Lawyers say calling for BDS is lawful
1) Ali Abuminah reports that over 200 legal experts have signed a statement asserting that BDS is “a lawful exercise of freedom of expression”. 3) is a list of their names and the 15 European countries they come from. 2) is an article from France 24 written last January about the history of France’s law prohibiting making calls for BDS and the conflict this creates with the right to freedom of expression.
BDS march in Paris led by the group Collective 69 for the Support of the Palestinian People. Last November the French Court of Cassation (the highest court of appeal) confirmed a lower court’s ruling that BDS protests were illegal because discriminatory and they incited hatred. Uncredited photo from The Times.
200 legal scholars back right to boycott Israel
By Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada
December 08, 2016
More than 200 European legal scholars have signed a statement affirming that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality represents “a lawful exercise of freedom of expression.”
The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is welcoming the statement as “a major blow to Israel’s repressive legal war” against the movement.
“This momentous statement by European jurists not only vindicates BDS human rights defenders who have insisted that BDS is protected free speech,” said the BNC’s Europe campaigns coordinator Riya Hassan. “It will undoubtedly add a crucial layer of legal protection for European BDS networks and citizens in their efforts to end European complicity in Israel’s regime of oppression, especially in military trade and research, banking and corporate involvement in Israel’s violations of international law.”
The BNC notes that the signatories include world-renowned legal figures, including South African jurist John Dugard, who serves as a judge at the International Court of Justice in The Hague; José Antonio Martín Pallín, an emeritus justice of Spain’s supreme court; British human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield; Lauri Hannikainen, member of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and Géraud de la Pradelle, who led the civic inquiry into the involvement of France in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.
No exception for Israel
While the jurists do not take a position for or against BDS, they say that “states that outlaw BDS are undermining this basic human right and threatening the credibility of human rights by exempting a particular state from the advocacy of peaceful measures designed to achieve its compliance with international law.”
They point to France, the United Kingdom, Canada and various US states, where legislatures and executives “have adopted laws and taken executive action to suppress, outlaw and in some instances, criminalize the advocacy of BDS.”
By contrast, Sweden, Ireland, the Netherlands, the European Union and even the US State Department have all recently affirmed that advocating for BDS is a protected right.
“States and organizations that view BDS as a lawful exercise of freedom of expression are correct,” the legal scholars say. “Whether one approves of the aims or methods of BDS is not the issue. The issue is whether in order to protect Israel an exception is to be made to the freedom of expression that occupies a central and pivotal place among fundamental human rights.”
“Defining moment”
“The right of citizens to advocate for BDS is part and parcel of the fundamental freedoms protected by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights,” signatory Robert Kolb, a professor of international law at the University of Geneva and a former legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Swiss foreign ministry, said in a statement from the BNC.
“No government ever attempted to outlaw or criminalize the anti-apartheid movement for advocating boycott, disinvestment or sanctions to compel South Africa to abandon its racist policies,” Dugard said. “BDS should be seen as a similar movement and treated accordingly.”
The legal scholars join hundreds of European human rights organizations and civil society groups that have called on governments to end repression of Palestine solidarity activism.
Speaking on behalf of the BNC, Ingrid Jaradat welcomed the statement as “a defining moment in the struggle against Israel’s patently repressive legal war on the BDS movement for Palestinian rights.”
Protesters hold a “Boycott Israel” banner during a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Paris on August 2, 2014. Photo by Dominique Faget, AFP
France’s criminalisation of Israel boycotts sparks free-speech debate
By Benjamin Dodman, france24.com
January 21, 2016
France’s prime minister has criticised boycotts of Israeli products, saying they fuel antisemitic sentiment. But critics say using France’s strict laws against “inciting discrimination” to criminalise the boycotts violates free speech.
Addressing a meeting of the Crif, the umbrella group of French Jewish communities, on Monday, Manuel Valls said “French authorities must change their attitude” towards demonstrations that call for a boycott of Israeli products, which he accused of fostering a “nauseating climate” in the country.
“It is perfectly obvious how we have shifted from criticism of Israel to anti-Zionism and from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism,” he added, slamming a recent protest in Paris, staged by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which opposes the Israeli “colonisation” of Palestinian land and has grown in popularity as people lose faith in the stalled Mideast peace process.
