1. Introduction
1. My mandate as rapporteur stems
from the Bureau decision to follow up on the Parliamentary Assembly’s
Resolution 1891 (2012) on the situation of human rights defenders in the Council
of Europe member States. On 19 March 2013, the Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights appointed me rapporteur, following the departure
from the Assembly of the previous rapporteur, Mr György Frunda (Romania,
EPP/CD). The Bureau also decided that I should take into account,
in my report, issues raised in two motions for a resolution: “The situation
regarding human rights activists in Estonia”
and
“The protection of independent experts co-operating with the Council
of Europe”.
2. On 24 June 2013, the committee authorised me to undertake
fact-finding visits to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Thus, from
21 to 29 November 2013, I carried out visits to these three countries,
where I met several human rights defenders and other representatives
of civil society, representatives of the authorities, including
ministers, fellow MPs, ombudspersons and other high officials and
representatives of other international organisations (the European
Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
and the United Nations). The findings of these three visits were
presented to the committee on 28 January 2014 in my “Information
memorandum about the situation of human rights defenders in the
South Caucasus region (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia)”.
On
the same occasion, the committee held an exchange of views with
Mr Gerald Staberock from the Organisation Mondiale contre la Torture
(OMCT), which is, along with the Fédération Internationale des Ligues
des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH), the co-founder of the Observatory
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (“OBS” or “the Observatory”).
On 1 October 2015, the committee held a hearing with the participation
of two experts; Ms Souhayr Belhassen, Honorary President, FIDH,
Paris, and Mr Andrew Anderson, Deputy Director, Front Line Defenders,
The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights
Defenders, Dublin.
3. The committee also authorised me, on 24 June 2013, to carry
out a fact-finding visit to the Russian Federation, but due to the
current political situation and the Russian Delegation’s general
refusal to receive Assembly rapporteurs, such a visit could not
take place. However, thanks to numerous contacts with Russian and
international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), I have been
quite well-informed about the situation in this country. Moreover,
the recent restrictions imposed on the activities of Russian and
Azerbaijani NGOs have been followed by our committee colleague,
Mr Yves Cruchten (Luxembourg, SOC), rapporteur on “How to prevent
inappropriate restrictions on NGO activities in Europe?”.
2. Recent and current reprisals
against human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States
4. My rapporteur mandate is a
continuation of the work carried out by the previous rapporteurs
on this subject – Mr Holger Haibach (Germany, EPP/CD)
and myself
– and focuses on the situation of
“those who work for the rights of the others” – individuals or groups
who act, in a peaceful way, to promote and protect human rights,
whether they are lawyers, journalists, NGOs or others. The findings
of the reports of my predecessor and myself of respectively 2009
and 2012 showed that in some Council of Europe member States, namely
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Russian
Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine,
human
rights defenders had been confronted with a number of specific “obstacles”
or even a generally hostile environment. In my previous report,
I pointed out a number of types of reprisals against them and impediments
to their work: attacks on their physical and psychological integrity,
arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, including criminal
prosecutions on trumped-up charges, administrative obstacles (in particular
concerning the registration process of human rights associations),
public defamation, restrictions on their freedom of movement and
on access to funds as well as illicit pressure on legal representatives
of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”).
I also noted that those working on sensitive issues such as fighting
impunity for serious crimes committed by State officials, exposing
corruption, or defending the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) persons, migrants and members of national or
ethnic minorities, were targeted particularly often.
5. Since the adoption of Assembly
Resolution 1891 (2012), which was based on my previous report on this subject,
the situation of human rights defenders has considerably deteriorated
in Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. Concerns were also raised
about the arrests of several human rights lawyers in Turkey and
the wave of inspections of NGOs in Hungary
(the latter problem
will be examined in more detail by my colleague Mr Cruchten). Although
I am not in a position to consider all alleged cases of reprisals
against human rights defenders in all Council of Europe member States,
I will try to pinpoint the most serious ones, on the basis of information
received from civil society (and in particular from the Observatory
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders) and the Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. But as a matter of urgency
I shall focus on recent developments in Azerbaijan, the Russian
Federation and Turkey. As regards other member States, in the last
two years, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
have reported some individual cases of reprisals against human rights
defenders in Greece, the Republic of Moldova, and “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia” and I will also refer to those cases.
6. I also intend to reflect on how we in the Council of Europe
and the Assembly can help improve the protection of human rights
defenders. What national and international mechanisms could be put
in place in order to allow human rights defenders to escape unfair
prosecutions (in their countries of origin)? What type of assistance
could be granted to families of prosecuted human rights defenders?
Could intergovernmental organisations do more to ensure an “early
warning” in cases of prosecution, to better exchange information
or to grant international protection? Should they establish a mechanism
of protection of those who co-operate with them by providing first-hand
information on human rights abuses? These are examples of questions
that are to be posed in this context and on which the Council of
Europe should reflect without delay.
7. As regards the motion for a resolution on “The situation regarding
human rights activists in Estonia”, it focuses on the situation
of Mr Andrei Zarenkov, who is a politician and activist of the Russian-speaking community;
in January 2014, he was arrested on charges of corruption, but in
March 2014 he was released. In view of the political nature of Mr
Zarenkov’s activities and in view of the fact that the proceedings
are still pending, I do not find it appropriate to examine his situation
in the context of human rights defenders. Concerning the motion
on “The protection of independent experts co-operating with the
Council of Europe”, I will come back to this issue in the framework
of my proposals concerning the improvement of the protection of human
rights defenders.
3. The situation in the South
Caucasus, with a special focus on Azerbaijan
8. Following my visits to the
three Caucasian countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) in November 2013,
I concluded that the situation of human rights defenders was very
different in each of them. The findings of these three visits are
available in my “Information memorandum about the situation of human
rights defenders in the South Caucasus region (Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia)”, which has been declassified.
While Armenian and Georgian activists enjoyed
considerable freedom to carry out their activities (despite some incidents
of intimidation,
especially against activists dealing
with the rights of minorities and LGBT people
), the situation of their counterparts
in Azerbaijan was very difficult, due to the ongoing crackdown on
civil society. Since then, the situation has become much worse.
9. As indicated in my information memorandum of January 2014,
Azerbaijani human rights defenders faced fabricated charges leading
to long-term imprisonment, violent repressions in detention facilities
including ill-treatment, torture or death, and threats and physical
attacks against themselves and members of their families. In addition,
there were continuous and systematic hindrances to the enjoyment
of related fundamental rights such as the rights to freedom of expression
(various forms of intimidation of journalists and bloggers, limited access
to information through restrictions on opposition media, provisions
on defamation incompatible with international standards, etc.),
freedom of assembly (various restrictions on holding of rallies)
and freedom of association (due to restrictive and arbitrary NGO
legislation). One of the best-known cases of repression against
human rights defenders was that of Hilal Mammadov – a scientist
and editor-in-chief of the
Tolyshi Sedo newspaper
(a Talysh minority newspaper) sentenced in 2012 to five years’ imprisonment
for drug-related crimes and spying for Iran. His predecessor, Professor
Novruzali Mammadov, died in 2009, having served two and a half years
of his 10-year sentence. The cases of both activists are now pending
before the European Court of Human Rights.
10. During the year 2014, there was an unprecedented crackdown
on human rights organisations and defenders in Azerbaijan continued,
despite the country’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers
between May and November.
Further restrictions on funding
of NGOs were imposed through amendments to the existing legislation
on NGOs
(despite the criticism of the
Venice Commission)
and a number
of human rights activists and long-term partners of the Council
of Europe (in particular of the Commissioner for Human Rights and
of our Assembly) were arrested on charges related to their NGO activities
in the summer of 2014, shortly after Azerbaijan took over the said
chairmanship.
They included: human rights lawyer
Mr Intigam Aliyev (who had lodged over 200 applications to the European
Court of Human Rights, 40 of which were successful and concerned
violations of the right to free elections during the 2005 parliamentary
elections, freedom of expression and assembly and cases of torture);
Mr Rasul Jafarov, founder of the NGO “Human Rights Club”; Ms Leyla
Yunus, Director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, and her
husband, Mr Arif Yunus, a historian, both also accused of “treason”.
Shortly beforehand, Mr Hasan Huseynli, leader of the NGO “Intelligent
Citizen” and Mr Anar Mammadli, head of the Election Monitoring Centre
and recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize 2014, and his
colleague Mr Bashir Suleymanli had been convicted and sentenced to
long prison terms (Hasan Huseynli and Bashir Suleymanli were, however,
released respectively in October 2014 and in March 2015 following
presidential pardons). In December 2014, investigative journalist
Ms Khadiya Ismayilova was also arrested on various charges.
Despite
concerns expressed by numerous international instances (including
the Assembly’s President Ms Anne Brasseur and our committee
) and NGOs, all these activists were
given long prison sentences in the course of 2015
(although appeal proceedings
concerning some of them are still pending). Their trials were condemned
by international observers as failing to meet the standards of the
right to a fair trial (with the accused being held in cages during
the hearings)
and most of these convictions
and arrests are now being examined by the European Court of Human
Rights. The Commissioner for Human Rights has intervened before
the European Court of Human Rights as a third party in the cases
of Ms and Mr Yunus, Mr Jafarov, Mr Mammadli, Mr Aliyev and Mr Hilal
Mammadov, highlighting systematic deficiencies in the area of freedom
of expression and association in Azerbaijan.
In addition, the Committee of Ministers
has followed the situation of Mr Intigam Aliyev in the context of
the supervision of the cases in which he represented the applicants
before the Court (namely the group of cases
Mahmudov
and Agazade and
Fatullayev, concerning
freedom of expression); at its 1230th meeting in June 2015, the Committee
of Ministers “strongly deplored” the lack of information on the
reasons for his conviction.
11. Mr Emin Huseynov, a journalist and activist advocating freedom
of expression as well as former head of the Institute for Reporters'
Freedom and Safety (IRFS), went into hiding in the Swiss embassy
in Baku in August 2014; in June 2015, he was transferred to Switzerland,
but has been recently deprived of his Azerbaijani citizenship. Moreover,
in April 2014, the authorities arrested journalist Mr Rauf Mirqadirov,
who had written many articles on Azerbaijan’s relations with Russia
and Turkey and on the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and
had co-operated with Ms Leyla Yunus on improving a dialogue between
their country and Armenia. He is accused of “high treason” for allegedly
“spying” for Armenia.
His trial started only at the beginning
of November 2015. Finally, one should not forget in this context
the fate of two opposition activists – Mr Ilgar Mammadov
and
Mr Tofig Yagublu (also a journalist),
whose detention
was found to be contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”) by the European Court of
Human Rights.
12. Messrs Aliyev, Mammadli, Jafarov, Hilal Mammadov, Ilgar Mammadov,
Yagublu, the Yunus spouses and Ms Ismayilova are considered as “prisoners
of conscience” by Amnesty International.
In its
Resolution 2062 (2015) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan,
the Assembly explicitly referred to the reprisals against Messrs
Aliyev, Mammadli, Jafarov, Mirgadirov, the Yunus spouses and Ms
Ismayilova (paragraph 10) and called on Azerbaijan to “put an end
to systemic repression of human rights defenders, the media and
those critical of the government, including politically motivated
prosecutions; allow for effective judicial review of such attempts;
and ensure that the overall climate can become conducive to political
pluralism ahead of the forthcoming elections in November 2015” (paragraph
11.1).
13. Despite the adoption of the said Assembly resolution, reprisals
against activists continued. On 8 August 2015, Mr Rasim Aliyev,
a journalist and chairperson of the Institute for Reporters' Freedom
and Safety, was severely beaten and died in hospital the following
day. Although his attackers seemed to be connected to a football
player whom he had criticised on Facebook, he had reported receiving
threats prior to, and unrelated to, the incident with the footballer
and the police had failed to provide him with protection. According
to some sources, he did not receive proper health care in the hospital,
despite his severe injuries, and no effective investigation was
conducted into the causes of his death.
14. Allegations about inadequate health conditions in prison have
been widely reported,
especially with respect to the
situation of Mr Mirqaridov
and the Yunus spouses. Ms Leyla
Yunus suffers from sight problems, diabetes, hepatitis C and liver
deterioration and her husband from high blood pressure; he fainted at
the court hearing on 3 August 2015.
On 12 November 2015, Mr Arif Yunus
was released on bail. Since 6 November 2015, he had been on a hunger
strike in order to protest against the failure to provide adequate medical
care to his wife. In October 2015, various media reported that Mr
Ilgar Mammadov was severely beaten in prison.
15. Moreover, repressions focused also on the lawyers representing
the detained activists. For example, in July 2015, Mr Khalid Baghirov,
who represented the Yunus couple, Khadiya Ismayilova, Rasul Jafarov
and Ilgar Mammadov,
was disbarred
by a court decision for allegedly violating professional ethics.
In
November 2014, the third lawyer of Leyla Yunus (after Khalid Baghirov
and Javad Javadov, who was prevented from representing her in October
2014
)
was found guilty of defamation following a lawsuit lodged by her
cell-mate Ms Nuriya Huseynova, after he had denounced the physical
pressure exercised by her on Ms Yunus. After that, he was expelled
from the Bar association by a decision of the Bar Presidium of July
2015, which he only found out through the media.
Interestingly, a few years earlier,
another lawyer, Mr Elchin Namazov, who had defended opposition activists,
was expelled from the Bar by a court decision of September 2011.
16. When arresting Intigam Aliyev in August 2014, the authorities
conducted a search of his house and seized the files of over 100
cases in which he was representing his clients before the European
Court of Human Rights. On 22 October 2015, the Court found in a
case of one of the applicants represented by him that “the very
fact that the applicant and his lawyer were deprived of access to
their copy of the case file for a lengthy period of time, without
any justification and without any compensatory measures, constituted
in itself an undue interference with the integrity of the proceedings
and a serious hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicant’s
right of individual petition”;
there
was therefore a breach of Article 34 of the Convention. In addition,
a case lodged by Mr Intigam Aliyev himself concerning the seizure
of his files is pending before the Court.
17. It should also be noted that some representatives of international
NGOs were not allowed to enter the territory of Azerbaijan; for
example, Mr Giorgi Gogia (from Human Rights Watch), who travelled
to attend the trials of some of the above-mentioned human rights
defenders, was stopped at Baku airport on 31 March 2015.
In early October
2015, shortly before the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan,
two Amnesty International members were barred from entering the
country.
4. The situation of human rights
defenders in the Russian Federation
18. In the Russian Federation,
the environment in which human rights defenders carry out their
work has considerably deteriorated following the adoption on 13
July 2012 of the so-called “foreign agent” legislation (also criticised
by the Venice Commission).
Over 100 organisations,
including those dealing with the protection of human rights,
have been included
in the register of “foreign agents” against their will and inspections
have been carried out since the beginning of 2013.
Some of these NGOs
have been forced to close down. A complaint concerning the implementation
of this law is pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
In
addition, a new piece of legislation targeting foreign as well as
international NGOs – the law on “undesirable organisations” – was
adopted on 19 May 2015 and is now being scrutinised by the Venice Commission
at our committee’s request. The content of these laws as well as
their implementation are analysed in detail by our committee colleague,
Mr Cruchten, in his report on “How to prevent inappropriate restrictions
on NGOs activities in Europe?”.
19. There have also been other cases of administrative or judicial
harassment and attacks against activists – for example against Ms
Nadejda Kutepova, Head of the ONG “Planet of Hopes”, fighting against
nuclear power plants and advocating the revision of the system of
“closed administrative units” (CATU).
Court proceedings
on the basis of accusations of “false registration” of migrants
have been instituted against Ms Tatyana Kotlyar, Chair of the Kaluga
Movement for Human Rights defending the rights of migrants and the Roma
community.
NGOs also reported
pressure from tax inspection authorities on Ms Ludmila Kuzmina, leader
of the Samara’s regional organisation GOLOS (an election monitoring
organisation which has been included in the list of “foreign agents”),
who was even threatened with having to undergo a psychiatric examination.
Moreover, in April 2015,
some observers from GOLOS were physically attacked by unknown individuals
in a village in the Moscow region.
In
November 2014, lawyer Arkady Chaplygin, who was working on several
cases related to election fraud, was attacked and beaten by unidentified
individuals in his workplace.
20. LGBT and environmental activists seem to be targeted particularly
frequently. The former are prevented from organising events both
by the public authorities
and
private parties (for example by hotels in which they planned to
organise conferences
). As regards the
latter, besides the above-mentioned case of Nadejda Kutepova, one
should not forget about the case of 30 Greenpeace activists (from
various countries) who were arrested in September 2013 for their
participation in a peaceful protest against oil drilling in the
Arctic on Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya offshore platform, detained for
two months and accused of “hooliganism”,
or the allegedly
arbitrary detention of Mr Evgeny Vitishko, member of the Environmental
Watch on North Caucasus protesting against the 2014 Olympic Games
in Sochi.
21. As reported by NGOs, human rights defenders and NGOs are often
subject to smear campaigns in the media (see, for example, the case
of Ms Kutepova) and there is very little knowledge among the general population
in Russia about the role and activities of NGOs. Labelling NGOs
receiving foreign funding as “foreign agents”, with a highly negative
connotation of being a “spy”, can only generate a more negative
attitude towards NGOs and their activities concerning the protection
and promotion of human rights and prevent them from finding new,
domestic fundraising opportunities.
22. Moreover, the situation of human rights defenders in the North
Caucasus raises particular concerns, as discussed during the hearings
held by our committee in Strasbourg on 25 June 2013 and in Yerevan
(Armenia) on 20 May 2015, in the framework of the preparation of
the report by our colleague Mr Michael McNamara (Ireland, SOC) on
“Human Rights in the North Caucasus: what follow-up
Resolution 1738 (2010)?”. I trust that this specific issue will be taken into
account in his final report. It should also be pointed out that
in June 2015 the office of the Joint Mobile Group, a group of NGOs
supporting victims of the conflict in North Caucasus, in Grozny,
was burnt and plundered by unidentified persons, following which
the authorities did not conduct any effective investigation. The
Committee against Torture, which is a member of this group and had
been awarded the Assembly’s Human Rights Prize in 2011, was registered
on the list of “foreign agents”. As a consequence, it decided to
close down.
Very
recently, on 6 November 2015, searches were conducted in the office
and house of Mr Magomed Mutsolgov, head of the NGO “MASHR” and prominent
human rights defender in Ingushetia, because he allegedly “discredited
the Ingushetian authorities in the interests of the USA, Georgia, Ukraine
and Syria”.
It should also
be pointed out that the murder of Ms Natalia Estemirova, leading researcher
in the Grozny office of the Human Rights Centre “Memorial”, found
shot dead on 15 July 2009, has still not been elucidated.
Moreover, the Investigative
Committee of the Russian Federation initiated two criminal cases
against Mr Murad Musayev, a lawyer who defended the Chechen accused
of the murder of a Russian colonel, on suspicion of witness tampering
and interfering with the court’s work.
5. The situation of human rights
defenders in Turkey
23. In Turkey, many human rights
activists and lawyers have been targeted on the ground of anti-terrorist legislation
(Law 3713 of April 1991).This is the case in particular for members
of the Human Rights Association (İHD). For example, Mr Muharrem
Erbey, a human rights lawyer, Vice-President the İHD and former
President of its branch office in Diyarbakır and recipient of the
Ludovic-Trarieux International Human Rights Prize for 2012, was
arrested on 24 December 2009 following an “anti-terrorism” police
operation in Turkey.
He was accused of
“being a member of an illegal organisation” (i.e. the Kurdish Communities
Union – KCK, said to be the “urban branch” of the armed and outlawed
Kurdistan Workers Party – PKK)
and was released only on 12 April
2014, after 1 570 days in detention. Moreover, another activist
of the İHD, Mr Emirhan Uysal, and lawyer Deniz Surgut have been
accused of the same charges and of “having transported and commercialised weapons”.
Furthermore, during a police operation
launched on 30 September 2015 against Kurdish political parties
and NGOs in Siirt province, three İHD activists, Messrs Zana Aksu,
Azat Taş and Mirza Ekin, were arrested. During the illegal raid,
the police confiscated books, reports and other documents, as well
as computers belonging to the İHD. On 3 October 2015, the Siirt
1 Peace Court provisionally released Messrs Zana Aksu and Azat Taş
pending trial, while Mr Mirza Ekin was placed in detention and transferred
to the Siirt E Type Closed Prison pending trial.
24. On 28 November 2015, Mr Tahir Elçi, head of the Diyarbakir
Bar Association and an eminent Kurdish lawyer and human rights defender,
was shot dead in Diyarbakir (south-east of Turkey) in an exchange
of gunfire between police and unidentified gunmen. A few weeks before
his death, on 16 October 2015, a criminal investigation for “Making
propaganda for a terrorist organisation” had been opened against
him, following his statement on national television that the PKK
was not a terrorist organisation but an armed political movement enjoying
popular support. Amnesty International viewed the case as an overtly
political attack on Tahir Elçi’s right to freedom of expression,
targeting him not only for his televised statement but also for
his work as a lawyer and human rights defender.
25. Moreover, the above-mentioned operations were preceded on
22 November 2011 by a wave of arrests of 47 lawyers who had been
involved in the legal representation of Mr Abdullah Őcalan, the
leader of PKK. In April 2012, 46 of them were indicted for “belonging
to a criminal organisation”, on the basis of recordings of the discussions
they had had with him in his detention centre, in violation of the
lawyer-client privilege. Some of them have been released, but the
criminal proceedings are still pending.
26. Another shocking case is that of the judicial harassment of
Ms Pinar Selek, a writer and academic known for her work on the
rights of vulnerable Turkish communities. In 1998, she was accused
of causing a bomb explosion in Istanbul’s Egyptian bazaar and of
being a member of the PKK. She was therefore detained for two years
and allegedly subjected to torture and ill-treatment, until she
was provisionally released in 2000. Although the Istanbul Serious
Crimes Court No. 12 acquitted her on three occasions (in 2006, 2008
and 2011), the Prosecutor repeatedly appealed those acquittals before
the Court of Cassation, which quashed the first two acquittal decisions
and instructed the lower court to convict Ms Selek. In January 2013,
the Istanbul Serious Crimes Court No. 12 deferred to the Court of
Cassation’s request and sentenced Ms Selek to life imprisonment. On
11 June 2014, the Court of Cassation decided to overturn the conviction
on procedural grounds and, on 19 December 2014, Ms Selek was finally
acquitted by the Istanbul High Criminal Court No. 15.
However, the Prosecutor
has again appealed against this decision.
6. The situation in other member
States of the Council of Europe
27. Human rights activists also
face problems in other Council of Europe member States. In particular, concerns
have been raised as regards their situation in the Transnistrian
region of the Republic of Moldova, where, in 2013-2014, certain
human rights activists were persecuted by the administration (for
example Mr Stepan Popovschi), accused of inciting hatred towards
the authorities (for example Mr Nicolae Buceatchi and Ms Luiza Dorosenco)
or even physically attacked (for example lawyer Vladimir Maimust).
Promo-lex,
a human rights organisation working for the development of NGOs
in this region, was described as “subversive” by the Transnistrian
de facto administration. According
to the FIDH and OMCT, in 2014, the local
de
facto parliament launched a draft law on “foreign agents”
that specifically targeted civil society organisations working on
election monitoring and receiving funding from abroad. The draft
bill was adopted in the first plenary reading back in November 2014
but was subsequently put on hold.
Concerns were also raised regarding
the access of human rights defenders to this region, following the
ban imposed on Mr Alexandru Zubco.
28. Access to post-conflict territories for human rights organisations
is another issue which has been invoked by civil society representatives
with respect to Ukraine: Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Following his
visits to the country, the Commissioner for Human Rights noted several
incidents of intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders
in Crimea
and he pointed out the limited access of
major humanitarian organisations to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
29. Besides the problems mentioned in respect of Armenia, Georgia
and the Russian Federation, attacks and acts of harassment against
activists or lawyers defending the rights of minorities, and in
particular LGBT persons’ rights, have also been reported in other
member States, in particular in Greece,
Serbia
and “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
30. In Hungary, certain NGOS have been subjected to a campaign
of defamation; for example, in the spring of 2014, the Prime Minister
himself accused the NGOs receiving funds from the European Economic
Area (EEA) States of being “political activists”, which was later
refuted by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Some NGOs
receiving such funds and dealing with, amongst others, human rights,
the rights of women or combating corruption, were subjected to relentless
inspections, although according to the auditors of the Financial
Mechanism Office (running the EEA grants), the NGO funding programme
was implemented properly in Hungary.
31. Another issue of concern is that of electronic surveillance,
in particular by the Government of the United Kingdom,
over the activities of human rights
organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch,
as revealed by Mr Edward Snowden at the hearing which took place
before our committee on 8 April 2014, in the framework of the preparation
of the report by Mr Pieter Omtzigt (Netherlands, EPP/CD).
7. The recent work of the Council
of Europe, and in particular of the Commissioner for Human Rights
32. Before further exploring ways
to improve the protection of human rights defenders, I intend to
look at the recent activities of the Council of Europe and other
international instances devoted to this issue. Within the Council
of Europe, the Committee of Ministers recently held a thematic debate
on “Freedom of assembly and association: current challenges and
the response from the Council of Europe” and I hope that the outcome
of this debate will soon be made public.
33. In April 2015, the Council of Europe launched an Internet
platform aimed at protecting journalism and promoting the safety
of journalists. Via the platform, five partner organisations – Article
19, the Association of European Journalists, the European Federation
of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists and Reporters
Without Borders – issue alerts concerning threats to media freedom
and bring them to the attention of the Council of Europe’s institutions.
So far,
101 alerts concerning 25 member
States have been posted: 31 concerned physical attacks against journalists
and 11 killings.
34. The Assembly and our committee have also dealt with the issue
of whistle-blowers, who might sometimes also be human rights defenders.
My committee colleague Mr Pieter Omtzigt has recently examined this
issue in detail.
35. