Mar 7, 2014 | News
The ICJ expressed concern at the arrest and detention, on 28 February, of lawyer Taisiya Baskayeva, who represents a significant number of victims of human rights violations before the European Court of Human Rights.
Taisiya Baskayeava was arrested on charges of large-scale fraud under article 159.3 of the Russian Criminal Code, based on allegations by investigators that she misappropriated reparations awarded to victims she represented in the case of Salkazanov and others v. Russia before the European Court.
The arrest followed repeated attempts by the investigator to place her in detention in connection with the case.
A previous request to the Court by the investigator for her arrest, on 14 February, had been based partly on the allegation that she was in hiding in the United Arab Emirates and the fact that she had been “put on an international missing list.”
However the Court on that occasion denied the request, saying that it “received no reliable information that Baskayeva T.S. had left the territory of Russia” and that she had sent an urgent telegram from the Moscow region to prove her presence in the territory of Russia.
Taisiya Baskayeva was detained in Moscow region while undergoing a medical check and driven some 1200 km in a car to North Osetia.
At a hearing on 4 March 2014 the Soviet District Court of Vladikavkaz decided to grant the motion to detain the lawyer for two months pending trial. The Court ruled out other less restrictive measures.
The ICJ has received information indicating that the investigation presented no evidence that Taisiya Baskayeva had left Russia, except for an allegation made by the investigator in the motion for her arrest.
The ICJ is unaware of the reasons for declaring the lawyer missing, since her whereabouts were clearly known.
Moreover, the fact that she was detained while undergoing a medical check, of which the investigative authorities were duly informed by the Central City Hospital, contradicts her inclusion on a “international missing list”.
According to the official letter of the Deputy Head Physician at the disposal of the ICJ, the schedule of her visits was also made known to the investigative authorities.
The ICJ is concerned at that the detention may be arbitrary, and may have been ordered for the improper motive of subjecting Taisiya Baskayeva to persecution, harassment or intimidation in regard to her representation of her clients before the European Court of Human Rights.
If so, the Russian Federation would be in breach of obligations in respect of the right to liberty under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ICJ recalls that for lawyers to be able to fulfill their role and duties effectively, and independently, the State authorities must ensure that they are able to discharge their functions without any intimidation, harassment or improper interference.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers must not be threatened with prosecution or any other form of sanctions for any action taken in accordance with professional duties or standards and ethics (Principle 16).
Under these principles when lawyers are threatened as a result of discharging their functions, the state authorities must take adequate steps to protect them (Principle 17).
The ICJ is concerned that the detention may constitute a form of a reprisal for an effective representation of the interests of a significant group of victims before the European Court of Human Rights.
Any such reprisal would be incompatible with Russia’s obligations under article 34 of the European Convention for Human Rights guaranteeing an effective exercise of the right to bring lodge applications claiming violations under the ECHR.
Approximately 200 other cases submitted by Ms. Baskayeva are currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
The ICJ will continue to monitor the criminal prosecution of lawyer Taisiya Baskayeva.
Contacts:
Róisin Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, t + 32 273 48 46, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, t + 41 22 979 38 32, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Russia-Concerns over Baskayeva-news-web story-2014-rus (full text in pdf)
Mar 7, 2014 | News
The ICJ expressed concern at today’s arrest of Fakhriddin Zokirov, a prominent defence lawyer who had represented the former Minister of Industry, Zaid Sayidov.
The former Minister was recently convicted for a number of crimes including polygamy, receiving a bribe, rape, fraud, illegal confinement and sentenced to 26 years of imprisonment.
The ICJ is concerned at reports that the arrest of the lawyer may be related to his active and robust defence of the former Minister in court.
Lawyer Zokirov was arrested by the State Finance Control and Anti-Corruption Agency on charges of fraud in banking transactions, which allegedly took place several years ago.
Two other lawyers who defended the former Minister, Shukhrat Kudratov and Iskhok Tabarov, announced at a press conference that they had recently faced various threats and intimidation in connection with the case.
The lawyers reported that the pressure on them had significantly increased in relation to a lawsuit which they brought against the head of the State Finance Control and Anti-Corruption Agency, Fattokh Sayidov.
They alleged that the head of the Agency threatened that if they did not drop the case, they would “share the dock” with their client, the former Minister.
“Abusive prosecutions of lawyers and threats against them in connection with their work are contrary to international standards on the independence of lawyers and undermine the integrity of the justice system”, Róisín Pillay, Director of the Europe Programme, said today. “In the exercise of their profession, lawyers must remain free from intimidation, harassment, fear and arbitrary prosecution and arrest. The ICJ calls on the authorities of Tajikistan to ensure that lawyers’ integrity is protected, and that the criminal justice system is not misused to intimidate them.”
Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers must not be identified with their clients’ causes, and must be protected against attacks and intimidation, including prosecutions or administrative or other sanctions for action taken in accordance with their recognized professional duties.
Contacts:
Róisin Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, t + 32 273 48 46, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, t + 41 22 979 38 32, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Tajikistan-arrest of lawyer-news-web story-2014-rus (full text in pdf)
Mar 3, 2014 | News
The shooting and bombing at an Islamabad Court today should be condemned as a presumed attack against the judicial officials and the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, says the ICJ.
The attack resulted in the killing of Additional Sessions Judge Rafaqat Ahmad Khan Awan and at least ten other persons, including several lawyers.
According to reports, armed gunmen forced their way into a court complex in Islamabad, openly firing on judges and lawyers before at least two of the men blew themselves up inside the court complex.
One of the attackers detonated himself outside the door of a judge’s office, while the other targeted the office of the Lawyers’ Union President.
Another gunmen entered Judge Rafaqat Awan’s courtroom, where he shot and killed him.
“An intentional killing of a member of the judiciary can be seen as nothing other than an attack against the independence and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director.
“In addition to personal tragedy that has befallen the slain victims and their families, this attack and those like it are devastating for the people of Pakistan,” he added. “Courthouses, which should be places where justice is administered, are instead becoming slaughterhouses.”
This is the third armed attack against members of the judiciary in Pakistan in under a year. In March 2013, a judicial compound was attacked in Peshawar, killing four people.
In June 2013, a Sindh High Court judge’s convoy was attacked in Karachi, killing nine people.
As set out in the UN Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Pakistan must take steps to protect and ensure the safety of members of the judiciary from threats and violence from any quarter for any reason.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region further elaborates that the executive branch must at all times ensure the security and physical protection of judges and their families.
As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Pakistan is under a general obligation to ensure the safety of all persons within its territory at all times.
“If judges are under constant fear of violence from insurgent groups, they cannot function as an independent and impartial judiciary – an indispensible requirement for preserving rule of law and democracy,” Zarifi said.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Pakistan to take steps to immediately investigate and bring to justice those persons responsible for the armed attack on the Courthouse.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ Legal Advisor, Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Photo credit: MYRA IQBAL
Feb 18, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ condemned the decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi to uphold the conviction and sentencing of lawyer and human rights defender Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment.
The ICJ called on Viet Nam authorities to release him immediately.
“The decision of the Court of Appeal is regrettable but not unexpected,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The ICJ has repeatedly criticized the lack of independence of the courts in Viet Nam. This is a political case and the government of Viet Nam has again used the courts to punish a significant critical voice.”
Today’s appellate hearing lasted for four hours. Thirty minutes after the hearing ended, the court released its decision upholding Le Quoc Quan’s conviction.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer who was illegitimately barred from practice for challenging government human rights violations, was convicted on 2 October 2013 of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code. The ICJ had criticized Le Quoc Quan’s conviction, pointing out that he did not receive a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal upheld Le Quoc Quon’s sentence with time served since his arrest on 27 December 2012 to be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the earlier order made by the People’s Court of Hanoi for Le Quoc Quan’s company to pay 645 million VND (approximately USD30,000) and a fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD60,000), for alleged unpaid taxes.
Le Quoc Quan has been on a hunger strike protesting his conviction since 1 February 2014. He was so weak that it was difficult for him to stand up during the hearing.
“Le Quoc Quan’s faulty trial violated right to an independent, impartial tribunal, and the appeal process also fell short of international fair trial standards, including under the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, to which Vietnam is a party,” Zarifi said.
The public was barred from entering the courtroom during today’s hearing and only Le Quoc Quan’s wife, mother, and lawyers were allowed inside.
Le Quoc Quan was also not allowed to meet with his lawyers in the last few days leading up to the appeal hearing.
His lawyers tried to visit him in prison at least twice last week, but they were barred from seeing him.
Le Quoc Quan’s lawyers also confirmed to ICJ that Le Quoc Quan was not allowed to meet and communicate with his lawyers immediately after his conviction by the People’s Court of Hanoi and had to file an appeal on his own.
In drafting his appeal, all legal documents and files pertaining to his case were withheld from him.
The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that all convicted persons like Le Quoc Quan must be given copies of a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court, as well as other documents such as transcripts, so that they may be able to effectively enjoy their right to appeal.
Under Viet Nam’s laws, lawyers of convicted persons cannot file an appeal on behalf of their clients.
It is only after the appeal has been filed and accepted by the appellate court that the convicted person may identify the lawyer of his choice.
The chosen lawyers are recognized and allowed to participate in the case only after the court approves their application for a “defence counsel’s certificate” or “advocacy certificate”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that no court shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it on behalf of his client, unless the lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with domestic law.
“Viet Nam’s courts operate in violation of international standards that clarify that lawyers must be allowed to assist their clients in filing an appeal,” Zarifi said.
Le Quoc Quan cannot appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal under the article 248(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam, which states that decisions of the Court of Appeal are final and legally binding from the date of their pronouncement.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan, however, are said to be considering filing a petition on procedural issues on this case.
On 14 February, the ICJ submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council (see below) under the title “Violations of the right to counsel of Viet Nam human rights defender Le Quoc Quan”.
In the statement, the ICJ called on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independance of Judges and Lawyers to reiterate her request to the Government of Viet Nam to extend an invitation to her mandate to undertake a mission to the country.
The ICJ also called on Viet Nam to amend its laws expressly to ensure that anyone deprived of liberty, including human rights defenders, are given access to counsel from the moment of deprivation of liberty or at latest within 24 hours of detention.
Viet Nam should also consider including in its laws penalties for law enforcement authorities who do not honour such provisions.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Viet Nam-Human Rights Council-ICJWrittenStatement-advocacy-2014 (full text in pdf)
Feb 13, 2014 | News
The ICJ continued its observation of the trial of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges under the colonial-era Section 377B of the Penal Code, which criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, the first woman judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, observed a hearing on the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya yesterday.
“The ICJ will continue to monitor this case and evaluate the fairness of the proceedings in light of relevant international standards,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ international legal advisor for Southeast Asia. “The ICJ will also assess whether the prosecution under Section 377 is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.”
The hearing is an appeal against the High Court’s decision on 9 January 2012, which acquitted Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy.
“The ICJ has previously condemned Malaysia’s continuing use of colonial-era criminal charges of ‘sodomy’ to cover even consensual sexual relations between adults,” Gil said. “The ICJ believes that Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is inconsistent with respect for the right to privacy under international standards.”
The Court of Appeal heard and eventually dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the lawyers of Anwar Ibrahim seeking to recall for testimony Jude Blacious s/o Pereira, the investigating officer and key witness in the sodomy case.
Pereira was recently found unfit to be a practicing lawyer in another case in a High Court decision of 10 January 2014.
In that decision, the High Court relied on a 2009 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) report, which determined Pereira to be an unreliable witness in a public inquiry established to investigate the arrest and detention of 5 legal aid lawyers.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the grounds that Anwar Ibrahim had failed to satisfy the court that additional evidence in the appellate stage was necessary in dispensing justice and that it fell in the category of “most exceptional” cases, particularly as the SUHAKAM report had already been available since 2009.
The Court of Appeal postponed the hearing on the appeal itself to allow Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers to file a notice of appeal with the Federal Court on the dismissal of the interlocutory order.
Anwar Ibrahim’s counsel immediately filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Court on the dismissed interlocutory application.
The case management for the sodomy appeal has been fixed on 28 February 2014.
The appeal proper was initially scheduled on 17 and 18 September 2013 but has faced continuous delays due to a series of interlocutory matters.
