Category: About the WJA

Sign the WJA Declaration on the Venezuelan Elections

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

The World Jurist Association presented an expert declaration written by more than 1,000 legal professionals from different countries denouncing that the December 6, 2020 parliamentary elections in Venezuela lack the necessary guarantees to be considered valid elections under the international law . According to this legal analysis, the elections, which have not been recognized by either the European Union or the Organization of American States, will be null and void.

(You may sign the Declaration HERE )

With this initiative, the WJA seeks to warn the world’s public opinion about Nicolas Maduro’s attempts to elect a new National Assembly through a call that does not meet the minimum democratic requirements. Today, after five years of disregard for the Assembly by an illegitimate executive, the elections convened will be held amidst evident signs of lack of transparency, and harassment towards the few unwelcomed candidates for the government. The signatories call attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice, in contravention of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, appointed the five directors of the National Electoral Council, thereby permitting them to modify the electoral laws at their discretion.

The accusation raised by the WJA bears the support of jurists of outstanding prestige and international recognition such as Álvaro Rodríguez Bereijo, President Emeritus of the Spanish Constitutional Court, and writer of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; Marie-Aimeé Peyron, President of the Paris Bar Association (2017-2019); Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice (2010-2014); Peter N. C. Umeadi, Professor and Justice Emeritus of the Anambra State Court, Nigeria; David Mills, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School; Augusto Trujillo, President of the Colombian Academy of Jurisprudence; and Katharina Miller, President of the European European Women Lawyers Association, among others. 

In like manner, Johann Kriegler, Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa until 2002, is a signatory to the document. Justice Kriegler was appointed in 1993 as Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission, which conducted the first post-apartheid elections with real universal suffrage in his country. Nelson Mandela’s collaborator has stated, on the current Venezuelan process, that having seen how a dictatorship evolves towards democracy, today we are witnessing the steps taken by an old democracy towards the strengthening of a dictatorship. Kriegler is considered the world’s leading authority on electoral processes.

On the basis of the verified data and in the absence, in the upcoming Venezuelan elections, of the political and legal guarantees already outlined, which are necessary for an election to be regarded as free and democratic, the signatories of the Declaration hold that such elections are invalid and reject their celebration. Consequently, they hold that in order to guarantee the protection of human rights in the country, the legitimacy of the current Venezuelan National Assembly must be preserved until genuine free, inclusive and democratic elections are convened.

This declaration will be presented at the United Nations, the European Parliament and other International Institutions and Courts over the world to continue condemning this electoral fraud in Venezuela. Jurists from around the world are called to support the restoration of the Rule of Law in Venezuela. You may sign the Declaration HERE

READ THE WJA DECLARATION ON THE VENEZUELA ELECTIONS

To sign and support this Declaration CLICK HERE

LEA LA DECLARACIÓN DE LA WJA SOBRE LAS ELECCIONES VENEZUELA

Para firmar la Declaración CLIC HERE

Por qué las elecciones en Venezuela no son válidas

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

Javier Cremades, abogado y Presidente de la World Jurist Association

Johann Kriegler*

Resulta paradójico que el mismo día que los españoles celebramos el cuadragésimo segundo aniversario de nuestra Carta Magna, sus principios democráticos y los valores de convivencia, en Venezuela tuvieron lugar unas elecciones fraudulentas y contrarias a Derecho convocadas por Nicolás Maduro. Esta calificación no es fruto de la mera reflexión de los juristas que aquí firman, sino del dictamen de más de 1000 juristas de 40 países. En efecto, la Asociación Mundial de Juristas (World Jurist Association), con sede en Washington, presentó el pasado viernes un dictamen en el que denunciamos que las elecciones parlamentarias en Venezuela carecen de las garantías necesarias contempladas en el derecho internacional para considerarlas unas elecciones válidas y ajustadas al Estado de Derecho. Por este motivo, esta votación no ha sido reconocido por la Unión Europea ni por la Organización de los Estados Americanos como un proceso electoral valido.

Este dictamen jurídico es una advertencia a toda la opinión pública mundial del fraude que intenta cometer Nicolás Maduro deshaciéndose de los molestos miembros de la Asamblea Nacional elegidos por el pueblo venezolano de forma legítima en el año 2015. Habiendo despreciado previamente sus funciones básicas, ahora el régimen de Nicolás Maduro directamente y al margen del pueblo venezolano pretende poner a sus más afines también en la Asamblea Nacional. Conforme concluye el dictamen internacional de juristas, esa votación está controlado exclusivamente por el ilegitimo poder ejecutivo e incumple las garantías básicas exigidas en el derecho internacional para calificarlas como válidas.

