Jul 31, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the government of Kazakhstan to drop all charges of “knowingly disseminating false information” against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov related to his representation of a child who is the alleged victim of sexual abuse by older children.
“The prosecution of Bauyrzhan Azanov in relation to statements he made as part of his representation of a child violates the lawyer’s freedom of expression, and prevent him from effectively representing his client,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Instead of targeting a lawyer, the investigative authorities should use their resources to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in this case and ensure the protection of the rights of this child in accordance with Kazakhstan’s international obligations,” he added.
Bauyrzhan Azanov, a prominent lawyer in Kazakhstan, took up a high-profile case in which he represented a minor, an alleged victim of sexual and physical abuse over a prolonged period.
The case became public in March 2018 through media reports.
Once the case became public several district police officers were fired, and two heads of schools and some other state agents were suspended from office, reportedly in relation to their failure to report and investigate the case.
In his statements in the social media, Azanov alleged the investigation had been obstructed due to corrupt reasons.
In reaction to this, on 21 May 2018, the mother of the minor submitted a complaint against Azanov where she expressed concerns about “social tension”, “forming a negative image of the investigative body” and herself “as a mother”.
Following the mother’s complaint, on 24 July, the General Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the lawyer for knowing dissemination of false information, which alleged that:
“The information disseminated by lawyer B. Azanov was deliberately distorted and untrue, which created a false idea among the public about the alleged corruption of justice system, investigative bodies, the mother of the child and other persons. This caused psycho-emotional and social tension among the public and created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation, thereby creating a threat of violation of public order.”
Through the media, Azanov has denied the allegations against him and has stated that he acted in the best interests of his client and sought to ensure accountability for criminal acts.
On 1 June 2018, Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan commented on the case stating that unreasonable prolongation of the investigation is connected with the nepotism in the police and higher investigative authorities.
The Ombudsperson, members of the Kazakhstan Bar Association and human rights activists have made public statements in support of Bauyrzhan Azanov.
In these circumstances, the ICJ is concerned that criminal charges against lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov for public comments in which he raised concerns about possible violations of human rights of his minor client, may violate the lawyer’s right to freedom of expression.
The right to freedom of expression is protected under international treaties to which Kazakhstan is a party, including by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the UN Human Rights Committee stated in its General Comment 34 on the freedom of expression:
“When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”
According to the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers, lawyers have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization (Principle 23).
It is of particular concern that the Prosecutor’s Office document uses vague concepts that may amount to arbitrary use of grounds for restriction of freedom of expression of the lawyer.
In particular, it is unclear how prosecutorial authorities measured “psycho-emotional and social tension of the public” or that on what basis the lawyer’s comments may have “created a threat of destabilization of the internal political situation” creating a threat to the public order.
These broadly and atypically worded justifications for prosecution are likely to lead to arbitrary interference with freedom of expression.
Prosecution of the lawyer for his attempts to raise human rights-related issues of his minor client, unsupported by any evidence or explanation what they may refer to, is also likely to have a chilling effect on those who defend human rights of victims of abuse.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Kazakhstan-Lawyer Azanov-News-web story-2018-ENG (full story, in PDF)
Kazakhstan-Lawyer-Azanov-News-Web-story-2018-RUS (full story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 30, 2018 | News
The killing of Serbian defense lawyer Dragoslav Ognjanović must be independently, promptly, and thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, the ICJ said today.
Dragoslav Ognjanović (photo), a prominent lawyer who had defended Slobodan Milosovic and had also represented defendants in cases of organized crime, was shot dead outside his home in Belgrade late on Saturday 28 July.
“Safety of lawyers is essential to the fair operation of the justice system and to protection of the rule of law. The Serbian authorities now need to take urgent steps to re-establish confidence that they can ensure the safety of lawyers who may be under threat, and to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of this crime,” said Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, of Serbia’s Supreme Court, Vice-President of the ICJ.
“Investigation and prosecution of this case will be a significant test for the Serbian authorities and the legal system,” she added.
The Serbian and Belgrade bar associations have called a week-long suspension of work by lawyers in order to express their concern at the risk of violence against lawyers.
Serbian authorities have blamed an ongoing turf war between organized crime groups competing to control the narcotics trade.
“The concerns of the Serbian legal profession should be taken seriously by the government and the prosecution service, and the bar associations should be consulted on means to ensure the safety of lawyers,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe Programme.
Additional information
International human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights to which Serbia is a party, requires that states take steps to protect the life and physical integrity of persons who they know or ought to know are at real risk of violence.
In addition, the right to life, protected under Article 2 of the European Convention as well as under other international law standards, requires states to ensure an independent, prompt and effective investigation into killings, with a view to bringing to justice those responsible.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (principle 16). The UN Basic Principles specify that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (principle 17).
Jul 30, 2018 | News
On 25 July 2018, the ICJ facilitated an integrated meeting of governmental stakeholders in the justice chain involved in different aspects of combatting sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), the first meeting of its kind.
