Jul 25, 2017 | Новости, Статьи
Сегодня МКЮ выразила обеспокоенность в связи с реальной угрозой уголовного преследования адвокатов Ерлана Газымжанова, Аманжола Мухамедьярова и Асель Токаевой в Казахстане.
МКЮ заявила о том, что возможность уголовного преследования адвокатов связана с осуществлением ими своей профессиональной деятельности в защиту клиентов, а не с действительным совершением ими уголовно наказуемых деяний.
МКЮ призывает компетентные власти Казахстана прекратить преследование адвокатов в нарушение международного права и стандартов, касающихся роли юристов, а также принципа законности при отправлении правосудия.
22 июня в ходе рассмотрения уголовного дела судья Убашева вынесла частные постановления в отношении адвокатов о принятии к ним мер за совершение ряда действий, которые по формальным признакам не являются уголовно наказуемыми деяниями. К ним относится обращение с жалобой на неэтичное поведение судьи в Комиссию по судейской этике и Судебное Жюри Верховного суда Республики Казахстан, заявление ходатайства об отводе судьи, заявление о том, что преступление было совершено другим подзащитным, а также участие в международной конференции вместо явки в судебное заседание для защиты своих доверителей.
Закон не запрещает использовать различные процессуальные механизмы, к которым прибегли адвокаты, включая жалобу на действия судьи и ходатайство о ее отводе. Напротив, такие действия, как заявление ходатайств об отводе, обращение с жалобами на неэтичное поведение в соответствии с официально установленными процедурами, а также осуществление стандартных функций защиты в рамках уголовного процесса являются обычными процессуальными мерами, предусмотренными законодательством Казахстана. Кроме того, они имеют основополагающее значение для целей отправления правосудия в соответствии с принципом законности.
В частных постановлениях суда отсутствует анализ статей, предположительно нарушенных адвокатами. Судья обвинила некоторых адвокатов в «демонстрации превосходства над другими участниками процесса». Кроме того, по мнению суда, один из адвокатов разместил на «фэйсбуке» не соответствующие действительности сведения о процессе, в котором он участвовал. При этом в частном постановлении не приводятся факты, которые бы описывали конкретные действия адвокатов, позволившие судье прийти к данным выводам.
Обвинение двух адвокатов в том, что они приняли участие в международной конференции вместо того, чтобы явиться в судебное заседание, в крайнем случае может подпадать под действие дисциплинарных норм, регулирующих поведение адвокатов, но не уголовного закона. МКЮ отмечает, что данное обвинение, как правило, следует адресовать дисциплинарному органу – Коллегии адвокатов, а не Министерству юстиции.
Наряду с возбуждением уголовного расследования в отношении адвокатов судья Убашева поставила перед Министром юстиции вопрос о привлечении адвокатов к установленной законом ответственности за нарушение норм профессионального поведения, необоснованного затягивания уголовного дела в суде и проявления неуважения к суду, и перед Министерством внутренних дел – о проведении проверки на предмет наличия в действиях адвокатов признаков правонарушения по статье 407 Уголовного кодекса Республики Казахстан – воспрепятствование правосудию.
20-21 июля 2017 года Судебная апелляционная коллегия по уголовным делам рассмотрела апелляционные жалобы на приговор суда и частные жалобы адвокатов в отношении частных постановлений суда.
Гулнора Ишанханова, комиссар МКЮ, присутствовала на слушании дела в Суде города Астаны в качестве наблюдателя МКЮ.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (полный текст на русском, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 24, 2017
In a report published today, Judges for Judges and the ICJ analyze disciplinary proceedings against Bulgarian Judge Miroslava Todorova in relation to international standards on judicial independence and accountability.
On 12 July 2012, the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria dismissed Judge Miroslava Todorova, at that time a judge of the Sofia City Court and Chairperson of the Bulgarian Judges Association, on the grounds that she was responsible for delays in a number of cases.
Subsequently, Judges for Judges and the ICJ followed the disciplinary proceedings against Todorova and sent trial observers to Sofia on two occasions, in May 2013 and November 2014.
In their findings, the ICJ and Judges for Judges do not address whether, and if so which, disciplinary sanctions may have been appropriate in this case.
They note, however, that the disciplinary proceedings concerned delays, constituting judicial misconduct, in a context where according to many internal and external observers the workload between the courts is divided unevenly and may be very high for some.
The two organizations also note that, as the second three-judge panel pointed out, the overall organization of the workflow was never properly considered in considering and reaching a determination n the disciplinary case.
With the quashing of the second three-judge panel’s decision, likewise other relevant circumstances were not taken into account.
Furthermore, the report finds, disciplinary practice in Bulgaria is deficient in respect of its lack of predictability and consistency, and doubts expressed by many observers as to the independence of the Judicial Service Council muddy the waters further.
The 2013 amendments to the legal framework only partially served to remedy the disciplinary practice’s deficiencies.
In particular, a full right of defence that includes the opportunity for the defendant to address all arguments and evidence remained wanting at the time of the Todorova proceedings.
In the report, the ICJ and Judges for Judges also note the animosity towards Todorova from certain quarters in the Executive and SJC for her activities as the chair of the BJA in defence of judicial independence.
Under the circumstances, there is an appearance that the disciplinary proceedings against Todorova were instituted and pursued selectively, and the system of the disciplinary proceedings in Bulgaria does not provide sufficient safeguards to dispel this appearance.
The disciplinary proceedings against Todorova demonstrate why it is crucial that accountability mechanisms be independent not only in theory but in practice, and for such mechanisms to be in some way themselves publicly accountable.
Bulgaria-The Todorova Case-Publications-Reports-Trial observation reports (full report, in PDF)
For additional background, see:
ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, Judicial Accountability (2016, in PDF)
and more generally:
ICJ Practitioners Guide No 1, International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors (2007, in PDF)
Jul 14, 2017
The ICJ submitted observations in a case brought with Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic, in defense of children in the juvenile justice system.
The submission is a reply to the Government’s observations in this collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights.
In this case, the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights argue that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and FORUM submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
This situation concerns more than one thousand children every year and as a matter of urgency, it requires a structured response.
CzechRepublic-ECSR-juvenilejustice-legalsubmission2-ENG-2017 (download the submission)
Jul 14, 2017
The ICJ and the International Detention Coalition (IDC) have presented their observations on the draft European rules for the administrative detention of migrants.
In their submissions, the two human rights organizations noted that the current detention practices in most Council of Europe member States raise serious questions as to their compatibility with human rights law.
They stressed that, under international human rights law, immigration detention must always be an exceptional measure of last resort in full respect of the norms of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination.
The ICJ and IDC expressed concern that the current draft document fails to adequately distinguish between criminal and administrative immigration detention regimes.
In doing so, the document risks normalizing unlawful detention practices and codifying prison standards that are wholly inappropriate in the context of migration.
The two organizations submitted that, as a general rule, persons in situations of particular vulnerability should never be detained merely for the purposes of enforcing immigration control.
Finally they called on the drafting Committee to prioritize alternative measures to detention.
Europe-ImmigrationDetentionRules-JointSubmission-ICJIDC-ENG-2017 (download the joint submission)
Background
The Council of Europe’s European Committee on Legal Co-Operation is currently drafting a set of European rules for the administrative detention of migrants.
This is a codifying exercise on a set of immigration detention rules based on existing international and regional human rights standards relating to the conditions of detention of migrants. The stated objective of the draft instrument is twofold:
- Protect migrants held in administrative detention by providing them with individual guarantees on the conditions of their administrative detention (i.e. detention not based on a criminal conviction);
- Provide guidance to both national authorities responsible for the closed centres and persons working closely with migrants.
The process to draft this codifying instrument started in May 2016.
The European Committee on Legal Co- Operation launched a written consultation procedure to involve civil society and key actors in the elaboration process of this codifying instrument.
This submission is the reply of the ICJ and the IDC to this written consultation.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
