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.

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?’.

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

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