|
LITIGATION AND ADVICE
TRAINING: BUILDING CAPACITY
OTHER PROJECTS
LITIGATION AND ADVICE
European Court of Human Rights Finds Russia Responsible for Police Torture
On 27 January 2006, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a unanimous decision in the case of Mikheyev v. Russia. The Court held that the Russian Federation had violated the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the torture of Aleksey Mikheyev while in police custody and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his subsequent allegations against the police.
Mr. Mikheyev alleged before the Court that police officers in Nizhny Novgorod subjected him to physical and mental abuse in order to force him to confess to a crime. The ill-treatment included beatings, threats and the application of electric shocks to his ears. He eventually confessed to having committed a crime which, it transpired, had never taken place. Under severe stress, he then attempted suicide by jumping out of the police station window. He sustained grave injuries and is paralyzed for life.
In accepting Mr. Mikheyev’s version of events, the Court noted the Russian government’s refusal to disclose copies of the criminal investigation files and its failure to give any plausible alternative explanation for Mr. Mikheyev’s injuries. It emphasized the importance of requiring the authorities to provide a ‘satisfactory and convincing explanation’ in cases where they have exclusive knowledge of the events in question. In addition, the Court identified a number of serious flaws in the investigation of Mr. Mikheyev’s complaints by the Russian authorities - significant omissions in the pre-trial investigation, delays and omissions in collecting evidence, and links between investigating officials and those responsible for Mr. Mikheyev’s ill-treatment. The Court ordered the Russian Federation to pay Mr. Mikheyev a substantial sum in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
INTERIGHTS, together with Russian lawyers from the Nizhny Novgorod Committee Against Torture, represented Mr. Mikheyev before the Court. A group of Russian NGOs and the international NGO, Redress, intervened in the case as third parties. These interventions reflect the broader importance of the case in highlighting Russia’s poor record on the issue of torture – in particular, the institutional tolerance of torture as an everyday police practice, and ineffective and unreasonably lengthy investigation of torture complaints. The case has received wide publicity in Russia and internationally.
The Mikheyev judgment will establish another welcome precedent in the struggle to overcome what the UN Committee against Torture has described as a “persistent pattern of impunity for torture and other ill-treatment” in Russia.
Read the full text of the European Court’s judgment here: http://www.echr.coe.int
On 12 April 2005 the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Shamayev and others v Georgia and Russia, involving secret extradition of a group of Russian nationals of Chechen origin. The Court found Georgia and Russia to have violated several rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) during the extradition process and the ensuing procedure before the Strasbourg Court.
The judgment is of relevance far beyond these two countries, particularly as practices of extra-legal rendition have multiplied worldwide with devastating effect in the course of the global 'war on terror'. The victims were represented by Georgian lawyers from Union Article 42 of the Constitution http://www.article42.ge/ (a human rights organisation in Tbilisi) and advised on their submissions on admissibility and merits by INTERIGHTS. Following the judgment, both the Georgian and Russian governments requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. On 12 October 2005, the Grand Chamber refused the request and confirmed the April judgment as final.
Click here for more information on the case. Read the Court's press release here, and access the full text of the judgment (in French only) on the Court's website here
First Case Against Georgia in the European Court
On 8 April 2004 the European Court of Human Rights delivered its first judgment against Georgia in the case of Assanidze, in which the Court found that Georgia has violated Mr Assanidze�s right to liberty and security, and right to a fair trial. INTERIGHTS was engaged as advisors to counsel in respect of the preparations for the hearing before the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court held in November 2003.
The applicant � Tengiz Assanidze � was the mayor of the town of Batumi, capital of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic, Georgia, and a member of the Ajarian Parliament. He was arrested in 1993 on a charge of illegal financial dealings and in 1994 he was sentenced to eight years� imprisonment. The applicant was pardoned by the President of the Republic, Shevarnadze, on 1 October 1999, but was not released by the local Ajarian authorities. In December 1999 the applicant, who was still in custody despite the presidential pardon, was charged in a new case. On 2 October 2000 he was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment by the Supreme Court of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic. Although his conviction was quashed in January 2001 by the Georgian Supreme Court, the applicant was only released by the Ajarian authorities on 9 April 2004, after the judgment of the Strasbourg Court ordered his release.
