necessary to ensure the accused's presence.” Abdallah Banda faces charges of “violence to life in the form of murder, whether committed or attempted; intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission; and pillaging,” which were allegedly committed in 2007 against the African Union Peacekeeping Mission in Sudan.

Court of Justice of the European Union Rules on Entry Requirements for Third-Country Nationals Entering the EU (September 4, 2014)

On September 4, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) ruled in Air Baltic Corporation AS v Valsts robežsardze that third-country nationals may enter the territory of the European Union if they present a valid visa inside an invalid passport in addition to a valid passport. According to the press release, the case concerned an individual who “presented a valid Indian passport without a visa and a cancelled Indian passport to which a valid uniform visa issued by Italy was affixed. The Indian citizen was refused entry into Latvia on the ground that he did not have a valid visa.” In its decision, the Court held that “under the Visa Code, only the competent authorities of a Member State may annul a visa” and so the cancellation of a passport does not automatically cancel a visa inside it as well. The Court also found “that Latvia was not justified in making the entry of third-country nationals subject to the condition that a valid visa must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document. Member States do not have discretion allowing them to refuse foreign nationals entry on the basis of a condition that is not laid down in the Schengen Borders Code: accordingly, nothing in that code allows Member States to require additional entry conditions to be fulfilled, as the list of those conditions is exhaustive.”

Court of Justice of the European Union Confirms Third-Country National Students Have a Right of Entry (September 10, 2014)

On September 10, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) ruled in Ben Alaya v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland that a Member State must admit a third-country national who wishes to stay in the country more than three months for study purposes if that national meets the general and specific conditions listed in an EU Directive dealing with the conditions for such admissions. According to the press release, the Court noted “that the directive is intended to promote the mobility of students from third countries to the EU in order to promote Europe as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training. To allow a Member State to introduce additional conditions for admission would be contrary to that objective.” The Court also stated that States are granted a measure of discretion in considering applicants for admission, but that this “relates only to the conditions laid down by the directive and, within that context, to the assessment of the relevant facts.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Detention of Iraqi National by British Armed Forces During 2003 Hostilities (September 16, 2014)

On September 16, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Hassan v. The United Kingdom that the capture and detention of Tarek Hassan in Iraq by British armed forces during hostilities in 2003 did not constitute a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 or 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that complaints under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) were inadmissible for lack of evidence. According to the press release, “[t]he Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Tarek Hassan had been ill-treated while in detention or that the UK authorities had in any way been responsible for his death, which had occurred some four months after his release from Camp Bucca in a distant part of the country not controlled by the British forces.” The Court also rejected the UK’s argument that Hassan had not been within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, but held that Hassan’s capture and detention were “consistent with the powers available to the UK under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and had not been arbitrary.”

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution Declaring Ebola Outbreak a Threat to International Peace and Security (September 15, 2014)

On September 15, 2014, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2177, “[d]etermining that the unprecedented extent of the Ebola outbreak in Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security” and calling on Member States to respond urgently to the emergency while also refraining from isolating the affected countries. In the Resolution, the Security Council “[e]xspresses concern about the detrimental effect of the isolation of the affected countries as a result of trade and travel restrictions imposed on and to the affected countries,” and “[c]alls on Member States, including of the region, to lift general travel and border restrictions, imposed as a result of the Ebola outbreak, and that contribute to the further isolation of the affected countries and undermine their efforts to respond to the Ebola outbreak.”

Court of Justice of the European Union Holds European Union not Liable for Restrictive Measures against Member of Zimbabwe Government (September 18, 2014)

On September 18, 2014, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) rejected claims for damages brought by Mr. Aguy Clement Georgias regarding his detention at Heathrow Airport due to restrictive measures (freezing of funds and prohibition of entry into or transit through the territory of the European Union) that the Council of the European Union had imposed against him as a member of the Zimbabwe Government. According to the press release, the Court held that any damage relating to Mr. Georgias detention at Heathrow “arose directly from a decision of the British authorities taken in the exercise of their sovereign powers (namely, powers relating to controlling the entry of citizens of non-member countries to British territory).” The Court further held that “the imposition and maintenance of the restrictive measures against Mr Georgias by the Council were valid. Therefore, one of the conditions necessary for the EU to incur liability, namely, unlawful conduct on the part of the institution concerned, is not satisfied.”

