Mar 4, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at the disciplinary proceedings against lawyer Elchin Sadigov who was sanctioned with a reprimand on 25 February 2019 by the Presidium of the Bar Association of Azerbaijan.
The ICJ called on the Bar Association to reverse this sanction and take measures to end interference with the independent exercise of the representation of victims of human rights violations.
The decision to hold the lawyer accountable for actions taken in accordance with professional ethics and responsibilities jeopardizes the independence of lawyers and their capacity to protect human rights, and is likely to have a chilling effect on the independent exercise of lawyers’ duties in Azerbaijan, the ICJ said.
Elchin Sadigov represented Yunis Safarov, who was charged with the attempted murder of Elmar Valiyev, former mayor of Ganja City in Azerbaijan. According to Sadigov, he informed his client in a confidential conversation in detention, of the right to complain about torture or ill treatment.
Shortly afterwards, he was told that he had violated the law by persuading his client to complain about the ill-treatment which, the Prosecutor General’s Office officials “decided” in an official document, never took place.
On 5 September 2018, the Prosecutor General’s Office removed Elchin Sadigov as Safarov’s representative and complained to the Bar Association, seeking disciplinary action against the lawyer, among others, on the basis of “[…] creating false grounds to file a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights […], clearly knowing that it is not true, proposed his client to complain about torture inflicted by the police and investigative authorities, despite the fact that the accused told him that he had not been tortured, Sadigov continued psychological influence on his client again – as if he had been tortured – to refuse giving testimony, to refuse services of the State appointed lawyer […]”.
The complaint referred to the confidential conversation between the lawyer and his client, which was apparently overheard and possibly recorded by law enforcement officials. It also refers to a letter which appeared during the disciplinary proceedings, in which Sadigov’s client complained that his lawyer had tried to convince him to complain about use of torture in custody.
According to Elchin Sadigov, however, this letter may have been signed by his former client under pressure from the detention authorities.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, it is indispensable that lawyers “always loyally respect the interests of their clients.”
The Principles specify that they assist their clients “in every appropriate way, and taking legal action to protect their interests”. In the present case, as submitted by Elchin Sadigov and evident from the publicly available materials including photos and videos of Safarov with clear and multiple signs of severe beatings, the lawyer had every reason to believe that his client had been subjected to torture and ill treatment in custody.
Therefore, he had not only the right, but an affirmative professional duty to advise his client to use available remedies for this violation of human rights through procedural means such as a complaint. A failure to do this would be a breach of professional ethics and duties on the part of the lawyer as a trusted representative of his client. The ICJ is concerned that in this case a lawyer was held accountable for attempting to discuss with his client, in a confidential manner, issues related to the human rights of his client.
The ICJ is furthermore concerned that the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality has been violated in this case.
This principle is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial, as protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, to both of which Azerbaijan is a party.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the role of lawyers “[a]ll arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality…”
The ICJ is also concerned that lawyer Sadigov’s conversations may have been monitored in violation of the guarantees of professional secrecy with his client and contrary to international law and national procedure.
The ICJ considers it essential that the Bar Association send a strong signal in support of independent lawyers by lifting the sanction against lawyer Sadigov and consider legislative and practical improvements to ensure that confidentially of lawyers and their clients in detention is effectively guaranteed in practice.
Azerbaijan-Statement Sadigov-News-web stories (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Jun 22, 2018 | News
Conclusions of the Conference on Judicial Independence, Guatemala City, 18-19 June 2018
The ICJ is deeply concerned about the increase in the abuse of disciplinary measures against independent and impartial judges and about crimes committed against human rights defenders. These attacks are putting the rule of law at risk in Guatemala.
The ICJ therefore urges the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to carry out visits to the country so as to verify the situation.
Judges facing malicious disciplinary proceedings
From 18-19 June 2018, the ICJ hosted a conference on the independence of judges with participants from different Central American judges’ associations.
The conference was able to verify that impartial and honourable judges face on-going disciplinary actions that seek to have then recused from trials or have them removed from office on account of their judicial decisions.
Judges are facing the malicious use of the judicial disciplinary system by groups or persons who disapprove of judicial rulings in high-impact cases.
The meeting was an opportunity for different justice sector institutions and judges, victims of attacks, to analyse fundamental concepts and international standards on the judiciary.
The conference concluded, the judicial career system must guarantee that a higher judicial authority can only sanction judges for legally established reasons as set down by international standards.
There was a full agenda of discussions with the participation of the Association of Guatemala Judges for Integrity (AGJI), the President of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Supervisor General of Courts, judges from the Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Commissioner of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the plenary of the Council of the Judicial Career.
The conference examined attacks against judges and their impact, case by case, in the light of international standards. The conference concluded that judges including Ericka Aifán, Yassmín Barrios, Miguel Ángel Gálvez, Carlos Ruano and Pablo Xitumul are facing disciplinary measures because they have acted independently and impartially.
The spurious complaints presented against them before the judicial disciplinary system or other State institutions should be excluded “in limine”.
Read the full Article in English (PDF): Guatemala-Conference-of-Judges-News-Web-stories-June-2018-ENG
May 7, 2018 | News
The ICJ today denounced the decision of the Presidium of the Azerbaijan Bar Association, of 23 April 2018, to suspend the licences of two Azerbaijan human rights lawyers Asabali Mustafayev (photo, on the left) and Nemat Karimli (photo, on the right).
The ICJ called on the Presidium to reverse their decision and allow the lawyers to resume their practice.
It stressed that disciplinary proceedings pending against the lawyers should be immediately terminated.
The ICJ said that the decision of the Presidium was contrary to international standards on the role of lawyers including the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under international law.
The ICJ understands that the proceedings against the two lawyers, initiated following a submission of the Deputy Prosecutor General, were related to the critical statements made by the lawyers in the media, regarding high profile criminal cases.
Nemat Karimli, had stated in media interviews that his client Afgan Mukhtarli, an opposition activist convicted on charges of smuggling, had been illegally and forcibly transferred from Georgia to Azerbaijan and that his life could be at risk if he was returned to Azerbaijan.
The lawyer also complained of excessive searches and being prevented from communicating in private while visiting his client in detention.
The disciplinary proceedings against Asabali Mustafayev relate to allegations he made on social media that the prosecution of politician Gozal Bayramli, on a charge of smuggling, was politically motivated.
Both lawyers were charged with spreading false statements and slanderous information about investigative authorities.
The submission of the Prosecutor to the Bar Association, on 25 October 2017, alleged that lawyers Nemat Karimli and Asabali Mustafayev in their interviews to the media had “politicized” the criminal cases of Bayramli and Mukhtarli, tried to mislead the public and slandered investigative authorities. According to the information provided by the lawyers, no evidence had been attached to this submission.
Instead, the Disciplinary Commission collected evidence to submit to the Presidium of the Bar Association, which subsequently suspended the licence of the lawyers.
Furthermore, the lawyers state that, contrary to what is required by the Law on Lawyers and Advocates Activities, they have not received a copy of the opinion of the Disciplinary Commission submitted to the Presidium of the Bar Association.
The ICJ is concerned that the suspension of the lawyers’ licences, for comments which drew attention to possible violations of human rights, may violate the lawyers’ right to freedom of expression.
These comments appear to be within the bounds of lawyers professional responsibility to protect their clients in every appropriate way (UN Basic Principles, principle 13(b)).
The right to freedom of expression is protected under international treaties to which Azerbaijan is a party, including by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specify that lawyers “…have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights …”.
The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that lawyers are entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, provided that their criticism does not overstep certain bounds, based on principles of dignity, honor, integrity, and respect for the fair administration of justice.
The ICJ emphasizes that protection of lawyers’ freedom of expression, in particular as regards issues of the rule of law and the administration of justice, is not only important to the individuals in question, it also serves as an important safeguard for the protection of human rights.
Where lawyers are subject to disciplinary sanctions for such statements, the role of lawyers in upholding the rule of law in the administration of justice is undermined.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Azerbaijan Bar Association to lift the disciplinary sanctions that would unjustifiably interfere with lawyers’ freedom of expression.
The ICJ also calls on the Azerbaijan Bar Association to ensure that the lawyers subject to disciplinary proceedings obtain a copy of the opinion to be able to prepare their arguments and defence.
Background
Asabali Mustafayev represented Gozal Bayramli who was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison for smuggling €12,000 ($13,400) in cash. Mustafayev had expressed his opinion about the arrest of Gozal Bayramli in his social media profile, alleging that it was politically motivated. He stated that when he shared this opinion he was not yet engaged as Gozal Bayramli’s lawyer.
Nemat Karimli represented Afgan Mukhtarli, an opposition activist based in Tbilisi, who was convicted of smuggling € 10,000, illegally crossing the border and resisting police arrest and was sentenced to six years in prison. Karimli in an interview stated that Mukhtarli was taken to Azerbaijan illegally and called on the Georgian authorities not to hand him to Azerbaijan authorities since it might endanger Mukhtarli’s life.
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)
Jun 28, 2017 | News
Government moves to amend the regulatory framework of the legal profession in Kazakhstan may undermine its independence and are contrary to the principle of self-regulation of the profession, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ called on the authorities of Kazakhstan to refrain from interference in the governance of the independent legal profession and step back to allow the collegia of lawyers to continue to take responsibility for such matters.
The ICJ stressed that any proposals for reform put forward by the governing bodies of the profession should be developed in consultation with and enjoy the consent of the members of advokatura in accordance with international law and standards on the independence of lawyers.
The ICJ was responding to proposals put forward by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev for reform of the legal profession in Kazakhstan.
In a statement to Parliament on 29 May 2017 (Report of the Minister of Justice on the issues of further development and reform of the institutes of notary and advokatura on 29 May 2017), the Minister outlined plans to:
- lower training and entrance fees to the profession “in order to simplify access to the profession”;
- broaden the powers of the Republican Collegium to regulate the disciplinary system for lawyers, in light of the Minister’s view that lawyers were avoiding disciplinary responsibility in many cases under the current system;
- require lawyers to undergo annual training followed by exams, which would be set not by the collegia themselves, but by universities or external training centres;
- require lawyers, in addition to the participation in state-funded legal aid scheme, to provide mandatory legal assistance without financial support from the Government, which the Minister described as “pro bono” service
The importance of an independent legal profession which is self-regulating is well recognized and accepted under international standards and by international authorities.
One of the means by which such independence may be guaranteed is the governance of the profession by an organization independent from the State or other national institutions.
International standards provide that it is an important function of the lawyer’s association “[t]o maintain the honour, dignity, integrity, competence, ethics, standards of conduct and discipline of the profession” (Singhvi Declaration, para.99).
In this context, comments by the Justice Minister Marat Beketayev on the need to change the disciplinary system due to lawyers avoiding disciplinary responsibility “for violations committed” is of serious concern, the ICJ said.
While it is important that lawyers who act against the interests of their clients, or otherwise violate standards of lawyers’ ethics are subject to disciplinary responsibility, it is the function of the profession itself to decide on such matters. Disciplinary proceedings should never be used to undermine lawyers’ independence.
Lowering entrance fees for qualifying lawyers may be a positive measure that can enhance access to the profession for qualifying lawyers, in circumstances where such fees are inaccessibly high.
However the initiating and design of such proposals should not be in the hands of the executive, as this may limit the independence and effectiveness of the legal profession.
Financial sustainability of an independent legal profession largely depends on its members’ fees.
The advokatura should be able to regulate and finance its regular operations, including administration and training, the ICJ added.
As noted by the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in his report of 2009: “… the legal profession is best placed to determine admission requirements and procedures and should thus be responsible for administering examinations and granting professional certificates. This would further help in preserving its independence and self-governance, as advised in the Basic Principles.”
The ICJ is also concerned at suggestions that, as part of continuing legal education, lawyers will be subject to examinations by institutions outside the profession.
While it remains unclear what role or effect such examinations would have, the proposal raises concerns regarding the legal profession’s self-regulation and would risk undermining its independence, the ICJ said.
It should be recalled that, Kazakhstan is required take measures to remove obstacles to the independence of lawyers.
Regarding the proposals on so called ‘pro bono legal assistance’, while it is welcome when any State adopts measures to make legal aid more accessible, such measures should not place an unreasonable burden on lawyers to provide mandatory legal assistance.
The scheme proposed by the Minister for Justice whereby lawyers become responsible for providing legal services without financial compensation for their work is of concern, and appears unlikely to ensure a high quality of legal advice, the ICJ added.
It should be the role of the government to provide regular and sufficient funding for such services, ensuring that legal aid is available for indigent clients in line with international standards.
Kazakhstan-Interference legal profession-News-2017-RUS (Russian version, in PDF)