The European Court accepted in its judgment that despite the difficulties encountered by the central Georgian authorities to secure compliance with the Convention rights by the local Ajarian authorities, the facts of the case fell within the �jurisdiction� of Georgia and it was solely the responsibility of Georgia that was engaged under the Convention.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Loucaides emphasised that the Convention obligations apply to states �ine">whenever they act in exercise of their state authority with resulting consequences to individuals�, and that such authority may take the form of any kind of military or state action on the part of the High Party concerned in any part of the world�� (This opinion, which suggests a more expansive approach to the Convention�s application than was taken by the Court in its controversial Bankovic judgement, may prove significant in future cases.)
The Court further held that the applicant has been arbitrarily detained after January 2001, in breach of Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Court also found that Georgia has violated Mr Assanidze�s right to fair trial (Article 6(1)) in that it failed to secure execution of the judgement acquitting the applicant.
By way of just satisfaction for Mr Assanidze, the Court obliged Georgia to secure his release, and to pay him a compensation of 150,000 euros. Stipulating the specific measures that the state must take to remedy the violation is an important step forward in developing the Court's standards in the area of just satisfaction. So far only in cases of deprivation of property has the Court directed the respondent states as to the means of rectifying a violation of the Convention, and has done that not in a mandatory fashion, in contrast to the judgment in the Assanidze case. Moreover, it is also significant that the Court made clear that in cases such as the present involving arbitrary detention, the only appropriate remedy is the release of the detained person: �[B]y its very nature, the violation found in the instant case does not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it� (para 202, end).
Acess the full text decision of the Court's judgment on its website here.
Evidence of Force Unnecessary to Prove Rape in Important Win Against Bulgaria
On 4 December 2003, the European Court of Human Rights found Bulgaria to have violated the European Convention for Human Rights in the case of MC v Bulgaria italic">in which INTERIGHTS had made a third party intervention in support of the applicant�s position. The case concerns the criminal investigation of the rape of the 14-year-old MC. The investigation found insufficient evidence that MC had been compelled to have sex with the two alleged perpetrators, and subsequently the proceedings were terminated as the use of force or threats had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, no resistance on the applicant�s part or attempts to seek help from others had been established.
MC complained before the European Court of Human Rights that Bulgarian law and practice do not provide effective protection against rape and sexual abuse, as only cases where the victim resists actively are prosecuted. She submitted that Bulgaria has a positive obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the individual�s physical integrity and private life and to provide an effective remedy. She also complained that the authorities had not effectively investigated the events in question.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life). The Court held that under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Member States had a positive obligation both to enact criminal legislation to effectively punish rape and to apply this legislation through effective investigation and prosecution. In particular, the positive obligation requires the penalisation and effective prosecution of any non-consensual sexual act, even where the victim had not resisted physically.
In its judgment, the Court observed that, historically, proof of the use of physical force by the perpetrator and physical resistance on the part of the victim was sometimes required under domestic law and practice in rape cases in a number of countries. However, it appeared that this was no longer required in European countries. Based on the amicus curiae submissions by INTERIGHTS, the Court observed that in common-law jurisdictions, in Europe and elsewhere, any reference to physical force had been removed from legislation and/or case law. Although in the case law and theory of most European countries influenced by the continental legal tradition, the definition of rape contained references to the use of violence or threats of violence by the perpetrator, it was lack of consent, not force, that was critical in defining rape.
The Court also noted that the Member States of the Council of Europe had agreed that penalising non-consensual sexual acts, whether or not the victim had resisted, was necessary for the effective protection of women against violence and had urged the implementation of further reforms in this area. In addition, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had recently found that, in international criminal law, any sexual penetration without the victim�s consent constituted rape, reflecting a universal trend towards regarding lack of consent as the essential element of rape and sexual abuse. As INTERIGHTS had submitted, victims of sexual abuse � in particular, girls below the age of majority � often failed to resist for a variety of psychological reasons or through fear of further violence from the perpetrator. In general, law and legal practice concerning rape are developing to reflect changing social attitudes requiring respect for the individual�s sexual autonomy and for equality. Given contemporary standards and trends, Member States� positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention requires the penalisation and effective prosecution of any non-consensual sexual act, even where the victim had not resisted physically.