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Upholds Award for El Paso against Argentina (September 22, 2014)

On September 22, 2014, a Tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Tribunal) upheld an award for US $42 million in favor of US-based El Paso Energy International Company against Argentina regarding the state’s actions in response to its 2001 financial crisis. The decision notes that the Tribunal in the original arbitration “concluded that Argentina had breached its obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment to El Paso’s investment, under the BIT [Treaty between the Argentine Republic and the United States of America concerning Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments].” Regarding Argentina’s request for annulment of that award, the ICSID Tribunal stated “there was no violation of due process or the right of defense, as fundamental rules of procedure. Argentina had the opportunity to defend itself and to express its point of view on the effect of the measures that it adopted during the crisis, and on the general legal framework” and decided that the request was “dismissed in its entirety.”

ICC Prosecutor Opens Second Investigation into the Central African Republic (September 24, 2014)

On September 24, 2014, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, issued a report on the situation in the Central African Republic (CAR) concluding “there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the Situation in the CAR II” in regard to events that have taken place since 2012. According to the press release, in February 2014, Bensouda began a new preliminary investigation into alleged crimes in CAR, and in May 2014, the transitional government of CAR referred the situation to the Office of the Prosecutor. After a review of the information, Bensouda concluded that there is “a reasonable basis to believe that both the Séléka and the anti-balaka groups have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder, rape, forced displacement, persecution, pillaging, attacks against humanitarian missions and the use of children under fifteen in combat.”

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution Regarding Foreign Terrorist Fighters (September 24, 2014)

On September 24, 2014, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2178 regarding foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria. Acting under Chapter VII and “[n]oting the continued threat to international peace and security posed by terrorism,” the Security Council, “[c]ondemns the violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism, sectarian violence, and the commission of terrorist acts by foreign terrorist fighters, and demands that all foreign terrorist fighters disarm and cease all terrorist acts and participation in armed conflict.” In the Resolution, the Security Council also “[u]rges Member States, in accordance with domestic and international law, to intensify and accelerate the exchange of operational information regarding actions or movements of terrorists or terrorist networks, including foreign terrorist fighters.”

UNHCR Expresses Concern Over Departure from International Norms in Australia-Cambodia Agreement on Refugee Relocation (September 26, 2014)

On September 26, 2014, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concern over the recent agreement between Australia and Cambodia on refugee relocation, entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of The Kingdom of Cambodia and The Government of Australia, Relating to The Settlement of Refugees in Cambodia.” According to a news article, under the agreement, “Australia will relocate refugees currently being held on the Pacific island of Nauru to Cambodia.” As such, “people who are recognized as refugees in Nauru will be offered permanent settlement in Cambodia and are barred from settlement in Australia.” UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres called the agreement a “departure from international norms” while also stating “[i]t’s crucial that countries do not shift their refugee responsibilities elsewhere.”

Dutch Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award for Chevron against Ecuador (September 26, 2014)

On September 26, 2014, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld (Dutch only) an arbitration award of US$106 million with post-award interest in favor of Chevron and its affiliates, Texaco Petroleum Co., against Ecuador. The award was in relation to an oil extraction and exploitation concession agreement in the Amazon territory from 1964, which Ecuador allegedly breached. According to the press release, Chevron initiated proceedings against Ecuador under a 1997 Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between Ecuador and the US, arguing that their “claims should be deemed ‘investments’ within the meaning of the BIT,” while Ecuador argued that they “could not be regarded as investments and that the arbiters were therefore not competent to rule on the dispute.” The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was free to determine that Chevron’s claims should be regarded as “investments” and that “that although the arbitration may have impinged on Ecuador’s national sovereignty to a certain extent, this was a consequence of the treaty (i.e. the BIT) that it had chosen to conclude with the US and the remarkably wide definition of the concept of investment contained in it, a definition that deviates from the term’s common usage.”

Arms Trade Treaty to Enter into Force with 50^th Ratification (September 28, 2014)

On September 28, 2014, eight states ratified the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), bringing the total number of states parties to 53. According to Article 22 of the ATT, the “Treaty shall enter into force ninety days following the date of the deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.” The object of the Treaty is to “[e]stablish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms,” and to “[p]revent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion.”

