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.

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 

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.

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 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.

EIN Webinar: Domestic advocacy for effective implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments

For the webinar of this event, please follow this link.

The European Court of Human Rights continues to act as a ‘beacon of hope’ for victims of human rights violations denied justice at the national level. But unless judgments are properly implemented, a case won in Strasbourg does not translate into tangible human rights gains.

It is on the ground, at the national level that greater civil society advocacy is needed to promote the full and effective implementation of human rights judgments. Over the course of the past year, EIN has tapped into the collective knowledge and experience of its members and partners and collated good practice examples of how domestic civil society actors effectively engage with the authorities, form advocacy alliances, and use the media to promote implementation in their countries.

This has culminated in a new EIN Guide for civil society on domestic advocacy for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments. This latest EIN resource will be launched through a webinar on Tuesday, 19 May at 11.00 am CEST.

This one-hour webinar will allow participants to:

·        Be among the first to hear about the lessons we have learned about effective domestic advocacy;

·        Draw inspiration from EIN members and partners as they discuss how they have successfully used various domestic advocacy avenues to push implementation forward; and

·        Share their own experience with us during a Q&A.

Panellists

·        Professor Başak Çalı, EIN Chair (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin and Koç University, Istanbul)

·        Teodora Ion-Rotaru, Executive Director, Asociaţia ACCEPT (Bucharest, Romania)

·        Kirill Koroteev, Head of International Practice, Agora International Human Rights Group (Moscow, Russia)

Chairs: Anne-Katrin Speck and George Stafford, EIN Co-Directors (Strasbourg, France)

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

 The webinar will be recorded, and made available to EIN members and official partners.

Click here to register.

Deadline for applying: 15th May, 2.00 pm CEST

Photos: Hertie School of Governance / Google

EIN trains Armenian civil society actors in tackling implementation challenges

Discussions with NGOs and authorities center on forming advocacy coalitions to bring about urgently needed reforms

Two years after the Velvet Revolution: Armenia’s record of implementing ECtHR judgments

Anyone looking at Armenia from the outside may be quick to assume that the window of opportunity created by the Velvet Revolution, which saw a mass protest movement bring down a quasi-authoritarian regime, would guarantee swift and measurable improvements in human rights protections that find their reflection in the closure of a number of the leading cases against Armenia pending implementation. Yet, while there seems to be political will to make the process of implementing Strasbourg Court judgments more effective, civil society is still waiting for profound reforms capable of resolving some of Armenia’s most systemic and widespread human rights violations. So, too, is the Committee of Ministers, which supervises the execution of no fewer than 20 leading cases – that is cases revealing new and often structural or systemic problems – against the Republic in the South Caucasus.

56 percent of the leading cases from the last ten years are still pending implementation, making Armenia score below average (across Europe, 43 percent of leading cases from the last ten years are not fully implemented).

Picture: ©HCAV

These cases cover a variety of issues, ranging from disproportionate and unnecessary dispersal of peaceful protests (Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia) to torture in police custody and killings during arrest operations (Virabyan v. Armenia) to human rights abuses in the army (Muradyan v. Armenia) and inadequate medical care in detention (Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia). Several of them call for the adoption of a whole set of different measures, including judicial reform, trainings and other measures aimed at changing long-standing practices and attitudes. Strikingly, almost half (nine out of 20) of the pending leading cases have not been subject to a Government Action Plan.

Enhancing civil society capacity to promote the implementation of judgments

At the same time, civil society engagement in the implementation process has to date been relatively low in Armenia: only two Rule 9.2 submissions were made in the past twelve months, and participants noted that meetings between NGOs and the Government Agent were rare. They added that media coverage seldom, if ever, extended beyond reporting on a new judgment from Strasbourg to include an implementation dimension. It appeared, then, that more could be done to enhance Armenian civil society’s capacity to effectively advocate for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments.

 This was objective of EIN’s training workshop on 3 March, which brought together 23 NGO representatives and lawyers from both Yerevan and the regions to introduce them to the Committee of Ministers’ (CM’s) judgment execution process and ways for civil society to get involved in it.

Why advocate for the implementation of judgments?

Picture: ©HCAV

The participants needed little convincing that advocacy for judgment implementation is a powerful tool to trigger and shape urgently needed reforms. The Strasbourg Court is generally held in high esteem by the authorities and the public. Because of this, participants agreed, being able to point to a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights could help both civil society actors and conscientious domestic decision-makers overcome resistance to change. Indeed, several participants said they would want to see the Court use more prescriptive and specific language in its rulings. This, in turn, underscores the importance for litigating organisations of starting to think about implementation already at the litigation stage, and invite the Court to provide clear guidance on remedies.

The EIN team was also able to point to cases illustrating how Strasbourg Court rulings have translated into tangible human rights improvements in Armenia. Take the case of Mr Bayatyan, a young Jehova’s Witness who was convicted of draft evasion for refusing to do military service on account of his deeply held beliefs. He was sentenced to over two years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, Armenia strengthened the rights of conscientious objectors. This case also shows how important it is for civil society to keep on pushing for implementation: here, an NGO made two Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers, calling for reforms.

How to push cases forward – domestically and through Strasbourg?

How to make such submissions, when best to do so, how to structure them, what recommendations to include, and what evidence to present was discussed in detail during EIN’s training. The event also saw the launch of the brand-new Armenian version of EIN’s Handbook on Rule 9 submissions.

Great attention was moreover devoted to advocating domestically for the implementation of judgments: by meeting with the Government Agent and other relevant authorities to feed into the drafting of initial action plans; sensitising the public to the need for reform; generating media coverage of non-implementation problems; and collecting evidence of ongoing violations.

The workshop provided a forum for brainstorming how to engage with various interlocutors at the domestic level to strengthen coordination and cooperation and thus make the implementation process more effective and efficient. A first step towards this aim, it was agreed, would be for a group of volunteers to prepare and disseminate a brief analysis of the state of implementation of the 20 leading cases, highlighting the outstanding issues and identifying who needs to take action to ensure the necessary measures are adopted. The plans thus developed fed into group discussions on how to advance the implementation of three (groups of) cases pending implementation, domestically and through advocacy in Strasbourg.

Towards closer civil society cooperation for implementation advocacy

A recurring theme emanating from our brainstorming was the need to better coordinate the efforts of the many civil society organisations that are willing to be involved in implementation monitoring and advocacy. It was very encouraging to see, against this backdrop, that several participants decided on the day of the event that they would set up a working group to devise a holistic advocacy strategy to promote the implementation of Muradyan v. Armenia, concerning a wide-spread problem of human rights abuses in the army, including shocking numbers of non-combat deaths in the military. 

Picture: ©HCAV

But the plans did not stop there. A major conclusion of the workshop, consolidated through subsequent bilateral discussions, was that a civil society platform would be created to function as an ‘implementation hub’ in Armenia: by getting involved early in the implementation of new cases in order to influence its very trajectory and the scope of implementation matters; functioning as a contact point for the authorities, the media, and EIN; keeping a log on timelines for reporting to the Committee of Minsters; preparing reports, briefings and other resources relating to (non-)implementation; coordinating the drafting of joint Rule 9 submissions; ensuring the systematic collection of data about the adequacy of implementation measures; pushing for the strengthening of implementation mechanisms; and generally enhancing knowledge and awareness of the implementation process.  

What role for other stakeholders? The importance of forming advocacy coalitions

Such improved coordination among civil society, it was felt, would also facilitate engagement with the authorities. And indeed, implementation of judgment requires a concerted effort by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; civil society; ombudsman institutions; and media outlets capable of informing wider segments of society about the obligations flowing from ECtHR judgments and shaping public opinion.

Picture: ©HCAV

To highlight this ‘shared responsibility’ for judgment implementation and hear from representatives of the various institutions that have a stake in ensuring that Armenia complies with the rulings from Strasbourg, EIN organised an open debate in the morning of 4 March. The debate, which was moderated by EIN Vice-Chair Professor Philip Leach and covered by no fewer than three TV outlets (for a video of the live-stream, see here), saw the participation of

• Mr Liparit Drmeyan, Head of the Office of the Agent of the Republic of Armenia to the ECtHR

• Mr Serjik Avetisyan, Judge at the Court of Cassation,

• Ms Arpi Sargsyan, representative of the Anti-corruption and Penitentiary Policy Department of the Ministry of Justice,

• Ms Gohar Simonyan, Coordinator of the National Preventive Mechanism and Head of the Department for Prevention of Torture and Ill-Treatment at the Office of the Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia,

• Ms Zaruhi Mejlumyan, Attorney-at-Law, formerly associated with Investigative Journalists of Armenia (Hetq), and

•    Ms Mariam Antonyan, Legal Analysis and Initiatives Coordinator, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor.

EIN’s thread of live-tweets from the event reflects the diversity of the issues discussed – ranging from positive examples of successful judgment implementation in Armenia to specific ongoing and outstanding judicial reforms needed to address torture at the hands of state agents. An encouraging signal from the panel was to see the representatives of the authorities expressing their unreserved desire to closely involve civil society in initiatives aimed at strengthening the implementation process, including an inter-agency platform the Government Agent was planning to set up to help coordinate ECtHR judgment implementation across the government.  

The EIN team left Yerevan heartened by the level of civil society commitment to promoting a range of reforms necessary to ensure full implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments in Armenia. We look forward to continuing our cooperation with our Armenian members and partners.  

EIN would like to thank our colleagues from Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor and OSF for their invaluable support in organising these events, which were funded by OSF Eurasia. We should also like to thank the representatives of the Office of the Government Agent, the National Assembly, the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman’s Office, and of OSF Armenia as well as the latter’s Strategic Litigation Program with whom we were able to hold constructive bilateral meetings to discuss concrete ways to strengthen the ECtHR judgment implementation process in Armenia.

Picture: ©HCAV

 Click here to discover the state of implementation in Armenia.