‘Inciting hatred’
In the case of France, the rule of law already provides ample scope to crack down on the likes of BDS. Nicolas Hervieu, a legal expert and lecturer at the Panthéon-Assas University in Paris, noted that “France already has a law to pursue such groups, and it is very much in use.”
Hervieu pointed to a recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, France’s court of final appeal, which upheld the criminal convictions of 12 BDS activists who burst into a supermarket in 2009 wearing “Boycott Israel” shirts and handing out fliers that read, “Buying Israeli products means legitimising crimes in Gaza.”
In ruling against the activists, the court cited French anti-discrimination laws that prescribe imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that “incite discrimination, hatred or violence towards a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion”.
The legislation means that what BDS activists regarded as political statements denouncing Israel’s violations of international law could be – and indeed were – treated by French courts as an “incitement” to hatred.
Potent legislative tool
Much of France’s legislation against hate speech goes back to the late 19th century. But it was strengthened in 2003 with the so-called Lellouche law, which added stiffer penalties and emphasised the protection of “national groups” alongside the more customary parameters of race, religion and sexual orientation.
The stated aim at the time was to curb a rise in racist incidents, including antisemitic attacks, which coincided with a surge in support for the far-right and anti-immigrant National Front party. But the law’s reference to the victimisation of nationality also turned it into a formidable tool to prosecute anti-Israeli groups.
As Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted in 2014, “the dragnet has also swept up BDS protesters whose actions have targeted Israel, not Jews”.
The left-leaning daily said the Lellouche law was “among the world’s most potent legislative tools to fight (…) BDS, and has catapulted France to the forefront of efforts to counter the movement through legal means.”
It quoted Pascal Makowicz, the Crif’s top lawyer, as saying that the French law amounted to “the most effective legislation on BDS today”. The lawyer added: “We had only one acquittal, so the statistics are looking good.”
Curtailing free speech
Last October, Makowicz published a post on the Crif’s website in which he hailed the decision by the Court of Cassation in the Colmar case, saying it definitively sanctioned the illegality of boycotting Israeli products.
The ruling by France’s highest judicial court, he argued, “confirmed that freedom of expression can be subjected to restrictions and sanctions that are necessary in a democratic society in order to protect order and the rights of other individuals”.
But the court’s decision sparked outrage among several rights groups, including accusations of double standards at a time when French authorities were rallying behind satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and the cherished principle of free speech.
The Paris-based Human Rights League (LDH) said the ruling constituted an “infringement of freedom of expression”, describing it as “a consequence of attempts to silence all criticism of the policies of Israeli governments”.
Prominent journalist Glenn Greenwald, known for his work on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, asked in a scathing article: “Where are all the newfound free speech activists who insisted after the Charlie Hebdo murders that a defence of free expression was so vital to all that is good and just in the Western world?”
Anti-terror laws in France have prompted the sharpest decline in “freedom on the Internet” of all the 65 countries in a Freedom House study – barring Libya.
The row over France’s criminalisation of calls to boycott Israel comes amid mounting concern over the restriction of individual liberties in the wake of recent terrorist attacks.
Just days after Greenwald’s outburst, US-based NGO Freedom House wrote in its annual report that anti-terror laws in France had prompted the sharpest decline in “freedom on the Internet” of all the 65 countries in the study, barring only Libya.
Earlier this week, the state of emergency imposed after the November 13 attacks in Paris prompted a rare rebuke from a panel of UN rights specialists, which slammed “excessive and disproportionate” restrictions on key liberties.
The extraordinary powers were even used to place environmental activists under house arrest during the COP21 climate summit in Paris, a move veteran activist Naomi Klein blasted as a “gross abuse of power that risk[ed] turning the summit into a farce”.
But rights groups have so far struggled to get their message across amid a fraught atmosphere marked by fear of further terrorist attacks and reports of a spike in both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks.
There was widespread dismay earlier this month after a Jewish teacher was attacked and injured in broad daylight by a machete-wielding 15 year-old who claimed to act in the name of the Islamic State (IS) group. When a local Jewish leader urged members of his faith to refrain from wearing their skullcaps, President François Hollande said it was “intolerable” that French citizens would have to “hide because of their religious beliefs”.