ICTR Appeals Chamber Delivers Judgments in Three Cases (September 29, 2014)

On September 29, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR (Appeals Chamber) delivered judgments in the cases of Édouard Karemera and Matthieu Ngirumpatse; Ildéphonse Nizeyimana; and Callixte Nzabonimana. According to the press release, “[t]he Appeals Chamber reversed certain findings of the Trial Chamber, which, however, did not result in the overturning of any of Karemera’s or Ngirumpatse’s convictions” and affirmed their life sentences. In the case of Nizeyimana, the Appeals Chamber affirmed a number of his convictions, but also “found that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding, as the only reasonable inference, that Nizeyimana planned the attack on Cyahinda Parish and authorized the participation of ESO soldiers therein” and contributed to the killing of Pierre Claver Karenzi. The Appeals Chamber reversed several convictions related to these events and therefore reduced his sentence to thirty-five years. In the case of Nzabonimana, the Appeals Chamber reversed several of his convictions, but affirmed his sentence of life imprisonment.

Ten Year Anniversary of UN/ICC Relationship Agreement (October 3, 2014)

On October 3, 2014, the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC) celebrated the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Relationship Agreement, recommitting to the relationship between the two organizations. According to a news article, under the agreement, which entered into force on October 4, 2004, “the ICC and the UN recognize each other’s mandates and status, and agree to cooperate and consult each other on matters of mutual interest.” According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and ICC President Judge Sang-Hyun Song, the agreement was founded “on the shared belief that peace can only be served if those responsible for the suffering of the victims of unimaginable atrocities are brought to justice.”

Appeals Panel at Special Tribunal for Lebanon Decides on Jurisdiction in Case STL-14-05 (October 2, 2014)

On October 2, 2014, an Appeals Panel of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) decided in an appeal related to Case STL-14-05 that the STL has jurisdiction to hear cases of obstruction of justice against legal persons. In its decision, the Appeals Panel found “that the ordinary meaning of the word ‘person’ in a legal context can include both natural human beings and legal entities.” In their reasoning, the Appeals Panel determined that “[i]n light of the Tribunal's inherent power to protect the integrity of its proceedings, the need to uphold the rule of law, execute and maintain the administration of justice; and domestic developments and evolving international law standards, the Appeals Panel considers that it is in the interests of justice to interpret the Tribunal's personal jurisdiction under Rule 60 bis as encompassing legal persons.” According to the press release, the decision “means that the case against New TV S.A.L will proceed at the same time as the case against Ms Karma Al Khayat.”

European Court of Human Rights Declares Inadmissible Case Concerning Assisted Suicide (September 30, 2014)

On September 30, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) declared inadmissible the case of Gross v. Switzerland, which concerned the inability of an elderly woman, who was not suffering from a clinical illness, to obtain the Swiss authorities’ permission to be given a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit suicide. According to the press release, the Court found that because the applicant had committed suicide in 2011, but taken steps to keep this information from her attorney so that her case might still move forward, “her conduct had constituted an abuse of the right of individual application (Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention).” Although the previous Chamber decision found that Swiss law was unclear as to when assisted suicide was permitted and “that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights,” the Chamber’s findings are no longer legally valid.

Afghanistan and U.S. Sign Bilateral Security Agreement (September 30, 2014)

On September 30, 2014, American and Afghan officials signed a bilateral security agreement, which will allow about 12,000 foreign troops to remain in Afghanistan after the end of the year. According to a news article, the agreement “will allow 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on Dec. 31. Most of them will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions.” Under the agreement, “both countries have the right to withdraw from the pact in two years.”

UN Human Rights Council Adopts Thirty-Two Resolutions at its Twenty-Seventh Session (September 26, 2014)

On September 26, 2014, the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) concluded its twenty-seventh session, having adopted thirty-two resolutions on a variety of issues. According to a press release, the Council adopted resolutions “on sexual orientation and gender identity, on the deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation in Syria, on civil society space, and on foreign debt.” Additional resolutions included those on “technical assistance and capacity building, including in Yemen and Sudan, the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, and on the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities. Other resolutions were adopted on the recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries, as well as the role of local government in the promotion and protection of human rights, using sport and the Olympic ideal to promote human rights for all, on national policies and human rights, and on equal participation in political and public affairs.”

ICC Appeals Chamber Confirms the Trial Chamber May Compel Witnesses to Appear in Ruto and Sang Case (October 9, 2014)

On October 9, 2014, the International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber (the Court) dismissed William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang’s appeals against the Trial Chamber’s decision requiring witnesses to appear before it and obligating the government of Kenya to facilitate the witnesses’ appearance. According to the press release, “in the view of the Appeals Chamber, article 64(6)(b) of the Rome Statute expressly gives Trial Chambers the power to compel witnesses to appear before it, thereby creating a legal obligation for the individuals concerned.” In their decision, the Trial Chamber “granted the Prosecutor's request to summon witnesses who were no longer cooperating or no longer willing to testify” and allowed witnesses to appear in situ or through a video-link.

