Turkey, Azerbaijan, Greece and North Macedonia at the heart of EIN civil society briefing

 On 22nd November 2019, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1362nd CM-DH meeting. Over 40 participants attended the briefing, including participants from 29 Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the EU representation to the Council of Europe, the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and other CoE staff members.

Presentations were given on the following cases:

·        CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP, ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v TURKEY (32093/10, 62649/10, 1448/04),

·        RASUL JAFAROV V AZERBAIJAN and ALIYEV V AZERBAIJAN (Applications No 69981/14 and No 68762/14), parts of ILGAR MAMMADOV GROUP V AZERBAIJAN (Application No 15172/13)

·        SAKIR GROUP v GREECE (48475/09), about ineffective investigations into alleged hate crimes, and HOUSE of MACEDONIAN CIVILIZATION AND OTHERS v GREECE (1295/10),

·        EL-MASRI v NORTH MACEDONIA (39630/09).

The main recommendations on the cases are available here.

CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP, ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v TURKEY (32093/10, 62649/10, 1448/04),

By Dr Mine Yildirim, Head of Freedom of Belief Initiative, Norwegian Helsinki Committee

These cases concern structural and administrative problems leading to various differences in treatment between followers of the Alevi faith and adherents to the majority branch of Islam in Turkey. The case was presented by Dr Mine Yildirim, Head of Freedom of Belief Initiative, Norwegian Helsinki Committee. Her presentation was based on the Rule 9.2 submission by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee of March and November 2019.  

Links:

Action Plan by the Turkish authorities of October 2019

Rule 9.2 submission by NHC May and November 2019

Power point by Mine Yildirim, 22/11/2019

RASUL JAFAROV V AZERBAIJAN and ALIYEV V AZERBAIJAN (Applications No 69981/14 and No 68762/14), parts of ILGAR MAMMADOV GROUP V AZERBAIJAN (Application No 15172/13), 

By Ramute Remezaite, Legal Consultant, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, School of Law, Middlesex University

In her presentation, Ramute Remezaite presented the current situation of human rights defenders Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev. She formulated recommendations as to invididual and general measures necessary to ensure the implementation of the cases. As for the general measures, she stressed the need for a favourable legal and political environment to be created, so as to enable human rights defenders to effectively and freely exercise a right to freedom of association and to operate without any hindrance. To that end, laws and practices relating to the status and registration of NGOs and NGO grants should be reformed.

Links:

Rule 9.1 submission by the applicant, September 2019 (Rasul Jafarov)

Rule 9.1 submission by the applicant, November 2019 (Intigam Aliyev)

Power point presentation and memo by Ramute Remezaite, 22/11/2019

SAKIR GROUP v GREECE (48475/09), and HOUSE of MACEDONIAN CIVILIZATION AND OTHERS v GREECE (1295/10),

by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor and EIN Board member

The first case concerns ineffective investigations into alleged hate crimes. Mr Dimitras called upon the CM to ask Greece to amend its anti-racism Law 927/79, so as to implement the recommendations of ECRI, UN HRCttee and UN CERD to criminalize racist insults and defamation, as well as the public dissemination, public distribution, production or storage of racist material.

The House of Macedonian Civilization case is about the non-registration by courts of an association, contrary to the Court’s 1998 judgment concerning the same association. On behalf of the House of Macedonian Civilization, Mr Dimitras urged the Committee of Ministers to join the House of Macedonian Civilization and the Bekir-Ousta group of cases.

Links:

Briefing text on the Sakir group, by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM)

Rule 9.1. and 9.2. on the Sakir group, by the Greek Helsinki Monitor (October 2019)

Briefing text on the House of Macedonian Civilization and others, by Panayote Dimitras

Rule 9.1 on the House of Macedonian Civilization and others, by the Greek Helsinki Monitor (October 2019)

EL-MASRI v NORTH MACEDONIA (39630/09),

by Ms Amrit Singh, Open Society Justice Initiative

The case concerns violations related to a ‘secret rendition’ operation by the CIA. On behalf of the Justice Initiative, Ms Singh appealed on to the CM to continue to keep this case under enhanced supervision and to call upon the North Macedonian authorities to conduct an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of individuals responsible for violating Mr. El-Masri’s rights.

