Oct 6, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.
The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.
The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:
- The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR;
- The safe third country concept in international refugee law and EU law;
- The respect of the right to an effective remedy in cases of returns to Turkey under the safe third country rule.
Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
Oct 4, 2017 | Agendas, Events, News
Today starts a five-day Strategic Litigation Retreat for lawyers in Ferney-Voltaire, France organized by the ICJ-EI as part of the EU and OSI funded FAIR project.
Twenty lawyers from Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Malta and Spain will be meeting with experts and among themselves in order to strategize about their cases of access to justice for migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms.
The retreat is taking place from 4 to 8 October in a close proximity to Geneva, which allows for access to UN treaty bodies experts.
The group will meet with Members of the UN Committee on the rights of the child and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and experts from the treaty bodies’ secretariat on individual complaints and on inquiries.
The participants will also have a chance to discuss litigation strategies with experts from the European Court for Human Rights, experts from civil society organizations with long-standing experience in strategic litigation, such as the AIRE Center, ICJ, DCI Belgium or Child Rights Connect.
All the participating lawyers took part in the national trainings organized, through 2016 and 2017, by the ICJ and its national partners.
The trainings were focused on the right to be heard and procedural rights of migrant children, the right to family life, economic, social and cultural rights, detention and on how to access international human rights mechanisms in order to allow for effective access to justice for migrant children.
Out of all the participants, this Strategic Litigation Retreat, brings together three selected lawyers from each of the national trainings.
In the same time, the project management group of the FAIR project, composed of national partners and Child Rights Connect will meet and will contribute to some parts of the Retreat.
The Retreat will use as a basis the draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published an the end of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
The FAIR project co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union and OSIFE.
See more information about the national trainings on the rights of migrant children within the FAIR project here: Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Malta, Greece, Ireland, Germany (photo)
Download the agenda here: Universal-StrategicLitigationRetreat-News-Events-Agendas-2017-ENG
Oct 3, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
On 2 October, the ICJ and Amnesty International submitted an intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case Ecodefence and others v the Russian Federation, Application no. 9988/13 and 48 other applications, which concern labeling NGOs as foreign agents.
In this submission, the applicants provided the Court with an analysis, based on international law sources, of:
a) the scope of application of rights to freedom of expression and association guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) to restrictions on the activity of non-governmental organisations (NGOs);
b) application of the principle of legality to such restrictions;
c) the legitimacy of the aim, necessity and proportionality of measures regulating NGOs, including restrictions on funding, burdensome reporting requirements, sanctions and the stigmatizing effect of labelling NGOs as “foreign agents”; and
d) the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 18 of the ECHR, particularly the question of interferences used for purposes other than those which fall under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
The submission addresses the obligations of State parties to the ECHR with account taken of the other international law obligations, such as those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as other relevant standards under international law.
Russia-ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Ecodefence-legalsubmissions-2017-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Jun 30, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
ICJ Commissioner Karinna Moskalenko talks about the vulnerabilities of human rights defenders in Russia, as part of the ICJ’s ongoing women profiles series.
Ms Moskalenko is a Russian lawyer who has been a Commissioner of the ICJ since 2003. In the early 1990s she founded, and was the former Director of, the International Protection Centre based in Moscow.
The Centre was founded after Russia had ratified the Human Rights Committee Mechanism with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provided an opportunity to be able to use international mechanisms to appeal against injustices.
Once Russia had ratified the European Convention it was also possible to use the European Court of Human Rights as another means to challenge incidences where domestic remedies were failing to protect the rights of people in Russia.
The Centre pursued many cases successfully and the credibility of the organization grew, which also increased demands for help. Karinna said that women have a strong role to play in human rights defence work in Russia and form the majority of the human rights community where they are well respected.
However, this is not reflected elsewhere in Russian society where, although women are visible in senior roles within the judiciary and the executive, they do not often play an important role in leadership positions or decision-making.
“Women in Russia are sometimes much more vulnerable than other groups of the population,” said Karinna. She identified the particular problem of domestic violence as one where women are unable to obtain legal protections because police are not very interested in the problem. In addition many people within society think that women already have enough protections so there is little public opposition for reducing protections and no support for enhancing these.
Karinna felt compelled to work as a human rights defender to protect the most vulnerable people but commented that many lawyers are not interested in this field of law. Instead, they prefer to build careers within official bodies of the judiciary or the government. Human rights activities are no longer very popular, she said.
Members of non-governmental organizations are often accused of being ‘foreign agents’ or ‘enemies of the State’. As many people do not understand the nature of human rights defence work, Ms Moskalenko said it can be frustrating and hurtful to have to defend yourself against these accusations. However, Karinna thinks that those working in human rights are the most patriotic people she knows because they care about the rights of each and every member of society.
Fortunately, the International Protection Centre has won so many cases for ordinary people that they have a very good reputation in society, but they do not have enough funding for their activities. They cannot accept international funds and domestically no funding is available. Many lawyers take on unpaid cases, but not everyone can afford to do so. The defence of human rights is a very difficult career.
“I cannot say that there is no fear. There is, of course. Some of my friends were killed because of their human rights activity.”
Ms Moskalenko said that human rights defence work is very important but in Russia defenders are not protected financially, legally, morally or physically. They are frequently threatened, persecuted and even killed.
However, although working as a human rights defender is difficult, Karinna says that “when you somehow help people, you want to continue that, you think that you believe that you must do that, you cannot stop and people come to you, how can you refuse?”
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
Nov 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Schukurov v Azerbaijan, finding that the right to petition the Court had been violated by the search of a lawyer’s premises and seizure of documents.
The ICJ submitted a third party intervention in the case, outlining international law and standards relevant to legal professional privilege and the seizure of legal documents.
The case files were seized as part of a criminal investigation opened against the lawyer, Intigam Aliyev, who was representing the applicants in the case. The Court found that the search and seizure by the Azeri authorities had violated article 34 of the Convention, which stipulates that States must not hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of individual application to the Court.
The ICJ notes that the Court’s judgment follows its earlier finding of a violation of article 34 in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli v Azerbaijan, which arose from the same incident.
The ICJ stresses that these searches of lawyers’ premises are contrary to international standards on the role of lawyers. It is particularly worrying that they form part of a pattern of harassment of lawyers in Azerbaijan, including abusive disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions. Such harassment damages the ability of lawyers to protect human rights through the judicial process, and undermines the independence of the legal profession.
The decision of the Court should now be fully and promptly executed, the ICJ said.