WTO Panel Rules India May Not Block Imports of Poultry and Other Agricultural Products (October 14, 2014)

On 14 October 2014, a World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel issued a report in response to a U.S. claim against India, ruling that India had violated WTO rules in implementing import prohibitions concerning poultry and other agricultural products from countries reporting Notifiable Avian Influenza (AI). According to the summary of key findings, the U.S. “complained that India's AI measures amounted to an import prohibition that was not based on the relevant international standard (the [World Organisation for Animal Health] Terrestrial Code) or on a scientific risk assessment.” The panel found that the import restrictions were discriminatory and not based on international standards. India has sixty days to appeal the ruling under WTO rules.

MICT President Meron Presents Second Annual Report to the UN General Assembly (October 13, 2014)

On October 13, 2014, President Theodor Meron of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) presented the mechanism’s second Annual Report to the UN General Assembly. According to a press release, President Meron “reported on the MICT’s progress and noted that it faced two pre-eminent challenges: apprehension of individuals indicted by the ICTR but not yet arrested, and relocation of individuals who were acquitted or finished serving sentences.” In his speech, he stated “that the Mechanism continues to make excellent progress at assuming relevant functions, and that it has already completed or is in the process of completing transfer of responsibilities from the ICTY and ICTR with regard to witness protection, archives, and other matters.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Asylum and Expulsion Procedures in Italy and Greece (October 21, 2014)

On October 21, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled (French only) in Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece that Italy and Greece violated the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) by indiscriminately expelling foreign nationals from Italy and returning them to Greece, with the fear of subsequent deportation to their countries of origin, without providing them access to asylum procedures. According to the press release, in regard to four of the applicants, the Court held that Greece violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment). It also held that Italy violated articles 13 and 3 as well as article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens). The Court found that “no form of collective and indiscriminate returns could be justified . . . and it was for the State carrying out the return to ensure that the destination country offered sufficient guarantees in the application of its asylum policy to prevent the person concerned being removed to his country of origin without an assessment of the risks faced.”

WTO Panel Rules U.S. Amended Country-of-Origin Labeling Requirements in Violation of WTO Rules (October 20, 2014)

On October 20, 2014, a World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel issued two reports ruling against the U.S. in a dispute with Canada and Mexico, finding that the United States’ amended country-of-origin meat-labeling regulations are discriminatory and in violation of international fair trade rules. In their conclusions, the Panel recommended “that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to bring the inconsistent measure into conformity with its obligations under the [Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade] and the [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] 1994.” According to a news article, the U.S. “amended its so-called country-of-origin meat-labeling rule after a WTO finding in 2012 that an earlier version was discriminatory. Canada and Mexico said the amended rule was even more onerous, limiting their exports of cattle and hogs into the U.S. and weighing on the price of those products.”

WHO Tobacco Treaty Makes Progress (October 18, 2014)

On October 18, 2014, at the conclusion of the sixth session of the Conference of the parties to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), several decisions were adopted. According to a news article, the decisions adopted include, inter alia, tax regulations, which “provide for tax rates to be monitored, increased and adjusted annually, taking into account inflation and income growth,” and measures “aimed at restricting tobacco industry interference.” Parties also adopted a decision acknowledging the need for regulation regarding “electronic nicotine (and non-nicotine) delivery systems, also known as electronic cigarettes.” The FCTC currently has 179 Parties to the Convention and is among the fastest treaties in UN history to be negotiated and enter into force.

Seychelles Completes Accession Negotiations for Admission to the WTO (October 17, 2014)

On October 17, 2014, a World Trade Organization (WTO) Working Party agreed on the terms of Seychelles’ admission as a member to the WTO after eighteen years of negotiation. According to a press release, as part of their accession negotiations, “Seychelles concluded eight bilateral agreements on market access for goods and nine bilateral agreements on market access for services,” among other commitments. Seychelles’ official accession “still requires the formal approval of all 160 WTO members in the General Council in December” as well as “the ratification of the Accession Package by Seychelles’ Parliament by 1 June 2015.”

