Latest news with #UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Omar urges CJ to ensure 'fair May 9 trials'
Leader of Opposition Omar Ayub Khan has written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, appealing to him to intervene to ensure fair trial of people adjudicated in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) for their alleged roles in rioting after May 9, 2023 arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. In the four-page "appeal", the opposition leader, who belongs to the PTI, has highlighted the alleged irregularities happening during the May 9 trials. The ATCs are bound by the Supreme Court to conclude all these May 9 case proceedings by the first week of August. According to Omar, the integrity of Pakistan's judicial process is under grave threat as these trials, which are supposed to exemplify justice, have instead become a means of political persecution. "The ATCs in Lahore, Faisalabad, Sargodha, and other cities are hearing cases related to May 9 with a speed and manner that shock the conscience of any impartial observer. "Hearings commence early morning and extend late into the night; in fact, it is reliably reported that in some cases proceedings continue until 2:00 am to 3:00 am. "This is justice crushed and justice buried under the weight of exhaustion, coercion, and haste," he added. He stated that such a schedule was unprecedented in the annals of Pakistani jurisprudence as it disregarded the most basic principles of a fair trial, including the accused's right to a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defense, and the judiciary's solemn obligation to conduct trials with dignity, transparency, and impartiality. He also referred to the motto of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. He regretted that during the May 9 trials, this cardinal principle has been systematically violated. Omar claimed that the leadership, workers, and supporters of the PTI were wrongfully implicated through a process that appeared mala fide and politically motivated. Police reports and prosecutions lack credible evidence and are riddled with procedural irregularities, he added. He also narrated numerous instances of prosecutorial overreach and police misconduct, including the fabrication of FIRs, coercive interrogation tactics, and selective registration of cases against opposition figuresall undermining the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system. Referring to the right to counsel of choice, he said a fundamental right enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution has been trampled. He said the ATCs frequently deny adjournments and, in many cases, threaten or proceed to appoint state counsels without the consent of the accused. "This practice not only breaches constitutional guarantees but also violates internationally recognized fair trial standards., including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), to which Pakistan is a party," he wrote. "If these trials are allowed to continue under current conditionshurried, secretive, and politically charged, the damage to Pakistan's judicial reputation and the people's trust will be irrevocable."
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
May 9 trials: PTI seeks SC review
ISLAMABAD: The opposition leader in National Assembly Omar Ayub called on the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi on Tuesday to intervene in what he described as 'constitutional and procedural violations' surrounding the ongoing trials linked to the May 9, 2023 unrest. In a detailed letter addressed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Ayub, who is also a senior leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), framed his appeal both as a political leader and as an individual directly affected by the legal proceedings. He characterised the trials, which are taking place in multiple cities including Lahore, Faisalabad, and Sargodha, as 'rushed' and 'unfair,' warning that such processes undermine public trust in the country's judiciary. 'The integrity of the country's judicial process is under grave threat,' he wrote, alleging that Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) were holding sessions late into the night, sometimes until 2 or 3 am. 'This is neither justice delayed nor justice served – this is justice crushed and buried under the weight of exhaustion, coercion, and haste,' he lamented. Ayub cited numerous Supreme Court verdicts underscoring the necessity of transparency, fairness, and due process. Quoting the landmark ruling in State vs Ziaul Haq (1975), he emphasised, 'Justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' The opposition leader expressed deep concern over what he described as a 'systematic' erosion of legal rights for PTI members, accusing authorities of prosecutorial overreach, filing fabricated complaints, and using coercive tactics. He also raised alarms about restrictions placed on defendants' access to legal counsel of their choice, citing Article 10A of the Constitution, and alleged that courts were frequently denying adjournments and appointing state lawyers without consent. Highlighting violations of constitutional protections, including Articles 4, 10A, 14, 19A, and 25, Ayub warned that such practices contravened not only national law but also international standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He likened the secretive nature of the trials to the notorious 'Star Chambers' of 17th-century England, underscoring the opacity and lack of public scrutiny. He called on Justice Afridi to take urgent corrective action, including a comprehensive review of all May 9 trials to ensure adherence to fair trial norms and enforcing reasonable court hours. He also urged safeguarding the right to counsel, expanding media access, and investigating allegations of prosecutorial and police misconduct. He also urged reopening trials concluded under questionable conditions. Concluding his letter, Ayub invoked a famous quote from former US Chief Justice Earl Warren: 'The treatment a government gives its citizens when accused of crime reveals the very essence of justice in that society.' He reminded the Chief Justice Afridi of his constitutional duty as the 'guardian of the Constitution' to ensure that courts serve justice rather than political interests. 'The public is watching closely,' he warned. 'And history is being written every day.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Shafaq News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Legacy of Saddam-Era: How old laws cripple Iraq's legislative future
Shafaq News More than two decades after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the legacy of Iraq's dissolved Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) continues to obstruct the country's legislative development. Despite successive parliamentary sessions since 2005, many foundational laws remain stalled due to political disagreements and intra-bloc rivalries. This gridlock is exacerbated by the continued enforceability of thousands of RCC-era decrees—many considered outdated or repressive. Legislative Paralysis and RCC Residue At the end of each parliamentary term, unresolved legislative proposals are routinely carried over to the next, creating a backlog that hampers Iraq's ability to enact meaningful reform. According to officials, this stagnation is compounded by the survival of nearly 6,000 RCC decisions—some criticized for their authoritarian nature, particularly those establishing special courts or intensifying penalties under Iraq's legal code. Despite repeated calls from senior figures, including President Abdul Latif Rashid in 2023, for a comprehensive legal review, Parliament has largely failed to abolish or amend most of these decrees. Many remain legally binding under Article 130 of Iraq's constitution, despite clashing with international human rights norms and democratic principles. RCC's Institutional Legacy Formed after the 1968 Ba'athist coup, the Revolutionary Command Council served as Iraq's highest authority until its dissolution by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003. Under Saddam Hussein, the RCC wielded unchecked legislative and executive powers. Many of its rulings were instrumental in consolidating authoritarian rule and suppressing dissent. Legal experts estimate that 5,903 of these decisions are still in force. A joint committee between the Presidency and Parliament's Legal Committee was created to classify and review these decisions. Legal expert Ali al-Tamimi noted that RCC decrees even outnumber Iraq's key laws, including the Penal Code. 'They were issued under the 1970 interim constitution and remain in effect unless formally repealed,' he said, adding that most of these decrees were used to suppress political opposition and established exceptional courts that contradict international law. 'Parliament is capable of repealing them all at once or selectively amending a few.' Al-Tamimi also stressed that the current government's ministerial program explicitly calls for repealing RCC decisions that conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties. Efforts at Repeal and Political Resistance While Parliament has repealed select RCC decisions since 2007, broader repeal efforts have stalled. Raed al-Maliki, a member of the parliamentary legal committee, said he compiled and amended the RCC decisions and submitted a legislative proposal—but it was blocked. 'The Council is simply not prepared to address this file,' he told Shafaq News. Al-Maliki noted that while the current legislative session managed to pass some laws, including the General Amnesty Law and amendments to the Personal Status Law, it also witnessed repeated disruptions, session delays, and a stagnant agenda. 'Important laws carried over from previous terms were subject to political agreements,' even though such laws could be passed with a two-thirds majority without needing full consensus. He further explained that 'some draft laws face no disagreement within Parliament itself. The real disputes happen outside Parliament—among bloc leaders—who prevent such laws from being put to a vote.' In 2023, Legal Committee Head, Ribwar Hadi Abdul Rahman, announced renewed efforts to repeal RCC decrees through a new committee with the Presidency. He clarified that such decrees do not require replacement legislation. 'RCC decisions are not amended—they are either in force or abolished,' he said. Some initial steps focused on repealing decrees related to land disputes in Sinjar and Zummar. Additional efforts have targeted RCC-era confiscations of Kurdish and Turkmen lands in Kirkuk—widely viewed as part of the former regime's demographic manipulation strategy. One of the most enduring and contentious RCC legacies is Penal Code No. 111 of 1969, which remains largely intact. Articles 225 and 226 criminalize public insults to state institutions or officials, carrying penalties of up to seven years in prison. Ironically, these provisions have been applied to political forces once persecuted under Saddam's regime. Structural Barriers to Reform Legal expert Qatada Saleh Fanjan told Shafaq News that 'most important laws are subject to bargaining and consensus among political factions.' He noted that lawmakers often lack independent voting authority, as their decisions depend on the approval of party leaders. 'Parliament should focus on producing laws—not obstructing them,' he said, warning that 'the subordination of Parliament's leadership and its members to political agendas in conflict with the law has caused the failure of many legislative efforts.' Al-Maliki echoed this view, confirming that many laws remain hostage to factional calculations despite lacking real opposition within Parliament. The root of the obstruction, he emphasized, lies in political leadership outside the chamber. Political analyst Aid al-Hilali warned that lawmaking in Iraq remains hostage to sectarian and ethnic rivalries. 'There is no collective national will, and partisan interests often override the public good,' he said. Al-Hilali added that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has repeatedly tried to activate legislative reforms through his government program, but political blocs have continued to use outdated laws as bargaining tools, stalling or weakening many reform efforts. He cautioned that the delay in passing new laws and the persistence of RCC-era legislation 'not only harms the government's performance but also undermines public trust in the political system as a whole.' The continued coexistence of repressive legacy laws and stalled modern legislation, he argued, 'has created a confused legal environment that grants privileges to certain groups at the expense of justice and state institutions.' Written and edited by Shafaq New staff.
Euronews
5 days ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Five things to know about the ICJ's historic climate change ruling
On Wednesday, the UN's highest court delivered a historic opinion on climate change, outlining states' responsibilities under international law. It was the largest case ever seen by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with more than 150 submissions from states, international organisations, and civil society groups. Over 100 states and international organisations took part in hearings last December. The ICJ is the world's highest court, but its 133-page advisory opinion is not legally binding. Although it doesn't establish new international laws, it clarifies existing ones and is likely to be cited in future climate litigation and UN negotiations like COP30 in Brazil later this year. Experts believe it could have a plethora of consequences for global climate action. But what do the key parts of the ICJ's advisory opinion actually mean? A healthy environment is a human right The ICJ affirmed that a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right, just like access to water, food and housing. In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution acknowledging this right. The ICJ confirmed this again on Wednesday, saying that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is foundational for the effective enjoyment of all human rights. It means that, as Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change. Preventing climate harm is bigger than the Paris Agreement Big emitters were accused of trying to hide behind the Paris Agreement during the hearings for the case. In December, they argued that the international climate agreement was already a sufficient framework that outlined states' climate responsibilities. But the court confirmed that climate change threatens human rights and involves multiple branches of international law, from international human rights law to environmental law and the UN Charter, not just the Paris Agreement. This means any duty to prevent harm to the environment and protect the climate applies to all states, whether or not they are parties to specific UN climate agreements. The ICJ also emphasised the need for ambition and accountability, not merely having a plan. Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs are national climate plans that represent each country's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. They are a core part of the Paris Agreement. The content of each country's NDC is as relevant to whether they are complying with their legal obligations as simply submitting one. Essentially, it means any plan must be ambitious and in line with climate science, reflecting a state's 'highest possible ambition', and must become 'more demanding over time'. States that fail to act on climate change risk are breaking the law 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions … may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,' Court president Iwasawa Yuji said. He specifically mentioned fossil fuel production and consumption, as well as the provision of subsidies. This means countries that fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change could be in violation of international law. If governments and parliaments fail to curb the production and consumption of fossil fuels, approve fossil fuel projects and roll out public money for fossil fuels, they could also be in breach of international law. The court also confirmed that countries are bound by international law to regulate the climate impact of businesses and companies within their jurisdiction, including fossil fuel firms. States harmed by climate change have a right to seek reparations The court affirmed that legal consequences for climate harm include restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition. That means states responsible for unlawful emissions could be required to stop harmful actions, restore damaged infrastructure or ecosystems - or provide financial compensation for the losses suffered. The ruling paves the way for vulnerable nations to seek reparations from historical emitters for the harm they have endured from climate impacts like extreme weather. In other words, they could sue high-emitting nations, including for past emissions. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' explains Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. 'In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion not only clarifies existing rules, it creates legal momentum. It reshapes what is now considered legally possible, actionable, and ultimately enforceable.' The ICJ's opinion could affect current climate cases and future agreements The ICJ's opinion opens the door for other legal actions, from states returning to the ICJ to hold each other accountable to domestic lawsuits. 'This newfound clarity will equip judges with definitive guidance that will likely shape climate cases for decades to come,' says ClientEarth lawyer Lea Main-Klingst. 'And outside the courtroom, this result is a powerful advocacy tool. Each and every one of us can use this decision to demand our governments and parliaments take more ambitious action on climate change to comply with both the Paris Agreement and other applicable international laws.' That includes in the lead-up to and during upcoming negotiations at COP30, where the advisory opinion from the ICJ could be used as leverage.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
World Court Opens Door To Climate Change Lawsuits Against The U.S.
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice reviewed the financial liability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent climate change. After over two years of proceedings, the ICJ released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States could be liable to pay reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. While the opinion is non-binding, it will shape the future debate over climate change policy and lead to a wave of new lawsuits. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The UNGA posed two questions to the ICJ:Addressing the first question, large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, argued that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. Therefore, no additional legal obligations exist that may create a call for reparations or action not directly negotiated. Developing countries argued that the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement are a starting point, but that the impacts of climate change violate human rights under international common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, those countries that contribute to climate change, through the production of fossil fuels and GHG emissions, should pay reparations to low lying and developing nations that are 'adversely impacted' by climate change. The Court agreed, finding that the obligations to prevent climate change are found under customary international law. The Court stated, 'The customary duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, which requires States to 'use all the means at [their] disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in [their] territory, or in any area under [their] jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State', also applies to the climate system, which is an integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations." The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established that liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' The court addressed the two parts of the obligation and provided more context. Addressing the environmental harm to be prevented, the court stated: "For the duty to prevent to arise, there must be a risk of significant harm to the environment. Whether an activity constitutes a risk of significant harm depends on both the probability or foreseeability of the occurrence of harm and its severity or magnitude and should therefore be determined by, among other factors, an assessment of the risk and level of harm combined. The Court is of the view that a risk of significant harm may also be present in situations where significant harm to the environment is caused by the cumulative effect of different acts undertaken by various States and by private actors subject to their respective jurisdiction or control. "The determination of 'significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment' must take into account the best available science. The question whether any specific harm, or risk of harm, to a State constitutes a relevant adverse effect of climate change must be assessed in concreto in each individual situation." Looking at the due diligence requirement, the Court listed seven factors that should be considered when determining if a country took the necessary steps to prevent environmental harm. Generally, those are (1) laws or regulations to reduce GHG emissions; (2) availability of scientific information; (3) binding and non-binding agreements from COPs; (4) 'the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; (5) 'scientific information regarding the probability and the seriousness of possible harm; (6) risk assessments relating to GHG emissions; and (7) 'States' notification of and consultation in good faith with other States where planned activities within their jurisdiction or control create a risk of significant harm or significantly affect collective efforts to address harm to the climate system.' The opinion is a huge win for climate change activists. While it is non-binding, it is important to note that any disputes between countries will be heard before the International Court of Justice, the same court that issues the advisory opinion. It is also likely that some national courts will adopt the same legal interpretations. Expect litigation based on the opinion to begin within the next few weeks.
