Jun 16, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists today drew to the attention of the Human Rights Council the failure of responsible States to ensure accountability for renditions and secret detention in several countries across the world.
The issue was highlighted by an oral statement in the General Debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention.
The ICJ statement continued as follows:
The US-administered rendition and secret detention programme of the last decade led to the commission of egregious violations of human rights and crimes under international law on a global scale with the complicity of several States, including in Europe.
Similar practices have been adopted in the Russian Federation where abductions of “terrorism” or “extremism” suspects and transfer to Central Asian States continue, in disregard of the principle of non-refoulement.
None of the States involved in the US-led renditions programme, or in abduction and transfer practices occurring in the Russian Federation, have ensured full accountability of those responsible and full redress for victims.
The ICJ calls on this Council to issue a strong call to all UN Member States to provide full accountability and redress for victims for the human rights violations that occurred during these operations.
Jun 12, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today highlighted judicial corruption and threats to judges and lawyers in Turkey and Azerbaijan, as well as regressive steps on violence against women in the United States of America and Russian Federation.
The statement, delivered during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, was as follows:
“The ICJ warmly welcomes the new Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers. As he has highlighted, ensuring judges are accountable for corruption and human rights violations, while respecting judicial independence, should be a global priority. Our Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability, published last year, should be of particular use to the Rapporteur and other actors in this regard.
Several situations serve as stark examples of other issues raised in his report. In Turkey, recent constitutional amendments give the President and Parliament control over the judiciary’s governing body. This has undermined the judiciary’s independence, already threatened by the mass dismissal of judges and the state of emergency. Lawyers and legal scholars, among others, are routinely dismissed or threatened by the authorities.
In Azerbaijan, the Bar Association is not independent and does not protect its members against undue interference with the exercise of their professional duties. Rather, it often serves as a tool of retaliation against independent human rights lawyers, including through disbarment proceedings that contravene international standards.
We would ask the Special Rapporteur for his views on the role his mandate can play in these and similar situations.
The ICJ also welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.
Despite increasing global acknowledgement of the grave and systemic nature of violence against women, some States continue to introduce regressive legislation undermining protections for women. For example, the Russian Federation’s decriminalization of certain forms of domestic violence, and attempts in some parts of the United States of America to restrict availability of sexual and reproductive healthcare, particularly impact on victims of sexual violence. The Philippines’ President’s public statements disregarding the gravity of sexual violence are another example. The ICJ would ask the Special Rapporteur what can be done to prevent such backsliding?”
Sep 26, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ, in cooperation with the Institute of Law and Public Policy (ILPP) held a round table discussion “Independence, effectiveness and quality of justice: comparative perspectives” in Moscow.
Judges from Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Russian and German legal scholars took part in the event.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Tamara Morschakova moderated the seminar.
Assessing the independence of judges, quality of judgements and enforcement of judgements were discussed among other topics.
The agenda of the event an be downloaded here.
May 12, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported resignations of federal judges in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation following apparent pressure by the acting Head of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who had suggested that resignation would be the “most correct decision of their lives”.
The ICJ considers these statements, which appear to have led directly to the resignations of federal judges, to be inappropriate interference with the functioning and independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ calls on the Russian Federation judicial authorities to take all measures within their power to ensure that all judges’ security of tenure is preserved and that any allegations of misconduct are addressed through appropriate disciplinary proceedings that respect the right to a fair hearing.
The ICJ further calls on the executive authorities to refrain from any comments which may undermine the independence of the judiciary.
On 5 May, Ramzan Kadyrov, currently acting Head of the Chechen Republic, recommended that several named judges should step down.
In his post on social media, Kadyrov identified as problems unfair decisions of courts, procrastination in criminal cases, decisions regarding housing and inconsistent decisions.
He mentioned that although examples of such decisions were sporadic, they did not help build trust in the judiciary.
He then recommended that the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, Magomed Karatayev (photo) and three other judges, Takhir Murdalov, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, should resign “if they had a notion of honour and professional ethics”.
It was reported that two judges of the Urus-Martan City Court and Grozny District Court, Sulyan Yandarov and Zayndi Khusainov, submitted their resignations on the same day.
The President of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, Magomed Karatayev, and his deputy Takhir Murdalov, are reported to have already filed a request for resignation.
The resignations, apparently in direct response to criticism by the executive, undermine the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation.
Under international law, including the right to a fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.
The UN Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary enshrines “the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary” and provides the judiciary shall not be subject to “any restrictions, improper influences…pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason.”
While judges have an obligation to adhere to judicial ethics and should be held accountable for professional misconduct, the representatives of the executive must refrain from statements which jeopardize the independence of the judiciary.
The Council of Europe’s Recommendation on judges specifies that “the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary.”
Public pressure from the executive on judges to resign can nullify the security of tenure of judges protected under national and international law and standards.
According to Principle 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.”
Under international standards, allegations of misconduct against judges should be dealt with by the self-governing institutions of the judiciary, through fair disciplinary procedures.
Under the Basic Principles, the only basis for removal of judges is “incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
The comments by Ramzan Kadyrov also run contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, which spells out in detail the procedure for disciplinary measures against judges in case of alleged professional misconduct.
RUSSIA-Chechen judges statement-News-web story-2016-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
May 3, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported improper interrogation as a witness of lawyer Marina Moshko and searches of her apartment and office by investigators of the Investigative Committee of Russia together with officers of the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Federal Security Service.
The interrogation was in connection with a criminal case against her client, Natalia Koltsova, related to alleged criminal business activities.
Targeting a lawyer in the investigation of the lawyer’s client runs contrary to international law and standards, and to principles of lawyer-client confidentiality enshrined in both Russian and international law.
The ICJ therefore calls on the law enforcement authorities to refrain from any measures which obstruct access to a lawyer and the right to an effective defence, including improper interrogation of lawyers as witnesses, and searches of lawyers’ premises.
The Russian authorities must uphold Russian law and the country’s international legal obligations on this matter and must take steps to ensure that lawyers are effectively protected against any form of harassment or improper interference.
During the searches, authorized by the Basmannyi District Court of Moscow, the files Marina Moshko’s clients were examined and photographs were taken of one file, which contained evidence in the same criminal case in which Marina Moshko is acting for the defence (see additional information below).
In addition to the searches of the lawyer’s premises, the investigators conducted a “confrontation” (a form of investigatory interview) between the lawyer and her client’s mother.
Marina Moshko was thereafter excluded from representation of her client as she was herself considered to be a witness in the case.
This case is hardly the first of its kind.
In a recent report entitled Towards a Stronger Legal Profession in the Russian Federation, the ICJ expressed concern at “cases of interrogations of lawyers in order to exclude them from representing a party to the proceedings”.
The report concluded that “[i]nterrogation of a lawyer as a witness constitutes a serious interference with the work of lawyers in clear contradiction to Russian legislation and international standards on the role and independence of lawyers.”
The ICJ recalls that the Russian Federation Code of Professional Ethics of Lawyers prohibits lawyers from making witness statements about any facts known to him or her in the context of professional activities (Article 6 (6)).
Both the Law “On advocates’ activities and advokatura in the Russian Federation” (Article 8 (2)) and the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (article 56 (3)) prohibit summoning lawyers as witnesses in cases in which they represent clients.
Furthermore, searches of lawyers’ premises and interference with clients’ files are contrary to international law and standards on lawyer-client confidentiality, which is an element both of the right to respect for private life, and of the right to a fair trial.
In particular, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, in Principle 22, stipulate that: “[g]overnments shall recognize and respect that all communications and consultations between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential”.
The UN Human Rights Committee has also underscored that such practices may breach the obligation of States to ensure the right to a fair trial under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly where “lawyers are released from their obligation of professional confidentiality and obliged to testify or face the risk of imprisonment”
This case apparently represents such an instance in which a lawyer is excluded from representing a party, and lawyer-client confidentiality is breached, through questioning her as a witness. Such exclusions interfere with a defendant’s access to effective legal representation and may damage the effectiveness of the defence, contrary to the right to fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay@icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov@icj.org
Additional information:
Marina Moshko represents Natalia Koltsova, a suspect in the case on a criminal group allegedly created by Dmitry Zarubin, owner of the Cartier boutique. Dmitry Zarubin was arrested in autumn 2015 and charged with creation of an organized criminal group which brought expensive electronic goods as cheap building materials. Natalia Koltsova is charged with heading one of the units of the alleged criminal group. These searches are reportedly related to the representation of Natalia Koltsova.
The ICJ understands that the Council of the Chamber of Lawyers of Leningrad Region has addressed a letter to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation regarding this problematic case of the searches of lawyers.
Read also ICJ’s Report Towards a Stronger Legal Profession in the Russian Federation
Russia-Marina Moshko statement-News-Web story-2016-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
