Jul 17, 2019 | News
On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found Russia’s refusal to register associations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to violate the rights to freedom of association and to be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Court’s judgment was informed by a third party intervention submitted jointly by the ICJ, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and ILGA-Europe on 29 July 2016.
The cases were brought by Russian individuals and non-profit organizations (Rainbow House, Movement for Marriage Equality and Sochi Pride House) (Zhadanov and others v. Russia).
The organizations’ registration requests were refused by the authorities and the domestic courts because of formal irregularities in their applications and because their aim was to promote LGBT rights.
In a unanimous judgment, the Court reiterated the importance for individuals to be able to join together to act collectively and establish legal entities. Rejecting as “unconvincing” the Government’s assertion that the applications were refused on procedural grounds, the Court found that in order to obtain registration the organizations would have had to renounce their aims of promoting LGBT rights: “Those grounds touched upon the very core of the applicant organisations and affected the essence of the right to freedom of association”.
Referring to Russia’s submission that the organisations were refused registration to prevent social or religious hatred and disorder, the Court reminded States that they have a positive duty to guarantee the proper functioning of associations, even when they annoy or give offence.
In the present case, rather than taking steps to enable the organizations to carry out their activities without fear of violence, the authorities instead “decided to remove the cause of the tension and avert a risk of disorder by restricting the applicants’ freedom of association”.
The Court therefore found the refusal to register the organizations was not necessary in a democratic society (in breach of Article 11 ECHR).
Having found that the decisive ground for refusing the organizations’ applications for registration was their aim of promoting LGBT rights, the Court held that the applicants had suffered a difference in treatment based on their sexual orientation which could not be reasonably or objectively justified (in breach of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 11).
EHRAC, ILGA-Europe and ICJ’s joint intervention, drafted by Jeremy McBride QC of Monckton Chambers (UK), focused on the extent of legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of association for the protection of morals, arguing that it was impossible to protect individual rights if citizens were unable to create associations to defend common interests and needs.
It submitted that any restrictions on this right should be strongly justified and legitimate aims which permitted interference should be interpreted narrowly.
“This judgment reaffirms the vital importance for individuals to be able to group together and organize themselves around shared causes. States must act positively to ensure that this right is meaningful, particularly when people belong to vulnerable or marginalised minority groups or hold unpopular views,” said Joanne Sawyer, Lawyer, EHRAC.
“We are very pleased with European Court’s pioneering judgment confirming the vital right to freedom of association for those promoting rights of LGBTI people. This judgment sends a key message to LGBTI activists in Russia and other countries across Europe who are facing similar discriminatory restrictions – refusal to register associations cannot be justified on the ground of protection of morals,” said Arpi Avetisyan, Senior Litigation Officer, ILGA-Europe.
“The ICJ welcomes the Court’s conclusion that Russia’s refusal to register associations established to promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people cannot be justified on the grounds of protecting moral values or the institutions of the family and marriage,” added Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
Jul 17, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ filed a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of its review of Turkey’s human rights record in January 2020.
In its submission, the ICJ considered:
- the situation with the independence of the judiciary in Turkey, during and after the state of emergency of 2016-2018;
- the lack of effective remedies for the mass dismissals in the public sector occurred in that period;
- the shortcomings in fair trial rights in the criminal justice system:
- the obstacles to the action of civil society;
- the lack of accountability for torture and enforced disappeareances; and
- provided information on the status of international human rights treaties ratified by Turkey.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Full submission in English (PDF) : Turkey-UPR-Advocacy-non-legal submissions-2019-ENG
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
Jul 4, 2019 | Доклады, Доклады судебного наблюдения, Новости, Публикации
Сегодня МКЮ опубликовала юридическое заключение, в котором анализируется пересмотр уголовного дела в отношении правозащитника из Кыргызстана Азимжана Аскарова. Пересмотр дела имел место в свете решения Комитета по правам человека ООН, признавшего многочисленные нарушения прав человека в ходе первого судебного процесса по делу. МКЮ пришла к выводу о том, что данные нарушения не были исправлены в ходе пересмотра дела.
В частности, МКЮ отмечает, что в ходе пересмотра не были должным образом исследованы заявления Аскарова о пытках, которым он подвергался во время заключения под стражей. Не было проведено новое расследование, суд не допросил новых свидетелей и не подверг критическому анализу доказательства, которые легли в основу обвинительного приговора. В результате в ходе пересмотра дела не была соблюдена презумпция невиновности и требования справедливого судебного разбирательства.
Следовательно, обвинительный приговор по делу Азимжана Аскарова подлежит отмене, а сам Аскаров должен быть освобожден, заявляет МКЮ.
«Проведенный нами анализ показал, что несмотря на многолетний процесс Азимжан Аскаров был лишен права на справедливое судебное разбирательство и эффективное расследование по жалобам на пытки. Мы призываем власти Кыргызстана принять меры в свете данных выводов и отменить обвинительный приговор в отношении Аскарова, а самого Аскарова освободить из-под стражи. Если этого не будет сделано, решение Комитета ООН по правам человека останется неисполненным», – заявила Роушин Пиллей, директор Региональной программы МКЮ по странам Европы и Центральной Азии.
МКЮ пришла к выводу о необходимости возбудить расследование по жалобам на пытки и иные нарушения прав человека в отношении Аскарова, и ему должно быть предоставлено надлежащее возмещение ущерба, причиненного в связи с указанными нарушениями.
Общие сведения
15 сентября 2010 года Азимжан Аскаров, известный правозащитник из Кыргызской Республики, был признан виновным в убийстве сотрудника правоохранительных органов, покушении на соучастие во взятии заложника, незаконном ношении оружия, возбуждении межэтнической ненависти и организации массовых беспорядков.
Международная комиссия юристов (МКЮ) наблюдала за процессом с самого начала судебного разбирательства вплоть до осуждения Аскарова, и выявила многочисленные нарушения прав человека в ходе содержания Аскарова под стражей, судебного разбирательства по его делу и вынесения обвинительного приговора в 2010 году.
В 2016 г. Комитет по правам человека ООН (КПЧ) принял Соображения, в которых признал нарушения прав Аскарова, гарантированных Международным пактом о гражданских и политических правах (МПГПП). КПЧ указал, что Кыргызстан обязан выплатить Аскарову надлежащее возмещение ущерба, принять необходимые меры к его незамедлительному освобождению, отменить обвинительный приговор и, при необходимости, осуществить пересмотр дела с соблюдением гарантий справедливого судебного разбирательства.
По итогам решения КПЧ Верховный Суд Кыргызской Республики направил дело Азимжана Аскарова на новое рассмотрение по вновь открывшимся обстоятельствам в Чуйский областной суд. Пересмотр дела проходил с 4 октября 2016 года по 24 января 2017 г. Обвинительный приговор отменен не был: имело место лишь «возобновление» производства по делу.
В основу Юридического заключения МКЮ легли выводы наблюдателей, присутствовавших на ряде заседаний в Чуйском областном суде, а также анализ материалов дела. Судебный процесс анализируется в свете национального законодательства Кыргызстана, а также относимого международного права и соответствующих стандартов. От лица МКЮ заключение подписали следующие комиссары: Азхар Качалия, судья Верховного апелляционного суда ЮАР; Николас Братца, бывший председатель Европейского суда по правам человека; профессор Хуан Мендес, бывший Специальный докладчик ООН по вопросу о пытках и иных видах жестокого, бесчеловечного и унижающего достоинство обращения и наказания.
Полный текст юридического заключения доступен по ссылке: Kyrgyzstan-Askarov report II-Publications-Reports-Trial Observation reports-RUS
Jul 4, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports, Trial observation reports
In a legal opinion issued today analyzing the retrial of the Kyrgyz human rights defender Azimjan Askarov, which followed the UN Human Rights Committee finding of multiple human rights violations in his first trial, the ICJ concludes that these violations have not been remedied by the retrial.
In particular, the ICJ finds that the retrial did not effectively examine allegations of the torture of Askarov in detention. It failed to conduct new investigations, hear new witnesses or question the elements on which the initial conviction was based. As a result, the retrial did not respect the presumption of innocence or comply with the requirements of a fair trial.
As a consequence, Azimjan Askarov’s conviction should be quashed and he should be released, the ICJ said.
“This analysis shows that despite years of court hearings, Azimjan Askarov has never been afforded a fair trial or an effective investigation into his allegations that he was tortured. We call on the Kyrgyz authorities to act on these findings and to quash his conviction and release him from detention. Without this, the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee will remain unimplemented ” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Director.
An investigation into allegations of torture and other violations of Askarov’s human rights should be launched, the ICJ concluded, and he should be accorded full reparations for violations of his human rights.
Background
Azimjan Askarov, a prominent human rights defender in the Kyrgyz Republic, was convicted on 15 September 2010 of complicity in the murder of a law enforcement officer, attempted complicity in hostage-taking, illegal possession of firearms, incitement of interethnic hatred, and organization of riots.
The ICJ has followed his case since the initial trial and Askarov’s eventual conviction – and identified multiple violations of his human rights in detention, trial and conviction in 2010.
In 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) adopted Views in which it found violations of Askarov’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The HRC decided that Kyrgyzstan was to make full reparation to Askarov; take appropriate steps to immediately release him; quash his conviction and, if necessary, conduct a new trial in due compliance with fair trial guarantees.
Following the HRC decision, the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic remanded the case of Azimjan Askarov for retrial to the Chuy Regional Court due to new circumstances. The retrial took place from 4 October 2016 to 24 January 2017. The retrial proceeded without quashing the defendant’s conviction but with “resumption” of the proceedings in the case.
The ICJ legal opinion is based on the findings from the observation of a number of hearings before the Chuy Regional Court and analysis of documents in the case. It assesses the proceedings in light of Kyrgyzstan’s domestic law as well as relevant international law and standards. The opinoin is signed on behalf of the ICJ by ICJ Commissioners Justice Azhar Cachalia, Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa; Justice Nicolas Bratza, former President of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The full text of the legal opinion is available below.
In English: Kyrgyzstan-Askarov report II-Publications-Reports-Trial observation report-2019-ENG
In Russian: Kyrgyzstan-Askarov report II-Publications-Reports-Trial observation reports-2019-RUS