Links:

Rule 9.2 submission by OSJI, May-June 2018

Submission of Ms Amrit Singh on the case, 22/11/2019

Pictures: EIN Secretariat

EIN civil society briefing ahead of the CM-DH meeting

On 6th September 2019, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1355th CM-DH meeting. Over 40 participants attended the briefing, including participants from the Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the EU representation to the Council of Europe, the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and other CoE staff members.

Presentations were given on the following cases:

GENDERDOC-M v Republic of Moldova (Application No 9106/06), on unjustified bans on Pride marches,

D.H. and others v the Czech Republic (Application No 57325/00), on discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicants’ right to education due to their assignment to special schools between 1996 and 1999, on account of their Roma origin,

McKerr group of cases v the UK (Application No 28883/95), on actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, with a focus on the Finucane case (Application No 29178/95),

Bekir Ousta and others v Greece (Application No 35151/05) on refusal to register or dissolution of the applicants' associations,

The main recommendations on the cases are available here.

GENDERDOC-M v Republic of Moldova (Application No 9106/06)

by Nigel Warner, member of ILGA Europe, and EIN Bureau member

The case concerns inter alia the violation of the applicant NGO’s right to peaceful assembly arising from the ban on holding a demonstration planned for May 2005 to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination (violation of Article 11); the discrimination against the applicant NGO on account of the difference in treatment between it and other NGOs which were allowed by the authorities to hold demonstrations in the same period of time, the authorities’ disapproval of the demonstrations which they considered to promote homosexuality, and the unclear reasons adduced by the authorities in rejecting the applicant’s request to hold a demonstration (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11).

In May 2019 participants in the Chisinau pride march were able, for the second year running, to take part in an authorised freedom of assembly event and complete the planned route. However, whilst this positive development is welcomed, it is also unclear as to whether it will last. Many of the country’s most senior politicians have adopted a firm public stance against Pride marches.

The Moldovan authorities Action Report of 27 June 2019 invited the Committee of Ministers to close the supervision of execution of this judgment. In July 2019, GENDERDOC-M and ILGA Europe submitted a joint communication, arguing that, in view of the uncertain political situation in the country, and notwithstanding the positive development referred to above, it would be premature to close supervision of this judgment.

The case was presented by Nigel Warner, member of ILGA Europe. His presentation was based on the Rule 9.2 submission of July 2019.

Links:

Action Report by the Moldovan authorities (27 June 2019)

Rule 9.2 submission by ILGA Europe and GENDERDOC-M (July 2019)

Power point by Nigel Warner, ILGA Europe (6/9/2019)

D.H. and others v the Czech Republic (Application No 57325/00)

by Štěpán Drahokoupil, OSF Prag, and Veronika Bazalová, Lawyer, Office of the Public Defender of Rights, Czech Republic

In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights decided that there was a systemic discrimination of Roma children in the Czech Republic. The Grand Chamber ruled that 18 Roma children had been sent to special schools and taught a reduced educational programme.

In December 2018, the Ministry of Education proposed changes to the Decree on Education of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. In her presentation, Ms Bazalová underlined that, should they be adopted, these changes would be problematic, as they would lead to:

1.      The decrease of the maximum number of pedagogical staff per classroom

2.      The establishment of special schools for pupils with various kinds of disabilities

In his presentation, Mr Drahokoupil outlined how reforms since the judgment had had a negligible effect on the numbers of Roma children being sent to special schools. In their recommendations, Mr Drahokoupil and Ms Bazalová therefore called on to the Committee of Ministers to monitor the implementation of the D. H. case until there is a drop in proportion of Roma educated in reduced programmes by 2,88 percent points in 5 consecutive years, starting by the school year 2018/2019.

Links:

Power Point presentation by Mr Štěpán Drahokoupil, OSF Prag, and Veronika Bazalová, Lawyer, Office of the Public Defender of Rights, Czech Republic (6/9/2019)

Rule 9.2 on the D.H. and others v the Czech Republic case, by OSF Prague (Nadace OSF), Amnesty International and Forum for Human Rights (August 2019)

McKerr group of cases v the UK (Application No 28883/95), with a focus on the Finucane case (Application No 29178/95),

by Daniel Holder, Deputy Director, Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ)

These cases concern investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion with those forces.

In his presentation, Daniel Holder focused on the Stormont House Agreement (SHA), calling for a clear timetable in relation to the implementation of the new legacy institutions under this agreement. With regard to the Finucane case, he underlined the urgent need for a fully independent Article 2 public inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder. Given the lack of a clear commitment from the UK in response to the UK Supreme Court ruling of February 2019 – which found that no Article 2 compliant investigation had taken place to date - Mr Holder called upon the Ministers’ Deputies to re-open examination of this individual measure.

Links:

Power Point presentation by Daniel Holder, CAJ (6/9/2019)

Rule 9.2. on the McKerr group of cases by CAJ (July 2019)

Bekir Ousta and others v Greece (Application No 35151/05)

by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor and EIN Board member

The Bekir-Ousta and others group of cases concerns Greece’s failure for some twelve years to execute the ECtHR judgments finding violations of the freedom of association of three ethnic Turkish associations. Mr Dimitras underlined that no progress had been made with regard to legislative measures to change the procedure for registration of these associations, in a way that would be consistent with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Panayote called for the relevant legislative changes to be made – failing which, the Committee of Ministers should issue an Interim Resolution in early 2020.

Links:

Briefing text by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM)

Rule 9.2. on the Bekir Ousta and others group of case v Greece, by GHM (July 2019)

Pictures: EIN Secretariat

Political activist Ilgar Mammadov comments on the ECtHR judgment on the infringement proceedings against Azerbaijan

On 29th May, EIN organised a briefing from Ilgar Mammadov to delegates from the Committee of Ministers, to comment on the ECtHR judgment in his case. The judgment from the Grand Chamber, which had been published a few hours before the briefing, was a strong rebuke to the government of Azerbaijan for the non-implementation of the Court’s earlier judgment. 

In his video presentation, Mr Mammadov welcomed the judgment. Highlighting paragraph 189 of the text, he stated that the judgment as a whole essentially called for his acquittal.. He asked delegates to issue a Decision calling for:

1) Concrete protections for his right to stand in Parliamentary and Presidential elections; and

2) Material compensation

Furthermore, in subsequent written remarks Mr Mammadov emphasised the need for the measures under the threat of the application of Article 8 of the Council of Europe’s Statute – which involves suspension of voting rights in the Committee of Ministers or expulsion from the Organisation.

Finally, Mr Mammadov emphasised the importance of time. Snap elections could happen this Autumn. Mr Mammadov therefore called on to the delegates to act now and require his immediate acquittal. You can watch the complete video below.

Useful links:

Rule 9.1 from the applicant (13 May 2019)

Press release from the ECtHR of 29 May 2019

Written remarks of Mr Mammadov 2 June 2019

Important cases from Azerbaijan and Romania at the heart of EIN advocacy briefing

 On 20th May 2019, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1348th CM-DH meeting. Over 40 participants attended the briefing, including participants from the Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the EU representation to the Council of Europe and other CoE staff members.

Presentations were given on five cases, including two cases of prominent human rights defenders from Azerbaijan, and two cases from Azerbaijan where the European Court found a series of violations relating to free and fair elections. You can download here the main recommendations submitted by the speakers on each case.

1)     Al-Nashiri v Romania (Application No 33234/12)

The case concerns violations of a number of Convention rights on account of the fact that the applicant was the victim of an “extraordinary rendition” operation. The European Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Romania hosted a CIA detention site code-named “Detention Site Black”, which operated from 22 September 2003 to 5 November 2005, and that the applicant was secretly detained there from 12 April 2004 to 6 October 2005, or, at the latest, to 5 November 2005. He was subjected to inhuman treatment, on account of an extremely harsh detention regime. He was subsequently transferred by the CIA out of Romania to another of its detention facilities.

The European Court of Human Rights held that this violated his fundamental rights, as did the failure to properly investigate. It was a landmark ruling.  

Amrit Singh from OSJI. Photo: EIN

In her presentation, Ms Amrit Singh, Counsel for Mr Al-Nashiri, and Director, Accountability, Liberty and Transparency Division at the Open Society Justice Initiative, sets out why the case is still not being properly implemented. First of all, this is because the events are still not being properly investigated. This is reflected by the Action Plan of the Romanian government: hardly any information is provided about investigations. Ms Singh added that the US commission tasked with investigating is not an independent body. Furthermore, there has still been no official recognition of the prisons by the Romanian government. In addition to the need to properly investigate, the Court’s judgment also required the Romanian government to seek assurances from the US government about the way Mr Al-Nashiri would be treated in the future. However, there is currently no evidence that the Romanian government is requesting assurances in a serious and effective way.

Ms Singh therefore called for the Committee of Ministers to:

·        Undertake specific measures to promptly conduct an effective criminal investigation into Romania’s role in the CIA extraordinary rendition and secret detention programme and the violation of Mr Al Nashiri’s rights, including but not limited to:

o   Disclosing the full terms of reference of the investigation to Mr Al Nashiri’s counsel as well as to the public;

o   Granting counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri unhindered access to the entire case file, including any updated communications on a regular basis;

o    Declassifying materials of the investigation to the fullest extent possible, especially with regard to any procedural decisions made by the prosecutor;

o   Disclosing to counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri the investigative actions undertaken together with the anticipated time frame for future actions.

·        With respect to the Committee of Minister’s March 2019 concerns about “amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at substantially reducing the limitation periods for a number of criminal offences, including torture,” keep the Committee of Minister apprised of developments relating to further judicial review of amendments to relevant statutes of limitations.

·        Seek reliable, specific, and binding diplomatic assurances from the U.S. authorities relating to the death penalty and flagrant denial of justice. An executive bilateral agreement between Romania and the United States would meet these requirements.

·        Disclose to Mr. Al Nashiri’s counsel all communications to and from the U.S. government in relation to the assurances relating to the death penalty as well as the flagrant denial of justice so that counsel can monitor the Romanian government’s compliance with the Court’s judgment.

·        Disclose to Mr. Al Nashiri’s counsel the steps the Romanian government plans to undertake in the near future to ensure that Mr. Al Nashiri is not subjected to the death penalty and to a flagrant denial of justice.

·        Disclose to defense counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri in U.S. military commission proceedings all communications to and from the U.S. government in relation to the assurances relating to the death penalty as well as the flagrant denial of justice. The requests for assurances will assist defense counsel in arguing against the death penalty and flagrant denials of justice.

·        Public disclosure of all communications to and from the U.S. government in relation to the assurances relating to the death penalty as well as the flagrant denial of justice.

·        Issue an official acknowledgement from the highest level of the Romanian government that Romania hosted a secret CIA prison over 2003-2005.

Links:

Action Plan from the Romanian authorities (April 2019)

Rule 9.2 Communication from OSJI (May 2019) on the Al-Nashiri v Romania (Application No 33234/12)

Rule 9.2 Communication from OSJI (September 2016) on the Al-Nashiri v Poland case (Application No 28761/11)

2)     Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan and Aliyev v Azerbaijan (Applications No 69981/14 and No 68762/14), parts of Ilgar Mammadov Group v Azerbaijan (Application No 15172/13)

The case of Rasul Jafarov concerns several violations (Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4, as well as Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5) suffered by the applicant, a human rights defender, which took place in the context of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of NGOs.

The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand on 2 August 2014. On 16 April 2015, the first-instance court sentenced him to six and a half years’ imprisonment and to deprivation of the right to hold official positions in state and local authorities, or to engage in entrepreneurial activity, for a period of three years.

The European Court found, in particular, that the arrest and detention on remand took place in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. It also found that the domestic courts had limited themselves in all their decisions to an automatic endorsement of the prosecution’s requests without having conducted a genuine review of the lawfulness of the detention (violations of Article 5 §§ 1and 4).

Intigam Aliyev was prosecuted for ‘illegal entrepreneurship’, ‘large-scale tax evasion’ and ‘aggravated abuse of power’ in August 2014. He was convicted and sentenced to 7 ½ years’ imprisonment in April 2015. The European Court found violations of Arts 3, 5(1), 5(4), 8, 18 in conjunction with Arts 5 & 8.

Phil Leach. Photo: EIN

Mr Jafarov and Aliyev themselves present their cases and why they are still pending implementation through video messages (see below).

Philip Leach, from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, outlines how the cases of both Mr Jafarov and Aliyev are examples of the Azerbaini government cracking down on human rights activities. He continues by explaining that the Court’s finding in the case of Mr Jafarov are extremely strong, as they stated that the criminal proceedings were designed to silence and punish him. It ordered substantial damages.

The question is what the Committee of Ministers should order as a result of a violation under Article 18. Philip Leach argues that the cases should be re-opened, given the strength of the Court’s findings in its judgment. Therefore, in the case of Mr Jafarov, the CM should specifically order for the damages to be paid in full, and for the criminal case to be re-opened. In the case of Mr Aliyev, Mr Leach sets out the judgment of the Court under Article 46, including the explicit requirement that measures should be taken to restore Mr Aliyev’s ability to carry out his professional activities.

He therefore calls for the following from the Committee of Ministers:

1)     Payment of just satisfaction

2)     Re-examination of criminal cases

3)     Return of all documents and equipment of his NGO

4)     Access to frozen bank accounts

5)     Lifting of travel ban

Finally, Mr Leach calls for general measures to be requested:

-        An action plan on these cases

-        Reform of law and practices on status of NGO and grants

-        Ensuring enabling environment for human rights defenders

-        End all harassment of human rights defenders

-        Run investigations into such harassment

Links:

Rule 9.1. from the applicant on the Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan case

Power point presentation by Philip Leach

3)     Namat Aliyev v Azerbaijan and Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Applications No 18705/06 and 47145/14), individual cases on human rights defenders, parts of the Namat Aliyev group v Azerbaijan

These cases concern various violations of the right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) of the applicants (members of the opposition parties or independent candidates) in the context of the parliamentary elections of 2005 and 2010.

Tural Aghayev. Photo: EIN

Tural Aghayev, lawyer at the Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre from Azerbaijan, informs the delegates that, whilst payment of just satisfaction has been made in the Namat Aliyev case, Mr Mammadli still has not received any payment so far. Mr Mammadli would, in addition, still suffer restrictions to certain rights and freedoms. In particular, Mr Mammadli is still not permitted to stand in elections. Mr Aghayev therefore calls for the payment of just satisfaction and for these restrictions to be lifted. 

On the general measures, Mr Aghayev underlines in particular three remaining problems related to: the composition of the election commissions, the registration of candidates and the expert groups reviewing the complaints. He sets out the ongoing problems with free and fair elections in Azerbaijan and puts forward various recommendations to overcome them.

Links:

Latest communication from the authorities on the Namat Aliyev case (Feb. 2018)

Communication from NGO “EMDS (Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre)” (23/04/2019) in  the case of MAMMADLI (Ilgar Mammadov group) v. Azerbaijan

Power point by Tural Agayev

Representatives of EIN member Promo-LEX visit Strasbourg to raise awareness of important cases

Photo: EIN

On 5 and 6 March, a delegation of one of EIN’s newest members, the Moldovan organisation Promo-LEX, paid a visit to EIN in Strasbourg, where they held a number of meetings with Council of Europe interlocutors. The delegation was headed by Promo-LEX’s Executive Director, Ion Manole, and its Director of the Human Rights Program, Alexandru Postica, who were accompanied by Maria Roibu, Director of Alexandru cel Bun Lyceum, a school in the Transdniestrian region.

Promo-LEX, which was established as an association in 2002, is a non-governmental organisation that aims to advance democracy in the Republic of Moldova, including in the Transdniestrian region, by promoting and defending human rights, monitoring the democratic processes, and strengthening civil society.

The purpose of Promo-LEX’s working visit to Strasbourg was to raise awareness, ahead of this week’s 1340th DH meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, of several important judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which are still awaiting full implementation: the Catan and others v Russia case, on access to education in Transdniestria, the Mozer v Russia case on inhuman conditions of detention in Transdniestria  and the PROMO LEX and Others v the Republic of Moldova case on freedom of assembly.

The EIN Secretariat facilitated a series of meetings for the Promo-LEX delegation with lawyers from the Council of Europe’s Department for Execution of Judgments (DEJ) dealing with their cases. Ms Roibu and Messrs Manole and Postica also had the opportunity to exchange views with staff from the Human Rights Commissioner’s Office, the secretariat of the Committee for Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly, and the EU representation to the Council of Europe.

Photo: EIN

On the second day of their visit, Promo-LEX briefed representatives of 18 delegations from Council of Europe member States about the continued failure of the Russian government to implement the judgment in the Catan case against the Russian Federation. 6.5 years after the ruling was handed down, the victims have still not received compensation, and no general reforms have been adopted. As a result, hundreds of schoolchildren in Transdniestria are still denied proper education in Latin-script schools. Ion Manole explains the situation in the video below. You can find further details here. Promo-LEX’s latest Rule 9.2 submission on the Catan case is available here.

EIN held its first 2019 advocacy briefing

On 25th February 2019, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1340th CM-DH meeting.

Presentations were given on the following cases:

1.      Oya Ataman group v Turkey (Application Nr 74552/01)

2.      Fedorchenko and Lozenko group v Ukraine (Application Nr 387/03)

3.      P. and S. v Poland (Application No 57375/08)

In addition, EIN Co-Director George Stafford gave, on behalf of EIN and REDRESS, an overview of the fundamental problems regarding ineffective investigations in Article 2 and 3 cases, in preparation for the CM thematic debate of 12th March.

Over 30 participants attended the briefing, including participants from the Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the EU representation to the Council of Europe and other CoE staff members. The briefing was co-financed by the UK Permanent Representation to the Council of Europe and organised with the support of the Irish Permanent Representation.

1- Oya Ataman group v Turkey (Application Nr 74552/01)

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or their ill-treatment or the death of their relatives when excessive force was used to disperse peaceful demonstrations. Certain cases also concern failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment or lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 2, 3, 11 and 13 of the Convention). In its decision of March 2018, the Committee of Ministers recalled that the origin of the problems stemmed from the legislation under which any demonstration carried out without prior notice was considered to be unlawful, and asked Turkey to fully align Law No 2911 with the Court’s jurisprudence. The Turkish government provided information on the state of implementation on 20 December 2017 and on 4 January 2019.

Photo: EIN

An update on the group was delivered by Basak Cali,  EIN Chair, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin; Center for Global Public Law, Koç University, Istanbul, on behalf of the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP). IHOP submitted a Rule 9.2 communication on the case on 4 February 2019.

First of all, she underlined that, since the last review of the state of implementation of the cases, Law N0 2911 had not been aligned with the Court’s jurisprudence. On the contrary, further restrictions on freedom of assembly were introduced through new legislative amendments, in particular to the Provincial Administration Law (No 5442).

Beyond these legislative developments, the practice shows the bans of assemblies of selected groups, the retaliatory use of tear gas, as well as civil and criminal law against peaceful protesters. Ms Cali gave examples related to the period after the end of the state of emergency in the country (18/7/2018): the Saturday mothers, continuous ban on gay pride and LGTBI events, despite existence of lawful requests to hold them, the case of Yüksel Resistance (see for further details the full text of the IHOP Rule 9.2 submission available below).

As far as the judicial practice is concerned, Ms Cali also pointed out that none of the judicial organs in Turkey was able to amend ordinary law through individual cases. “The root of the problem clearly lies in the lack of adequate legal framework, and arbitrary nature of the existing legal framework”, she said.

In conclusion, Ms Cali therefore called the Committee of Ministers to:

• take note of the lack of progress in full alignment of Law 2911 with Convention standards in the past twelve years.

• take note of the amendments to law 5442 and its use in supplementing the existing non compliant domestic legal framework, including the use of misdemeanour laws to punish peaceful assembly.

• request disaggregated statistical data from the Government to establish whether peaceful assemblies and gatherings are protected under all circumstances and without selective and arbitrary use of laws for assemblies and gatherings unfavourable to the executive authorities.

The presentation of Ms Cali on this group of cases is available here. The latest communication from the Turkish government ( 8  January 2019) is here. You can also download the Rule 9.2. submission by IHOP ( 24th January 2019) and the government answer (1st February 2019) to this communication here.

2-     Fedorchenko and Lozenko group v Ukraine (Application Nr 387/03)

These cases concern the failure to carry out effective investigations into violent acts allegedly carried out on racial/ethnic grounds (violation of the procedural limb of Articles 2 or 3) and to investigate a possible causal link between alleged racist attitudes and the attacks (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 or 3 in respect of its procedural limb). In Fedorchenko and Lozenko, the authorities failed to investigate the deaths of the applicants’ Romani-origin relatives caused by an arson attack on their house in October 2001.

The authorities submitted a first action plan on 17 September 2013 (see DH-DD (2013)1012) for Fedorchenko and Lozenko case. An updated action plan was published on 4th January 2019.

On 1st February, the European Roma Rights Centre and ICO Roma Fund Chiricli made a submission on this case, which they presented at the briefing.

Based on their fact-finding, both organisations argued that the Ukrainian government had not taken the necessary general measures to comply with the judgment. Throughout 2018, attacks occurred in Ukraine which targeted Romani communities in at least 5 cases. They appeared to be carried out by organised racist groups, and were not isolated. However, none of them were being treated as hate crimes.  In other words, none of the mechanisms the Ukrainian Government described in its updated Action plan were being deployed in these cases, which bear all the hallmarks of racially-motivated violence.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

In view of this situation, the representatives of ICO Roma Fund Chiricli and the European Roma Rights Centre therefore invited the CM to ask the Ukrainian authorities to:

• amend Article 161 § 2 of the Criminal Code

• regularly report to the Committee of Ministers on current hate crime cases (including the five presented at the briefing)

• ensure effective training of law enforcement

• set up an oversight structure for dealing with hate crimes

• strengthen mechanisms for complaints against police

• report to the Committee of Ministers on the budgets and financing for related aspects of Roma Integration Strategy 2020

The power point presentation of Mr Weiss, Ms Kondur and Ms Brassoi is available here. The January 2019 Action Plan by the Ukrainian Government is available here. The February 2019 Rule 9.2 submission by ERRC/ Chiricli made in February, and the answer by the Government, is available here.

3-     P. and S. v Poland (Application No 57375/08)

The 2012 judgment in the case of P. and S. v. Poland (application no. 57375/08) is one of three important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning access to legal abortion in Poland. In all three cases, the ECtHR ruled that the rights of the applicants were violated because of the practical difficulties they experienced in exercising their right to legal abortion. To fully implement these judgments, the Court stated that the national authorities must take steps to guarantee not only theoretical but also practical access to abortion.

View fullsize

View fullsize

An update on the case was delivered by Katrine Thomasen, Senior Legal Adviser for Europe at the Centre for Reproductive Rights, and Kamila Ferenc, lawyer at the Federation for Women and Family Planning in Poland.

They underlined that the authorities’ communications dated January 2019 had not provided information on any measures towards establishing such a “viable system” for effective access to legal abortion care and thus comply with the Court’s judgment and the Committee of Ministers’ decision of September 2018 on the case. The authorities continued to claim that existing legal provisions and mechanisms are adequate. However, as Ms Thomasen highlighted, according to official statistics only between 0 and 3 legal abortions are performed each year in Poland on grounds of a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault. In addition, conscience-based refusals of abortion care remain widespread.

In light of this situation, Ms Thomasen and Ms Ferenc invited the Committee of Ministers to ask the Polish authorities to:

• guarantee timely referral in situations of conscience-based refusals of legal abortion care

• rigorously enforce legal provisions on abortion and refusals of care, including through sanctions and disciplinary measures

• adopt urgent procedural mechanism: decision within max. 3 days; the right of judicial appeal; enforceable orders mandating the care to be provided

• monitor and enforce National Health Fund contracts

You can find the memo of Ms Thomasen and Ms Ferenc here. Their power point presentation is here and their Rule 9.2 communication is there. The more recent communication from the Polish authorities on this case is here.

Photo credit: EIN