EIN Civil Society Briefing November 2021: Navalnyye v. Russia, Identoba v. Georgia, and Catan and others v. Russia and liquidation of Memorial

On 18 November 2021, EIN held a civil society briefing for Permanent Representatives of the Council of Europe, ahead of the Committee of Minister’s Human Rights Meeting on 30 November – 2 December 2021. The event was held in-person, the first in-person civil society briefing since the pandemic.

The Briefing focused on the following cases: 

  • Navalnyye v Russian Federation, concerning criminal conviction based on an unfair trial and an arbitrary application of criminal law (violations of Articles 6 and 7), presented by Anna Maralyan from Centre de la Protection Internationale.

  • Identoba and others v Georgia, concerning the lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations, presented by Tamar Oniani, Head of the International Litigation Team, Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA).

  • Catan and others v Russia, concerning violations of the rights of children, parents and staff members of Latin-script schools located in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. This briefing was presented by Alexandru Postica and Ion Manole, from Promo-LEX, and Svetlana Jitariuc, a teacher and mother of two pupils - applicants in the case of Catan and others.

  • Statement on the liquidation of the NGOs International Memorial and Human Rights Centre Memorial by Dmitry Gurin, Senior Lawyer with Memorial Human Rights Centre (ECtHR litigation practice)

Navalnyye v Russian Federation

The Navalnyye case concerns the criminal conviction in 2014 of Mr Aleksey Navalny and his brother, Mr Oleg Navalnyy.

Overview of Briefing

The Centre de la Protection Internationale reminded participants of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case:

  • The criminal law was extensively and unforeseeably construed to the detriment of the accused in the determination of the criminal charges against the applicants and such an interpretation cannot be said to have constituted a development consistent with the essence of the offence, in breach of Article 7 of the Convention. (Navalnyye v Russia, no. 101/15, 17 October 2017, §§ 58-68)

  • The judicial examination of this case was flawed with arbitrariness which was distinct from an incorrect legal classification or a similar error in the application of domestic criminal law. That undermined the fairness of the criminal proceedings in such a fundamental way that it rendered other criminal procedure guarantees irrelevant. (Navalnyye v Russia, no. 101/15, 17 October 2017, §§ 83-84) 

Image Credit: EIN

The Centre de la Protection Internationale reminded participants of essential facts of the case: 

  • Mr. Navalnyy’s near-fatal poisoning by “Novichok” nerve agent and findings of several European independent laboratories and the OPCW;

  • Hindrance in Mr. Navalnyy’s transfer to the Charité University Medical Centre (Berlin);

  • Mr. Navalnyy’s arrest upon his arrival to Russia;

  • Dispersal of demonstrations in Mr. Navalnyy’s support;

  • Change of the suspended sentence into a real term of imprisonment;

  • Rule 39 decision requesting Mr. Navalnyy’s immediate release.

  • Mr. Navalnyy’s disappearance and his transfer to IK-2;

  • Constant sleep disturbance;

  • No access to adequate medical treatment and continuous psychological pressure;

  • Facts revealed by TV Rain film (available at: https://tvrain.ru/teleshow/reportazh/pytki_dlja_navalnogo-541266/);

  • Inhuman treatment against Mr. Navalnny and Imminent threat to Mr. Navalnyy’s life and limb.

  • Preventive registration as a person prone to escape and preventive registration as a person prone to terrorism and extremism.  

The Centre de la Protection Internationale provided the following recommendations to the CM for authorities to:

  • Urge the respondent State to comply with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention and Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe; 

  • Urge Russian highest State authorities to ensure by all appropriate means Mr. Navalnyy’s immediate release and to erase rapidly the remaining consequences for Mr. Navalnyy of the violations established by the referred judgments;

  • Call on the Secretary-General and the authorities of the member States to raise Mr. Navalnyy’s situation with the Russian highest authorities in order to get him released without any delay;

  • Ensure the implementation of the judgment by using all the means at the disposal of the Committee, including those under Article 46.4 of the Convention and to initiate an infringement proceeding as stipulated by Rule 11 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers if the authorities refuse to execute the judgments without any further delay. 

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

Rule 9.1 Submissions

1411th meeting (September 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/08/2021) in the cases of Navalnyye (Navalnyy and Ofitserov group), Navalnyy and Navalnyy (No. 2) v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 101/15, 29580/12, 43734/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)788]

1406th meeting (June 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (10/05/2021) in the cases of Navalnyye and NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV (Navalnyye) v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 101/15, 46632/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)486]

1398th meeting (March 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (23/02/2021) in the case of Navalnyye v. Russian Federation (Application No. 101/15) (Navalnyy and Ofitserov group) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)221]

1398th meeting (March 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (05/02/2021) in the cases of Navalnyye and Navalnyy v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 101/15, 29580/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)151]

1398th meeting (March 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/01/2021) in the cases of Navalnyye (Navalnyy and Ofitserov group) and Navalnyy v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 101/15, 29580/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)103]



Identoba and others v Georgia 

These cases concern degrading treatment of the applicants on account of the abusive police conduct during a search of premises of an LGBT NGO motivated by homophobic and/or transphobic hatred (in 2009), the authorities’ failure to provide adequate protection against inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by private individuals on LGBTI activists (in May 2012) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (in 1999-2001), who were violently attacked during marches/meetings, as well as the absence of effective investigations, including as regards discriminatory motives in that connection.

Overview of Briefing

GYLA reminded participants of the latest CM decision regarding the case from 2020:

  • The Deputies noted with concern that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity remains a serious challenge in Georgia, referring to the Public Defender’s 2019 special report on discrimination and NGO communications.

  • The Deputies specifically acknowledged that this issue includes the realization of freedom of expression and assembly by LGBTI persons and Jehovah Witnesses, while the identification of bias in the context of investigations remains a major challenge 

Image Credit: EIN

GYLA outlined the remaining key concerns:

  1. LGBT+ community and Jehovah’s witnesses still remain one of the most vulnerable groups in society.

  2. LGBT+ community still has difficulties with full enjoyment of their right to assembly, education, labor and availability with healthcare and social services;

  3. Discrimination based on religion or gender identity is encouraged by the public officials, while they shall take a crucial part in raising social awareness to the fight against homophobia and religious intolerance.

  4. The Government of Georgia is not complying with the decision of the Committee of Ministers, by which the CM on 1383rd meeting, 29 September – 1 October 2020 (DH), the Deputies reiterated their call on the authorities to establish a specialised investigative unit within the police to carry out effective investigations into hate crime.

  5. As of today, the Code of Administrative Offences does not envisage the possibility of establishing discriminatory motive, as the aggravating factor for administrative liability.

    • This means that an illegal act committed against the LGBT+ community and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses, which does not attain the criminal liability threshold, but according to the assessment of the investigative authorities, is qualified under the particular Article’s simple composition of the CAO, it is impossible to establish discriminatory motive even in theory.

GYLA provided the following recommendations to the CM urging authorities to:

  • create a specialized investigative unit within the Ministry of Internal Affairs that would be capable of investigating the hate crimes;

  • amend the Code of Administrative Offences and define the discriminatory motive, as the aggravating factor of the liability;

  • undertake social awareness-raising campaigns concerning the prohibition of discrimination and hate crimes;

  • undertake relevant activities and measures in order to enhance the trust between the law enforcement agencies and the LGBT+ community and religious minorities.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing. 

Relevant Documents:

Latest Rule 9.2 Submissions

1419th meeting (December 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender's Office Georgia) (18/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)1136]

1419th meeting (December 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association) (11/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)1100]

1398th meeting (March 2021) (DH) - Communication from an NGO (European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (25/01/2021) in the case of MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 71156/01) (Identoba group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)242]

CM Decisions

1383rd meeting (29 September - 1 October 2020) (DH) - H46-5 Identoba and Others group v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-5]

1355 meeting (DH) September 2019 - H46-8 Identoba and Others group v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8]

 

Catan and others v Russia

The cases in this group concern violations of the right to education of children and parents using Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.

Overview of Briefing 

Promo-LEX reminded participants of the individual and general measures required for the case to be implemented: 

  • Payment of sum ordered by the Court, as well as the payment of the costs and expenditures.

  • The elimination of all provisions that restrict the use of the Latin alphabet in the functioning of the Romanian language in the Transnistria region.

  • The annulment of the obligation that educational institutions operating in the Transnistria region that use the curriculum approved by the Moldovan Ministry of Education or wish to work in the region on the basis of that curriculum register with the so-called “Ministry of Education”.

  • The removal of any prohibition on the introduction of books and textbooks for study in educational institutions using the Latin script in the Transnistrian region.

  • Repeal provisions of the so-called local authorities of the towns of Ribnita, Bender and Grigoriopol regarding the eviction of high schools from buildings owned by them.

  • The restoration of the building for “Evrica” High School, and the building formerly used by the “Stefan cel Mare” High School in Grigoriopol before the eviction and assigning a building for “Alexandru cel Bun” High School.

Promo-LEX outlined the following in regard to the situation in Transnistria:

Political support of Russian Federation

  • On 16.06.2021, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a Declaration requesting the President and the Russian Government not to allow the application of the joint Moldovan-Ukrainian customs control to the Transnistrian border segment from July 1.

  • H.E. Ambassador Vasnețov of the Russian Federation regularly participates in different public events organised by Transnistrian administration.

  • A lot of deputies from State Duma participated in different events organised by “Transnistrian officials”. 

  • In the region, 59223 people participated in the RF Duma election in 2021. For this election, 27 polling stations were opened in the Transnistrian region, without the Republic of Moldova permission.  

Economical support of Russian Federation

  • Russia has provided humanitarian aid as a supplement to pensions since 26 December 2007.

  • In 2020 Tiraspol received “humanitarian aid” to pensions for more than 146000 pensioners or more than 2,5 mil. euro.

  • After the gas crisis, Russia keeps the same price for gas for “MRT”, but at the same time raise the price for the rest of Moldova up to two and half times. 

Military support of Russian Federation

  • Joint drills of military units of the Russian Federation and secessionist paramilitary groups.

  • Russian Operative Group has been so integrated into the society from this territory that it creates jobs for the inhabitants of the Transnistria region, it also offers “lessons on peace” and patriotism for the young generation.

  • In 2021, ROG realized at least 450 actions, of which 300 are social or sportive actions.

Promo-LEX outlined the problems of education:

The problem of buildings

  • Neither of the edifices of the schools situated on the left bank of the Dniester River are adapted to the educational process according to the standards of the Ministry of Education (except for Roghi).

  • All the premises seized from educational institutions in Bender, Grigoriopol and Rîbniţa are currently subordinated to local public administrations and are not used by any public institution in the region.

The problem of pupils

  • Most of the students suffer from psychological trauma (PTSD).

  • The children are forced to cross tens of kilometres to attend school.

  • The health condition of children has been under threat because of the lack of healthy food, physical exercise.

  • Complete lack of information in the mother tongue.

  • The children studying in these schools are victims of discrimination and intimidation (including recruiting into the Transnistrian army).

Intimidation and discrimination

  • The local television and mass media foster hatred and discrimination against Moldovan and Ukrainian ethnicities.

  • Unannounced visits of various control bodies to educational institutions for intimidation purposes.

  • Threats on behalf of Security and Military Structures addressed to School headmasters.

  • Military recording and enrolment of young people in paramilitary structures.

Image Credit: EIN

Promo-LEX provided the following recommendations to the CM urging authorities to:

-        Pay the compensation due to all applicants.

-        Present a concrete action plan including the general measures indicated in the ‘General Measures’ section above.

Promo-Lex called on the Committee of Ministers to consider the application of the art. 46 paragraph 4 of Convention.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing. 

Relevant Documents:

Overview of Statement on the Liquidation of

the NGOs International Memorial and Human Rights Centre Memorial

Overview of Presentation

On 11 November 2021, the news broke that the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seeking liquidation of one of the oldest Russian NGOs, International Memorial. The reason is the repeated violation of the legislation on "foreign agents". The Human Rights Center is additionally accused of justifying extremist and terrorist activities. The hearing for the liquidation of the International Memorial is scheduled for November 25. The preliminary hearing on the liquidation of the Human Rights Center Memorial is scheduled for November 23. 

Over the past decades, the Human Rights Center has dealt with human rights issues in Chechnya, the rights of migrants, supporting political prisoners, defending the rights of Russian citizens in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and has become one of the largest and most respected human rights organizations in the country. Having launched the ECHR program in 2000, Memorial HRC lawyers have since won 140 cases, helping 361 individuals obtain legal redress and secure their rights under the European Convention. To this day, around 250 applications lodged by Memorial HRC lawyers are still pending, including the case of 61 NGOs on the quality of the Russian Foreign Agents Act (Ecodefense and Others v. Russia, application no. 9988/13). If Memorial is eliminated, it would also seriously affect the work on the implementation of the ECHR judgments.

Memorial is undertaking important work both on the domestic and international level related to the implementation of individual and general measures related to the ECHR judgments. Memorial prepared the submissions to the Committee of Ministers related to the general measures of implementation in Lashmankin’s group of cases (various systemic problems related to the right to freedom of assembly in Russia), in Khashiyev’s group of cases (serious violations of the right to life during the security and antiterrorist operations in the North Caucasus’s region of Russia), in Kim’s group of cases (violations of the rights of statelessness persons in Russia) and in other groups of cases. Several requests to the national institutions have also been made in these cases proposing the changes into the laws and other general measures of implementation. 

If Memorial is liquidated its former lawyers would not be able to make submissions to the Committee of Ministers on the general measures of implementation, and the the practice of non-implementation of the ECtHR judgments by the Russian authorities can further aggravate.

The liquidation of the International Memorial and Human Rights Center Memorial is not just the suspension of the activities of these organizations, which help thousands and tens of thousands of people. The Memorial is primarily a symbol of Russian civil society, and that is why the state seeks to destroy it. This is a clear message to all civil society and non-profit organizations.

On behalf of the Memorial NGOs, Dmitry Gurin, Senior Lawyer with Memorial Human Rights Centre (ECtHR litigation practice), called upon the Committee of Ministers to take a firm stance against the liquidation of International Memorial and Human Rights Center Memorial and to raise this issue through their diplomatic channels.

Help Support Memorial here

EIN Civil Society Briefing on Turkey and Ukraine: Freedom of Expression & Violations Related Detention

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 25 May 2021 ahead of the Committee of Minister’s Human Rights Meeting on 7-9 June 2021. The event was held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The second briefing focused on the following cases:

1.     The Öner and Türk Group /Artun and Guvener Group / Nedim Şener Group /Altuğ Taner Akçam Group of cases, concerning unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, including for defamation, and the consequent chilling effect of these proceedings. The briefing on this case was presented by Aslı Ece Koçak, Editor and Project Coordinator from the Media and Law Studies Association.

2.     The Logvinenko Group /Isayev Group /Kats and others group of cases, concerning various violations related to lack of adequate medical treatment in detention and lack of effective remedies, failure to comply with an interim measure, presented by Gennadiy Tokarev, Head of the Strategic Litigation Center of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

The Öner and Türk Group of cases/ Artun and Guvener group/ Nedim Şener Group of cases/ Altuğ Taner Akçam Group of cases

Overview of the group of cases

  • The Öner and Türk group mainly concern unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings initiated under various articles of the Criminal Code or Anti-Terrorism Law for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole (Article 10).

  • The Nedim Şener group focuses on the pre-trial detention of journalists on serious charges, such as aiding and abetting a criminal organisation or attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, without relevant and sufficient reasons (violations of Articles 5 and 10). 

  • The Altuğ Taner Akçam group deals with prosecutions under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (publicly denigrating the Turkish Nation or the organs and institutions of the State, including the judiciary and the army), which the Court found not to meet the “quality of law” requirement in view of its “unacceptably broad terms” (Article 10).

  • The Artun and Güvener group concerns unjustified interferences with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression on account of their criminal convictions for insulting public officials (the President, the Prime Minister and a tax inspector respectively) (Article 10).

Overview of the group of cases Briefing by the Media and Law Studies Association

The Media and Law Studies Association reminded the participants of the latest Action Plan by Turkish Authorities, and the measures the authorities indicated to have taken so far:

  • Legislative amendments: Article 6 § 2 and Article 7 § 2 of the Anti-Terror Law; Article 215 and Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

  • Introduction of an effective individual application before the Constitutional Court (TCC).

  • Publication and dissemination of the European Court‘s judgments.

  • Necessary individual measures in the 44 cases examined under the 4 groups of cases and invite the CM to close the cases.

The Media and Law Studies Association reminded the participants of the current situation in Turkey:

  • 2017 Constitutional Referendum replaced the parliamentary system with a presidential system, characterized by observers as “one-man rule“ (Financial Times, 2018).

  • The constitutional amendment increased the executive‘s control over the judiciary and has been used by the government to punish and silence political dissent.

  • The state of emergency issued following the failed coup attempt of 2016 allowed the government to shut down at least 179 media outlets and revoke at least 778 press cards.

  • Turkish Presidency’s Directorate of Communications is given jurisdiction over press cards.

  • According to the Court’s 2020 statistics, Turkey remains the top violator of Article 10 (31 violations in 2020 only); ranks 153 out of 180 in the RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

  • The judiciary continues to find loopholes and back doors when it comes to prosecuting journalists under Art. 7 § 2.

  • In 2020 and 2021, MLSA observed a high number of cases where new investigations were launched against journalists for this charge based on Twitter and/or Instagram posts from five to six years ago.

The Media and Law Studies Association Recommendations to the CM:

  • Since there has been no progress regarding the legislative framework, the Committee should continue the supervision on the execution of the judgements in these groups of cases under the enhanced procedure.

  • The Committee should re-examine these groups of cases at a future CM-DH agenda.

  • The Committee should also carefully examine the governmental activities under the Action Plan for Human Rights.

  • The government should provide examples where persons have been convicted under the relevant provisions

  • The government should provide information on how many people have been investigated and prosecuted based on the mentioned charges.

  • The government should explain why the judgements in this group of cases are not implemented in many similar cases before the national courts and address the issue of judicial independence holistically and comprehensively, in line with the respective international standards and the specific recommendations for Turkey by international bodies.

    Please see the slides for full Briefing

Relevant Documents

 

The Logvinenko Group /Isayev Group /Kats and others group of cases

Overview of Logvinenko Group, Isayev Group, and Kats and others group of cases

  • Logvinenko Group and Isayev Group, mainly concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment due to overcrowding, poor material conditions and inadequate nutrition in police establishments, pre-trial detention centres and prisons, as well as during transportation by road or rail between detention facilities or to courts; inadequacy of medical care in general and for infectious diseases, drug addiction and physical disability in particular; and lack of effective preventive and compensatory remedies in all these respects (violations of Articles 3 and 13).

  • Kats and others, concerns authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of the applicants’ relatives remanded in pre-trial detention due to inadequate medical care with regard to their HIV positive status (substantive violations of Article 2) and failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the deaths, notably due to the lack of independence, exemplary diligence, public scrutiny and the lack of safeguard for the interests of the next-of-kin (procedural violations of Article 2). In the case of Kats and others, the Court found a violation of Article 5 on account of the applicants’ relative’s (daughter and mother, respectively) unlawful detention.

Overview of the Logvinenko, Isayev, Kats and others group case Briefing by Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group Lex reminded the participants of the latest findings from the last CM Decision

  • Regarding Logvinenko (CM/DH September 2020)

    • […] 7.expressing deep concern at the insufficiency of resources to take the necessary measures, as well as underlining the obligation to ensure adequate conditions of detention for all detainees notwithstanding their financial capacity, called on the authorities to find adequate sources of funding for the necessary major renovation work in the detention facilities  and provision of adequate medical care in detention, and to inform the Committee on the medium and long-term plans on improving the detainees living conditions and access to adequate medical care;

  • Regarding Isayev (CM/DH December 2020)

    • […] 6. decided to examine the issues of medical care in prison separately from material conditions of detention and nutrition and invited the authorities to submit detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged to address all the aspects related to healthcare and provision of necessary medical treatment in detention as identified by the Court; further invited the authorities to take into account the Statement of principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic elaborated by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in March 2020;

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group reminded the participants of the current situation in Ukraine regarding medical care in prisons:

Positive developments:

  • Regulations on providing medical care for convicts were amended

  • State budgeting separate from penitentiary institutions

  • Problem with staffing of medical units solved (according to the Government - around 90% now)

  • Implementation of opioid substitution therapy to the correctional institutions has started

  • Treatment provided for a number of prisoners with hepatitis C/B

Key shortcomings:

  • Provisions or bylaws on the matter of organization of providing medical care for convicts typically are not observed

    • Medical treatment is provided only in cases of serious threat to the prisoner’s health with a significant delay, in some cases only following the complaint to the court or even following a criminal complaint for the inactivity of the prison doctors

    • Health problems of inmates of a non-urgent nature generally are not registered and are addressed only upon persistent requests

    • Inhuman conditions of transportation of sick prisoners to prison hospitals and back

    • Bodily injures of inmates are registered only upon the approval of the prison administration

    • Violation of confidentiality of the inmates’ medical information and violation of their right to obtain information about themselves

  • Excessive use of measures of restraint to prisoners being cured in civil health care institutions

  • Violation of time limits for procedures for transferring prisoners to hospitals

  • The opioid substitution therapy is provided only in 2 institutions from 105

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group’s Recommendations to the CM

  • To initiate, possibly in the form of a consensus conference, a transparent process for the transfer of prison medicine to the MoH, comprising a national debate involving all the actors concerned, including civil society and international organizations, in order to identify the main difficulties and the means of resolving them, and to define the main stages of the reform.

  • To ask the State to provide, as soon as possible, an action plan containing a specific list of measures and steps to be taken to address the structural problems of access to health care in the prison system, with an indicative timetable.

  • To promptly enact the regulation on the provision of medical care for detainees kept in the pretrial detention facilities.

  • Until transferring prison medicine to the MoH, to ensure compliance by the medical staff with provisions on medical care for prisoners, starting from securing real access to the medical personnel for prisoners, and the due fixation of all medical records prescribed by law.