Slippery slope
France’s Socialist government has acted aggressively to crack down on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli speech. It has also been forceful in its condemnation of Islamophobic attacks.
The government notably banned comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who has been convicted multiple times of belittling the Holocaust. But while Dieudonné’s antisemitic speech has been proven in court, critics of Israeli policy are a very different matter.
JEWISH LEADER SPARKS SKULLCAP DEBATE
Hervieu, the French legal expert, said it was of course imperative to combat antisemitism and other forms of racism.
However, he added, “One has to be wary of the perverse effect of victimising those who spread nefarious ideas while at the same time banning a discourse that is perfectly legitimate in a democracy”.
He described the existing legislation as “perfectly questionable in terms of freedom of expression”, adding: “The problem is that it leaves little or no room for differentiation between campaigns motivated by racist beliefs and those motivated by political considerations.”
Critics have noted that under a strict application of the law, campaigns to boycott South Africa’s former apartheid regime would have been liable to prosecution.
The paradox may explain why many French prosecutors have been reluctant to enforce it, and why France’s previous conservative government felt the need in 2010 to publish a memo, known as the “Circulaire Alliot-Marie”, urging them to prosecute people who call for boycotts of Israel.
Hervieu said he agreed with Haaretz’s assertion that such legislation would be a hard sell in other European countries, such as the United Kingdom, where, according to the newspaper, “free speech traditions are more robust”.
In its 2014 article, Haaretz noted that pro-Israeli activists in other European countries had been less successful in challenging BDS and other groups calling for boycotts of Israel.
Hervieu said existing laws meant France was, relative to many other Western democracies, a little further down the “slippery slope” of restrictions to freedom of speech.
European appeal
BDS activists are hoping European judges will prove more lenient when they take their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) this year. But Hervieu pointed to a legal precedent that could dampen their optimism.
In 2004, the ECHR upheld the conviction of a French mayor who had called for a boycott of Israeli products in his town. It ruled that in punishing “his incitement to discrimination and not his political opinions”, France had not violated his freedom of expression.
The ruling in the so-called “Willem vs France” case came as a surprise to many observers as it appeared to contrast with the court’s past decisions, which tended to veer in favour of protecting free speech.
Hervieu noted that the ECHR’s decisions were typically very close, not least because the court’s multinational composition inevitably ensured that a plurality of views and legal traditions are represented.
“It is perfectly normal for democrats to have opposing views on such sensitive topics,” he said, adding that it was possible the Strasbourg-based court might overturn the French verdict this time.
Statement by European Legal Scholars Defending the Right to Support BDS for Palestinian Rights
Posted by BDS movement
December 8, 2016
STATEMENT BY LEGAL SCHOLARS AGAINST MEASURES ADOPTED BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENTS TO OUTLAW THE BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS (BDS) MOVEMENT FOR PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a global, peaceful movement led by Palestinian civil society that seeks to put pressure on Israel to honour its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law as demanded by numerous UN resolutions, in particular to end the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territories, stop systemic discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel itself, and permit the return of Palestinian refugees.
Modeled on the Anti-Apartheid Movement that mobilized civil society against apartheid in South Africa, the BDS movement has become a powerful and effective global movement in the advocacy of measures aimed at pressurizing Israel to comply with international law, and at persuading other states and business enterprises to withhold all support for Israel’s violations of international law.
The mobilization of civil society in the interest of human rights, such as the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and the Civil Rights movement in the United States, has not been obstructed by foreign governments. The effectiveness of BDS, however, has prompted not only Israel but also some other states to adopt measures to suppress this movement.
France, the United Kingdom, Canada and certain state legislatures in the United States, have adopted laws and taken executive action to suppress, outlaw and in some instances, criminalize the advocacy of BDS. Such measures aim to punish individuals, companies and private and public institutions that adopt ethically and legally responsible business, investment and procurement decisions.
