Kazakhstan: the ICJ calls to immediately drop prosecution of lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov

Kazakhstan: the ICJ calls to immediately drop prosecution of lawyer Bauyrzhan Azanov

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)

Serbia: killing of lawyer must be urgently investigated

Serbia: killing of lawyer must be urgently investigated

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).

Guatemala: Supreme Court of Justice undermines the rule of law

Guatemala: Supreme Court of Justice undermines the rule of law

The Supreme Court’s election of a person who is not suitable for the position of substitute judge on the Constitutional Court is deeply concerning for the sound administration of justice and the effective application of the rule of law, the ICJ said today.

Ramon Cadena, the Director of the Central American office of the ICJ added: “with this election, the SCJ has contributed to deepening the crisis in the judicial system and it will affect the little credibility that the Guatemalan people still retain in the justice system.”

The position of substitute judge on the Constitutional Court (CC) had become vacant when the former substitute judge was appointed Attorney General by the President, Jimmy Morales.

The eight judges of the SCJ who voted in favour of the substitute judge of the CC did not comply with international norms and standards on the administration of justice.

The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary state that “Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law.”

The ICJ has been able to verify that the SCJ judges elected a person who:

  • in 2010 was dismissed as Attorney General by the CC shortly after assuming office because the person was deemed not suitable;
  • openly opposes the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity (ICCIG) despite the good work that the Commission undertakes to address corruption and impunity;
  • in 2010, after assuming the office of Attorney General was accused of intervening in cases concerning corruption and impunity and impairing evidence in these cases.

The ICJ recalls that the CC stated that the acts carried out by Congress on 11 September 2017 were susceptible of causing “irreparable harm to the justice system”.

The ICJ considers that the election by the SCJ of the substitute judge to the CC should also be considered an act of irreparable harm to the justice system.

The ICJ therefore urges the CC to once again protect the rule of law in Guatemala.

Turkey: lifting of state of emergency a welcome start, now restore rule of law

Turkey: lifting of state of emergency a welcome start, now restore rule of law

The ICJ welcomed today the lapse of Turkey’s nearly two-year state of emergency, which is expected to be effective as of midnight, but said that the authorities needed now to take a range of measures to repair the rupture to the rule of law in the country.

The ICJ’s comments came as it released its report Justice Suspended – Access to Justice and State of Emergency in Turkey, outlining how measures undertaken pursuant to a state of emergency, including the mass dismissal of judges and arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of lawyers and human rights defenders had eroded the justice institutions and mechanisms in the country.

The report recommends a number of measures including the repeal of measures enacted under the state of emergency, the restoral of the independence of the judiciary and the reform of the country’s anti-terrorism legislation.

“With the end of the state of emergency we call for the immediate withdrawal of the notifications of derogations to the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme.

“We remain concerned that many of the emergency measures have been given permanent effect in Turkish law and will have pernicious and lasting consequences for the enjoyment of human rights and for the rule of law in Turkey,” he added.

These measures include the dismissals of hundred of thousands of people from their job, including judges and prosecutors.

Constitutional amendments, introduced during the state of emergency, permanently enshrine executive and legislative control of the governing institutions of the judiciary, contrary to international standards on judicial independence, the ICJ says.

Many of those charged with vaguely-defined offences under the state of emergency face trial before courts that are not independent and cannot guarantee the right to a fair trial, the Geneva-based organization adds.

Crucially, most of the people affected by emergency measures, including summary dismissals, have not yet had the opportunity to obtain a remedy before an effective and independent court or tribunal.

The ICJ report illustrates how the mechanisms which should address and remedy human rights violations in Turkey lack effectiveness and independence and that these deficiencies extend both to the courts and the state of emergency complaints commission.

It further finds that the ordinary functions of lawyers and activities civil society, key actors in ensuring access to justice, have been considerably curtailed.

“The Turkish Government says that they want their actions to respect the rule of law. Effective and independent remedies and reparations for human rights violations must be available to all if this principle is to have any reality in practice,” said Massimo Frigo.

Contact

Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo@icj.org

Download

Full ICJ report in PDF in English: Turkey-Access to justice-Publications-Reports-2018-ENG

Full ICJ report in PDF in Turkish: Turkey-Access to justice-Publications-Reports-2018-TUR

Translate »