EIN Webinar: Enhancing NHRIs’ Capacity for Effective implementation through Writing effective Rule 9 Submissions

EIN closed the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) webinar series focusing on effective implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, with the final instalment on writing effective Rule 9 Submissions for NHRIs.

The previous webinars took place on the 10th, 17th of September and the 8th of October, and have covered: the scale of the non-implementation challenge and the need for greater involvement by NHRIs, the basics of the Committee of Ministers execution process and what are the important elements to keep in mind when engaging into it, what advocacy avenues might be available to NHRIs to work on ECtHR judgment implementation at a domestic level, and how they can hold governments to account about their overall record on implementation.

These series of webinars were co-organised with the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRIs) and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe. 

Participants selected for this webinar received detailed training about how to draft effective Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers. Participants also learned about the main elements of efficient Rule 9s and the challenges of drafting Rule 9s, as illustrated by a case example as a practical guide.

Participants were invited to watch, ahead of our session, the video by Head of Division Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, from the Department for Execution of Judgments, which provides some useful tips on submitting and drafting communication under rule 9 of the Committee of Ministers. Nikolaos Sitaropoulos advises that communications submitted should be well constructed, should be clear and concise, and should be a maximum of 5-10 pages and be timely.

See video for all tips provided by Nikolaos Sitaropoulos

The webinar opened with remarks by EIN Director George Stafford on the main elements of efficient Rule 9s, followed by an open discussion on problems encountered by participants when working on draft Rule 9s. 

The discussion focused on some of the main problems with Rule 9.2, which include poor timing, lack of evidence for claims being made, problems with the structure and an absence of clear recommendations. The discussion also covered the impact of Rule 9.2 submissions The representative from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights gave an example with the Corallo case, which was classified under the enhanced procedure following a Rule 9 by the Institute and is still being monitored.

Tamar Abazadze and Lara Jamarauli, representatives from the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia, provided a case example of the Tsintsabadze case to showcase effective rule 9 submissions; focusing on how to get the right content in Rule 9, what needs to be considered in terms of format, and when to submit them. 

Following the case exercise by the members of the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia, a survey was carried out of participants, which indicated a widespread interest of NHRIs of engaging further in the implementation process. The webinar was then wrapped up by Leena Leikas, chair of ENNHRI Legal working group, Human Rights Expert at the Finnish Human Rights Centre, who provided concluding remarks.

“I am sure the webinars was the best webinar series that I ever attended“

- from an NHRI representative

We thank all participants who attended the webinars and appreciate the work of ENNHRI and the Department of the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe in collaborating on this series.

Resources mentioned in the presentation:

1. Where to find the relevant information?

   •HUDOC-EXEC

   •DEJ’s website on Communications by NHRIs/NGOs

   •Indicative list of cases to be examined at upcoming CM-DH meeting (available from the website of the DEJ)

2. HUDOC-EXEC database: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng

3. Cases’ Check EIN’s Guide on How to Advocate for the Implementation of ‘Standard

4. More guidance on how to assess the impact achieved through NGO engagement here: https://bit.ly/3cdMF1l 

Network Exchange: Sharing Implementation Success on Pre-Trial Detention

Sharing implementation success stories in one country can aid in developing strategies in another. EIN seeks to establish possible connections through our network of members across Europe, to facilitate exchanges between organizations in different countries who work towards implementing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments.

An example of this exchange was a roundtable discussion between organisations in Moldova and Hungary concerning pre-trial detention, held on Friday 16th October 2020. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has had positive results in their advocacy for reducing unwarranted pre-trial detention in Hungary, following a series of ECtHR judgments under the X.Y. v. Hungary group. This implementation success was a result of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee contributing to legislation and working to ensure its implementation through a wide variety of activities. Some of their most notable impacts were achieved through the creation of easy to use resources on the relevant ECHR standards, which they disseminated widely to lawyers, prosecutors and judges. These have been used routinely by these actors, helping to ensure that the relevant standards are being raised and discussed in Hungarian courts. 

In Moldova, a similar problem regarding pre-trial detention has been highlighted through the ECtHR judgments in the Sarban group – particularly regarding the Courts’ failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons when approving the applicants' pre-trial detention and/or refusing the applicants’ habeas corpus requests. A series of Moldovan NGOs take an interest on this issue, including:

Legal Resources Centre from Moldova

Promo-LEX

Lawyers for Human Rights

RCTV Memoria 

These groups all participated in the exchange organised on 16th October 2020. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee shared their best practices and lessons learnt during the implementation process on unwarranted pre-trial detention. Positive feedback from the session indicates that this will have an impact on the strategies used in Moldova on the same issue.

See latest Legal Resources Centre from Moldova submission to the CoE Committee of Ministers

We hope to organise more collaborations on sharing implementation successes with our partners and members in the future.  

For more information about the Network and EIN Members:

https://www.einnetwork.org/implementation-activities

Resources included in the presentation:

(1) The Practice of Pre-Trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial Decision-Making (2014-2016)

(2) The Cost of Detention (2014)

(3) Separate, tailor-made manuals for Hungarian judges and attorneys (manual for attorneys contains information on how to turn to the ECtHR)

(4) An additional online tool was created for judges for better access

(5) Compiling a handbook for advancing effective defence (easy-to-handle online format)

(6) Rule9(1) communication on behalf of one of our clients who remained in PTD (our only Rule9 communication in this area!)

(7) Repeatedly raising the issue in reports prepared for international organisations, e.g.: 

• briefing paper for the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2013

• shadow reports to the UN Human Rights Committee in 2010 and in 2018

• Universal Periodic Review in 2010 and in 2015

Forgotten Moldovan media freedom ECHR cases await implementation

By Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer

Media freedom and pluralism in Moldova are a work in progress. As in all developing democracies, voices that are critical to the Government still encounter barriers or retaliation. Between 2007 and 2010, the European Court of Human Rights rendered four judgments against the Republic of Moldova concerning the undemocratic curtailment of media or journalistic freedom. However, they have been pending implementation for the past ten years or more, waiting for the Moldovan authorities to fulfil its obligation to implement them.

Source: Council of Europe website

The oldest case, Flux (no.2) v. Moldova, concerns the sanctioning of a newspaper for having published an article about the corruption of a school principal; domestic courts considered that in the absence of a criminal court decision, the public official could not be accused of bribery. The newspaper was ordered to issue an apology and to pay compensation. The ECHR found that the infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, noting that his statements were ignored by the courts and that a degree of exaggeration is covered by journalistic freedom.

In Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, after publishing critical views of state actions, the applicant newspaper was shut down by a court order which failed to indicate specific articles that were problematic.

Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

In one of the most egregious cases, Manole and others v. Moldova, the applicants, a group of nine journalists working for the “Teleradio-Moldova” State company, were subjected to extreme censorship, even involving military troops at the premises of the broadcasting company in order to prevent them from sharing uncensored news regarding ongoing protests in favor of the opposition. The ‘non-compliant’ journalists were questioned by criminal investigators and dismissed from their jobs.

Regarding freedom of expression in general, in the Gavrilovici v. Moldova group of cases, one applicant was sentenced to administrative detention for having insulted a politician; another was found guilty in civil defamation proceedings for allegedly having made false declarations, in letters to various authorities, about a candidate for the position of mayor in his village. The Court held that the impugned statements were value judgments which deserved particular protection, and that the sanctions imposed were not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

For a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights to be implemented, reforms must be carried out to address the source of the human rights violation identified by the court. This can include changes to legislation or the jurisprudence of courts, and/or practical measures taken by the national authorities. The government has an obligation to submit an Action Plan to the Council of Europe, setting out the measures it intends to take in order to remedy the human rights problem identified by the Court.

The four judgments concerning freedom of expression are all at least ten years old. Despite this, no Action Plan has ever been submitted for three of the four cases.  The only case in this series of judgments in which an action plan/report has been submitted by the government – in 2011 - is Manole and others. This document does not adequately respond to the issues raised by the judgment[1].

In other words, for around ten years the Moldovan government has filed no public documents about how they intend to make progress with these cases.

Meanwhile, in recent years there have been a series of reforms addressing freedom of expression in the country. However,  there has been no official assessment by the Committee of Ministers whether these reforms have addressed the problems highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights. Without specific input from the Government and civil society, the status of the implementation of these judgments is, at best, unknown.

What is clear is that challenges to freedom of expression and journalistic freedom in Moldova have not ended with these judgments. Even in the past two years, media freedom has been subjected to unlawful limitations ranging from bans on journalists to enter public areas, aimed at preventing them from reporting on anti-government protests[2], to threats and pressures exerted upon journalists exposing corruption among Moldovan politicians[3]. According to the Independent Journalism Center in Moldova, even though the special law on freedom of expression has ensured the sufficiency of the legal framework, having been designed in accordance with EU standards, national case law continues to register abusive practices of deficient application of legal provisions. The high number of violations of the rights and freedoms of media representatives[4], including the right to free speech, reported by the Independent Journalism Center in the past years indicate that the steps undertaken by the Government have been unable to efficiently redress the issues in this area.

The time has come for the Moldovan Government to fulfill its’ reporting obligations to the Council of Europe, and provide a public assessment of what has been done so far to advance freedom of expression and media freedom in Moldova, within the scope of these judgments, and what still needs to be done. Transparency is crucial to the implementation process. Wider civil society deserves an informed seat at the implementation table. The input of both government and NGOs will be crucial to ensuring that the fundamental issues at stake are successfully addressed.

[1] The Moldovan Government references the judgment on just satisfaction in this case, claiming that the Court has already held that the legal shortcomings were overturned.  In fact, in the referenced judgment, the Court notes it “cannot in the present proceedings examine the new legislation to determine whether the situation which gave rise to the violation has been remedied”. The fact that the case is still pending implementation, with the mention that an updated or revised plan is awaited - since 2011 – is telling enough that the indicated measures have not been sufficient and more needs to be done.

[2] https://balkaninsight.com/2018/08/29/media-ngo-s-in-moldova-protests-against-abuses-08-29-2018/

[3] https://balkaninsight.com/2019/01/24/moldovan-journalists-under-unprecedented-fire-before-election-01-21-2019/

[4] http://media-azi.md/en/in-moldova

EIN Webinar: Towards an effective domestic advocacy strategy for the implementation of ECHR judgments

On 8th October, EIN organised a 3rd webinar for representatives from National Human Rights Institutions. The first two webinars took place respectively on 10th and 17th September.

Attended by representatives from the Legal Working Group of ENNHRI, EIN partner in this initiative, this third webinar focused on the advantages of domestic advocacy in achieving concrete progress on human rights at the national level. Best practices were used to illustrate:

·        What other advocacy avenues are available to NHRIs to work on ECtHR judgment implementation at the domestic level, and

·        How they can hold the government to account about their overall record on implementation.

After introductory remarks by EIN Director George Stafford, Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, explained how the office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia is promoting an open and early dialogue with all relevant stakeholders at the national level, when working on ECHR judgment implementation.

Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia

She presented in particular the National Council of Experts for the Execution of the Court’s judgment in Croatia, but also other structures used by the Croatian NHRI to reach out to NGOs and experts and get useful input on general measures needed for ECHR judgments implementation, such as the Anti-Discrimination Network. Such alliances have proven to be very efficient to achieve progress on key pending cases, such as the Secic v Croatia case on racist attacks against a person of Roma origin. Her power point presentation is available here.

Greece also offers an interesting example of what can be done, domestically, to work on hate crimes, and push for the implementation of ECHR judgments in this field. Indeed, in 2011, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) initiated the creation of a Racist Violence Recording Network (RVRN).

Representatives from the GNCHR , Ms Baka and Ms Charopokou, as well as the assistant coordinator of the RVRN, Ms Anastasopoulou, were present to share their experience. Participants were able to learn more about the overall strategy set up by the GNCHR to push for implementation of ECHR judgments, which combines efforts both at the domestic and at the Strasbourg level.

Their presentation clearly showed that such a combination of domestic-based and international tools was instrumental in progress being achieved in key cases, such as the Manolada (Chowdury) case or the Sakir case.

The full video of the webinar will soon be available on the ENNHRI website.

A 4th webinar will be held on 22nd October, focusing on the CM supervision process and how NHRIs can write effective Rule 9 submissions.

Building Partnerships to Strengthen Freedom of Assembly in Russia

Photo by Кирилл Жаркой on Unsplash

Freedom of assembly is highly restricted in a number of European countries. Over 70% percent of freedom of assembly violations found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the last ten years are still pending implementation. 

EIN is working with Russian NGOs, Memorial and OVD-Info, to promote the implementation of ECtHR Judgment Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, concerning issues of freedom of assembly in Russia. These organisations will provide recommendations to the Russian Ministry of Justice regarding the legislative amendments and reforms necessary to properly protect freedom of assembly in the country, in line with the standards of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). They are working to form an alliance of organisations calling for change on this issue - not only with NGOs, but also engaging with local government, public authorities and media outlets to maximise potential reach and impact.

See Memorial and OVD-Info’s Rule 9.2 communication to the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers.

Assisted by EIN,  Memorial and OVD-Info have submitted a Rule 9.2 communication to the CoE Committee of Ministers on Lashmankin, highlighting problems within Russian laws that restrict freedom of assembly. Serious problems include special criminal liability for participating in unauthorised public assemblies; gaps in laws that govern public events; an absence of real punishment for local authorities for non-compliance with relevant laws; a non-transparent system of approving events; a lack of public statistics; absence of control over regional compliance with the Federal law; or the European Court’s Lashmankin judgment; ineffective control over the police’s actions during detentions and arrests at public assemblies; and lastly, a general lack of awareness or negative attitude towards the principles established by the European Court on the part of the authorities, police and courts.

This communication also provided recommendations to Russian authorities to improve the situation with respect to public assemblies, including; setting new laws that govern assembly, amending old laws which are consistent with ECHR standards, training sessions, reasonable increases to the maximum number of participants permitted in assemblies, and ensuring that security measures are adequately in place. In early September 2020, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued a Decision, echoing this call for reform and requesting that the Russian authorities make changes on key issues.  

Mass public protests have been crucially important to securing human rights and democracy across Europe. As well as playing a key role in pivotal historical moments, protests are important for allowing people to make their voices heard and contribute to the ongoing running of any democracy. 

EIN is excited to collaborate with Memorial and OVD-Info to advocate for freedom of assembly in Russia and promote the implementation of the Lashmankin judgment.

For media coverage on this alliance with various stakeholders on freedom of assembly in Russia:

•  https://www.rbc.ru/spb_sz/09/09/2020/5f587e709a794742d8abee6a

•  https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4483871

•  https://novayagazeta.ru/news/2020/09/15/164286-pravozaschitniki-potrebovali-ot-gubernatora-peterburga-snyat-zapret-na-provedenie-odinochnyh-piketov

•  https://www.svoboda.org/a/30831846.html (TV)

• https://pravo.ru/story/225294/

For more information on assembly in Russia, see OVD-Info’s report on single-person pickets here