Other States, notably Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, have taken the position that, while they do not endorse a boycott of Israel, the advocacy of BDS is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression, a deeply cherished freedom enshrined in national law and international human rights conventions. Reputable human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Human Rights Watch, have likewise taken the position that individuals, associations, public and private institutions, local governments and businesses are entitled to advocate and implement BDS in the exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
States and organizations that view BDS as a lawful exercise of freedom of expression are correct. Whether one approves of the aims or methods of BDS is not the issue. The issue is whether in order to protect Israel an exception is to be made to the freedom of expression that occupies a central and pivotal place among fundamental human rights. States that outlaw BDS are undermining this basic human right and threatening the credibility of human rights by exempting a particular state from the advocacy of peaceful measures designed to achieve its compliance with international law.
Signatories
UK
Prof. Guy Goodwin-Gill, Emeritus Fellow, All Souls College, University of Oxford
Prof. Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, barrister; University College London and London South Bank University
Prof. Conor Gearty, London School of Economics
Prof. Iain Scobbie, University of Manchester
Prof. William Schabas, Middlesex University, London
Prof. Bill Bowring, Birkbeck University of London
Prof. Rachel Murray, University of Bristol
Prof. Robert Wintemute, King’s College London
Prof. Kevin Jon Heller, SOAS University of London
Prof. Penny Green, Queen Mary University of London
Prof. Sol Picciotto, Lancaster University
Prof. Oren Ben-Dor, University of Southampton
Prof. Wade Mansell, University of Kent
Michael Mansfield QC, barrister, London
Kirsty Brimelow QC, barrister, London
Paul Ridge, barrister, London
David Renton, barrister, London
Daniel Machover, lawyer, London
Dr. Ntina Tzouvala, University of Durham
Dr. Gleider I. Hernández, University of Durham
Dr. Ralph Wilde, University College London
Dr Vanja Hamzić, SOAS University of London
Dr. Christine Schwoebel-Patel, University of Liverpool
Dr. Mazen Masri, City, University London
Dr. Michael Kearney, University of Sussex
Dr. Brenna Bhandar, SOAS University of London
Dr. Isra Black, University of York
Dr. Nadine El-Enany, Birkbeck University of London
Dr. Gina Heathcote, SOAS University of London
Dr. Edel Hughes, University of East London
Dr. Ioannis Kalpouzos, City, University of London
Dr. Sarah Keenan, Birkbeck University of London
Dr. Vidya Kumar, University of Leicester
Dr. Thomas MacManus, Queen Mary University of London
Dr. Paul O’Connell, SOAS University of London
Dr. Graham Smith, University of Manchester
Dr. Nimer Sultany, SOAS University of London
Dr. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Charlotte Peevers, University of Glasgow
Dr. Mohsen Al-Attar, Queen’s University Belfast
IRELAND
Dr. John Reynolds, National University of Ireland, Maynooth
NETHERLANDS
Prof. John Dugard, University of Leiden
Prof. Paul de Waart, Emeritus VU University Amsterdam
Prof. Liesbeth Zegveld, University of Amsterdam; lawyer
Prof. Karin Arts, ISS of Erasmus University Rotterdam
Dr. Jeff Handmaker, ISS of Erasmus University Rotterdam
Dr. Joseph Powderly, Assistant-Professor, University of Leiden
Dr. Marloes van Noorloos, Tilburg University
Dr. Michiel Bot, Tilburg University
BELGIUM
Prof. Eric David, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Jean Salmon, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Olivier Corten, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Francois Dubuisson, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Pierre Klein, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Jaques Englebert, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Anne Lagerwall, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. François Ost, Université Saint-Louis, Bruxelles
Prof. dr. emeritus Dirk Voorhoof, Ghent University; European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
Prof. Dr. Eva Brems, Human Rights Center, Ghent University
