Jan 25, 2017 | News
The decision by the Chuy Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan on 24 January 2017 to uphold the life sentence of human rights defender Azimzhan Askarov constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and has compounded the multiple violations of his human rights, the ICJ said today.
The Court ruling was made in defiance of a decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, which had affirmed these serious violations.
The ICJ calls on the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to respect its international human rights obligations in this case.
Azimzhan Askarov (photo) should have access to an immediate and effective appeal against the decision of the Chuy Regional Court.
Violations of his rights should be remedied and just compensation provided.
Azimzhan Askarov was convicted of participation in murder, organization of mass disturbances and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011, following an unfair trial, arbitrary detention and torture.
The re-hearing of the case before the Chuy Regional Court followed the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee that his arrest, detention and trial breached Kyrgyzstan’s legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the prohibition on torture or other ill-treatment, the prohibition on arbitrary detention, and the right to fair trial.
The ICJ has closely monitored the case. Representatives of the ICJ observed several court hearings, including during the re-examination.
The ICJ regrets that the re-examination of Azimzhan Askarov’s case did not remedy the violations of his human rights found by the Human Rights Committee.
The court failed to undertake a rigorous study of both defence and prosecution cases.
Rather, it appeared to take the prosecution case at face value, thus undermining the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality of arms.
Many motions of the defence remained unaddressed or were rejected without cause.
These included a motion asking that the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee be evaluated by the Court, as they were crucial for the re-opening the case by the Supreme Court.
The Chuy Regional Court not only failed to examine the findings of the Human Rights Committee, but summarily rejected the Committee’s findings that Azimzhan Askarov had been arbitrarily arrested, held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture.
The Court in its decision doubted the truth of Azimzhan Askarov’s statement that he had been repeatedly tortured, on the basis that three State psychiatrists concluded that he was “deceitful and subservient” and the defence had not produced witnesses or other evidence to rebut this point.
The Court heard several witnesses who stated that they had initially given false statements implicating Azimzhan Askarov because they were intimidated or subjected to ill-treatment.
The Court did not take any action to investigate these allegations.
During the re-examination of his case Azimzhan Askarov was kept in a metal cage and had no immediate opportunity to speak without hindrance with his lawyer.
Askarov, an Uzbek speaker, visibly struggled to speak in Kyrgyz, but no interpretation was provided for him.
Background
Azimzhan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender, was convicted of murder and incitement to ethnic hatred and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2011.
The central charges concerned allegations of his participation in a murder of Myktybek Sulayamanov, a police officer, during the 2010 ethnic clashes in the South of Kyrgyzstan.
The ICJ observed the appeal hearing in the case before the Supreme Court on 20 December 2011.
Based on the results of the mission as well as the documents of the case, the ICJ published a detailed report on the arrest, detention and trial of Azimzhan Askarov.
In March 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision in regard to Askarov’s complaint and found violations of Articles 7 (freedom from torture), Article 9 (prohibition of arbitrary detention); Article 10 (right to humane treatment in detention), Article 14 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Human Rights Committee, which in March 2016 heard a complaint brought by Askarov, called for his conviction to be quashed and if necessary a new trial to be held in line with the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards.
On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a further reconsideration of the case on appeal, which resulted in upholding Askarov’s verdict and sentence.
Following the decision of 24 January, the defence said they would appeal this decision of the Chuy Court in the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. Kyrgyzstan is a party to the ICCPR and as such is bound by this treaty to guarantee the rights it enshrines and to provide effective remedies when these rights are violated.
The decision of the Committee is an authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR which may serve as evidence in court and whose findings should not be ignored.
Kyrgyzstan-Askarov-failure to remedy-News-Web story-2017-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Jan 23, 2017
On 16 January 2017, the ICJ with other civil society organizations submitted a third-party intervention in the case of E.S. v. Spain before the European Court of Human Rights.
The case (application no. 13273/16) arose from the attempted removal of a gay asylum applicant to Senegal. The third-party submissions focus on the relevance of the Refugee Convention — as interpreted by a number of domestic courts — and of the EU asylum acquis and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to the determination of the scope and content of non-refoulement obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States.
The submissions, in particular, address the following:
- Enforced concealment of one’s same-sex sexual orientation constitutes persecution under refugee law and is incompatible with the ECHR, in particular, Article 3;
- The criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct gives rise to a real risk of Article 3 prohibited treatment, thus triggering non-refoulement obligations under that provision of the Convention; and
- The risk of persecution based on sexual orientation in Senegal.
The comments drew upon the European Court’s case-law; authoritative interpretation of other applicable sources of international law and comparative international law.
The ICJ made the submissions jointly with the Human Dignity Trust, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe) and the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe).
SPAIN-ECtHR joint amicus in ES v SPAIN-Advocacy-LegalSubmission-2017-ENG
Jan 21, 2017 | Agendas, Events, News, Training modules
Today, the ICJ and Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrants are holding a training for lawyers on the rights of migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms in Sofia.
The training aims to support the strategic use of national and international mechanisms to foster migrant children’s access to justice.
The training will take place over the course of two days from 21-22 January 2017.
The training will focus on accessing the international mechanisms in order to protect and promote the rights of migrant children, the child’s right to be heard and the best interests of the child principle.
A practical session on communication with child clients for lawyers as well as practical case studies will be part of the training.
Trainers include experts from the ICJ, Child Law Clinic of the University College Cork and Foundation for Access to Rights.
The training is based on draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published in the second half of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
It is organized as part of the FAIR project co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union and OSIFE.
Download the agenda in English here: Bulgaria-FAIR training-Events-Agenda-2016-ENG
Jan 17, 2017 | News
Leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, have hailed a landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court to hold the UK Government accountable for its role in human rights abuses overseas.
The country’s highest court issued today a long-awaited judgment in the two joined appeals in Belhaj and Others v. Jack Straw & Others and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence and Another.
The Court ruled that the UK Government could not rely on the legal doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state to escape claims in the two cases alleging UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
The first case, brought by the former Libyan opposition leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj (photo) and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, alleges that UK Government officials were complicit in the couple’s kidnap and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured.
The second case was brought by Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained by UK forces in Iraq before being handed over to US forces and allegedly tortured and imprisoned without charge for over ten years.
The Government argued before the Supreme Court that the claimants’ cases should be dismissed because, under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and foreign act of state, the UK courts were not permitted to rule on the legality of acts by foreign governments.
The claimants argued in response that the doctrines only applied in certain limited situations, and that they did not extend to the circumstances in Belhaj and Rahmatullah.
The claimants’ position in Belhaj was supported by several prominent human rights organizations – the ICJ, Amnesty International, JUSTICE and REDRESS – who intervened in the case.
The intervening organizations submitted that dismissing the claims would effectively grant impunity for torture to UK officials, violating international human rights law and weakening international commitments to an effective remedy for torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights breaches.
The Supreme Court found unanimously in favour of the claimants and dismissed the Government’s appeal.
It ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply because the foreign governments were not parties to the cases and their legal interests were not affected by the claims put forward.
In respect of foreign act of state, while the judges differed in their reasoning, they agreed that the doctrine could not be invoked for such serious violations of law as torture, unlawful detention and enforced disappearance.
The Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases will now proceed to full trials, where the courts will examine the facts of the claims and determine whether the UK Government and its officials were complicit in the claimants’ torture and other human rights abuses.
“The UK Supreme Court has spoken forcefully in affirming that the public interest in ensuring access to justice for victims of serious human rights abuses is paramount,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“Human rights are universal and their effective enforcement must not be blocked by misapplied juridical doctrine that contrives to deny victims a remedy,” he added.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t: +41 22979 3800 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
UK-Belhaj case-News-press releases-2017-ENG (full version of press release, in PDF)
Jan 17, 2017 | Адвокаси, Краткий анализ
В публикации представлен анализ применимого международного права и стандартов, актуальных с точки зрения вопросов, которые обсуждались на круглом столе, включая оценку работы судей и ее воздействие на судейскую независимость; распределение дел; качество судебных решений; а также исполнение решений.
В публикации рассматриваются нормы и стандарты международного и европейского регионального права, связанные с этими основными аспектами внутреннего функционирования судебных органов, которыми должен руководствоваться законодатель и практикующие юристы при анализе национального законодательства и практики в свете данных вопросов.
В документе также представлены рекомендации с точки зрения рассматриваемых норм международного права и стандартов, при этом учитываются актуальные вопросы российской судебной системы, которые поднимались на круглом столе.
26 сентября 2016 года в Москве Международная комиссия юристов (МКЮ) совместно с Институтом права и публичной политики провела круглый стол на тему «Независимость, эффективность и качество правосудия».
Международные и российские эксперты МКЮ, в том числе судьи из России, Норвегии, Нидерландов и Италии, обсудили ряд вопросов, связанных с эффективностью судебных органов, распределением дел, качеством и исполнением судебных решений, а также иные сопряженные вопросы.
В ходе встречи российские и зарубежные судьи и юристы смогли обменяться опытом и обсудить основные аспекты организации судебных систем.
Участники семинара обсудили проблему сохранения низкого уровня доверия российского общества к судебным органам, а также необходимость дальнейших реформ, которые бы обеспечили, что судебные органы смогут эффективно выполнять свою роль истинного гаранта законности и прав человека.
Вызывает обеспокоенность не только соблюдение гарантий, напрямую связанных со справедливостью судопроизводства, но и сама организация судебных органов.
Несмотря на то, что институциональные аспекты судебной системы не так часто рассматриваются в индивидуальных делах, они крайне важны с точки зрения соблюдения права на справедливое судебное разбирательство по статье 6 ЕКПЧ и статье 14 Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах (МПГПП), а также иных международных стандартов, касающихся независимости судебных органов и справедливого судопроизводства.
Russia-International standards_Moscow RT-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2017-RUS (брифинг на русском, PDF)