The Court considered that the Bulgarian authorities should have explored all the facts and should have decided on the basis of an assessment of all the surrounding circumstances. The investigation and its conclusions should also have been centred on the issue of non-consent. The Court found that the effectiveness of the investigation of the applicant�s case and, in particular, the approach taken by the investigator and the prosecutors fell short of Bulgaria�s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention � viewed in the light of the relevant modern standards in comparative and international law � to establish and apply effectively a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse.
Read the full text of the Court�s judgment here, its press release and INTERIGHTS' 'friend of the court' submission here.
Significant Judgment against Russia on Wrongful Mental Health Detention
In its judgment issued on 28 October 2003 in the case of Rakevich v Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights declared that the Russian Federation had violated the rights of a Ms Rakevich, whom it had alleged to be mentally disabled. Ms Tamara Rakevich claimed that she was arbitrarily and unlawfully detained in a psychiatric hospital and that there was a lack of a timely and adequate judicial review of her case. The Court ruled that Ms Rakevich had been detained in violation of the procedure prescribed by Russian law, in that the judicial decision approving her confinement was delivered 39 days after she was detained, instead of the required five-day period. The Court found a violation of Article 5 (1) of the European Convention for Human Rights in this respect. The Court also held that the lack of a right to independently challenge the lawfulness of the psychiatric detention violates Article 5 (4) of the European Convention.
This judgment is expected to lead to changes in the Russian law on psychiatric treatment, introducing the right for people that have been detained for psychiatric treatment to test the lawfulness of their detention. It will also hopefully trigger a change in the practice of delayed judicial reviews in such cases.
However, Ms Rakevich did not succeed in convincing the Court that there was no emergency to detain her, and that she had not been shown to be of unsound mind by objective medical evidence existing at the time of the detention. The Court held that although Ms Rakevich had no history of mental disorder, and that her state on the verge of her detention alone could not justify her detention in a psychiatric facility, the psychiatric reports issued after she was detained confirmed that her mental condition presented an �emergency�. Further, the Court held that Ms Rakevich�s detention was not arbitrary as the authorities� decision was based on psychiatric evidence that she was mentally ill.
The Court�s conclusion is debatable in light of the facts of the case. Ms Rakevich was detained by the emergency ambulance team and was brought to the psychiatric hospital because she had not slept the night before, and instead had been reading the Bible and weeping. It was on the basis of these inconsequential facts that Ms Rakevich was deprived of her liberty. The subsequent actions of the authorities, including the medical reports issued, were aimed at justifying the initial detention. The Court�s conclusion on this point allows for too broad a discretion on behalf of the national authorities when assessing what constitutes psychiatric �emergency� and �a person of unsound mind�. The Court�s judgment in this respect is disappointing, especially in the context of the Russian psychiatric practices which still contain remnants from the Soviet past when psychiatry was used as a political tool and detention was the rule rather than the exception.
Further, the Court decided not to examine several additional important aspects of the complaint under Article 5(4). Ms Rakevich had argued that the proceedings in her case were not speedy and lacked essential elements of a fair and transparent procedure, namely that the applicant and her representatives were denied access to the medical � and possibly other � documentation that served as a basis of her involuntary hospitalisation, that crucial witnesses were not heard and that the review of the courts was superficial to the extreme.
The Facts
On 26 September 1999, Ms Rakevich was involuntarily hospitalised in Yekaterinburg City Psychiatric Hospital in Russia. She had been brought to the hospital by an emergency ambulance team responding to a call from Ms Rakevich�s acquaintance, who claimed that Ms Rakevich, �had remained awake throughout the night studying the Bible and weeping�. Ms Rakevich was diagnosed as having a grave mental disorder that manifested itself in her being a danger to herself. She had no history of mental illness. Two days later she was diagnosed by the medical commission of the hospital as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was said to be in need of compulsory treatment at the hospital.
After 39 days of confinement, the District Court confirmed that the detention had been necessary as the applicant had suffered from an acute attack of paranoid schizophrenia. In its findings, the Court relied exclusively on assertions by the hospital that the applicant�s aggravated mental condition had put her physical integrity in danger. Despite requests, the applicant�s representative did not have any access to the report of the medical commission either before or after the hearing. On 24 December 1999, the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed Ms Rakevich's appeal against the decision of the District Court, confirming the lawfulness of her detention. It also established, however, that the applicant�s compulsory care was no longer necessary as the applicant �had a job, was a single mother of a schoolboy, and had already spent a considerable period of time in the hospital�. Ms Rakevich was released.
Read the full text of the European Court�s judgment here.
European Court Declares Shamayev & 12 Others v Georgia & Russia Admissible:
Russia Refuses Fact-Finding Mission
INTERIGHTS acted as adviser to counsel in the case of Shamayev and 12 Others v Georgia and Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. The case concerns the summary extradition of a group of Russian citizens of Chechen origin from Georgia to Russia where they are accused of terrorism and other related crimes. The applicants complain that the extradition to Russia exposes them to a risk of violation of their rights to life, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, and fair trial. There were no effective remedies in respect of these violations. They also claim that their detention in Georgia was unlawful, and that they were not notified of the charges against them, and that there was no judicial review of the detention. After a hearing on 16 September 2003, the European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) declared the application admissible. The Court also decided to conduct a fact-finding mission in Georgia and Russia with a view to taking evidence from the applicants and witnesses.
Click here for the press release about the admissibility hearing and here to read the Court's admissibility decision (available in French only).
As of 20 October 2003, the Government of the Russian Federation has refused to give the fact-finding mission access to five of the extradited applicants. Read the latest developments here in a press release from the ECtHR. At present, INTERIGHTS is advising the counsel for Shamayev and the other applicantsin their final observations before the ECtHR.
BACK TO TOP
TRAINING: BUILDING CAPACITY
Serbian and Montenegro Lawyers Training on European Convention on Human Rights
From 28 March to 1 April 2006, INTERIGHTS in co-operation with Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC) and the Serbian Helsinki Committee of Human Rights (HCHRS) held the second session of its training programme on the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) for lawyers from Serbia and Montenegro in Palic, Serbia. This session of the training focused on the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial under the Convention.
With respect to the right to liberty and security, Jeremy McBride (INTERIGHTS) made a presentation on the standards applicable under the Convention. Dragan Plazinic, investigative judge of the District Court of Belgrade, reviewed the compatibility of Serbian law and practice with the Convention.
On the right to a fair trial, Grégory Thuan, lawyer at Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, discussed the Convention standards. Dusan Ignjatovic, attorney-at-law in Belgrade, followed with a discussion of the compatibility of Serbian law and practice with the Convention.
 |
Trainers including Jeremy McBride (centre) during the moot court session |
A three-day Moot Court workshop at the end of the session allowed participants to apply their knowledge and skills in practice by preparing a draft application to the European Court of Human Rights and drafting a reply on behalf of the respondent government.
The training programme is funded by the Royal Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MATRA), Open Society Institute (Budapest) and supported by the Council of Europe .
If you would like to find more about the session or inquire about the future events, please contact INTERIGHTS’ Central and Eastern European Programme Training Co-ordinator Jolanta Samuolyte at jsamuolyte@interights.org
European Convention on Human Rights Training for Lawyers from Serbia and Montenegro
INTERIGHTS, with partners the Netherlands Helsinki Committee and the Serbian Helsinki Committee, delivered the first session of the Training Programme on the European Convention of Human Rights for Lawyers from Serbia and Montenegro from 18 to 22 January 2006. INTERIGHTS CEE Legal Officer Vesselina Vandova attended as an international expert and gave a presentation on the admissibility criteria for applications submitted to the Court. Other international experts were Yonko Grozev (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) and Elica Grdinic (lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights).
The Training Programme consists of four training sessions which will each be devoted to a different Convention right. The final fifth session will be a week-long moot court exercise.
 |
International experts conducting the first session |
This first workshop focused on the interpretation and application of Convention standards and case law on the right to life and the right to be free from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Local experts Ruzica Zarevac (Belgrade Centre for Human Rights) and Igor Oljuic (Private Attorney) discussed compatibility of Serbian law and practice with the Convention. Throughout the training, the participants were engaged in practical exercises applying the acquired knowledge
The project is funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
If you would like to find out more about the session or inquire about future events, please contact INTERIGHTS’ CEE Training Coordinator Jolanta Samuolyte at jsamuolyte@interights.org
Litigation Workshop on Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights under the European Convention
INTERIGHTS and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee organised a follow-up litigation workshop in February 2006 in Soesterberg, the Netherlands for alumni of their successful programme of Practical Training on Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights for lawyers which ended in 2005. Two INTERIGHTS lawyers attended the session as moderators and experts.
The workshop focused on cases concerning equality rights and the rights of individuals belonging to minorities, in particular current cases before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There were 16 participants in total at the workshop, including lawyers from Russia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Slovakia.
If you would like to find out more about the session or inquire about future events, please contact CEE Legal Officer Kevin Kitching at: kkitching@interights.org
 |
Participants at INTERIGHTS' Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights litigation workshop |
Non-Discrimination Provisions of the European Convention in Chechen Cases
This training organised by the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative in November brought together a group of Chechen and Russian lawyers working on important cases in difficult circumstances to discuss the ways in which Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to non-discrimination) can more effectively be argued in Chechen cases before the European Court of Human Rights. An INTERIGHTS lawyer acted as expert at the event in Moscow , which was attended by 15 participants, mainly working on cases in Chechnya.
Training on the European Convention for Lawyers from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
This programme was developed in cooperation with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, Open Society Justice Initiative and Georgian, Armenian and Azeri NGOs (Union Article 42 of the Constitution, Georgia; Bar Association of Republic of Armenia; Legal Education Society, Azerbaijan) with active support from the national Open Society Foundations.
The main aim of the programme is to enhance the practical knowledge and skills of practising human rights lawyers in applying the European Convention in domestic and international public interest litigation, as well as to enhance the capacity of NGOs to run comprehensive training projects on the application of the European Convention and the other international human rights instruments.
A comprehensive training programme of five sessions was held in Georgia in the period 2002–03 for 20 selected practising advocates. In July 2004 INTERIGHTS held a follow-up litigation meeting in Tbilisi with the same participants, and staff attorneys of the local partner, Union Article 42 of the Constitution. The facilitators discussed the participants' cases with them, specific questions on compatibility of Georgian law and practice to the European Convention standards, and strategies for addressing these incompatibilities through litigation before the domestic and international courts.
A similar multi-session programme was held in 2003–04 in Armenia. INTERIGHTS' CEE/fSU and Equality legal officers moderated the sessions and participated as experts. As a result of the training project, the local partner – Bar Association of Republic of Armenia (BARA) – will seek to develop a strategic litigation programme involving the lawyers trained at the programme.
 |
| Participants at the Armenian training session for human rights lawyers held between 29 September and 4 October 2004 |
Counsel for the applicant in the hearing of the moot court case |
From left: Artur Grigoryan (Armenian lawyer), Grigory Dikov (lawyer of the Registry of the European Court) and Anna Hakobyan (BARA). |
The programme in Azerbaijan is currently underway. The first two sessions, devoted to the rights to life, freedom from torture, liberty and security and fair trial, were held in July and in October 2004.
Each programme consists of five sessions. Each of the first four sessions focuses on a cluster of rights under the European Convention and combines experts' analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the ways in which domestic law and judicial practice complies with the European Court's standards, and practical exercises based on hypothetical cases. The fifth session consists of a seven-day intensive litigation workshop on hypothetical cases before the European Court of Human Rights. This model of training has been received well by the participants and appreciated as a highly effective method of learning for practising lawyers. The programme has created and tested a model for training on the European Convention with the aim of replicating it in other countries. Click here for latest news from the Equality Programme.
Human Rights Training and Information Provision for Lawyers in Late 2003
Through providing training programmes in conjunction with partner organisations, INTERIGHTS works to equip lawyers in Central and Eastern Europe with the skills to respond to local practical needs in a structured and sustainable manner that will eventually lessen the need for direct involvement from outside bodies. The training programmes are structured in a way that replicates, as near as, possible, actual international litigation procedures. Local lawyers are provided with access to international case law as well as specialised works on concrete topics that are published in the respective local languages. Each training programme differs in accordance with the constituency and jurisdiction involved as well as the nature of the partnership between INTERIGHTS and the national partner organisations. Thus far, training programmes have been conducted for lawyers from the Caucasus, Ukraine and Russia.
Activities conducted by INTERIGHTS in the field of human rights training have included:
European Convention of Human Rights Training for Armenian Lawyers
On 17�21 October INTERIGHTS, jointly with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee and BARA, a Yerevan human rights NGO, conducted the first session of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) Training for Armenian Lawyers. This project is funded by the Dutch Foreign Ministry and by the Open Society Justice Initiative (Budapest). The session was devoted to Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention.
Harvard Training
On 8-9 November, INTERIGHTS legal officers gave a workshop on the ECHR to students of Harvard Law School. Following a brief introduction to the Convention, the Court and its procedures, the programme centred on consideration of a hypothetical case. Students worked in two groups representatives of the applicant and of the respondent government.
Practical Training on Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights
On 24 November � 6 December, INTERIGHTS conducted the second session of this training for practising lawyers and judges from Central and Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. The training is organised jointly by INTERIGHTS and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. The goal of the training is to equip the participants with knowledge of how to use the international instruments on non-discrimination in their daily practices. The training began with an overview of the international law on minority rights, and continued with basic concepts of international non-discrimination law. Next, particular rights � the right to privacy, right to property, freedom of religion of association, social, economic and cultural rights, etc. � were examined from a non-discrimination perspective. Then, a presentation of the available procedures for remedy of violations of these rights was analysed and compared. The second week of the training consisted of a litigation workshop on two hypothetical cases before the European Court of Human Rights.
The CEE Programme will conduct seven trainings in the Caucasus region on ECHR articles and procedure during 2004.
ECHR Training for Ukrainian Lawyers
INTERIGHTS and the Union of Advocates are working on a publication which will contain a complete set of materials based on the lectures given on the course plus related case law and recent materials from European Court. The publication will appear in Ukrainian, Russian and English.
Book in Russian on International Legal Protection Against Torture
The Nizhny Novgorod Committee Against Torture will produce a book, based on an analysis of the ECHR standards in the area of protection against torture and ill-treatment, developed by INTERIGHTS. The analysis of the ECHR standards relating to freedom from torture and ill-treatment will be followed by an assessment of the (in)compatibility of Russian law and practice in this field with the requirements of the ECHR. The draft text was offered to human rights activists during training workshops run by the Centre and to participants of a conference, in Autumn 2003, in order to evaluate its educational impact and make necessary modifications.
Human Rights Training and Information Provision for Lawyers during early 2003
Activities conducted by INTERIGHTS in the field of human rights training have included:
- Participation in a human rights school organised by the Polish Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw for lawyers and leaders of NGOs from all former Soviet Union countries held in March 2003;
- Moderation of a pilot workshop in Baku on the right to fair trial under the European Convention for Human Rights held in February 2003;
- A litigation surgery meeting held in Kiev in March 2003, which gave those who participated in the 2001-2002 training session in the Ukraine the opportunity to discuss their cases and raise any questions they had on the compatibility of Ukrainian law and practice with European standards;
- Conclusion of the training programme for Georgian human rights lawyers on the European Convention for Human Rights, held April 2002 - April 2003 in Georgia.
BACK TO TOP
OTHER PROJECTS
Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR entered into force on 1 April 2005. Eleven states have now ratified the Protocol including (in the CEE region) Albania, Armenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Serbia and Macedonia. Only ten ratifications were required for entry into force.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of 'any right set forth by law'. The Explanatory Report to the Protocol makes clear that it is intended to broaden the field of application of Article 14 beyond the rights included in the ECHR to cover cases where a person is discriminated against: In the enjoyment of any right specifically granted to an individual under national law; In the enjoyment of a right which may be inferred from a clear obligation of a public authority under national law, that is, where a public authority is under an obligation under national law to behave in a particular manner; By a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power
(for example, granting certain subsidies); By any other act or omission by a public authority (for example, the behaviour of law enforcement officers when controlling a riot).
For further information, please click here to access the Council of Europe website.
INTERIGHTS facilitated a three-year project (2002–05) with the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Committee to establish and maintain a rehabilitation centre for victims of torture. The main aim of the Centre is to provide professional assistance to victims of torture by processing complaints and providing appropriate legal, medical and psychological aid.
INTERIGHTS was closely involved in the Centre's provision of remedies for victims of torture using national and international mechanisms of protection.
Our project activities were supported by the Human Rights Project Fund of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- In 2004, the Centre registered 55 claims from victims of alleged torture and ill treatment in law enforcement bodies. INTERIGHTS provided the Centre with consultations on using international mechanisms to protect particular victims, and assisted in drafting texts of complaints and petitions. With INTERIGHTS' support, the Centre's international law expert submitted a request to the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) for priority consideration of the complaint of Alexei Mikheev, one of its clients.
- The Centre received a number of claims from users of the website http://www.pytki.ru/ The Russian language website contains advice for victims of torture, information on initiatives to combat torture in the Russian Federation and internationally, NGO research and reports on the issue, and articles from the mass media. The project team developed an electronic database on torture cases, to be accessible to users via the Internet.
- Based on an analytical framework on the ECtHR's standards in the area of protection against torture and ill-treatment, developed by INTERIGHTS for the purpose of assessing the (in)compatibility of Russian law and practice in this field with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the partners produced a book, which explains in detail the standards of the ECHR, and how these are, or are not, implemented domestically. The book was offered to human rights activists during training workshops run by the Centre in order to evaluate its educational impact and make necessary modifications.
Access to Justice in Central and Eastern Europe (top)
This is an NGO initiative on legal aid relating to the EU applicant countries from Central and Eastern Europe, and was set up by INTERIGHTS, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Public Interest Law Initiative in Transitional Societies (PILI), with the active support of the Constitutional and Legal Policy Institute (COLPI).
The project carried out the following:
- Two pilot country-specific projects for improving in practice the legal aid systems in two countries of the region, Poland and Bulgaria. They involved the design and conduct of practical surveys, the preparation of National Legal Aid Reports and the convening of National Legal Aid Forums to examine the real situation and proposals for reform;
- Creating interfaces, at the national and international level, between NGOs, legal professionals, experts and governments in order to facilitate reform efforts for improving legal aid provision. This was largely realised through the use of regional forums, which gathered independent and government experts, and representatives of NGOS from selected countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The forums aimed to transfer experience and acquired skills on work on access to legal aid in Poland and Bulgaria to the other states from Central and Eastern Europe. The regional forums were held in Bulgaria (April 2002), Poland (June 2002) and Hungary (December 2002).
- Set out to facilitate the exchange of information about new legal aid developments in the region by the use of the Internet and the Access to Justice Web Forum.
The Access to Justice Web Forum is an electronic meeting place offering several distinct features for public interest lawyers, scholars and activists from around the world. It consists of two components:
- a resource bank, which serves as a virtual, decentralised archive where materials can be freely posted and retrieved. In this respect, the forum functions as a research tool with which users can locate otherwise difficult to find information on access to justice issues. The section contains articles, studies, documents of international bodies, judicial decisions, information about current and upcoming events and other materials concerning access to justice; and
- an online discussion group where members can freely participate and exchange information about new developments, and consult each other regarding issues relating to legal aid and other aspects of access to justice.
The Access to Justice Forum is free. Registered participants can post materials, participate in a discussion or start a discussion thread themselves.
To enter the Access to Justice Forum, please go to: www.pili.org/access
BACK TO TOP
|
