Sep 6, 2016 | Новости, Статьи
МКЮ выражает сожаление в связи с задержанием и арестом, по спорному обвинению, адвоката из Таджикистана Джамшеда Ёрова.
Адвокат был задержан 22 августа 2016 года и помещен под стражу на два месяца в следственный изолятор г. Душанбе.
Его обвиняют в «раскрытии государственной тайны» по статье 311 часть 1 Уголовного кодекса Таджикистана.
Джамшед Ёров был задержан в понедельник, 22 августа 2016 года. На следующий день Ёров позвонил родственникам, которым сообщил, что находится в полиции под арестом и что его допрашивают в связи с предположительной публикацией в интернете текста засекреченного приговора.
Данный приговор был вынесен по делу тринадцати руководителей и трех членов Партии исламского возрождения Таджикистана (ПИВТ), которые 2 июня 2016 года были приговорены к различным срокам лишения свободы, вплоть до пожизненного.
Джамшед Ёров был защитником Махмадали Хаита, одного из руководителей ПИВТ, получившего пожизненный срок.
МКЮ обеспокоена тем, что решение об аресте Джамшеда Ёрова может быть реакцией на законное осуществление адвокатом своих профессиональных функций по защите Хаита.
Любые подобные неправомерные действия противоречили бы фундаментальному правилу верховенства закона, отраженному в Основных принципах ООН, касающихся роли юристов, в соответствии с которым адвокаты не должны отождествляться со своими клиентами или интересами своих клиентов в результате выполнения ими своих функций.
Кроме того, адвокаты должны иметь возможность выполнять все свои профессиональные обязанности в обстановке, свободной от угроз, препятствий, запугивания или неоправданного вмешательства.
Основные принципы ООН устанавливают, что адвокаты не должны подвергаться судебному преследованию и судебным, административным, экономическим или другим санкциям за любые действия, совершенные в соответствии с признанными профессиональными обязанностями, нормами и этикой, а также угрозам такого преследования и санкций.
МКЮ призывает власти Таджикистана к соблюдению всех международно-правовых обязательств Таджикистана по защите прав человека, в том числе права на справедливое судебное разбирательство, в отношении Джамшеда Ёрова.
В соответствии с правом на свободу, закрепленным в статье 9 Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах (МПГПП), досудебное содержание под стражей может применяться лишь в исключительных случаях, в качестве крайней меры, и при любых обстоятельствах у соответствующего лица должна иметься возможность ходатайствовать об освобождении под залог.
При производстве по делу Джамшеда Ёрова необходимо всячески принимать во внимание его профессиональные обязанности защитника, а также следует обеспечить, чтобы он не подвергался уголовным или административным санкциям за выполнение своих обязанностей.
МКЮ также обеспокоена тем, что арест адвоката предположительно связан с публикацией «секретного» приговора.
Пункт 1 статьи 14 МПГПП, которая гарантирует право на справедливое судебное разбирательство, предусматривает, что любое судебное постановление должно быть публичным, за исключением тех случаев, когда интересы несовершеннолетних требуют иного или когда дело касается матримониальных споров или опеки над детьми.
В целом, международные стандарты гарантируют право каждого искать, получать, использовать и распространять информацию, которой располагают государственные органы или иные лица, выступающие в качестве их представителей, либо доступ к которой закон предоставляет государственным органам.
Несмотря на наличие некоторых исключений, связанных с соображениями национальной безопасности, они применяются в ограниченных пределах, при условии соблюдения ряда гарантий, которые, как представляется, не были соблюдены по данному делу.
Справочная информация
Данный арест является продолжением серии арестов адвокатов в 2014-2016 гг., которые вызывают серьезную обеспокоенность в связи с защитой права на справедливое судебное разбирательство и соблюдение международных стандартов, касающихся роли юристов, в Таджикистане.
Данные задержания, в том числе арест Джамшеда Ёрова, могут оказать значительное негативное воздействие на готовность защитников представлять клиентов по делам, которым приписывается особая важность, особенно по обвинениям в посягательстве на интересы государственной безопасности, которые рассматриваются в закрытом судебном заседании.
Джамшед Ёров является братом Бузургмехра Ёрова, который был задержан в ноябре 2015 года, а до ареста осуществлял защиту семи членов Политсовета ПИВТ.
Бузургмехр Ёров до сих пор содержится в следственном изоляторе вместе с еще одним адвокатом, Нуриддином Махамовым, который также представлял интересы ПИВТ и был заключен под арест в ноябре 2015 года. Судебное разбирательство по их делу еще не окончено.
МКЮ и другие международные НКО уже выражали обеспокоенность в связи с тем, что данное дело также может быть связано с выполнением адвокатами своих профессиональных функций.
Ранее МКЮ выразила обеспокоенность в связи с осуждением адвоката Шухрата Кудратова по обвинению в мошенничестве и даче взятки. 13 января 2015 года Кудратов был приговорен к девяти года лишения свободы. Несмотря на сообщения о возможной амнистии, обвинительный приговор по его делу остается в силе.
tajikistan-lawyer-yorov-case-news-web-stories-2016-rus (полный текст на русском, PDF)
Sep 6, 2016
This publication released today by the ICJ summarizes and explains the rights of people in Africa who are suspected of or charged with a criminal offence from the time of arrest until trial, as set out in standards of the African Union and United Nations (UN).
The idea for the publication was first discussed at a regional symposium of judges that was convened by the ICJ, working together with the Southern Africa Chief Justice Forum and the Africa Judges and Jurists in Pretoria in September 2014.
The theme was carried forward to the Southern Africa Chief Justice Forum held in Victoria Falls in August 2015. The Guide builds on these two initiatives.
It is a tool for lawyers, judges, and law-makers seeking to ensure that criminal laws and practices, from arrest until trial, comply with a State’s obligations under international human rights law.
In particular, these laws and practices should be consistent with the standards set by the African Union and the United Nations.
The Guide may also be useful to people observing trials with a view to assessing their fairness in the light of international standards, or others seeking to evaluate the extent to which the country’s criminal procedure codes and practices adhere to international standards.
The Guide may also be used as an educational and training tool. Its 11 chapters each set out one or more rights relevant to the various stages and proceedings in a criminal case, indicating which African and UN standards guarantee the rights and illustrating how the rights and standards have been construed and interpreted by African and universal human rights bodies.
africa-pretrial-rights-publications-reports-thematic-reports-2016-eng (full publication, in PDF)
Sep 6, 2016
An opinion piece by Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser in Bangkok, Thailand.
At least 14 people were killed and 71 injured in the bomb blast that rocked Davao City, Philippines, in the late evening of 2 September 2016.
Attacks like the Davao bombing are serious violations of international law, and may constitute crimes under international law.
Immediately after the attack, President Rodrigo Duterte announced that he would be using his powers under the Philippine Constitution to deploy the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP, photo) “to prevent or suppress lawless violence”.
He used the term “state of lawless violence”, clarifying that the circumstances were such that they would apply to the entire country.
His spokesperson later further clarified that the President would use his Constitutional power to deploy the AFP so that the military could “assist the police to fight crime and violence”.
At this point in time, it is not clear whether the military will be deployed in law enforcement operations solely in the context of countering “terrorism” or whether they will also be used to counter crime and violence in general, including during operations conducted as part of the ongoing “war on drugs” which has killed hundreds of people so far.
Under Article VII Section 18 of the Constitution, President Duterte is empowered to resort to the deployment of the Armed Forces “to prevent or suppress lawless violence”.
President Duterte has vigorously explained that he is not calling for martial law.
Neither does it amount to declaring a state of emergency under Article VI Section 23(2) of the Constitution, a power vested upon Congress.
In any event, even in times of “a public emergency threatening the life of the nation”, there are certain human rights from which no lawful derogation is ever possible, such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.
Under international law, it is the duty of the government of the Philippines to take all necessary steps to protect people from acts of terrorism.
In addition, the government has the obligation to bring to justice perpetrators of acts of terrorism, by prosecuting and holding accountable individuals or groups responsible for such acts, not only as a matter of national security, but also to protect the rights and personal security of everyone.
It should be emphasized, however, that whatever measures the Philippine government uses to counter terrorism, they must comply with international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law and standards.
Experience from around the world has shown clearly that strengthening the rule of law in line with human rights standards is the most effective and sustainable response to countering terrorism.
Whatever it may be, the announcement that the military would be deployed to assist the police to fight crime and violence is in itself very worrying.
Granting law enforcement powers to the military is always very dangerous, and threatens to breach international standards.
Indeed, a military approach to law enforcement has been proven in many instances to expose the public to a wide variety of serious human rights abuses.
As experienced in many countries, soldiers who have been given policing powers are frequently unable to shed the military paradigm.
This was noted by Christof Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, in his 2013 report on the situation in Mexico where the armed forces were given law enforcement duties as part of the country’s crusade to quash the powerful drug cartels.
The military and police have fundamentally different approaches and roles in discharging their primary tasks.
The military’s raison d’être is subduing the enemy through the use of force, including lethal force.
Law enforcement and policing operations, on the other hand, must take place within and adhere to a human rights framework, where use of lethal force may only be justified when strictly unavoidable to prevent the taking of life.
Any government force engaging in law enforcement operations, regardless of the uniform they wear, are subject to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials—a set of rules that the police are generally trained to follow, but the military are not.
Instead of giving the military a task they are not suited for by involving them in law enforcement, the Philippines may benefit more, especially in the long term, if efforts are focused on strengthening the capacity of the police.
There should be more resources devoted to beefing up the police’s forensic investigation skills and resources, increasing the number of recruits, and giving them sufficient and specialized training in countering organized crime, including countering terrorism.
The capacity of other authorities, such as judges, prosecutors, and other justice officers, should also be strengthened.
Independent courts and prosecutors and a functioning justice system are essential in the context of fighting crime, including terrorism, while simultaneously upholding the rule of law and human rights.
An independent judiciary, most especially, plays a critical role in all of this since it serves as a necessary check on the government as it pursues its own vicious counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism campaign.
President Duterte should know that the duty of the Philippine government to protect people from acts of terrorism does not collide with its obligation to promote and protect human rights.
In fact, the promotion and protection of human rights is a key element in fighting terrorism and is an effective weapon in fostering lasting peace and building a strong democracy.
Sep 6, 2016 | News
The ICJ has deplored the arrest and detention on questionable charges of Jamshed Yorov (photo), a lawyer practicing in Tajikistan.
Following his arrest on 22 August 2016, the lawyer was remanded in custody in a pre-trial facility in Dushanbe for two months.
He was charged with “disclosure of State secrets” under part 1 of article 311 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan.
Jamshed Yorov was detained on Monday, 22 August 2016. On the next day, he called his family and informed them that he was in police custody and being questioned in connection with the alleged leaked publication of the text of a classified court judgment on the internet.
The judgment concerned the case of thirteen leaders and three members of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT), who had been sentenced on 2 June 2016 to various long-term custodial terms, including life-imprisonment.
Jamshed Yorov represented Mahmadali Hait, one of the leaders of the IRPT, who was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The ICJ is concerned that the decision to arrest Jamshed Yorov may have been in response to the legitimate exercise of his professional functions in representation of Mahmadali Hait.
Any such reprisal would be contrary to a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.
Additionally they must be able to perform all their profession functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
The principles affirm that lawyers must not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards or ethics.
The ICJ calls on the Tajikistan authorities to comply with all international human rights obligations of Tajikistan, including the right to a fair trial, in the case of Jamshed Yorov.
In accordance with the right to liberty as enshrined in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), pre-trial detention should be ordered in exceptional cases only as a last resort, and in any event there needs to be the possibility to seek bail.
The proceedings should take full account of Jamshed Yorov’s professional duties as a defense lawyer, and should ensure that he does not suffer any criminal or administrative sanction as a result of the discharge of these duties.
The ICJ is further concerned that Jamshed Yorov’s arrest is allegedly linked to disclosure of a ‘secret’ judgment.
Article 14(1) of ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, provides that all court judgments must be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires, or where the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
More generally, under international standards everyone has the right to seek, receive, use, and impart information held by or on behalf of public authorities, or to which public authorities are entitled by law to have access.
While there are narrow exceptions on national security grounds, these are subject to strict limits and safeguards which do not appear to have been met.
Background information
This arrest follows a pattern of arrests of lawyers in 2014-2016, which raises serious concerns about the protection of the right to a fair trial and compliance with international standards on the role of lawyers in Tajikistan.
These arrests, including the arrest of Jamshed Yorov, may have a significant “chilling” effect on the willingness of defense lawyers to take on cases of clients that may be considered sensitive, especially cases that involve accusations of breach of national security and are heard in closed sessions.
Jamshed Yorov is the brother of Buzurgmehr Yorov, who was arrested in November 2015 and who led, before his arrest, the defence for seven leaders of the IRPT Political Council.
Burzurgmehr Yorov remains in remand prison, together with another lawyer, Nuriddin Makhamov, who also represented the IRPR and has been in remand prison since November 2015. Their trial is ongoing.
The ICJ and other international NGOs earlier expressed their concern that this case may also be connected with the performance of laweyers’ professional functions.
The ICJ also expressed its concern at the conviction of lawyer Shukhrat Kurdratov on 13 January 2015 on charges of fraud and bribery for which he was sentenced to nine years in prison. Despite recent reports of a possible amnesty, his conviction will remain in force.
tajikistan-lawyer-yorov-case-news-web-stories-2016-rus (full text in Russian, PDF)
Sep 5, 2016
The ICJ has issued its Annual Report 2015, which offers a concise summary of the work carried out by the ICJ over the past year.
While the ICJ continues to engage with and often lead on the development and implementation of regional and international human rights standards, the ICJ is witnessing an attack on these standards.
Today, there are signs of a global backlash against human rights protections that has gone beyond a reduced government commitment to provide support and has instead, in some quarters, transformed into active hostility to these rights.
Political and economic trends are undermining human rights standards so that millions have become more, rather than less, vulnerable.
Inequality and discrimination are becoming more entrenched. With increasingly narrowing support, this is a difficult time to be operating in human rights protection.
Last year, the ICJ has worked hard to press in the UN and other intergovernmental fora for better protections and clearer standards aimed at ensuring accountability and access to justice for everyone.
The ICJ also continues to be concerned about judicial independence and impropriety and whilst it continues to support the former, it is also concerned where acts of judicial impropriety are rampant, and judges are not held accountable for abuses of judicial position and mis-application of the law that undermines human rights protection.
In 2015, the ICJ continued its work in monitoring the counter-terrorism measures introduced by some States and highlighting issues that raise human rights concerns and it has also focused on the issue of human rights in the digital age.
Last year, the ICJ’s work also continued to focus on the most marginalized groups in society that, already vulnerable to rights violations, are the first to suffer from a weakening of rights protection.
On the issue of enforced disappearances, the ICJ published a new ICJ Practitioners’ Guide on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, available in both Spanish and English.
For a complete overview of ICJ’s most important activities in 2015, you can download the Annual Report 2015 (in PDF) here:
Universal-ICJ Annual Report-Publications-Annual Report-2015-ENG
Universal-ICJ Annual Report low res-Publications-Annual Report-2015-ENG (in low resolution to download faster)