Alexis Deswaef, avocat au barreau de Bruxelles; président de la Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (Belgique)
Véronique van der Plancke, advocate au barreau de Bruxelles; Université de Louvain
LUXEMBOURG
Dr. Parvathi Menon, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law
FRANCE
Prof. Jean Matringe, Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne
Prof. Xavier Dupré de Boulois, Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne
Prof. Catherine Kessedjian, Université de Paris II Panthéon Assas
Prof. Thomas Perroud, Université de Paris II Panthéon Assas
Prof. Gilles Guglielmi, Université de Paris II Panthéon Assas
Prof. Stéphanie Dijoux, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Prof. Franck Latty, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Prof. émérite Géraud de la Pradelle, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Prof. émérite Alain Pellet, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Prof. émérite Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Université Paris Diderot
Prof. émérite Robert Charvin, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis
Prof. émérite, Paul Allies, Université de Montpellier I
Prof. émérite, Gérard Blanc, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Prof. Delphine Costa, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Prof. Marie-Pierre Lanfranchi, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Prof. Elise Carpentier, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Prof. Josiane Auvret-Finck, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis
Prof. Philippe Lagrange, Université de Poitiers
Prof. Arnaud de Nanteuil, Université du Maine
Prof. Alina Miron, Université d’Angers
Prof. Diane Roman, Université François Rabelais Tours
Prof. Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche, Université Jean Moulin Lyon III
Prof. émérite Armel Kerrest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale
Prof. Xavier Souvignet, Université de Grenoble Alpes
Prof. Thierry Garcia, Université Grenoble Alpes
Prof. Romain Tinière, Université Grenoble Alpes
Prof. Aurélien Antoine, Université Jean Monnet – Saint-Etienne
Prof. Jacques Larrieu, Université de Toulouse I Capitole
Prof. Sébastien Platon, Université de Bordeaux
Prof. François Quastana, Université de Lille II
Prof. Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet, Institut d’études politiques de Paris
Prof. Vincent Dubois, Institut d’études politiques de Strasbourg
Prof. Laurent Sermet, Institut d’études politiques d’Aix-en-Provence
Prof. Pascal Jan, Institut d’études politiques de Bordeaux
Prof. Dominique Darbon, Institut d’études politiques de Bordeaux
Prof. Cécile Rapoport, Université de Rennes 1
Prof. Mouloud Boumghar, Université de Picardie Jules Verne
Prof. Carlos Miguel Herrera, Université de Cergy-Pontoise
Marine Eudes, Maître de conférences, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Christophe Voilliot, Maître de conférences, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Marc Touillier, Maître de conférences, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Ismael Omarjee, Maître de conferences, Université de Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Nicolas Gabayet, Maître de conférences, Université Paris Est Créteil
Lucie Sponchiado, Maître de conférences, Université Paris Est-Créteil
Véronique Mikalef-Toudic, Maître de conférences, Université de Caen Normandie
Magalie Flores-Lonjou, Maître de conférences, Université de La Rochelle
François-Xavier Morisset, Maître de conférences à l’Université de La Rochelle
Malik Boumediene, Maître de conférences, Université de Toulouse II Le Mirail
Lucien Maurin, Maître de conférences, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Bastien Brignon, Maître de conférences, Université d’Aix-Marseille
Pascal Richard, Maître de conférences, Université du Sud Toulon Var
Anouche Beaudouin, Maître de conférences, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis
Philippe Enclos, Maître de conférences, Université de Lille II
Alexandre Barège, Maître de conférences, Université de Lille II
Rhita Bousta, Maître de conférences, Université de Lille II
Patrice Le Maigat, Maître de conférences, Université de Rennes I
Romain Loir, Maître de conférences, Université de La Réunion
Aurélien Siri, Maître de conférences, Centre universitaire de Mayotte
Jean-Christophe Lapouble, Maître de conférences, Institut d’études politiques de Bordeaux
Alexandre Zabalza, Maître de conferences, Université de Bordeaux
Philippe Icard, Maître de conférences, Université de Bourgogne
Christine Bertrand, Maître de conferences, Université d’Auvergne
Caroline Lantero, Maître de conferences, Université d’Auvergne
Anne-Sophie Denolle, Maître de conferences, Université de Nimes
Rodolphe Bigot, maître de conférences, Université de Picardie Jules Verne
François Henot, Maître de conferences, Université de Picardie Jules Verne
AUSTRIA
Prof. Franz Leidenmühler, University of Linz
GERMANY
Prof. Norman Paech, Emeritus, University of Hamburg
SWITZERLAND
Prof. Robert Kolb, Université de Genève
Prof. Marco Sassòli, Université de Genève
Prof. Stefan Trechsel, Emeritus, University of Zurich; Bern
Prof. Regula Kägi-Diener, University of St. Gallen; lawyer
Prof. em. Dr. Wolf Linder, political scientist and jurist, Bern
Dr. h .c. Marco Mona, lawyer, Zurich
Dr. Tom Moerenhout, Graduate Institute of International Development Studies, Genève
Markus Bischoff, lawyer, member of Council-Kanton of Zurich
Jürg Meyer, jurist; member of Council-Kanton Basel City
Robert Cramer, avocat, Conseiller aux Etats, Genève
Nils de Dardel, avocat, ancien conseiller national, Genève
Marcel Bosonnet, lawyer, Zurich
Romolo Molo, avocat, Genève
Jean-Michel Dolivo, avocat, Lausanne
Hüsnü Yilmaz, avocat; co-president des Juristes Progressistes Vaudois
Beat Leuthardt, jurist, Basel
Olivier Peter, avocat, Genève
Leila Batou, avocat, Genève
Miriam Gantner, jurist, Basel
ITALY
Livio Pepino, già magistrato, consigliere della Corte di Cassazione e membro del Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Torino
Prof. Gustavo Gozzi, Università di Bologna
Fabio Marcelli, Istituto Studi Giuridici Internazionali – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Prof. Marco Balboni, Università di Bologna
Prof. Silvia Buzzelli, Università di Milano-Bicocca
Prof. Chantal Meloni, Università degli Studi di Milano
Prof. Luca Masera, Università degli Studi di Brescia
Prof. Marco Pertile, Università di Trento
Prof. Carlo Sotis, Università della Tuscia
Dr. Francesca De Vittor, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano
Gilberto Pagani, avvocato, Milano
Fausto Gianelli, avvocato, Modena
Dario Rossi, avvocato, Genova
PORTUGAL
Dr. Tor Krever, London School of Economics; Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra
SPAIN
Prof. David Bondia García, University of Barcelona; president, Human Rights Institute of Catalonia
Justice José Antonio Martín Pallín, former judge, Supreme Court
Justice Juan Pedro Illanez Suárez, Palma de Mallorca
Prof. Nicolás Navarro Batista, Gran Canaria
Prof. Itziar Ruiz-Gimenez Arrieta, Madrid
Prof. Rosario Gonzalez Arias, lawyer, Oviedo; Autonomous University of Querétaro, Mexico
Antonio Segura Hernández, lawyer, Madrid
Carmelo Faleh-Pérez, Spanish Association for International Law and Human Rights (AEDIDH)
Jacinto José Gil Ugena, lawyer, Madrid
Francisco García Cediel, lawyer, Madrid
César Pinto Cañón, lawyer, Madrid
Enrique Santiago Romero, lawyer, Madrid
Nadia Chliha ben Mohito, lawyer, Madrid
Diego Catriel Herchhoren, lawyer, Madrid
Tarek Khalaf Alonso, lawyer, Madrid
Redouan Zidi Tassakourt, lawyer, Madrid
Hana Cheikh Ali, lawyer, Madrid
Amira Cheikh Ali, lawyer, Madrid
María Soledad García Bau, lawyer, Madrid
José Ricardo Gayol García, lawyer, Madrid
Andrés García, lawyer
Montserrat Vinyest i Pagès, lawyer, Girona
Benet Salellas i Vilar, lawyer, Girona
Ana Maria Fernandez Llamazares, lawyer, Barcelona
Ana Osa Farré, lawyer, Barcelona
Concepción Trabado Álvarez, lawyer, Fabero (León)
Juan M. Prieto Santos, lawyer, Gijón-Xixón
María Xulia Fernández Suárez, lawyer, Gijón-Xixón
Joan Tamayo, lawyer, Terrassa
Pilar Mateo Lisa, lawyer, Terrassa
NORWAY
Prof. Peter Ørebech, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø
Justice Ketil Lund, Supreme Court (1990 – 2009); chair, International Commission of Jurists- Norway
Harald Stabell, barrister, Oslo
Kjell Brygfjeld, lawyer, Stavanger
Geir Høin, lawyer, Oslo
Bent Endresen, lawyer, Stavanger
Pål Hadler, lawyer, Stavanger
SWEDEN
Prof. Pål Wrange, Stockholm University; Stockholm Center for International Law and Justice
Dr. Markus Gunneflo, Lund University
FINLAND
Prof. Emeritus Lauri Hannikainen, University of Helsinki
Prof. Jarna Petman, University of Helsinki; Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights