Jul 11, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the adoption of a new law on lawyers in Kazakhstan.
The Law ‘On the Professional Activities of Advocates and Legal Assistance’, signed into law on 10 July 2018, contradicts international law and standards on the independence of the legal profession, by enabling the executive to influence or to have control over who is allowed to practice law and substantial influence on disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
The law will have negative repercussions for protection of human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
“Some of the key provisions of the adopted law undermine the independence of the legal profession, a cornerstone of the rule of law,” Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe Program Senior Legal Adviser said today.
“Not only does the law weaken the legal profession, it sends an unfortunate message to the public that, as a result, their human rights, including their right to a fair trial, may be harder to uphold within the legal system,” he added.
More specifically, the ICJ is concerned that, under the new law, the role of the independent Bar Association in the composition of the disciplinary commissions is reduced.
Besides lawyers, the Disciplinary Commission will now include ‘representatives of the public’ designated by the Ministry of Justice. While the law does not specify how these members of the Disciplinary Commission would be selected, the selection is to be made by the Ministry of Justice.
The same procedure is not excluded to select members who are retired judges, which the Law requires also be part of disciplinary commissions.
While many of the specific procedures are unclear, it is apparent that these provisions would give the Ministry extensive influence over the Disciplinary Commission, especially as the law does not explicitly require these members perform their duties independently from the instructions of the Ministry of Justice.
The influence of the executive over the disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Association is contrary to the principles of independence of lawyers.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are to be brought before an impartial disciplinary committee established by the legal profession, before an independent statutory authority, or before a court, and shall be subject to an independent judicial review.
Furthermore, the law continues to give the Ministry of Justice control over admission to the practice of law.
It stipulates that prospective lawyers who have completed their professional training are to be assessed by the Commission for admission to practice established by territorial bodies of the Ministry of Justice.
The commissions consist of seven members, of which only three are members of the Bar Association. The composition of the commissions and the principles of their work are to be approved by the orders of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Law therefore preserves the previous procedure on admission to the profession criticized by the ICJ earlier, according to which the attestation of applicants for obtaining the membership to the Bar Association and issuing a license were within the exclusive competence of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
At the same time, many defense rights listed in the Law are curtailed or compromised by the wording that would allow for enactment of restrictions by secondary legislation, including that the adopted Law would not allow lawyers to freely and without interference collect evidence in defense of their clients or that lawyer’s inquiries can be subject to limitation where they seek to obtain “restricted information”.
The ICJ notes that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, States must ensure lawyers have access to appropriate information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time (Principle 21).
Read the full text in English here
Read the full text in Russian here
Oct 31, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
Effective measures to end impunity for crimes of torture in detention are needed to tackle the systematic recourse to torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in Tajikistan, the ICJ concluded in a report released today.
The ICJ report, Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Tajikistan, finds that although Tajikistan’s criminal procedure law is often in line with international law, including fair trial and other relevant guarantees, in practice it does not lead to effective protection of human rights.
The system is in practice unable to remedy or establish accountability for the serious human rights violations that occur systematically in detention, the report says.
Even where complaints of torture are made, it appears that very few lead to investigation, prosecution or conviction.
“The systematic recourse to torture and ill-treatment in detention undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system in Tajikistan, as well as notions of fairness and justice and the operation of the rule of law in the country,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ’s Europe Regional Programme.
“Torture must always be treated as one of the most serious crimes. International human rights law requires that allegations of torture must be independently, promptly and thoroughly investigated and, where those responsible are identified, they must be brought to justice,” added Shakirov.
An effective system of prevention of torture and other ill-treatment in detention and for the provision of effective remedies and reparation for such violations is needed to tackle the systematic recourse to their use, the report finds.
The ICJ’s report identifies numerous factors that foster the widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in Tajikistan, including:
- the lack of independence of the judiciary;
- the judges’ failure to uphold equality of arms between the defence and prosecution;
- the frequent failure by courts to inquire into allegations of torture or other ill-treatment raised by the defence;
- the tendency of courts to accept prosecution denials of such treatment without question; and
- courts’ regular failure to exclude evidence obtained by torture.
With heavy reliance by judges on self-incriminating statements made by suspects in the first hours of detention, the presumption of innocence remains to a large extent illusory, the report adds.
The report also demonstrates that a lack of guarantees for confidential lawyer-detainee meetings prevents detainees from effectively exercising their right to qualified legal assistance and to complain about ill-treatment if necessary.
“Systemic torture cannot be effectively eradicated unless lawyers are both individually and institutionally independent of the executive, are protected in carrying out their duties, and have unimpeded access to their clients in the first hours of detention, as required by international law and standards”, Shakirov said.
The report provides a comprehensive list of recommendations following a detailed analysis of applicable laws and practices in Tajikistan, including based on the findings and recommendations of different bodies of the United Nations human rights system.
Contact
Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, t: +41.22.979.3832; e: temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41.79.957.2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Tajikistan-GRA Baseline Study-News-Press-Release-2017-RUS (Press Release, Russian PDF)
Download
Tajikistan-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report in PDF, English)
Read also
ICJ Report ICJ Recommendations on the Independence of the Legal Profession in the Republic of Tajikistan (February 2016)
ICJ legal submission Alternative Report to the UN Human Rights Committee on the Second Periodic Report of Tajikistan under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (June 2013)
Oct 27, 2017 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the allegations of harassment of lawyer Shamil Magomedov following an acquittal of his client Sulntankhan Ibragimov, who had been accused of murder.
