May 10, 2016 | News
The ICJ today called on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release human rights lawyer Malek Adly and to drop all charges against him. He was arrested on Thursday 5 May 2016, pursuant to an arrest warrant.
Malek Adly has been charged with a number of offences, including “attempting to overthrow the regime,” “spreading false rumors,” and “using force against a public servant.”
The Prosecuting authorities have not provided information on specific behaviour that would constitute criminal conduct.
The ICJ is concerned that the charges may be in retaliation for Malek Adly’s work as a lawyer and human rights defender, and are aimed to chill him and others from engaging in work perceived as threatening to or disfavoured by Egyptian authorities.
They came at the backdrop of his work as a human rights lawyer, his critical views on the rule of law situation in Egypt, and his legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and assembly in opposing transferring the sovereignty of Tiran and Sanafir islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the ICJ says.
“Malek Adly’s arrest, detention and prosecution for carrying out his work as a lawyer and human rights defender and for peacefully expressing his views is yet another attempt by the Egyptian regime to muzzle lawyers, the last line of defence for victims of human rights violations in Egypt,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The regime’s crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms has been worryingly extended to the very lawyers whose role is to challenge and protect against such crackdown,” he added.
Over the last three years, the ICJ has documented numerous cases of lawyers who have been subjected to human rights violations and reprisals in relation to the representation of their clients.
These include the cases lawyers Imam Afifi and Karim Hamdi who were allegedly subjected to torture and subsequently died while in police custody.
International standards aiming to safeguard the role of lawyers provide that States have a duty to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their functions “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that lawyers must not be subject to prosecution or other sanction for carrying out their professional responsibilities, the Geneva-based organization reminds.
International standards on human rights defenders require States protect human rights defenders from attacks, threats, retaliation and arbitrary action.
The Egypt 2014 Constitution guarantees the “independence of the lawyer’s profession and the protection of its interests as a guarantee to protecting the right to defence”. In addition, it prohibits the arrest of a lawyer while he or she is exercising the right to defence, except in flagrante delicto crimes.
“The Egyptian authorities must live up to their obligations under the Constitution and international law and put an immediate end to their attacks against lawyers,” concluded Benarbia.
Contact
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 51727023; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-HR Lawyer MalekAdly-News-Press Releases-2016-ARA (full text in Arabic, PDF)
May 3, 2016 | News
The ICJ is concerned at the reported improper interrogation as a witness of lawyer Marina Moshko and searches of her apartment and office by investigators of the Investigative Committee of Russia together with officers of the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Federal Security Service.
The interrogation was in connection with a criminal case against her client, Natalia Koltsova, related to alleged criminal business activities.
Targeting a lawyer in the investigation of the lawyer’s client runs contrary to international law and standards, and to principles of lawyer-client confidentiality enshrined in both Russian and international law.
The ICJ therefore calls on the law enforcement authorities to refrain from any measures which obstruct access to a lawyer and the right to an effective defence, including improper interrogation of lawyers as witnesses, and searches of lawyers’ premises.
The Russian authorities must uphold Russian law and the country’s international legal obligations on this matter and must take steps to ensure that lawyers are effectively protected against any form of harassment or improper interference.
During the searches, authorized by the Basmannyi District Court of Moscow, the files Marina Moshko’s clients were examined and photographs were taken of one file, which contained evidence in the same criminal case in which Marina Moshko is acting for the defence (see additional information below).
In addition to the searches of the lawyer’s premises, the investigators conducted a “confrontation” (a form of investigatory interview) between the lawyer and her client’s mother.
Marina Moshko was thereafter excluded from representation of her client as she was herself considered to be a witness in the case.
This case is hardly the first of its kind.
In a recent report entitled Towards a Stronger Legal Profession in the Russian Federation, the ICJ expressed concern at “cases of interrogations of lawyers in order to exclude them from representing a party to the proceedings”.
The report concluded that “[i]nterrogation of a lawyer as a witness constitutes a serious interference with the work of lawyers in clear contradiction to Russian legislation and international standards on the role and independence of lawyers.”
The ICJ recalls that the Russian Federation Code of Professional Ethics of Lawyers prohibits lawyers from making witness statements about any facts known to him or her in the context of professional activities (Article 6 (6)).
Both the Law “On advocates’ activities and advokatura in the Russian Federation” (Article 8 (2)) and the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (article 56 (3)) prohibit summoning lawyers as witnesses in cases in which they represent clients.