Ante la ausencia de protección de la seguridad personal y patrimonial de otros candidatos, sin unas normas claras para el ejercicio del derecho de voto o ante continuas lesiones a la libertad de asociación, reunión o expresión, unas elecciones infringen los derechos humanos y el derecho de sufragio. Y todas estas circunstancias concurren hoy en día en Venezuela. La constatación de esta situación se desprende de multitud de hechos recogidos en la Declaración Internacional de Juristas, de la que nos gustaría destacar los siguientes. El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela, controlado por Nicolás Maduro desde 2016, en violación de la propia Constitución Bolivariana permitió al Consejo Nacional Electoral modificar de forma arbitraria las leyes del proceso electoral y eliminar el voto universal, directo y secreto para la elección de los diputados representantes de los pueblos indígenas.

La declaración jurídica fue presentada en la casa de todos los abogados, el Consejo General de la Abogacía Española, en un acto en el que estuvieron presentes, entre otros, Marie-Aimeé Peyron, Presidenta del Colegio de Abogados de París (2017-2019), Viviane Reding, Vicepresidenta de la Comisión Europea y Comisaria de Justicia (2010-2014), Peter N.C. Umeadi, profesor y Magistrado Emérito de Nigeria, David Mills, Catedrático de Derecho de Stanford Law School o el Doctor Augusto Trujillo, Presidente de la Academia Colombiana de Jurisprudencia.

En compañía de Leopoldo López y el Presidente Juan Guaidó, particularmente significativa fue la intervención de la probablemente máxima autoridad mundial en procesos electorales, el Juez Kriegler. Como eminente jurista y magistrado sudafricano, fue Presidente de la Comisión Electoral Independiente en 1993 y garantizó en colaboración con Nelson Mandela las primeras elecciones con sufragio universal en su país. Como actor clave en la transición del dictatorial régimen del Apartheid de su país hacía una verdadera democracia, Johann Kriegler nos enseña que “hoy estamos asistiendo en Venezuela a la evolución de una antigua democracia hacía el reforzamiento de una dictadura”.

Sin entrar a valorar cuestiones políticas ajenas al análisis legal, lo cierto es que todos estos juristas concluimos que conforme a los datos contrastados y ante la ausencia de las garantías políticas y jurídicas básicas, la votación celebrada ayer en Venezuela es invalida y no puede calificarse como una elección democrática de los miembros de la Asamblea Nacional. Ante esta situación, la consecuencia legal es clara e implacable, la legitimidad de la actual Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela debe preservarse para garantizar la protección de los Derechos Humanos en el país. Y esta legitimidad deberá prorrogarse y mantenerse en el tiempo mientras en Venezuela no puedan celebrarse unas elecciones libres y respetuosas con los principios generales de la democracia y la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos.

*Magistrado Emérito del Tribunal Constitucional de Sudáfrica y Presidente de la Comisión Electoral Independiente de 1993

Related links:

Por qué las elecciones en Venezuela no son válidas (ElNacional.com)

Por qué las elecciones en Venezuela no son válidas (El Español)

¿Por qué las elecciones en Venezuela no son válidas? (ElTiempo.com)

LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS NO ESTÁN EN CUARENTENA

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

Javier Cremades, Abogado y Presidente de la World Jurist Association y Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo

David Mills, Abogado y Catedrático de Derecho en Standford Law School

En París, el 10 de Diciembre de 1948, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas aprobó la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos. Uno de los derechos fundamentales establecidos y acordados por las naciones del mundo es aquel que defiende que toda persona tiene derecho “a la salud y el bienestar” (artículo 25). Este derecho ha sido desarrollado en sucesivos pactos internacionales y es ahora un derecho fundamental, que le corresponde a cada persona sin discriminación por motivos de raza, edad, ideología o religión. La pandemia y su efecto desproporcionado en las personas pobres y las personas de color nos hace cuestionar si los estados firmantes están cumpliendo seriamente la promesa de la Declaración Universal. 