Court of Justice of the European Union Annuls Measures Maintaining the LTTE on List of Terrorist Organizations (October 16, 2014)

On October 16, 2014, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) annulled, on procedural grounds, measures maintaining the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the EU list relating to frozen funds of terrorist organizations. According to the press release, the Court found “that the contested measures are based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities, as required by Common Position 2001/931 and case-law, but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet.” The Court found that while decisions by Indian authorities used in the decision to maintain the LTTE on the list may be considered a “competent authority,” the European Council did not “carefully verify at the outset that the legislation of the third State ensures protection of the rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection equivalent to that guaranteed at EU level.”

UN Security Council Extends Mission in Sudan and South Sudan (October 14, 2014)

On October 14, 2014, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2179, extending the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) until February 28, 2015. Acting under Chapter VII, and “[r]ecognizing that the current situation in Abyei and along the border between the Sudan and South Sudan continues to constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,” the Security Council decided that troops authorized by Resolution 2104 would be maintained “and that the remaining authorized forces continue to be deployed consistent with the progressive reactivation of the [Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism].”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Public Nudity Case (October 18, 2014)

On October 29, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Gough v. the United Kingdom that Scotland had not violated the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) by repeatedly arresting and imprisoning Mr. Gough for appearing naked in public. According to the press release, Mr. Gough “was arrested over thirty times in Scotland for being naked in public . . . [and] convicted on a number of occasions of breach of the peace . . . [as well as] contempt of court for refusing to dress for his court appearances.” The Court ruled that these arrests did not violate Article 8 (right to respect for private life) or Article 10 (freedom of expression), since his imprisonment was “the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law, in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which went against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society.”

Italian Court Rules Certain International Immunity Laws Inapplicable to Italian Legal Order (October 22, 2014)

On October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (the Court) ruled that several international laws on foreign state immunity were incompatible with the Italian legal order in regard to war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the unofficial English translation, the Court declared unlawful certain legislation that Italy had enacted in order to put into effect the International Court of Justice’s 2012 judgment on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy). The Court found constitutionally unlawful Article 3 of Italian law 5/2013, which ratified certain aspects of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities and “requir[ed] Italian Courts to decline jurisdiction in any cases where the International Court of Justice had decided that Italian civil Courts should [grant immunity to the unlawful] conduct of other States.” The Court also found unlawful the Italian law that ratified the UN charter with respect to the execution of Article 94 (relating to compliance with the International Court of Justice), which required Italy “to decline [its] jurisdiction in relation to the acts of a foreign State which consist [of] war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

ICC Grants Three Suspects Interim Release (October 23, 2014)

On October 23, 2014, the International Criminal Court (ICC) granted interim release to three suspects, who have been in custody since November 2013, in Prosecutor v. Bemba and Others. The court granted the relase in order to ensure that they were not detained for an unreasonable period prior to trial, as enshrined in Article 60(4) of the Rome Statute. According to the press release, “[t]he suspects shall appear before the Court when requested by the Judges.” The three “are suspected of offences against the administration of justice allegedly committed in connection with [Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba and others] . . . Aimé Kilolo Musamba was released in Belgium, Fidèle Babala Wandu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Narcisse Arido in France.” A fourth suspect, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongpo, will be released “as soon as the ICC Registry finalises all the necessary arrangements.”

ICTY Allows Prosecution to Reopen Mladic Case to Present Evidence from Mass Grave (October 23, 2014)

On October 23, 2014, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Prosecution may re-open its case in chief in Prosecutor v. Mladic to present new evidence gathered from a newly discovered mass grave in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the press release, “the Judges also found that the fresh evidence was relevant to the case, and had probative value, noting especially the Prosecution submission ‘that the Material clarifies the organised and large-scale nature of killings in Prijedor, and the VRS’s [Army of Republika Srpska] role therein.’” Although the new evidence will prolong the trial, “the Chamber conceded . . . that the delay will not be undue.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Extradition Procedures in Russia (October 23, 2014)

On October 23, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Mamazhonov v. Russia that Russia had violated the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) by failing to properly examine Mr. Mamazhonov’s claims that he would be at risk of inhumane treatment and torture if extradited to Uzbekistan and failing to put in place protective measures upon his release from detention in Russia. According to the press release, the Court ruled that Russia had violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhumane or degrading treatment), as the Russian authorities “failed to adequately examine Mr. Mamazhonov’s claims [and] had authorised Mr. Mamazhonov’s extradition without any effort to evaluate the real risks.” However, Russia was not responsible for Mr. Mamazhonov’s eventual abduction upon his release from detention, as “it was not possible for the Court to conclude that the Russian authorities had been implicated in his disappearance.”

Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal Rules that Joint Singapore-Malaysia Company is not Liable for Development Charges (October 30, 2014)

On October 30, 2014, a Tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (the Tribunal) ruled that the joint Singapore-Malaysia venture M-S Pte Ltd owed no development charges to Singapore related to three parcels of land in Singapore. According to the press release, the Tribunal determined that “M-S Pte Ltd, would [not] have been liable to pay development charges in the amount of S$1.47 billion on three parcels of former railway land . . . if the said parcels had been vested in M-S Pte Ltd and if M-S Pte Ltd had actually developed the lands in accordance with the proposed land uses set out” by the Points of Agreement between the two parties. According to a joint press release, both Singapore and Malaysia “are satisfied with the arbitral process and. . . have agreed to abide by and fully implement the decision.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Excessive Detention for Ukrainian Protester (October 30, 2014)

On October 30, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), ruled in Shvydka v. Ukraine that Ukraine violated the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) by detaining Ms. Shvydka for ten days for protesting against former Ukrainian President Yakunovich. According to the press release, the Court found that Ukraine had violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and article 2 of Protocol 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) after Ms. Shvydka “was arrested and convicted of petty hooliganism and sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention” for removing a ribbon from a wreath “bearing the words ‘the President of Ukraine V.F. Yanukovych’ in order to express her disagreement with his policies.” The Court found that a conviction for petty hooliganism was lawful due to the “legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights of others.” However, the sentence of “ten days’ imprisonment . . . was disproportionate to that aim” and constituted a violation of her freedom of expression. Further, examination of Ms. Shvykda’s “appeal had only taken place after she had already served her sentence in full,” violating her right to an appeal in criminal matters.

U.K. Court of Appeal Rules Libyan Man may Sue State Officials in Relation to Extraordinary Rendition (October 30, 2014)

On October 30, 2014, a U.K. Court of Appeal (the Court) ruled that a Libyan man can sue top U.K. officials for their complicity in his 2004 rendition from China to Libya, where he was allegedly imprisoned and tortured. In its decision, the Court held that “state immunity does not bar these proceedings” and that the respondents “ are not entitled to any immunity before the courts in this jurisdiction>.” Although the Court found applicable the act of state doctrine, which is used to prevent courts from inquiring into matters where another state is involved, the Court held that “ the present case falls within the established limitation on the act of state doctrine imposed by considerations of public policy on grounds of violations of human rights and international law and that there are compelling reasons requiring the exercise of jurisdiction.” The Court went on to note that “[t]here is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations. The risk of displeasing our allies or offending other states . . . cannot justify our declining jurisdiction on grounds of act of state over what is a properly justiciable claim.”

European Court of Human Rights Rules on Dublin Regulation and Individual Guarantees of Care for Asylum Seekers (November 4, 2014)

On November 4, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Tarakhel v. Switzerland that if Swiss authorities sent a family of asylum seekers back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without first obtaining individual assurances of their care, Switzerland would be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention). According to the press release, the Court found that if Switzerland sent the family back to Italy without “sufficient assurances that . . . the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together,” Switzerland would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, especially due to Italy’s issues with “problems [of] legal aid, care and psychological assistance in the emergency reception centres, the time taken to identify vulnerable persons and the preservation of family unity during transfers.”

Dominican Constitutional Court Rules Unconstitutional Instrument Accepting Jurisdiction of the IACHR (November 4, 2014)

On November 4, 2014, the Dominican Constitutional Court (the Court) ruled (Spanish only) unconstitutional the instrument the Dominican Republic deposited with the Organization of American States in 1999 accepting the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). According to a news article, the Court found that “the Senate never issued a resolution to ratify the February 1999 agreement with the rights court as required by the Dominican constitution. Ten judges voted in favor of the ruling, while three judges voted against it.” The Court made its ruling “in response to a complaint submitted by a group of nationalists in the mid-2000s arguing the agreement with the rights court was unconstitutional.” The IACHR condemned the decision, stating that the decision has no basis in international law and that “[t]he American Convention does not establish the possibility that a State that continues to be a party to the treaty can release itself from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court.”

In this issue

ASIL SUMMARY