The allegations should be investigated and authorities must make clear to law enforcement officials that such intimidation and harassment is prohibited, the ICJ said.
Yesterday, the lawyer alleged that on 19 October, while he was in Moscow, a law enforcement officer visited his home in Dagestan and questioned his family members about his whereabouts and “why he complained so much to law enforcement bodies”.
The lawyer believes this is related to the acquittal of his client, Sulntankhan Ibragimov, in whose case a decision had been delivered three days before.
When the matter was raised in court, Prosecutor Magomed Aliyev claimed the law enforcement officer’s visit was routine.
The ICJ considers that in the circumstances, the visit to and questioning by a law enforcement officer of a lawyer’s family about his professional activities could only reasonably be understood as a form of intimidation or harassment.
International standards, such as the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, provide that governments must ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”
The ICJ calls on the relevant prosecutorial and law enforcement authorities to make clear to all their officials that all intimidation and harassment of lawyers, including by visiting and questioning a lawyer’s family about the lawyer’s protected professional activities, is prohibited.
Background
Shamil Magomedov, a lawyer from Dagestan, defended Sultankhan Ibragimov in a case where he was charged with the muder of Alisultan Omarov, a Greco-Roman wrestling coach, in 2015 and the murder in 2016 of Nazim Gadjiev, the leader of the “Sadval” movement.
On 16 October, the jury trial found Sultankhan Ibragimov not guilty on all accounts.
Russia-Shamil Magomedov statement-News-web stories-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jun 28, 2017 | News
Government moves to amend the regulatory framework of the legal profession in Kazakhstan may undermine its independence and are contrary to the principle of self-regulation of the profession, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ called on the authorities of Kazakhstan to refrain from interference in the governance of the independent legal profession and step back to allow the collegia of lawyers to continue to take responsibility for such matters.
The ICJ stressed that any proposals for reform put forward by the governing bodies of the profession should be developed in consultation with and enjoy the consent of the members of advokatura in accordance with international law and standards on the independence of lawyers.
The ICJ was responding to proposals put forward by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev for reform of the legal profession in Kazakhstan.
In a statement to Parliament on 29 May 2017 (Report of the Minister of Justice on the issues of further development and reform of the institutes of notary and advokatura on 29 May 2017), the Minister outlined plans to:
- lower training and entrance fees to the profession “in order to simplify access to the profession”;
- broaden the powers of the Republican Collegium to regulate the disciplinary system for lawyers, in light of the Minister’s view that lawyers were avoiding disciplinary responsibility in many cases under the current system;
- require lawyers to undergo annual training followed by exams, which would be set not by the collegia themselves, but by universities or external training centres;
- require lawyers, in addition to the participation in state-funded legal aid scheme, to provide mandatory legal assistance without financial support from the Government, which the Minister described as “pro bono” service
The importance of an independent legal profession which is self-regulating is well recognized and accepted under international standards and by international authorities.
One of the means by which such independence may be guaranteed is the governance of the profession by an organization independent from the State or other national institutions.
International standards provide that it is an important function of the lawyer’s association “[t]o maintain the honour, dignity, integrity, competence, ethics, standards of conduct and discipline of the profession” (Singhvi Declaration, para.99).
In this context, comments by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev on the need to change the disciplinary system due to lawyers avoiding disciplinary responsibility “for violations committed” is of serious concern, the ICJ said.
While it is important that lawyers who act against the interests of their clients, or otherwise violate standards of lawyers’ ethics are subject to disciplinary responsibility, it is the function of the profession itself to decide on such matters. Disciplinary proceedings should never be used to undermine lawyers’ independence.
Lowering entrance fees for qualifying lawyers may be a positive measure that can enhance access to the profession for qualifying lawyers, in circumstances where such fees are inaccessibly high.
However the initiating and design of such proposals should not be in the hands of the executive, as this may limit the independence and effectiveness of the legal profession.
Financial sustainability of an independent legal profession largely depends on its members’ fees.
The advokatura should be able to regulate and finance its regular operations, including administration and training, the ICJ added.
As noted by the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in his report of 2009: “… the legal profession is best placed to determine admission requirements and procedures and should thus be responsible for administering examinations and granting professional certificates. This would further help in preserving its independence and self-governance, as advised in the Basic Principles.”
The ICJ is also concerned at suggestions that, as part of continuing legal education, lawyers will be subject to examinations by institutions outside the profession.
While it remains unclear what role or effect such examinations would have, the proposal raises concerns regarding the legal profession’s self-regulation and would risk undermining its independence, the ICJ said.
It should be recalled that, Kazakhstan is required take measures to remove obstacles to the independence of lawyers.
Regarding the proposals on so called ‘pro bono legal assistance’, while it is welcome when any State adopts measures to make legal aid more accessible, such measures should not place an unreasonable burden on lawyers to provide mandatory legal assistance.
The scheme proposed by the Minister for Justice whereby lawyers become responsible for providing legal services without financial compensation for their work is of concern, and appears unlikely to ensure a high quality of legal advice, the ICJ added.
It should be the role of the government to provide regular and sufficient funding for such services, ensuring that legal aid is available for indigent clients in line with international standards.
Kazakhstan-Interference legal profession-News-2017-RUS (Russian version, in PDF)