Las prisiones del mundo siguen siendo un importante foco de contagio. Permitir que las prisiones continúen albergando gente en pequeños espacios compartidos es el caldo de cultivo perfecto para la propagación de la COVID-19. Ya se puede ver su repercusión en tasas de infección significativas. Aunque no hay muchos datos oficiales, las estimaciones del Informe Middle East Monitor del 22 de junio es que hay 44.925 casos oficiales de coronavirus en las prisiones de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos y más de 300 fallecidos. Las estimaciones del New York Times indican que durante el periodo comprendido entre mediados de mayo y mediados de junio, los presidiarios de las cárceles de los Estados Unidos que se conoce que están infectados se han duplicado, y las muertes en las cárceles relacionadas con el coronavirus también han aumentado a 73. La prisión de San Quintín, en las afueras de San Francisco, California, ha informado de alarmantes aumentos de infecciones por virus y ahora de fallecimientos. Sigue existiendo un gran riesgo de que una sentencia de prisión hoy en día equivalga a una sentencia de muerte. ¿Cómo podemos justificar tal resultado?Especialmente cuando tantos prisioneros son encarcelados por delitos no violentos, incluso políticos, o encarcelados antes de ser condenados. ¿Qué ha pasadocon las promesas de la Declaración Universal? El problema ha sido reconocido y se han dado pequeños pasos, pero la realidad es que se ha negado la promesa de salud a los presidiarios del mundo y la consecuencia es a la vez aterradora y horrorosa.

Recientemente, el filósofo alemán Harmut Rosa advirtió acerca de nuestros mayores: “En una sociedad acelerada, no son respetados como ancianos y sabios, sino que son abandonados como si no pertenecieran al presente”. Esta llamada a la protección de los ancianos y los más débiles es real. Hemos oído en ocasiones que probablemente sea más adecuado permitir amenazas a la vida de los ancianos para que la destrucción de la economía disminuya. ¿Cómo se lleva a cabo ese cálculo? ¿Qué valor estamos dando a las vidas? Existen muchos testimonios que afirman que en bastantes países los sistemas de salud públicos no han proporcionado la asistencia médica necesaria a pacientes de la tercera edad o con patologías previas. Incluso si los equipos médicos tuvieran los medios, estos se habrían reservado para pacientes más jóvenes y sanos con más posibilidad de sobrevivir a la pandemia. Prácticas con connotaciones eugenésicas que difícilmente pueden conjugarse con el derecho a la vida inherente a la dignidad humana, amenazan el núcleo de valores de una sociedad civilizada y, aun así, tienen lugar estas conversaciones como si la ancianidad y los enfermos pudieran ser fácilmente desechados y abandonados. ¿Quiénes somos?

Otro derecho fundamental que está siendo limitado e incluso abandonado a la luz del actual estrés de la pandemia, es el derecho a la privacidad. El derecho a la privacidad ha sido un derecho básico, reconocido por los griegos, alentado por los filósofos de la Ilustración y claramente articulado por los juristas americanos Warren y Brandels en su famoso artículo “The Right to Privacy” publicado en 1890 y al cual se debe, en gran medida, la configuración constitucional de este derecho a la privacidad. La aparente voluntad de nuestros legisladores y líderes políticos de rastrear a ciudadanos infectados o que hayan estado expuestos al virus, y la consiguiente imposición de órdenes de confinamiento, aunque sea ciertamente defendible para el conjunto de la sociedad, únicamente debería ser permitida cuando existan las garantías apropiadas y se tuviera en consideración la necesidad de respetar y proteger la privacidad y otros derechos fundamentales. 

Traemos estas reflexiones a colación porque esta pandemia puede ser la tormenta perfecta para limitar los derechos fundamentales de cualquier ser humano más allá de lo estrictamente necesario para resolver esta terrible crisis. La COVID-19 no solo tiene que ver con la salud, toda vez que también amenaza a las instituciones democráticas y al propio estado de derecho. Sin derechos fundamentales, un sistema político difícilmente puede ser calificado como democrático. La dignidad inherente a toda vida humana nos obliga a estar vigilantes y a afirmar con rotundidad que los derechos humanos no están en cuarentena, sino al contrario, son la principal garantía de que el cambio de época a la que nos dirigimos sea más justa y equitativa que en el pasado.

Opening Session Miami: “Covid-19: Boon or Detriment for Gender Equality?”

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

Under the title “Covid-19: Boon or Detriment for Gender Equality?”, on October 14, the WJA and the Bass Institute for Diversity and Inclusion organized this much-needed and current panel of discussion. Eight women from different countries debated the topic, agreeing that overall the pandemic caused by Covid-19 has been problematic and disadvantageous for women.

The panel was moderated and chaired by Hilarie Bass, Trustee of the World Law Foundation, Founder of the Bass Institute for Diversity and Inclusion and President of the American Bar Association (2017-2018). The presentation of this event opened with a moving video tribute to the deceased U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was presented with the WJA World Peace & Liberty Award in February 2020 in Washington, D.C. Justice Ginsburg was a pioneer in advocating for gender equality and respect for the rule of law, and WJA is committed to continuing the dissemination of her legacy. 