Furthermore, searches of lawyers’ premises and interference with clients’ files are contrary to international law and standards on lawyer-client confidentiality, which is an element both of the right to respect for private life, and of the right to a fair trial.
In particular, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, in Principle 22, stipulate that: “[g]overnments shall recognize and respect that all communications and consultations between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential”.
The UN Human Rights Committee has also underscored that such practices may breach the obligation of States to ensure the right to a fair trial under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly where “lawyers are released from their obligation of professional confidentiality and obliged to testify or face the risk of imprisonment”
This case apparently represents such an instance in which a lawyer is excluded from representing a party, and lawyer-client confidentiality is breached, through questioning her as a witness. Such exclusions interfere with a defendant’s access to effective legal representation and may damage the effectiveness of the defence, contrary to the right to fair trial protected, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay@icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov@icj.org
Additional information:
Marina Moshko represents Natalia Koltsova, a suspect in the case on a criminal group allegedly created by Dmitry Zarubin, owner of the Cartier boutique. Dmitry Zarubin was arrested in autumn 2015 and charged with creation of an organized criminal group which brought expensive electronic goods as cheap building materials. Natalia Koltsova is charged with heading one of the units of the alleged criminal group. These searches are reportedly related to the representation of Natalia Koltsova.
The ICJ understands that the Council of the Chamber of Lawyers of Leningrad Region has addressed a letter to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation regarding this problematic case of the searches of lawyers.
Read also ICJ’s Report Towards a Stronger Legal Profession in the Russian Federation
Russia-Marina Moshko statement-News-Web story-2016-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Apr 22, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the Almaty City Court in favour of Ayman Umarova, a lawyer who received repetitive demands from the investigative authorities to testify as a witness in a case in which she represented a client.
The Court decided that those demands were contrary to the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Earlier this month, on 8 April, Umarova (photo) had challenged the official summons of Baurzhan Muzhikov, the head of an investigative group of the Anti-Corruption Service of Almaty, to testify as a witness.
The Medeu Regional Court confirmed the lawfulness of such demands, concluding that it was not related to her professional activity.
On 18 April, the Appeals Collegium of the Almaty City Court overturned the decision of the Medeu Regional Court.
Umarova was represented in the case by 28 lawyers as a demonstration of solidarity by the profession.
“The matter concerns not only Ayman Umarova but the entire legal community. If the case sets a precedent, the rights of our citizens will be in jeopardy,” Anuar Tugel, the President of the Republican Collegium of Lawyers, was reported to have said.
“The decision of the Almaty City Court is an important step in protecting the independence of the legal profession,” said Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe Programmme.
“While it is welcome that the Court remedied the practice of a forced testimony contrary to the international standards on the role of lawyers, it is worrying that such instances of obstruction of the work of lawyers continue to occur,” he added.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, in Principle 22, stipulate that: “Governments shall recognize and respect that all communications and consultations between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential”.
The UN Human Rights Committee has expressed concerns where “lawyers are released from their obligation of professional confidentiality and obliged to testify or face the risk of imprisonment” (UN Doc CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5 (2008), para. 15).
The ICJ recalls that, in accordance with of the UN Basic Principles, lawyers should be able to perform their professional duties without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16) and should never be identified with their clients’ causes (Principle 18).
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
Additional information:
On 28 March 2016, Ayman Umarova started her representation of Sayat Nadirbayev in a criminal case related to Talgat Ermegiyaev, former head of the Astana EKSPO-2017 company, accused of embezzlement.
On 2 April, after a request on the phone by the head of the Investigative Department of the Anti-Corruption Service of Almaty Baurzhan Muzhikov, Ayman Umarova received an official demand to appear and testify as a witness in the case. Since then she was required to appear and testify several times.
On 6 April, the Chair of the Almaty Collegium of Lawyers received a letter signed by Baurzhan Muzhikov, the head of an investigative group of the Anti-Corruption Service of Almaty, asking it to “facilitate the appearance of lawyer Umarova Ayman … to question her as a witness”.
On the same day, the Republican Collegium of Lawyers issued a statement where it qualified this request as a “violation of the guarantees of advocates’ activities” and urged that “appropriate measures [be taken] in regard to the officers of the Anti-Corruption Service”.
Kazakhstan-Landmark decision-News-Web Stories-2016-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
Mar 30, 2016 | News
The Malaysian government must immediately halt the politically motivated sedition investigation launched by the police against members of the Malaysian Bar who had called for the Attorney General’s resignation, the ICJ said today.
“The Malaysian authorities are using the archaic, colonial Sedition Act to harass and silence lawyers who are demanding that the country’s legal authorities observe international standards of propriety and independence,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“This latest misuse of the Sedition Act constitutes a brazen political attack on the independence of the country’s lawyers,” she added.
On 29 March 2016, lawyers Charles Hector, Francis Pereira, and Shanmugam Ramasamy, received letters from police authorities summoning them to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters on 31 March 2016 for the purpose of taking down their statements regarding a complaint filed against them under the Sedition Act (1948).
The three had proposed a motion during the Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Assembly, calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali. The motion was passed by a majority vote.
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, was also notified that her statement would likewise be taken but she was not summoned to the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.
Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.
“In 2012, Prime Minister Razak had promised to repeal the Sedition Act, but since then his government has increasingly relied on the law’s impermissibly vague and broad language as a useful tool of repression,” Gil said.
International standards highlight that protecting the independence of lawyers and their professional associations is essential for upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, the ICJ says.
“This police investigation is clearly designed to challenge that independence,” Gil said.
“The Malaysian Bar has been one of the few institutions consistently defending the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia, and it is crucial to maintain the ability of its members to engage critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” she added.
The ICJ urges the Malaysian government to repeal the archaic Sedition Act 1948 and fulfill the commitment it made in 2012 to abolish it.
Unless repealed or considerably revised so that it will be consistent with international law, the Sedition Act 1948 will continue to unduly limit and repress the freedom of expression, not only of lawyers and human rights defenders, but of all Malaysians exercising their fundamental rights, the ICJ says.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
Under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (Principle 16).
Like other citizens, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. Lawyers have the right to take part in the public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights (Principle 23).
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers also state that lawyers are entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity (Principle 24).
Governments should ensure that these professional associations are able to function without improper interference (Principle 25).
In its 2016 resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously affirmed that “the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the integrity of the judicial system and an independent legal profession are essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice, and should therefore be respected in all circumstances” (Resolution 30/7, 1 October 2015).
Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
Mar 29, 2016 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed serious concern at the apparent murder of lawyer Yury Grabovsky who was found dead on 25 March. The lawyer had been missing for two weeks and was reportedly found shot and buried near the Kiev-Odessa main route.
“The death of lawyer Yury Grabovsky must be investigated in a prompt, impartial and effective manner. Other lawyers who may be under threat should be urgently granted the necessary measures of protection”, said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Legal Adivser.
Yury Grabovsky was the managing partner of law firm “Garbovsky and Co”, as well as Deputy Chair of the High Qualification Disciplinary Commission.
He represented Aleksandr Aleksandrov, who along with Evgeniy Yerofeyev, was detained last May in the Lugansk Region in Eastern Ukraine and accused of terrorism and a number of other crimes.
The lawyer’s whereabouts had been unknown since 5 March after he had left for Odessa to stay at “Arkadiya” hotel.
He was apparently supposed to leave the hotel on 7 March but he never took his belongings from there.
On 9 March, a court hearing did not take place because the lawyer was missing.
Garbovsky’s colleagues reportedly doubted the authenticity of a post on his facebook account stated that he had left Ukraine.
On 10 March, the National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine informed the National Police that the lawyer had been missing.
The same day, the Odessa police opened a criminal case on “intentional murder”.
On 20 March, the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine, Anatoly Matios, stated that a suspect in the organization of the disappearance of Grabovsky had been apprehended.
On Friday, 25 March, Prosecutor Matios said that Grabovsky “was killed in a violent way and finished off with a firearm” which according to the Prosecutor was a “specially planned operation.”
The lawyer’s body was found shot and buried 138 km south of Kiev after one of the suspects had reportedly disclosed the place of burial.
The lawyer is said to have had an explosive bracelet on his leg, apparently intended to prevent him from escaping. The names of the suspects have not been made public.
It is the second killing of a lawyer in Ukraine this month, and the fourth such killing since January 2015, including, lawyers Alexandr Gruzkov, Yury Ignatenko, Viktor Loiko, and now Yuri Grabovskiy.
Temur Shakirov stressed that “in order to fulfil their function lawyers must be able to act without fear and free from fear of reprisals of any kind”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that“[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.”
The ICJ calls on the Government of Ukraine to investigate the case and bring those responsible to justice, including both anyone who directly carried out the killing and anyone who ordered the crime.
Urgent measures to guarantee the security of lawyers should be taken, which should include effective security measures against attempts on their lives and lives of their family members.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org