  • To recommend to the Ukrainian authorities to extend the system of monitoring visits to correctional institutions by public activists to pretrial detention facilities, with necessary accommodations for the communication between monitors and detainees.

  • Finally, the Logvinenko group (application No. 13448/07) of cases should be:

    (a)  be kept under enhanced supervision

    (b) examined again soon, perhaps in six months in the December CM/DH meeting.

Please see the slides for full Briefing

Relevant Documents

EIN Civil Society Briefings on Russian cases: The Right to Education & Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

EIN Civil Society Briefing2 (1).png

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 25 May 2021 ahead of the Committee of Minister’s Human Rights Meeting on 7-9 June 2021. Due to Covid-19, the event was online.

The first briefing focused on the following cases:

1.   The Catan v Russian Federation case, concerning violations of the right to education of children and parents using Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian, This presentation was made by Vadim Vieru, from Promo-LEX.

2.  The Lashmankin and others v Russian Federation case, concerning different violations mainly relating to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, was presented by Tatiana Chernikova, Memorial Human Rights Centre, and Denis Shedov, OVD-Info.

The Catan v Russian Federation case

Overview of the Catan Case

This case concerns the violation of the right to education of children and parents using Latin-script schools in the Transniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the Russian Federation.

Overview of the Catan Briefing by Promo-Lex

Promo-Lex reminded the participants of the findings from the last CM Decision:

  • Russian authorities have failed to present an action plan setting out concrete measures to execute the judgments in this group. They have not paid the just satisfaction and default interest owed to the applicants.

Key points on relevant developments:

What can be done?

  • Remove any provisions from the legislation that can be regarded as a threat to the use of Latin script in the Transnistrian region.

  • Stop harassment by the Transnistrian “militia and law enforcement bodies” of the break-away administration.

  • Return the premises of all Latin-script educational institutions.

Promo-Lex Recommendations to the CM

  1. Request that the Russian authorities pay the compensation due to all applicants;

  2. Request the authorities to present a concrete action plan including the general measures indicated above;

  3. Schedule the case for examination at all future CM/DH meetings; and

  4. Invite the Chair of the Committee of Ministers to write a letter to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, highlighting the non-implementation of the judgment and requesting measures to be taken, initiating the infringement proceedings under Article 46(4) of the ECHR. 

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Catan v. Russia status of Execution

The Lashmankin and others v Russian Federation case

Overview of the Lashmankin and Others case

This group of cases mainly concerns the right to freedom assembly in different Russian cities in 2006-2017.

Overview of Lashmankin and Others by Memorial Human Rights Centre & OVD-Info

Memorial Human Rights Centre & OVD-Info reminded the participants of the findings from the last CM Decision, which strongly urged Russian authorities to:

  • Continue legislative reform

  • Improve domestic court practice

  • Exclude criminal sanctions

  • Provide information and statistics

  • Send messages of tolerance of peaceful assemblies. 

Memorial Human Rights Centre & OVD-Info updated the participants on the current situation in Russia on freedom of assembly:

  • Spontaneous assemblies are still not authorized in Russian law.

  • The procedure of approval of assemblies became more strict. The organizers are obliged to agree with the alternative places proposed by the authorities.

  • There is still a legal possibility to detain individuals for participating in non-approved assemblies. The administrative fines are very high, and administrative arrests still exist.

  • There is still a criminal liability for participation in the non-approved assemblies, and it was applied during the past year.

  • Over 13,000 individuals were detained during the opposition rallies during the last year. Many individuals faced different punishments as well as police violence and hard conditions of detention.

What is Necessary to Implement the Judgment

  • To legally authorize spontaneous assemblies in Russia;

  • To liberalize the procedure of approval of assemblies. Organizers should be able to freely choose the place and time of assemblies.

  • To abolish the criminal liability for participation in non-authorized assemblies.

  • To abolish administrative arrests for non-authorized assemblies and to reduce administrative fines.

  • To regularly provide the CM with information about the number of assemblies approved and not approved by the authorities and the consequences of this.

Memorial Human Rights Centre & OVD-Info Recommendations to the CM:

Public Verdict Foundation, HRC Memorial, Committee against Torture, and OVD-Info propose to the Committee of Ministers the following measures:  

  1. To adopt an interim resolution recognizing that the case of Lashmankin has not been implemented by Russian authorities.  

  2. To remind the authorities about the necessity of adopting the recommendations made by the Committee of Ministers in its previous decision.  

  3. To propose to the authorities the adoption of the list of recommendations made by “Memorial” and OVD-Info in their previous submission to the Committee of  Ministers on 20 April 2020.  

  4. To remind the authorities that the most important reforms deriving from the case of Lashmankin have still not been adopted by the authorities and to urge them to adopt these reforms.  

  5. To condemn the new restrictive laws adopted by Russian authorities during the last year and to state that the authorities must withdraw these laws.

  6. To welcome some positive drafts laws proposed by Russian deputies and to encourage the authorities to adopt these drafts laws.  

  7. To indicate that the practice of the Constitutional Court and regional laws must be more consistent and fully follow the findings of the ECHR in the Lashmankin case.  

  8. To indicate that the restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic must not be applied in a discriminatory and non-proportional way.

  9. To condemn the mass arrests and prosecutions of participants in peaceful assemblies, perpetrated by the authorities during the last year. 

  10. To propose that authorities create a working group at a federal level consisting of experts and civil society to discuss the reforms necessary for the implementation of the Lashmankin case.

  11. To decide to consider again the Lashmankin case during the next session of the Committee of Ministers together with the cases dealing with the related issues including “Tomov and others v. Russia”, “Fedotov v. Russia”, “Mikheyev v. Russia”, “Atyukov v. Russia”, “Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia”.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

 Relevant Documents

The Lashmankin Case status of Execution

 

Civil Society Briefing: UK and Poland

Last week EIN concluded its civil society briefings prior to the March meeting of the Committee of Ministers, with a briefing held on February Friday 26th. Due to Covid-19 it was held online.

EIN Civil Society Briefing2.png

This second civil society briefing focused on cases concerning the U.K and Poland. Gemma McKeown from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) presented on the McKerr group, with an additional briefing on the case of Pat Finucane, the son of Pat Finucane given by the victim’s son, Michael Finucane.  Jarosław Jagura from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Poland and Kamila Ferenc from the Federation for Women and Family Planning presented on the P. and S.Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland.

The purpose of civil society briefings is to update the Committee of Ministers (CM) with crucial information on specific cases. Read more on the implementation process here.

McKerr Group v. U.K.:The case concerns actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s and the failure of the UK to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations.

Recommendations on McKerr v. U.K. group of cases by the Committee on the Administration of Justice

General Measures

CAJ invites the CM to ask the U.K:

  • Whether it is recommitting to implementing the Stormont House Agreement and if it is, what action is it taking without further delay to take this forward.

  • What action it is taking to address the underfunding of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and failure of the PSNI to comply with disclosure obligations.

  • What action it is taking to address issues of delays in the provision of disclosure in legacy inquests.

Individuals Measures:

  • CAJ echoes the CM’s profound regret that the inquests and investigations in McKerr, Shanaghan and Kelly & Ors have still not been completed, resulting in ongoing breaches of Article 2 ECHR, and repeats its calls for infringement proceedings, under Article 46 (4) ECHR.

  • CAJ calls for all of the Individual Measures to remain under the supervision of the CM.

  • CAJ repeats its request for the reopening of the supervision of the Individual Measure under the Finucane v. U.K. case without further delay and that this be kept under regular scrutiny by the CM.

The P. and S., Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland:

P. and S. v. Poland: The case concerns the state’s failure to provide reliable information on lawful abortions to the applicant. This case is under enhanced procedure by the Committee of Ministers. More on the case here.

Tysiąc v. Poland: The case concerns the absence of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist.

R.R.  v. Poland: The case concerns the applicant's lack of access to a prenatal test, enabling the applicant to make an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion.

Recommendations on P. and S., Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland

By Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

  • Recommends the CM to continue its supervision of the P. and S. v. Poland, R. R. v. Poland, and Tysiąc v. Poland cases.

  • Urges the CM to consider the possibility of issuing an interim resolution given the considerable time elapsing from the delivery of the ECtHR's judgments in the following cases: P. and S. v. Poland, R. R. v. Poland, and Tysiąc v. Poland.

  • Recommends that CM should again request the Polish authorities to provide data on the actual availability of abortion in hospitals, specifically the data on hospitals where a woman can't have her pregnancy terminated because of the conscience clause invoked by the doctors.

  • Polish authorities should guarantee that women may receive reliable and objective information on the grounds for the Iawful termination of pregnancy and the condition of the foetus. This information should be provided before the end of the legal period when an abortion is allowed. Polish authorities should introduce an expedient and effective procedure to ensure that women have an opportunity to exercise the right to Iawful abortion. 

  • Mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that the right to abortion is not nullified by the invocation of the conscience clause by doctors.

See Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights presentation below.

By the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Federation for Women and Family Planning

  • Recommends that the CM continue its enhanced scrutiny of the Tysiąc, R.R. and P. and S. judgments and urge Poland to adopt the measures required by the judgments to address prevailing legal barriers and enforcement deficits and enable women and adolescents to exercise their rights under Polish law to obtain reproductive health services. 

  • Recommends the Committee of Ministers request the authorities to:

    • Establish effective and timely procedure for women to challenge and resolve disagreements with and between doctors regarding their entitlement to legal abortion care and to exercise their rights in this regard. This mechanism must ensure: a decision within no more than 3 days; the right of judicial appeal; the issuance of enforceable orders mandating a particular health care facility or medical provider to provide the care sought.

    • Adopt effective measures to ensure that refusals based on the “conscience clause” by medical professionals do not undermine or delay women’s access to legal abortion or prenatal testing. This should include enacting legally binding measures requiring medical professionals to timely refer women who are refused abortion care based on the “conscience clause” to alternative medical professionals committed and able to provide the care; establishing effective oversight and monitoring mechanisms; and ensuring an adequate number of medical providers committed to provide abortion care throughout the country.

    • Strengthen enforcement procedures and measures, including by ensuring appropriate sanctions and disciplinary actions against health care facilities and professionals for any failures to comply with obligations to provide legal reproductive health services and information.

    • Effectively monitor compliance by all health care facilities with their contractual obligations to the National Health Fund and actively enforce these contracts, including by sanctioning breaches by health care institutions and medical providers.

    • Adopt effective measures to guarantee women timely access to reliable information on the conditions and effective procedures for their access to legal abortion care, such as comprehensive guidelines to all health facilities and professionals providing reproductive health care.

    • Adopt effective measures to ensure that full and reliable information is provided to women and adolescent girls enabling them to take informed decisions about their pregnancy.

    • Adopt effective measures to enhance protection of patient data confidentiality.

    • Introduce targeted measures to ensure that the needs of adolescents who are seeking legal abortion care are met and that they are treated with respect and due consideration for their vulnerability.

    See the original recommendations here.

We thank the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Poland, and the Federation for Women and Family Planning for sharing their insights and recommendations on these cases.

Relevant Documents:

Civil Society Briefing: Turkey, Kavala, and Demirtaş

This week EIN held its first civil society briefing of 2021. The briefing was held online due to Covid-19. These civil society briefings update the Committee of Ministers (CM) with information on the progress of specific cases. Read more on the implementation process here.

This briefing had two sessions, the first took place on Tuesday, February 23rd, and the second was on February 26th. The first session covered two Turkish cases, presented by Emma Sinclair, Turkey Director at Human Rights Watch, Ayse Bingol, Project Co-Director at the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, and Kerem Altiparmak, Human Rights Lawyer and Founder at the Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD).

The Kavala v. Turkey case concerns a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who is unjustifiably being detained, for over 1200 days, as a means to silence his speech. More on Kavala here.

Overview of Recommendations by Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Kavala 

Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the immediate release of Kavala. If he does remain in pre-trial detention at the time of the 1398th 9-11 March 2021 meeting, the CM should trigger infringement proceedings against Turkey.

General Measures:

The NGOs urges Turkey to address/implement ECtHR violations concerning the right to liberty and security and on the limitations on restricting rights.

Specifically, to: 

  • Request Turkey to inform the Committee of Ministers about the number of people detained on remand since 15 July 2016.

  • Urge Turkey to revise its Action Plan and address in full the structural problems identified in the ECtHR Kavala v. Turkey judgment and recommendations by NGOs.

  • Call on Turkey to pursue a clear and detailed strategy to prevent violations of the rights protected in the Convention. 

Overview of Recommendations by Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD) on Kavala 

IFÖD urges the CM to invite Turkey to provide statistical information about detention orders issues in the last 5 years and continue to supervise Turkish judicial practice concerning pre-trial detention with the Convention standards.

The Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) case concerns the arrest/detention of one of Turkey's main opposition leaders to limit political debate.

Overview of Recommendations by ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Demirtaş

Procedural Matters:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to place Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) under enhanced procedures and treated as a leading case.

 Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Demirtaş required by the judgment and indicate that his ongoing detention is a prolong violation of his rights.

  • Request the Government of Turkey to end the abuse of judicial proceedings to harass Demirtaş, including by dropping all charges under which he has been investigated and detained.

  • Publicly correct false claims promoted by senior officials of the Government of Turkey.

The second briefing took place on Friday, 26th February 2021. This session focused on two case groups:

Relevant Documents: