Online Training for Georgian Civil Society about ECtHR judgments implementation process

On the December 17th EIN organised a joint training session for Georgian civil society with the Georgian Young Lawyer’s Association (GYLA). This training session aimed to enhance the capacity of civil society’s engagement with the process of implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The training session focused on two main areas: the implementation process of judgments of the ECtHR and how to address the issue of non-implementation of ECtHR judgments in Georgia.

EIN Director George Stafford and GYLA Strategic Litigation Coordinator Nino Jomarjidze provided the session's introductions. After the welcoming remarks, Veronika Kotek,  representative of the Council of Europe’s Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ), provided civil society organisations with an overview of the implementation process in Strasbourg and the mandate of the Council of Europe of the Committee of Ministers. This was followed with a presentation by EIN Programme Manager Agnes Ciccarone, regarding the involvement of NGOs in the Strasbourg system, specifically looking at how NGOs can participate in that process. GYLA Strategic Litigation Coordinator Nino Jomarjidze then gave concrete examples from GYLA’s work, to highlight the importance for NGOs of being involved in the implementation process. The session then moved towards discussing the current ECtHR judgments that are pending against Georgia, with a presentation by the EIN Director George Stafford.

Following the first session, participants joined in a break- out session on writing Rule 9 submissions, moderated by DEJ representative Veronika Kotek and EIN Programme Manager Agnes Ciccarone, and how to work on pending ECtHR cases against Georgia, moderated by GYLA Strategic Litigation Coordinator Nino Jomarjidze and EIN Director George Stafford.

The second session addressed how civil society organizations can become more engaged with the ECtHR implementation process at the national level. Nino Jomarjidze, Strategic Litigation Coordinator at GYLA, presented on the system of supervision of the implementation of ECtHR judgments in the Georgian Parliament. Next, the session moved on to the role of the Public Defender’s Office in ECtHR implementation, which was explained by Tamar Abazadze, Head of the Analytical Department at the PDO. The final topic of the session discussed international examples of domestic advocacy for the implementation of ECtHR judgments, by EIN Law and Advocacy Officer Ioana Iliescu.

The online training session concluded with final questions, discussion, and next steps for participating with the implementation process in Georgia.

We thank all those who were involved in the training sessions and all participants who joined in.

Overview of the Committee of Ministers Deputies Human Rights Meeting December 2020

From December 1st-3rd the Committee of Minister’s Deputies will be examining several cases of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation– (see the full list here). For these cases, there were many Rule 9 submissions made by EIN members and partners within our network of implementation advocates. Out of the 32 cases that the CM is examining, 16 submissions are the subject of monitoring submissions.

Decisions by the CM related to these cases were released on December 4th, 2020 and their Decisions on all 32 cases can be found here.

AL NASHIRI group v. Poland (Application No. 28761/11)

Last Decision: March 2019 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-19

Violation:
Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant was exposed to a serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 as well as of further secret detention. He faces a risk of capital punishment in a trial before a United States military commission in which, according to the European Court's judgment, evidence obtained under torture might be used. 

Submissions: 

-       Open Society Justice Initiative (23/10/2020)

AL NASHIRI v. Romania (Application No. 33234/12)

Last Decision: March 2019 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-22 

Violation:

Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant was exposed to a serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 as well as of further secret detention. He faces a risk of capital punishment in a trial before a United States military commission in which, according to the European Court's judgment, evidence obtained under torture might be used 

Submissions:

-       Open Society Justice Initiative (20/10/2020)

Cyprus v. Turkey (Application No. 25781/94) & VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application No. 16064/90+)

Last Decision: December 2019 CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-30 

Violation:

 Lack of effective investigation into the fate of nine Greek Cypriots who disappeared during the military operations undertaken by Turkey in Cyprus in 1974.

Submissions:

-       Truth Now

D.H. AND OTHERS v. Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00)

Last Decision: September 2019 CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-7 

Violation:

 Discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicants’ right to education due to their enrolment to special schools between 1996 and 1999, on account of their Roma origin. 

Submissions:

-       the Forum for Human Rights  (20/10/2020)

-        the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights  (22/10/2020)

GONGADZE v. Ukraine (Application No. 34056/02)

Last Decision: September 2018 CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-25 

Violation:

 The killing of a journalist and lack of effective investigation. 

Submissions: 

-       the Institute of Mass Information (26/10/2020)

KHAN v. France (Application No. 12267/16)

First examination by the CM 

Violation:

Lack of care and protection of an unaccompanied foreign minor given his living conditions in the Calais “lande” and the non-enforcement of the order of the juvenile judge aimed at protecting him. 

Submissions:

-       Help Refugees, Médecins du Monde Nord Littoral, Project Play, Refugee Rights Europe, Refugee Women’s Centre, Refugee Youth Service, Safe Passage International, Secours Catholique-Caritas France, Utopia 56 (French Only)  (26/10/2020)

-       the French Ombudsman (27 July 2020)

KAVALA v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)

Last Decision: 29 September – 1 October 2020 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-22

Violation:

 Unjustified and extended detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion and with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence.

Submissions:

-       Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (02/11/2020)

KHASHIYEV and AKAYEVA group v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57942/00)

Last Decision: March 2018 CM/Del/Dec(2018)1310/H46-16 

Violation:

 The action of the security forces, mostly in the Chechen Republic (the search for missing persons in the cases concerning events which took place between 1999 and 2006).

 Submissions:

-        European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and Memorial Human Rights Centre (21/10/2020)

-       European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and Memorial Human Rights Centre (03/11/2020)

 MAMMADLI group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14)

Last Decision: 1-3 September 2020 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46

 Violation:

 Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his activities in the area of electoral monitoring (Mammadli) or for their active social and political engagement (Rashad Hasanov and others) in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5.

 Submissions: 

-       Amnesty International, the Baku Human Rights Club, the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, the European Implementation Network, the Human Rights House Foundation, the International Partnership for Human Rights, the Legal Education Society and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (22/10/2020)

 McKERR GROUP v. UK (Application no. 28883/95)

Last Decision: 1-3 September 2020 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-44

Violation:

Actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s; failure to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations.

 Submissions:

-       Committee on the Administration of Justice (29/10/2020)

 NISIOTIS GROUP v. Greece (Application no. 34704/08)

Last Decision: September 2018 CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-8

 Violation:

 Prison overcrowding and other poor conditions in prison.

 Submissions:

-        Hellenic League for Human Rights (16/10/2020)

NEVMERZHITSKY v. Ukraine (Application no. 54825/00)

Last Decision: 29 September – 1 October 2020 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-25

Violation:

 Poor conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical treatment.

Submissions:

-       European Prison Litigation Network and the Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group (02/11/2020)

OPUZ GROUP v. Turkey (Application no. 33401/02)

Last Decision: December 2018 CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-29

Violation:

 Failure to provide protection from domestic violence. 

Submissions:

-       Federation of Women Associations of Turkey (22/10/2020)

-       Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation (23/10/2020)  

TSINTSABADZE GROUP v. Georgia (Application no. 35403/06)

Last Decision: December 2019 CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-8

Violation:

 Lack of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or violations of the right to life; excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and/or while detaining suspects.

Submissions:

-        Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (20/10/2020)

-       Public Defender’s Office of Georgia (23/10/2020)

VOLODINA GROUP v. Russia (Application no. 41261/17)

First examination

Violation:

Failure to protect from domestic violence and to conduct an effective investigation.

Submissions: 

-        Stichting Justice Initiative (31/07/2020)

 YORDANOVA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06)

Last Decision March 2020 CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-9

 Violation:

 Eviction of persons of Roma origin[2] on the basis of legislation not requiring adequate examination of the proportionality of the measure.

 Submissions:

-       Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (03/11/2020)

-       Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (23/10/2020)

-       Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (16/10/2020)

Russia Webinar 3: Forming a collective strategy to advance implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia

The last webinar in the Russia series took place on the 24th November 2020. It aimed to encourage discussion on collective strategies that can advance implementation in Russia, through forming implementation hubs, focused alliances to campaign on particular cases and holding the government to account for its implementation record.

The webinar began with a presentation by Artur Dzedzinskii, Lawyer of Russia Behind Bars, on the organisation’s activities to promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments against Russia concerning the rights of prisoners. This set out the mixture of litigation, media outreach and co-operation work being done to push forward implementation in this area.

The webinar then discussed implementation hubs, which can be an NGO or group of NGOs leading a sustained and concerted effort to push implementation forward. These hubs can spread information to other NGOs who might want to take action, make joint Strasbourg submissions and advocate at the national level. Hubs are functioning across the Council of Europe member states, by EIN members. For more information on implementation hubs, please see our blog post on Armenian civil society training.

Next, the webinar turned to alliances of NGOs operating to promote the implementation of particular judgments, highlighting the different case-based approaches and topic based-approaches human rights organizations can utilize. The Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM), the Association for Constitutionality and Legality (UZUZ) and ASTRA coalition on the missing babies’ case of Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia were used as a successful example from a different country.  Within Russia, participants discussed the existing co-operation work of OVD-Info and Memorial on the implementation of Lashmankin group with a large group of other NGOs, as well as the formation of new alliances focused on the rights of prisoners and sexual violence. 

The webinar closed on the topic of holding governments to account for their overall record on implementation. Strategies for accountability include using statistics (see our country implementation map), engaging constructively with authorities, (seen in the Armenian Example) and engaging with the media by press conferences and TV appearances (seen in the Zorica Jovanović example). 

We hope that the discussion on strategies to best advance implementation in Russia will be a useful contribution to our collective efforts to improve implementation. It will help us shape EIN’s support going forward.

We thank all participants who joined these webinars and also our partners and members who collaborated with us.

EIN Briefing on Domestic Violence in Russia and Prison Conditions in Ukraine

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 23rd November 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online.

The briefing focused on the following cases:

1)    Volodina v. Russia, concerning domestic violence and discrimination against women in Russia, presented by Vanessa Kogan, Stichting Justice Initiative Executive Director.

2)    The Nevmerzhitsky case, concerning overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention, the inadequacy of medical care in detention, and lack of effective remedies in all these respects, presented by Hugues de Suremain, European Prison Litigation Network, and Gennadiy Tokarev, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

The Volodina case

This case concerns domestic violence, including grave physical and mental suffering from physical and psychological abuse of the applicant over two years by her ex-partner. The applicant submitted over eight complaints to the authorities over two years: no attempt to protect the applicant from further violence or to open criminal proceedings against the (known) perpetrator.

The ECtHR found a violation of the applicants right to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of torture and cruel treatment). The Court stated that authorities had failed to uphold their obligations to establish a legal framework to prevent the known risks of ill-treatment and to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment. (para. 78-101). The Court also found a violation of the applicant's Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) right. “The Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity to benefit from the equal protection of the law.”(para. 132)

While ECtHR has judged this case, the Committee of Ministers is not monitoring the implementation of the ECtHR judgment of the case.

The presentation was given by Vanessa Kogan, Stichting Justice Initiative Executive Director. You can find the video of their briefing below.

 SJI recommends that the Volodina case should be examined by the Committee of Ministers under the enhanced procedure, at least every six months. Also, individual measures should focus on effective ex officio criminal investigations, and that general measures should aim to eliminate current specific shortcomings.

Relevant documents

• Stichting Justice Initiative – Rule 9 Submission concerning individual and general measures in Volodina v Russia (No.41261/17)

• Stichting Justice Initiative – Volodina vs Russia

• Case of Volodina v. Russia ECtHR Judgment (July 2019)

The Nevmerzhitsky Group case

The Nevmerzhitsky Group concerns poor conditions of detention, specifically, overcrowding and poor material conditions, the inadequacy of medical care, and lack of effective remedies in all these respects. The ECtHR has stated that the lack of proper medical treatment in Ukrainian prison is a structural issue, and no effective remedy is available. 

The presentation focused on issues related to a lack of healthcare in prison facilities. The lack of access to healthcare in Ukrainian prisons is a situation of extreme urgency. There are several issues at the core of this prison crisis, inconsistent health policy, a health system facing major systemic and structural difficulties and the inefficient management of infectious disease, and lastly difficulties exacerbated by the COVID-19. 

The Committee of Ministers is monitoring the Nevmerzhitsky group and will resume its examination at their 1390th meeting (December 2020) (DH).

Presentation by Hugues de Suremain, European Prison Litigation Network, and Gennadiy Tokarev, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group. You can find the video of their briefing below.  

In particular, the presenters called on the Committee of Ministers to request the Government of Ukraine to:

• urgently fill the vacancies for health care workers and the need for equipment and medicines;

• clarify as soon as possible the chain of responsibility within the medical units and designate those responsible for the quality of care;

• initiate, possibly in the form of a consensus conference, a transparent process for the transfer of prison medicine to the Ministry of Health, comprising a national debate including civil society and international organizations.

  In addition, EPLN and KHPG also called on the Committee of Ministers to:

• separate the examination of groups of cases concerning health care in prison from those concerning material conditions of detention, as the necessary reforms involve distinct responses, actors and time frames;

• act with the Directorate-General for Human Rights to ensure that prison health issues are given greater priority in cooperation programs and find synergies with relevant EU instruments.

Relevant documents

• European Prison Litigation Network and Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group – Rule 9 Submission (14/09/20)

• Case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (12/10/05)

• Committee of Ministers Decision - H46-25 Nevmerzhitsky group (Application No. 54825/00), Yakovenko group (Application No. 15825/06), Logvinenko group (Application No. 13448/07), Isayev group (Application No. 28827/02) and Melnik group (Application No. 72286/01) v. Ukraine  (1/10/2020)

Russia Webinar 2: Best practices for promoting the implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia

This week EIN facilitated its second webinar on improving the impact of the judgments of the ECtHR in Russia. The webinar aimed to provide an overview of what activities might be the most impactful in promoting the implementation of ECHR judgments within the country.

The webinar was divided into two sections. The first used the results of EIN’s survey of participants to set out the variety of activities that Russian NGOs are using to promote ECHR implementation at the domestic level, as well as highlighting which activities are considered to be the most impactful. These activities included engagement with the executive branch, advocacy through the judiciary, media coverage, co-operation with other NGOs, and educational work. Presentations were carried out by two NGOs experienced in working on ECHR implementation, to explain their advocacy campaigns.

The second part of the webinar focused on best practices for promoting the implementation of ECHR judgments experienced by NGOs across Europe. The EIN Guide for Civil Society on Domestic Advocacy for Implementation of ECtHR judgments was used to guide the discussion to provided best practices on activities including advocacy with the executive, forming domestic advocacy coalitions, and communicating about the (non)implementation of judgments.

This webinar provided an exchange of insights and experiences between participants that we hope will help all stakeholders active in Russia to find new partners and allies for advancing the implementation of ECtHR judgments in the country. We thank all participants who joined the webinar and those who shared their insights and experiences.

The last webinar in the series will take place next week, entitled ‘Towards a collective strategy to advance implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia?’ (Tuesday 24th November 2020). For more information on Domestic Advocacy for Civil Society, please see the EIN Guide for full details.

Want to know if EIN has a member in your state? Or want to join EIN as a member or partner? Check out our webpage to find out more. Also, don’t hesitate to get in touch with EIN if you want us to link you up with a member or partner in your country or with expertise in your area of work. There is a wealth of experience within the network, and we are here to help you learn from each other.

Russia Webinar 1: Non-Implementation of ECtHR Judgments in Russia

Over the last 10 years, 88% of the European Court of Human Rights leading judgments concerning Russia are still pending implementation. More specifically, Russia has the highest number of lending judgments pending implementation with 224 out of a total of 1274 leading cases pending in all Council of Europe countries.

This week EIN facilitated the first of three webinar sessions on improving the impact of the judgments of the ECtHR in Russia. It sessions involve thirteen of Russia’s different human rights organisations. The first session focused on the extent of non-implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia. The session began with EIN Director George Stafford welcoming participants, followed by roundtable introductions. EIN then presented an overview of the level of non-implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia. 

The presentation highlighted that around 90% of the leading judgments against Russia handed down by the ECtHR over the last ten years remain pending implementation. Furthermore, 7 years and 6 months is the average time that leading judgments have been pending in Russia and there has been no Action Plan or Action Report in 61.5% of leading cases. Much of these pending leading judgments include recurring human rights issues on Liberty and Security, Torture and Ill-treatment, Fair Trial and Private and Family Life. The session closed with an open discussion among participants allowing time for questions and answers.  

The webinar was EIN’s first step towards generating further conversations and strategies on how to best advance and contribute to implementing ECtHR judgments in Russia. We thank all participants who joined the webinar and look forward to the next one.

The second webinar is scheduled for Tuesday 17th November 2020, titled ‘How NGOs and human rights defenders can work collectively to address the non-implementation problem?’.

Joint statement regarding the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments against Azerbaijan in cases of politically motivated prosecution

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has rendered judgments identifying the politically motivated prosecution of sixteen different people in Azerbaijan. The victims include human rights defenders, a journalist, civil society activists and politicians. So far, only two of these judgments have been implemented – and only in regard to individual measures - following the acquittal of politician Ilgar Mammadov and human rights defender Rasul Jafarov in April. Since then, there has been no progress in obtaining justice for the other individual victims; and no progress toward the general measures necessary to resolve the underlying issue.

The European Implementation Network has joined with 8 other NGOs to highlight this ongoing situation and call for urgent action.

 Joint statement regarding the non-implementation of ECHR judgments against Azerbaijan in politically motivated prosecution cases 

by Amnesty International, the Baku Human Rights Club, the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, the European Implementation Network, the Human Rights House Foundation, the International Partnership for Human Rights, the Legal Education Society and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. 

10 November 2020 

1. Widespread use of criminal law and restrictive NGO legislation as a weapon against critical voices is an ongoing hallmark of the human rights situation in Azerbaijan. The government has tried to silence human rights defenders, including lawyers, journalists, bloggers, and civil society leaders as well as politicians by means of arbitrary prosecution and imprisonment. 
   

2. So far, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has rendered ten judgments against the Government of Azerbaijan – concerning sixteen victims - regarding politically motivated prosecutions (Article 18 of the ECHR). Only two have been implemented so far and only with regard to their individual measures. Progress on general measures necessary to implement all the judgments concerned, including those closed under the infringement procedure in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, under article 46.4 ECHR, is flagrantly absent. 

3. In its most recent decision, rendered on the 4th of September 2020, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has ended infringement proceedings against Azerbaijan. It expressed satisfaction in view of the acquittal of two of the applicants, Ilgar Mammadov and Rasul Jafarov. It also called for restitutio in integrum for the other applicants who continue to endure the consequences of arbitrary criminal convictions. These include Anar Mammadli, the head of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre, and the prominent human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev. On the same day that the Committee of Ministers’ decision to end infringement proceedings was taken, another Azeri opposition leader, Tofig Yagublu, was convicted on what Amnesty International have described as politically motivated charges.i 

4. Our organisations do not believe that these two acquittals alone should warrant an optimistic assessment of the actions of the Azerbaijani authorities. Nor should they warrant a decrease in the level of supervision by the Committee of Ministers. Systemic problems of reprisals and political persecution persist in Azerbaijan, as the government continues its strategy to weaken civil society and peaceful dissent. 

5. Local human rights groups have compiled a list of political prisoners, which on 10 June 2020 included 108 people.ii Since the beginning of the pandemic, the government has continued a crackdown on dissenting voices.iii Following political opposition rallies in Baku in July 2020, more than 100 opposition leaders, supporters, and activists were detained and prosecuted on politically motivated charges or subjected to severe penalties under administrative law.iv 

6. Even when victims of politically motivated prosecutions are released from custody, they are left with criminal records. The effects of this are significant, and include bans on carrying out professional activities (such as leading NGOs or representing clients in legal proceedings); being unable to access bank accounts; ineligibility to stand in elections; and bans on travelling abroad. 

7. Government critics have been pursued under trumped-up charges, detained arbitrarily, subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, and imprisoned following unfair trials. All pillars of the criminal justice system have been compromised: starting with the police (who carry out arrests without due process); continuing with the prosecution (which uses trumped-up charges); and finishing with courts (which hand out convictions following unfair trials, in which “confessions” obtained under torture are routinely admitted as evidence). 

8. Restrictive NGO laws were introduced in Azerbaijan in 2013-2014 and have been applied arbitrarily since then. The result has been the hindering of legitimate activities of independent NGOs critical of the government, in particular through continued arbitrary denial of registration and the application of onerous reporting, tax and other requirements creating a pretext for a string of arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of NGO leaders. Subsequent amendments in 2016-2017 created a lengthy, complex and burdensome multi-tier system of approval of grants, which de facto prevents NGOs from accessing grants from foreign donors. Each grant agreement requires approval from the Ministry of Justice and an opinion on the financial-economic expediency of the grant from the Ministry of Finance, which interpret provisions in a discretionary manner, on vague and broad grounds.v Grants are refused for areas which are considered to be already addressed by the governments or where the purpose of a grant and its financial-economic expediency can be assessed as insufficiently described. Furthermore, the state controls information over NGO donations, collects information on individuals donating to NGOs, and exercises extensive monitoring powers over NGO activities. The rules on investigating activities of NGOs give the Ministry of Justice the power to impose, in the context of inspections, requirements on NGOs that are extremely burdensome. 

9. The entirety of this legislation has forced NGOs to operate on the fringes of the law in order to continue functioning, leaving them exposed to sanctions deriving from arbitrary interpretations of this exceedingly prohibitive legislation. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the harsh regulation of NGO activity “cannot be ignored” when looking at the politically motivated prosecution of members of civil society, because the nature of the regulations leads to the criminalization of NGO activity.vi The Courtvii, the Venice Commissionviii and the former Commissioner for Human Rights ix have all expressed grave concerns about the NGO legislation not being in line with international standards and about the arbitrary and harsh way it has been applied. 

10. The issues of politically motivated prosecutions and the restrictive NGO framework are therefore closely intertwined. Intigam Aliyev, Rasul Jafarov and Anar Mammadli, amongst others, were imprisoned under legislation governing NGOs. In these cases, accusations of criminal activity were unlawfully linked to the administrative failures to adhere to draconian NGO and grants legislation. Systemic misuse of the criminal justice system in Azerbaijan cannot be effectively addressed without carrying out reforms to change the laws that are used to facilitate them. Furthermore, a vibrant civil society is fundamental to achieving reforms to ensure independence of the judiciary and prosecution authorities, which are necessary to prevent politically motivated prosecutions - and this will not be possible under legislation that is suffocating civil society. 

11. We, the undersigned NGOs, call upon the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to: 

• Express serious concern for Azerbaijan’s failure to pursue any of the measures required to address the systemic causes that led to the multiple Court judgments finding politically motivated prosecutions and imprisonment of government critics, lawyers, and human rights defenders, and which led the Committee of Ministers to initiate its first infringement procedure under art 46.4 ECHR in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan.

• Maintain the Mammadli group on the agenda of every upcoming CM DH meeting, in order to apply continuous and effective scrutiny of the implementation of individual and general measures, as a follow up to the infringement procedure in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan.

• Call upon the Azerbaijani authorities to effectively address the lack of independence in the judiciary that enables and condones arbitrary arrests and prosecutions; to end the politically motivated prosecution of members of civil society and all arbitrary restrictions on their work; and to stop reprisals for legitimate human rights work.

• Address the issue of restrictive NGO and grants legislation in the next decision regarding the Mammadli group and request the Azerbaijani government to amend the current restrictive legislation regarding NGO activities and grants to bring it into line with the country’s obligation under international human rights law.

• Request that the Secretariat prepare an Interim Resolution, to be issued by the Committee of Ministers at its March 2021 CM/DH meeting unless the criminal convictions of all applicants in this group are overturned by that meeting.

12. Further details of the arguments set above are available in the submissions made by Amnesty International and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre[i], the International Partnership for Human Rights[ii], and in Rule 9.1 submissions made by the victims, available here.

Endnotes

[i] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/azerbaijan-tofig-yagublu-handed-politically-motivated-sentence/

[ii] A unified list of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, The Working Group (WG) on Unified List of Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan, 21 February 2019, available at:

 https://www.turan.az/ext/news/2020/6/free/Social/en/124755.htm
available at (in azeri) https://smdtaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Vahid-Siyasi-Mahbus-Siyahisi-10.06.2020-az.pdf

[iii] Human Rights House Foundation, Azerbaijani authorities must cease crackdown on dissenting voices, and release political prisoners, 9 September 2020.

[iv] Amnesty International Public Statement, Azerbaijan: End Brutal Crackdown on Opposition Activists, 5 August 2020, available at https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR5528482020ENGLISH.pdf

[v] 1377th meeting (June 2020) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication by Amnesty International, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (27/04/2020) in the ILGAR MAMMADOV GROUP v. Azerbaijan.

[vi] Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, application no. 68817/14, judgment rendered on 16 July 2020, para. 192. See also Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, application 69981/14, judgment of 04 July 2016 para 120.

[vii] Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, application 69981/14, judgment of 04 July 2016 para 120.

[viii] Opinion on the compatibility with human rights standards of the legislation on non-governmental organisations of the Republic of Azerbaijan, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) at its 88th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 October 2011).

[ix] Third party intervention by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights under Article 36, paragraph 3, of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan, Application No. 69981/14, CommDH(2015)8,  20 March 2015.

[x] 1377th meeting (June 2020) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication by Amnesty International, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (27/04/2020) in the ILGAR MAMMADOV GROUP v. Azerbaijan

[xi] 1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication by International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) (12/02/2020) in the ILGAR MAMMADOV GROUP v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 15172/13)

EIN Webinar: Enhancing NHRIs’ Capacity for Effective implementation through Writing effective Rule 9 Submissions

EIN closed the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) webinar series focusing on effective implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, with the final instalment on writing effective Rule 9 Submissions for NHRIs.

The previous webinars took place on the 10th, 17th of September and the 8th of October, and have covered: the scale of the non-implementation challenge and the need for greater involvement by NHRIs, the basics of the Committee of Ministers execution process and what are the important elements to keep in mind when engaging into it, what advocacy avenues might be available to NHRIs to work on ECtHR judgment implementation at a domestic level, and how they can hold governments to account about their overall record on implementation.

These series of webinars were co-organised with the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRIs) and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe. 

Participants selected for this webinar received detailed training about how to draft effective Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers. Participants also learned about the main elements of efficient Rule 9s and the challenges of drafting Rule 9s, as illustrated by a case example as a practical guide.

Participants were invited to watch, ahead of our session, the video by Head of Division Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, from the Department for Execution of Judgments, which provides some useful tips on submitting and drafting communication under rule 9 of the Committee of Ministers. Nikolaos Sitaropoulos advises that communications submitted should be well constructed, should be clear and concise, and should be a maximum of 5-10 pages and be timely.

See video for all tips provided by Nikolaos Sitaropoulos

The webinar opened with remarks by EIN Director George Stafford on the main elements of efficient Rule 9s, followed by an open discussion on problems encountered by participants when working on draft Rule 9s. 

The discussion focused on some of the main problems with Rule 9.2, which include poor timing, lack of evidence for claims being made, problems with the structure and an absence of clear recommendations. The discussion also covered the impact of Rule 9.2 submissions The representative from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights gave an example with the Corallo case, which was classified under the enhanced procedure following a Rule 9 by the Institute and is still being monitored.

Tamar Abazadze and Lara Jamarauli, representatives from the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia, provided a case example of the Tsintsabadze case to showcase effective rule 9 submissions; focusing on how to get the right content in Rule 9, what needs to be considered in terms of format, and when to submit them. 

Following the case exercise by the members of the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia, a survey was carried out of participants, which indicated a widespread interest of NHRIs of engaging further in the implementation process. The webinar was then wrapped up by Leena Leikas, chair of ENNHRI Legal working group, Human Rights Expert at the Finnish Human Rights Centre, who provided concluding remarks.

“I am sure the webinars was the best webinar series that I ever attended“

- from an NHRI representative

We thank all participants who attended the webinars and appreciate the work of ENNHRI and the Department of the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe in collaborating on this series.

Resources mentioned in the presentation:

1. Where to find the relevant information?

   •HUDOC-EXEC

   •DEJ’s website on Communications by NHRIs/NGOs

   •Indicative list of cases to be examined at upcoming CM-DH meeting (available from the website of the DEJ)

2. HUDOC-EXEC database: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng

3. Cases’ Check EIN’s Guide on How to Advocate for the Implementation of ‘Standard

4. More guidance on how to assess the impact achieved through NGO engagement here: https://bit.ly/3cdMF1l 

Network Exchange: Sharing Implementation Success on Pre-Trial Detention

Sharing implementation success stories in one country can aid in developing strategies in another. EIN seeks to establish possible connections through our network of members across Europe, to facilitate exchanges between organizations in different countries who work towards implementing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments.

An example of this exchange was a roundtable discussion between organisations in Moldova and Hungary concerning pre-trial detention, held on Friday 16th October 2020. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has had positive results in their advocacy for reducing unwarranted pre-trial detention in Hungary, following a series of ECtHR judgments under the X.Y. v. Hungary group. This implementation success was a result of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee contributing to legislation and working to ensure its implementation through a wide variety of activities. Some of their most notable impacts were achieved through the creation of easy to use resources on the relevant ECHR standards, which they disseminated widely to lawyers, prosecutors and judges. These have been used routinely by these actors, helping to ensure that the relevant standards are being raised and discussed in Hungarian courts. 

In Moldova, a similar problem regarding pre-trial detention has been highlighted through the ECtHR judgments in the Sarban group – particularly regarding the Courts’ failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons when approving the applicants' pre-trial detention and/or refusing the applicants’ habeas corpus requests. A series of Moldovan NGOs take an interest on this issue, including:

Legal Resources Centre from Moldova

Promo-LEX

Lawyers for Human Rights

RCTV Memoria 

These groups all participated in the exchange organised on 16th October 2020. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee shared their best practices and lessons learnt during the implementation process on unwarranted pre-trial detention. Positive feedback from the session indicates that this will have an impact on the strategies used in Moldova on the same issue.

See latest Legal Resources Centre from Moldova submission to the CoE Committee of Ministers

We hope to organise more collaborations on sharing implementation successes with our partners and members in the future.  

For more information about the Network and EIN Members:

https://www.einnetwork.org/implementation-activities

Resources included in the presentation:

(1) The Practice of Pre-Trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial Decision-Making (2014-2016)

(2) The Cost of Detention (2014)

(3) Separate, tailor-made manuals for Hungarian judges and attorneys (manual for attorneys contains information on how to turn to the ECtHR)

(4) An additional online tool was created for judges for better access

(5) Compiling a handbook for advancing effective defence (easy-to-handle online format)

(6) Rule9(1) communication on behalf of one of our clients who remained in PTD (our only Rule9 communication in this area!)

(7) Repeatedly raising the issue in reports prepared for international organisations, e.g.: 

• briefing paper for the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2013

• shadow reports to the UN Human Rights Committee in 2010 and in 2018

• Universal Periodic Review in 2010 and in 2015

Forgotten Moldovan media freedom ECHR cases await implementation

By Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer

Media freedom and pluralism in Moldova are a work in progress. As in all developing democracies, voices that are critical to the Government still encounter barriers or retaliation. Between 2007 and 2010, the European Court of Human Rights rendered four judgments against the Republic of Moldova concerning the undemocratic curtailment of media or journalistic freedom. However, they have been pending implementation for the past ten years or more, waiting for the Moldovan authorities to fulfil its obligation to implement them.

Source: Council of Europe website

The oldest case, Flux (no.2) v. Moldova, concerns the sanctioning of a newspaper for having published an article about the corruption of a school principal; domestic courts considered that in the absence of a criminal court decision, the public official could not be accused of bribery. The newspaper was ordered to issue an apology and to pay compensation. The ECHR found that the infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, noting that his statements were ignored by the courts and that a degree of exaggeration is covered by journalistic freedom.

In Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, after publishing critical views of state actions, the applicant newspaper was shut down by a court order which failed to indicate specific articles that were problematic.

Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

In one of the most egregious cases, Manole and others v. Moldova, the applicants, a group of nine journalists working for the “Teleradio-Moldova” State company, were subjected to extreme censorship, even involving military troops at the premises of the broadcasting company in order to prevent them from sharing uncensored news regarding ongoing protests in favor of the opposition. The ‘non-compliant’ journalists were questioned by criminal investigators and dismissed from their jobs.

Regarding freedom of expression in general, in the Gavrilovici v. Moldova group of cases, one applicant was sentenced to administrative detention for having insulted a politician; another was found guilty in civil defamation proceedings for allegedly having made false declarations, in letters to various authorities, about a candidate for the position of mayor in his village. The Court held that the impugned statements were value judgments which deserved particular protection, and that the sanctions imposed were not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

For a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights to be implemented, reforms must be carried out to address the source of the human rights violation identified by the court. This can include changes to legislation or the jurisprudence of courts, and/or practical measures taken by the national authorities. The government has an obligation to submit an Action Plan to the Council of Europe, setting out the measures it intends to take in order to remedy the human rights problem identified by the Court.

The four judgments concerning freedom of expression are all at least ten years old. Despite this, no Action Plan has ever been submitted for three of the four cases.  The only case in this series of judgments in which an action plan/report has been submitted by the government – in 2011 - is Manole and others. This document does not adequately respond to the issues raised by the judgment[1].

In other words, for around ten years the Moldovan government has filed no public documents about how they intend to make progress with these cases.

Meanwhile, in recent years there have been a series of reforms addressing freedom of expression in the country. However,  there has been no official assessment by the Committee of Ministers whether these reforms have addressed the problems highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights. Without specific input from the Government and civil society, the status of the implementation of these judgments is, at best, unknown.

What is clear is that challenges to freedom of expression and journalistic freedom in Moldova have not ended with these judgments. Even in the past two years, media freedom has been subjected to unlawful limitations ranging from bans on journalists to enter public areas, aimed at preventing them from reporting on anti-government protests[2], to threats and pressures exerted upon journalists exposing corruption among Moldovan politicians[3]. According to the Independent Journalism Center in Moldova, even though the special law on freedom of expression has ensured the sufficiency of the legal framework, having been designed in accordance with EU standards, national case law continues to register abusive practices of deficient application of legal provisions. The high number of violations of the rights and freedoms of media representatives[4], including the right to free speech, reported by the Independent Journalism Center in the past years indicate that the steps undertaken by the Government have been unable to efficiently redress the issues in this area.

The time has come for the Moldovan Government to fulfill its’ reporting obligations to the Council of Europe, and provide a public assessment of what has been done so far to advance freedom of expression and media freedom in Moldova, within the scope of these judgments, and what still needs to be done. Transparency is crucial to the implementation process. Wider civil society deserves an informed seat at the implementation table. The input of both government and NGOs will be crucial to ensuring that the fundamental issues at stake are successfully addressed.

[1] The Moldovan Government references the judgment on just satisfaction in this case, claiming that the Court has already held that the legal shortcomings were overturned.  In fact, in the referenced judgment, the Court notes it “cannot in the present proceedings examine the new legislation to determine whether the situation which gave rise to the violation has been remedied”. The fact that the case is still pending implementation, with the mention that an updated or revised plan is awaited - since 2011 – is telling enough that the indicated measures have not been sufficient and more needs to be done.

[2] https://balkaninsight.com/2018/08/29/media-ngo-s-in-moldova-protests-against-abuses-08-29-2018/

[3] https://balkaninsight.com/2019/01/24/moldovan-journalists-under-unprecedented-fire-before-election-01-21-2019/

[4] http://media-azi.md/en/in-moldova

EIN Webinar: Towards an effective domestic advocacy strategy for the implementation of ECHR judgments

On 8th October, EIN organised a 3rd webinar for representatives from National Human Rights Institutions. The first two webinars took place respectively on 10th and 17th September.

Attended by representatives from the Legal Working Group of ENNHRI, EIN partner in this initiative, this third webinar focused on the advantages of domestic advocacy in achieving concrete progress on human rights at the national level. Best practices were used to illustrate:

·        What other advocacy avenues are available to NHRIs to work on ECtHR judgment implementation at the domestic level, and

·        How they can hold the government to account about their overall record on implementation.

After introductory remarks by EIN Director George Stafford, Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, explained how the office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia is promoting an open and early dialogue with all relevant stakeholders at the national level, when working on ECHR judgment implementation.

Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia

She presented in particular the National Council of Experts for the Execution of the Court’s judgment in Croatia, but also other structures used by the Croatian NHRI to reach out to NGOs and experts and get useful input on general measures needed for ECHR judgments implementation, such as the Anti-Discrimination Network. Such alliances have proven to be very efficient to achieve progress on key pending cases, such as the Secic v Croatia case on racist attacks against a person of Roma origin. Her power point presentation is available here.

Greece also offers an interesting example of what can be done, domestically, to work on hate crimes, and push for the implementation of ECHR judgments in this field. Indeed, in 2011, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) initiated the creation of a Racist Violence Recording Network (RVRN).

Representatives from the GNCHR , Ms Baka and Ms Charopokou, as well as the assistant coordinator of the RVRN, Ms Anastasopoulou, were present to share their experience. Participants were able to learn more about the overall strategy set up by the GNCHR to push for implementation of ECHR judgments, which combines efforts both at the domestic and at the Strasbourg level.

Their presentation clearly showed that such a combination of domestic-based and international tools was instrumental in progress being achieved in key cases, such as the Manolada (Chowdury) case or the Sakir case.

The full video of the webinar will soon be available on the ENNHRI website.

A 4th webinar will be held on 22nd October, focusing on the CM supervision process and how NHRIs can write effective Rule 9 submissions.

Building Partnerships to Strengthen Freedom of Assembly in Russia

Photo by Кирилл Жаркой on Unsplash

Freedom of assembly is highly restricted in a number of European countries. Over 70% percent of freedom of assembly violations found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the last ten years are still pending implementation. 

EIN is working with Russian NGOs, Memorial and OVD-Info, to promote the implementation of ECtHR Judgment Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, concerning issues of freedom of assembly in Russia. These organisations will provide recommendations to the Russian Ministry of Justice regarding the legislative amendments and reforms necessary to properly protect freedom of assembly in the country, in line with the standards of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). They are working to form an alliance of organisations calling for change on this issue - not only with NGOs, but also engaging with local government, public authorities and media outlets to maximise potential reach and impact.

See Memorial and OVD-Info’s Rule 9.2 communication to the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers.

Assisted by EIN,  Memorial and OVD-Info have submitted a Rule 9.2 communication to the CoE Committee of Ministers on Lashmankin, highlighting problems within Russian laws that restrict freedom of assembly. Serious problems include special criminal liability for participating in unauthorised public assemblies; gaps in laws that govern public events; an absence of real punishment for local authorities for non-compliance with relevant laws; a non-transparent system of approving events; a lack of public statistics; absence of control over regional compliance with the Federal law; or the European Court’s Lashmankin judgment; ineffective control over the police’s actions during detentions and arrests at public assemblies; and lastly, a general lack of awareness or negative attitude towards the principles established by the European Court on the part of the authorities, police and courts.

This communication also provided recommendations to Russian authorities to improve the situation with respect to public assemblies, including; setting new laws that govern assembly, amending old laws which are consistent with ECHR standards, training sessions, reasonable increases to the maximum number of participants permitted in assemblies, and ensuring that security measures are adequately in place. In early September 2020, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued a Decision, echoing this call for reform and requesting that the Russian authorities make changes on key issues.  

Mass public protests have been crucially important to securing human rights and democracy across Europe. As well as playing a key role in pivotal historical moments, protests are important for allowing people to make their voices heard and contribute to the ongoing running of any democracy. 

EIN is excited to collaborate with Memorial and OVD-Info to advocate for freedom of assembly in Russia and promote the implementation of the Lashmankin judgment.

For media coverage on this alliance with various stakeholders on freedom of assembly in Russia:

•  https://www.rbc.ru/spb_sz/09/09/2020/5f587e709a794742d8abee6a

•  https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4483871

•  https://novayagazeta.ru/news/2020/09/15/164286-pravozaschitniki-potrebovali-ot-gubernatora-peterburga-snyat-zapret-na-provedenie-odinochnyh-piketov

•  https://www.svoboda.org/a/30831846.html (TV)

• https://pravo.ru/story/225294/

For more information on assembly in Russia, see OVD-Info’s report on single-person pickets here

Judicial independence in Hungary and protection of family life in Russia at the heart of EIN briefing

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 17th September 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online.

The briefing focused on the following cases:

1) Baka v Hungary, concerning judicial independence.

2) Khanamirova v Russia, concerning the failure of authorities to ensure mothers have custody of their children in accordance with court orders.

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

Baka v Hungary

This case concerns the undue and premature termination of the applicants’ mandates as President of the former Hungarian Supreme Court through ad hominem legislative measures adopted in the context of a major reform of the judiciary. The legislative act was of constitutional rank and thus not subject to review by the Constitutional Court. The Strasbourg Court found violations of the applicant’s right of access to court and freedom of expression.

The presentation was given by András Kádár, Co-Chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Dávid Vig, Director of Amnesty International Hungary. You can find the video of their briefing below. As you will see, there is a statement from Judge Baka at the start of the video.

Relevant documents:

• Joint submission by Amnesty International and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (July 2020), and reply by the authorities

• ECHR judgment (June 2016)

Khanamirova v Russia

This group of cases concerns non-enforcement of judicial decisions concerning child custody (violation of Article 8).

The presentation was given by Stichting Justice Initiative. Prior to the presentation, there is a short video involving interviews with victims of ongoing violations. All of the mothers in the videos have obtained judgments from the ECtHR or are involved in litigation there. You can also find here further information on custody rights/family kidnapping in Russia.

This is a group under standard procedure that is not on the agenda for the upcoming CM-DH meeting. However, EIN believes that it deserves the immediate attention of the Committee of Ministers because: it is a shocking human rights violation, which is exacerbated with every passing day, but where we believe rapid progress can be made if the case receives sufficient attention. The presentation of this case has therefore been arranged in order to call for it to be debated at the December CM-DH Meeting.

Relevant documents:

•  Rule 9.2 by Stichting Justice Initiative (April 2020)

• ECHR judgment (June 2011)

EIN Webinar: How can NHRIs take part in the judgments implementation process?

One week after its introductory webinar, EIN organised an online training focused on how NHRIs can take part in the ECHR judgments implementation process.  

There are various ways for NHRIs to take part in the ECHR judgment implementation process. One avenue is to take part in the Strasbourg-based supervisory mechanism, by submitting written communications to the Committee of Ministers (CM). Another crucial element is to put implementation onto the agenda at the national level.

Participants learned more about:

• The basics of the CM execution process and what are the important elements to keep in mind when engaging into it

• What they can do domestically to push for enhanced awareness of the importance of judgments’ implementation.

EIN Director George Stafford

After opening remarks by EIN Director George Stafford, Nikolas Sitaropoulos, Head of Division at the Department of the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe presented the CM execution process.

Head of Division Nikolas Sitaropoulos

Tamar Abazadze, Public Defender’s Office, Georgia

An experience sharing session followed. Tamar Abazadze, Head of the Analytical Department within the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) of Georgia, presented how the PDO used the CM process to put pressure on the authorities to make progress on new legislation. Her concrete example referred to the setting up of an independent State’s Inspector Service, which was achieved, among other things, following putting pressure put on the authorities through Rule 9 submissions.

Part 2 of the webinar then focused on how NHRIs could put implementation onto the agenda at the national level. Implementation of judgments indeed happen domestically. NHRIs have, through their mandate and the links they have with domestic actors, the possibility to push domestically for changes (in the legislation, in the practice) which are necessary to ensure that judgments are implemented. Be it through the setting up of relevant platforms with partners and NGOs, by providing training to police officers, for instance, or by communicating about the ECHR judgments and the measures to be taken to implement them. Mikayel Khachatryan, Head of the International Cooperation Department and Gohar Simonyan, Coordinator of the National Preventive Mechanism Implementation, Human Rights Defender’s Office of Armenia, shared their experience in this context. They presented to their colleagues how the Human Rights Defender’s Office of Armenia was using Adjunct Counsels and training seminars to enhance the involvement and capacity of NGOs to take part in the ECHR judgments’ implementation process. You can download their power point presentations here.

You can have access to the full video of the webinar here.

Webinar 3 will take place on 8th October, and will focus on “Towards an effective domestic advocacy strategy for the implementation of ECHR judgments”. This series of webinars is organised in cooperation with ENNHRI and the Council of Europe.

EIN Webinar: Why should NHRIs get involved in the implementation of Strasbourg judgments?

On 10th September, EIN organized the first of a series of 4 webinars for representatives of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), about the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). This event was co-organised with the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRIs) and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe.

Tailored for the experience and needs of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), the webinars aim to inform and train NHRI representatives about the importance of implementation work and the ways to mainstream it across their institution, to help improve the overall human rights situation in Europe.

Leena Leikas

Webinar 1 focused about the reasons why NHRIs should get involved in the implementation of ECtHR judgments. It was open by Leena Leikas, chair of ENNHRI Legal working group, Human Rights Expert at the Finnish Human Rights Centre.

The ECtHR can trigger positive reforms to enhance human rights protections across Europe. To have this effect, however, they must be properly implemented. Of the ‘leading’ cases handed down by the ECtHR in the last ten years – i.e. cases which reveal structural or systemic problems – 43 percent[1] are still pending implementation. This has severe consequences for human rights protections. During this opening webinar, participants were able to learn about:

1) The scale of the non-implementation challenge and the need for greater involvement by NHRIs.

See the video by EIN Director George Stafford.

2) The involvement of NHRIs so far in the ECtHR judgment execution process at the Strasbourg level.

See the video by Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, Head of Division, Department of the Execution of Judgments, Council of Europe

Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek

3) A best practice story from the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia on how Slovenia managed to cut down the number of non-implemented judgments by setting up a strong structure at the domestic level. You can find here the power point presentation of Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek, Assistant Head of the Centre for Human Rights at the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia

You can also have access to the full video of the webinar.

Webinar 2 will take place on 17th September, and will focus on “How can NHRIs take part in the judgments implementation process?”.

[1] EIN has carried out an analysis of the CoE’s official statistics. Our methodology is explained on our website. 

Access to an effective remedy to challenge expulsion of asylum seekers in Greece: Briefing by HIAS Greece and Amnesty International

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 11th September 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online, with the participation of over 35 representatives from various Council of Europe Member States.

In view of the forthcoming Committee of Ministers Human Rights meetings, the briefing focused on the following cases:

1) Identoba and others v Georgia, by Arpi Avetisyan, ILGA-Europe

2) M.S.S. and Rahimi groups of cases v Greece, by Elli Kriona-Saranti, HIAS Greece and Adriana Tidona, Amnesty International

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

Identoba and others v Georgia

The case concerns the lack of protection against homophobic attacks or religiously motivated attacks by private individuals during marches/meetings.

You can watch the online version of the briefing by Arpi Avetisyan.

Latest Rule 9.2 communications on the case:
Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (The Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center, the Women’s Initiatives Support Group and ILGA-Europe) (10/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)776]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia) (05/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)775]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO an NGO (Georgian Young Lawyer's Association) (04/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)774]

M.S.S. and Rahimi group of cases v Greece

The cases concern the conditions of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge conditions of detention in Greece. At the start of the briefing, Ms Kriona-Saranti and Ms Tidona reported about the extremely difficult conditions faced by migrants in Lesvos, following the destruction of the camp by a fire.

The presentation then focused on the effective remedy against Art. 3 re refoulement as well as on the reception and detention conditions.

You can see the details of their Recommendations on this case in their video.

Latest Rule 9.2 communications on the case:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Refugee Support Aegean, Foundation PRO ASYL) (28/07/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (244 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)723]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (HIAS) (10/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)716]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Equal Rights Beyond Borders) (10/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (160 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)715]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Amnesty international) (07/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)714]

 Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Council for Refugees) (31/07/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (244 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)713]

EIN briefing focuses on the persecution of human rights defenders and politicians in Azerbaijan and Turkey

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 18th August 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online, with the participation of over 35 representatives from various Council of Europe Member States.

In view of the forthcoming Committee of Ministers Human Rights meetings, the briefing focused on important cases related to the persecution of human rights defenders and politicians in Azerbaijan and Turkey: Kavala v Turkey and Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan.

The main recommendations by Human Rights Watch on the Kavala case, and by EHRAC on the Ilgar Mammadov group of cases can be found here.

Kavala v Turkey (Application Nr 28749/18)

Osman Kavala is a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who has contributed to the establishment of numerous NGOs in Turkey since the 1990s. These organisations currently operate in human rights, cultural and social studies, historical reconciliation and environmental protection.

Osman Kavala was arrested on 18 October 2017, accused of attempting to overthrow the government within the context of investigations into the Gezi events of 2013 (Article 312 of the Criminal Code) and to overthrow the constitutional order within the context of the attempted coup in July 2016 (Article 309) and has been continuously detained since then, currently under a detention order based on accusations of committing “political or military espionage” under Article 328 of the Criminal Code.

The video by Emma Sinclair-Webb, Human Rights Watch, who briefed the delegates about the Kavala case is available under this link.

Other relevant documents:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Project) (29/05/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and others group)

Rules 9.4/9.6 - Communication from other organisation: the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19/06/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and Others group) and reply from the authorities (02/07/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)577-rev]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD)) (18/06/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and Others group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)575]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Amnesty International) (19/05/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and others group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)472]

Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan (Application Nr 15172/13)

Ilgar Mammadov is an Azerbaijani blogger, activist and political figure. After announcing his intention to run for President in 2013, Mr Mammadov was detained and prosecuted in order to silence him. Mr Mammadov won a series of cases at the European Court of Human Rights and was released in August 2018. On 23 April 2020, he, and the human rights defender Rasul Jafarov, were granted full acquittal by Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court.

Despite the steps forward in these two cases, the general situation for civil society in Azerbaijan remains very poor. It is extremely difficult or impossible for civil society organisations to operate in the country, whilst individuals are routinely targeted by the authorities in order to silence them.  In his presentation, Professor Philip Leach, from EHRAC, therefore insisted on the need to create an adequate legal environment for civil society organisations to exist and work in Azerbaijan.

He also higlighted the necessaity to push for the acquittal, just satisfaction and other individual measures in other Article 18 cases of political persecution, including those of journalist Khadija Ismayilova, elections monitor Anar Mammaldi, human rights defender Intigam Aliyev, and activists from the N!DA group.

You can find the video by Professor Philip on this case here.

Other relevant documents:

Joint EHRAC-Amnesty International Rule 9(2) submission on the Mammadov group, April 2020.

EHRAC latest Rule 9(1) in the case of Aliyev v Azerbaijan (68762/14), part of the Mammadov group.   

Welcome acquittals in Azerbaijan – but huge problems remain

On 23 April 2020, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court granted full acquittal to the politician Ilgar Mammadov and the human rights defender Rasul Jafarov.

Ilgar Mammadov is the Chairman of Azerbaijan’s opposition Republican Alternative Party. After writing a blog post critical of the government in 2013, he was arrested and charged with a series of crimes. In 2014, the ECtHR held that his arrest and detention had been unjustified, and that had been aimed to silence or punish him for criticising the Government. He spent many years in prison, and his continuing conviction barred him from standing for political office.

Rasul Jafarov served a 20-month prison sentence after being convicted in 2015. In 2016, the ECtHR found that his arrest and detention had no legal basis and was aimed solely at punishing his human rights work. Mr Jafarov’s continued conviction had barred him from practicing as a lawyer, or standing for election.

“Thanks to our combined efforts last week we made a huge victory - my and Rasul’s full acquittal. I think this is a historic achievement for the Convention system and I thank and congratulate you as you have an important share in that success!”

It has taken many years for these judgments to be implemented. Nevertheless, they are a very welcome step. EIN has carried out a series of activities to support their implementation, including hosting briefings on both cases to the Committee of Ministers, advising Mr Mammadov on engaging in the implementation process and carrying out specific briefing for his case to diplomats in Strasbourg; as well as conducting extensive advocacy at the Council of Europe and European Union.

The work continues

Despite the steps forward in these two cases, we do not forget that the general situation for civil society in Azerbaijan is very poor. It is extremely difficult or impossible for civil society organisations to operate in the country, whilst individuals are routinely targeted by the authorities in order to silence them.  

EIN will continue to push for the implementation of ECHR judgments, in order to play its role in supporting civil society in Azerbaijan. This includes pushing for the acquittal, just satisfaction and other individual measures in other Article 18 cases of political persecution, including those of journalist Khadija Ismayilova, elections monitor Anar Mammaldi, human rights defender Intigam Aliyev, and activists from the N!DA group.

EIN is also working with Human Rights House, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and Amnesty International, to campaign for an end to politically-motivated prosecutions in Azerbaijan and the creation of an adequate legal environment for civil society organisations to exist and work. These steps are necessary to implement the Mammadov Group of judgments, currently under enhanced supervision at the Committee of Ministers.

EIN webinar on the implementation of ECHR judgments in North Macedonia

Yesterday (4th June 2020) EIN held a successful online training session for 40 lawyers from North Macedonia, in conjunction with the Macedonian Young Lawyers Association (MYLA).

The session was opened with an introduction from the President of the Bar Association of North Macedonia. This was followed by a presentation by the President of MYLA Zoran Drangovski, who set out the key facts and figures of the current situation regarding compliance with the ECtHR’s judgments in North Macedonia.

During the session, EIN explained the process of implementation and possible ways of involvement for lawyers and NGOs, described the procedures and possible courses of action on the examples of Macedonian cases currently facing their implementation. The presentation lasted for 1.5h and was followed by a discussion of questions asked by the audience. MYLA expressed their intentions of close cooperation with EIN in the future, which the EIN secretariat is keen to pursue.