The round of discussions was opened by Patricia Menendez-Cambo, Deputy General Counsel of SoftBank and General Counsel of the SoftBank Latin American Fund, who pointed out that the leading companies in gender parity rankings are achieving 50% more profitability compared to those with a lower gender parity index.

Meanwhile, Christiane Feral-Schuhl, President of the French National Council of Lawyers and former president of the Paris Bar Association, emphasized the “negative increase in cases of domestic violence that has been registered during confinement,” but at the same time recognized that the Covid-19 “has made us more proactive in our actions to achieve gender equality”.

In response to this position, Felicia Knaul, Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Americas at the University of Miami and Professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, highlighted the collateral damage that the pandemic has done to women’s health. “We have evidence that fewer investments are being made in mothers and children, because the aid is going to Covid-19”. She also expressed concern about the increase in late detection of breast cancer due to the inability of patients to attend health centers given the risk of contagion from Covid-19.

Christina Blacklaws, immediate past President of the Law Society of England and Wales and President of Lawtech UK, stated that Covid-19 “has been dramatic and traumatic for gender equality, as it has posed an additional barrier for women” and questioned how to use the situation to turn it into an opportunity. In response to this question, she proposed “opting for a more flexible and agile way of working in which physical presence is reduced, so that women have more possibilities of developing their professional careers with a more hybrid and diverse way of working”.

Claudia Escobar, legal specialist in the fight against corruption and international consultant in the justice sector, assured that “the Inter-American Court indicates that the right of access to justice cannot be suspended in States or situations of exception” and pointed out that “international organisms for the protection of human rights warn about the importance of justice systems not being paralyzed”.

María Eugenia Gay, President of the World Jurist Association Spain and Dean of the Barcelona Bar Association, acknowledged that women are suffering from increasing precariousness in different ways, for example, in the wage gap, an issue she has called incomprehensible. With respect to teleworking, Gay, said that for women it has been more difficult to differentiate between professional and personal life, generating greater physical and psychological fatigue that men have not suffered.

The President of the European Association of Women Lawyers and Member of the Committee on Women in Innovation and Entrepreneurship of the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain, Katharina Gabriele Miller, stressed that in Spain, more than 600,000 people work as domestic workers, 88% of whom are women.

Furthermore, according to Tracy Robinson, President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2014-2015), the United Nations Independent Inquiry Mission on Libya, highlighted the gender disparity in high-level decision-making positions, stating that “if we analyze who holds the highest positions in the world, men are the heads of government in 90% of all States.

Javier Cremades, president of the World Jurist Association, closed the debate and acknowledged how ” unbelievable there are still so many barriers to gender equality” and said that Covid-19 is just another one and, to solve it, “we have to work to identify these problems that are a challenge for the whole society”.

This Opening Session has been the third session prior to the World Law Congress to be celebrated in Colombia in 2021. The President of the host country, Iván Duque, has also participated in it and, through an institutional video, assured that “we receive this congress as a recognition to the efforts of the Colombian society to defend the Rule of Law as a guarantor of freedom, order, peace and harmony”.

FULL SESSION: https://youtu.be/duaq7Tog6Ws

SUMMARY SESSION: https://youtu.be/Ah-l-zQ5GUE

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Jurist for History

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

The author met the American judge and awarded her with the World Peace & Liberty Award, given by the World Jurist Association.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg´s death (1933-2020) has caused a huge emotional and political impact in the United States. This event also represents an earthquake in the American electoral campaign, but her figure and her legacy are global and will endure for generations.

The chief aim of her professional career was the struggle for the equality of women and men before the law. That was the reason why the World Jurist Association decided to give her the World Peace & Liberty Award. On that occasion, the judge spoke again about another of the pending issues of the judicial system: the judicial independence. An independence that she had advocated in public and had personally exercised throughout her entire career, before, during and after her entry into the U.S. Supreme Court, nominated by Bill Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate in 1993. This culminated a career marked by the momentum and determination, leading her from intellectual ostracism to the highest court in the world. Ginsburg and all the people whom she represented were beginning to win the battle for equal rights.

I meet Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Madrid at a lunch organized by our mutual friend Richard Gardner, Professor of Law at Columbia and U.S. Ambassador to Spain a few years after her nomination to the United States Supreme Court. Ruth was always involved in meeting different people, young people, of other faith and cultures, speakers of other languages, and that’s how it was until her last days. Afterwards, I visited her several times in Washington, where I got to know her family and finally had the opportunity to enjoy some unforgettable moments with Ginsburg on 6 and 7 February 2020. She was already a world icon, not only of Law but of Culture. Her physical weakness, combined with her intellectual power and purpose were cool, strongly inspiring for millions and millions of people. It was in Washington, just weeks before the global pandemic unleashed its full destructive power. I had by then finished reading her book, My Own Words, where her achievements and ways of thinking are recorded. It has to be translated and published into Spanish. The day before the award ceremony, at the dinner we held in her honor, instead of paying attention to the personalities, some with the rank of Head of State, she devoted her attention to answering questions and showing affection to several young women who participated. As the host of the event, I decided to sit her next to my 19-year-old daughter Arancha, with whom she had a long and friendly conversation, which both of them thanked me profusely. Protocol and paraphernalia bored her. We talked about her interest in meeting Pope Francisco. She was fascinated by him. We agreed to organize a meeting in Santa Marta, without protocol, the following autumn. The idea was arranging the appointment and invite relevant judges from Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia. She would invite Roberts, President of the Supreme Court and other Judges. Unfortunately, the Project could not be completed firstly because of the pandemic and then by her death.

That magical night at the Watergate Hotel, with an empathetic look and a smile full of affection, she told Arancha in a soft but wise voice: “You will be whatever you want to be, as long as you work to achieve your dream with perseverance and passion. Don’t let anyone stand in your way of becoming the woman you want to be”. She had fought the battle of her life for that to be possible.

The next day I had the honor of presenting her with the World Peace & Liberty Award, which had been previously granted to Sir Winston Churchill, Rene Cassin, Nelson Mandela and, just a year ago at the Royal Theatre in Madrid, to King Felipe VI. She showed herself serious when received the award, until I asked Judy Perry Martinez’s daughter, Arancha and Leah to accompany her on the stage and give her the statuette again. At that moment, her eyes brightened, bringing a warm smile to her face. What is considered by many to be the Nobel Prize in Law had never been awarded to a woman, and Ruth was clearly the right person to receive it. As soon as I was elected president, I proposed her nomination to the WJA Board, and this was unanimously accepted. We, jurists of the world, owed a debt of recognition to the women’s equality movement. During the debate that the three of us held after the award ceremony, including Judy Perry Martinez president of the American Bar Association, Ginsburg reminded us that the rule of law is defined, in essence, “as the rule of laws and not of men” and warned that ” the rule of law must always and under any circumstance control our destiny”.

The world has lost a great woman and an enormous judge. Life is ephemeral, but the ideals pursued with conviction, authenticity, moderation and courage remain. RBG has died. A woman full of talent and courage, an intense life into the care of her family and professional work, dedicated to her ideals, though I do not share them all, may she rest in peace. She has been a good example of coherence and leadership, an admirable crusader for equality, a jurist for the history.

Javier Cremades is a lawyer and the president of the World Jurist Association

Related links:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: una jurista para la Historia (El Mundo)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, una jurista para la historia (El Tiempo.com)

The WJA at the UN conference of the states parties to the un convention against corruption

Posted by World Jurist Admin on

The World Jurist Association made a presentation at the United Nations Vienna, during the plenary session of the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption on September 2-4, 2020. The conference was chaired by the Attorney General of the United Arab Emirates, Harib Saeed Al Amimi, and Gabriel Fernández Rojas, WJA Representative to the UN Vienna and Financial Coordinator of the World Law Congress, participated on behalf of the World Jurist Association.

During his speech, Mr. Fernández Rojas mentioned the commitment of WJA in the fight against corruption and assured that the rule of law is incompatible with corruption. He stressed that a rule of law capable of preventing corruption is needed, in order to guarantee human rights and freedom, as well as to promote cohesion between societies. Additionally, he pointed out that the balance of power must be optimized, ensuring the efficiency and neutrality of public administrations, as well as improving citizens’ trust in institutions. In conclusion, he recognized that in a global context, open to new challenges and opportunities, the fight against corruption is one of the most urgent ways to defend the rule of law and remarked that this will only be possible with a strong commitment from society.

On the occasion of this meeting, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) also met, and as NGO with special consultative status before this institution, the World Jurist Association participated in it.

In the framework of the different events in Vienna, the WJA future activities were promoted in one to one meetings, increasing its network within this key forum.

The most important meeting was limited to UN State Parties and accredited NGOs. During that event, participants shared the progress made by their country in the fight against corruption, in light of the upcoming General Assembly against Corruption (UNGAS) to be celebrated in June 2021. One of the issues that caught greatest attention was the initiative presented in 2019, coincidentally, by the Government of Colombia at the UN New York. Colombia proposed the creation of an international court specialized in fighting against corruption and transnational corruption, in order to overcome limitations such as those that became visible with the Odebrecht case, the existence of blatant money laundering issues from the highest governmental levels in some countries, and the impossibility of making justice owing lack of judicial independence.