The meeting was convened by ICJ Commissioner and Principal Judge of the High Court of Eswatini, Justice Q. M. Mabuza. It followed a meeting held in February 2018 on combating SGBV in Eswatini and an ICJ report on key challenges to achieving justice for gross human rights violations in Eswatini, the latter of which recommended that justice sector stakeholders involved in the investigation, prosecution and sanctioning of, and provision of redress to victims for, acts of SGBV should convene six-monthly meetings so as to develop a common and integrated approach to the effective combating of SGBV.
The integrated meeting involved senior officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, correctional services, and the judiciary.
The meeting discussed the fight against SGBV in the context of the Guidelines on Combating Sexual Violence and its Consequences in Africa, and other international standards. It considered the national legal and policy framework on SGBV; practices and challenges in the investigation and prosecution of SGBV; the sanctioning of SGBV offences; and the rehabilitation of sexual and domestic violence offenders by correctional services. Perspectives of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the police and the judiciary were emphasized during discussions.
Stakeholders discussed issues with a view to identifying gaps and challenges in national law, policy and practice when measured against regional and global standards and best practices, as well as with a view to considering potential solutions to those gaps and challenges. The meeting agreed on next steps, including on concrete action that aligns with and/or augments the National Strategy to End Violence. Stakeholders agreed that they should all be involved in the early stages of cases involving SGBV.
Stakeholders also agreed that the recently enacted Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act will only be effectively implemented if justice sector stakeholders are well coordinated. Stakeholders agreed that integrated meetings should be held regularly, at intervals of no less than six months including, if possible, before the end of 2018.
Jul 27, 2018 | News
On 25 July, the ICJ visited the displaced persons of the Laguna Larga community, who were forcibly evicted from their homes over a year ago.
These displaced persons are now living in makeshift tents in infra-human conditions in the El Desengaño community, municipality of Candelaria, State of Campeche on the frontier between Guatemala and Mexico.
Their health and well-being are at serious risk.
On 8 September 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted precautionary measures in favour of the evicted and displaced community of Laguna Larga (Resolution 36/2017 Precautionary Measures No 412-17), calling on the Guatemalan authorities to adopt the “necessary measures to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiaries, through measures designed to improve, among other aspects, their sanitary and health conditions, in particular of children, women and the elderly”.
To date, the Guatemalan authorities have taken no action to implement the precautionary measures.
The ICJ was able to observe that the only measure adopted by the Guatemalan State has been to provide the displaced community with two teachers to give classes to the children.
However, the ICJ could also observe that the educational installations are precarious, too hot and very dark, which makes it difficult to give classes.
No sanitary nor health services have been provided by the Guatemalan authorities. On 24 July, a child died only 30 hours after her birth, seemingly a consequence of lack of medical attention.
Neither have other precautionary measures concerning food, access to water and housing been implemented.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the Guatemalan State has not fulfilled the requirements of the IACHR and that after a year, the rights to life and personal integrity of the displaced community of Laguna Larga is at risk of irreparable harm.
In the face of the inaction of the Guatemalan authorities, members of the Laguna Larga community with the support of Mexican and Guatemalan organizations have managed to implement various projects to provide drinking water, electricity, food and health services.
However, despite these important efforts, this humanitarian support remains insufficient given the serious crisis.
While the efforts of the Laguna Larga community and Mexican and Guatemala non-governmental organizations have been an example of civil society organization, it in no way exonerates, substitutes or reduces the responsibility of the Guatemalan State to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of the displaced population and to implement the precautionary measures ordered by the IACHR.
Ramon Cadena, Director of ICJ’s Central American Office, said:
“Given this situation, the ICJ urges the Guatemalan authorities immediately to fulfil the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ precautionary measures 412-17 and to resume the dialogue that was started before the eviction. According to international standards, the State should provide reparations for all the harm and prejudice caused.”
Jul 27, 2018 | News
On 26 July 2018, the ICJ Secretary General, Sam Zarifi, met Myanmar’s Union Attorney General, U Tun Tun Oo.
The ICJ Legal Adviser Sean Bain and senior staff from the Union Attorney General’s Office (UAGO) joined the meeting in Nay Pyi Taw.
Rule of law developments in Myanmar were discussed, including progress integrating international standards into the work of the UAGO, such as the new “Code of Ethics for Law Officers”.
The participation of UAGO staff in the ICJ’s recent workshops on the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Deaths was another topic discussed.
Noting the UAGO’s stated reform commitments, Sam Zarifi renewed the ICJ’s call on Myanmar’s prosecution authorities to drop the charges against Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, two Reuters journalists, which do not appear to have a valid legal rationale.
Efforts to effectively prosecute the assassination of lawyer U Ko Ni were also discussed.
Sean Bain noted the UAGO’s efforts to draft an umbrella land law according to the government’s National Land Use Policy, and highlighted the importance of public participation and consultation in this process, to ensure compliance with Myanmar’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Attorney General thanked the ICJ for the organization’s ongoing honest advice and support for human rights.
The ICJ has worked with the UAGO since 2014 to provide assistance on prosecutorial independence and human rights in the context of Myanmar’s broader democratic reforms.
Jul 26, 2018 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser in Bangkok, Thailand.
Over recent decades, international observers have tended to view the human rights and political situation in Cambodia as a series of predictable cycles that does not warrant too much alarm.
The conventional wisdom has been that Prime Minister Hun Sen and his government routinely tightens their grip on the political opposition and civil society in advance of elections before relaxing it again after victory has been secured.
But that analysis is no longer valid.
The reason is simple: During the course of ensuring it will win the national election scheduled for this Sunday (29 July), Hun Sen’s ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) has, since the last election, systematically altered the country’s constitutional and legal framework – and these changes will remain in place after the election has passed.
Through the passage of a slew of new laws and legal amendments inconsistent with Cambodia’s obligations under international law, and the frequent implementation of the law to violate human rights, the legal system has been weaponized to overwhelm and defeat the real and perceived opponents of the CPP, including the political opposition, the media, civil society, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens.
This misuse of the law is a significant development in the history of modern Cambodia and represents a determined move away from the vision enshrined in the historic 1991 Paris Peace Agreements that ended years of conflict and sought to establish a peaceful and democratic Cambodia founded on respect for human rights and the rule of law.
And it risks cementing the human rights and rule of law crisis that now exists within Cambodia for years to come.
To facilitate the closure of civil society space, and contrary to international law and standards, in 2015 the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO) was passed, which requires the mandatory registration of all NGOs and Associations, provides the government with arbitrary powers to deny or revoke registration, and places a vaguely worded duty on NGOs and associations to “maintain their neutrality towards political parties”.
The biggest blow to the political opposition has been the amendment last year of the Law on Political Parties (1997), amended twice within four months, which empowers the Supreme Court to dissolve parties, and four election laws, which permits the redistribution of a dissolved party’s seats in the country’s senate, national assembly, and commune and district councils.
Last November, the Supreme Court, presided over by a high-ranking member of the CPP, used the amended Law on Political Parties to dissolve the main opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), which had received just under 44% of the vote – or about 3 million votes – in communal elections held in June 2017.
After the CNRP’s dissolution, the amended election laws were then used to redistribute CNRP seats at every level of government, from the commune to the senate, to the CPP and minor parties.
To silence the media, the country’s media and taxation laws have been invoked – local radio stations have been ordered to stop broadcasting Radio Free Asia and Voice of America “in order to uphold the law on media” and the independent Cambodia Daily was forced to close after being presented with a disputed US $6.3 million tax bill which the Daily claimed was “politically motivated” and not accompanied by a proper audit or good faith negotiations.
To curb the exercise of freedom of expression, the Constitution has received vaguely worded amendments placing an obligation on Cambodian citizens to “primarily uphold the national interest” while prohibiting them from “conducting any activities which either directly or indirectly affect the interests of the Kingdom of Cambodia and of Khmer Citizens”.
Meanwhile individual journalists, members of the political opposition including the CNRP’s leader, Kem Sokha, human rights defenders and an Australian documentary filmmaker have been charged with any number of a kaleidoscope of crimes ranging from intentional violence and criminal defamation to treason and espionage.
And Cambodia lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.
In 2014, three “judicial reform laws” were passed which institutionalized the prosecution and judiciary’s lack of independence from the executive.
At the same time, the government perversely uses the doctrine of the “rule of law” to justify its actions.
Just hours after the Supreme Court dissolved the CNRP, Hun Sen announced that the decision was made “in accordance with the rule of law.”
When members of the diplomatic community and senior UN officials meet government officials to express concern at the increasing misuse of the law they receive an absurdist legal lecture on the “importance of the rule of law”.
What is happening in Cambodia is the opposite of that.
The International Commission of Jurists, UN authorities and others have been defining the rule of law since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was pronounced in 1948.
All agree that that the rule of law entails passing and implementing laws consistent with a country’s international human rights obligations.
It is time for the international community to recognize that a frank and fresh analysis of the situation in Cambodia is urgently required which acknowledges the way the country’s underlying legal and constitutional framework has been deliberately altered, and the way in which this will impact the country adversely long past this month’s election.
This acknowledgment must be accompanied by a coherent and, where possible, joint, plan of action that clearly sets out, with a timeline, what is required to bring Cambodia back on track with the agreed terms of the Paris Peace Agreements – including necessary legal and justice sector reforms – and the political and economic consequences for not doing so.
As long as Hun Sen’s Government deploys increasingly sophisticated justifications for its repressive actions, a more refined, multilayered and vigorous response from the international community is required – grounded on a proper application of the rule of law and Cambodia’s international human rights obligations.
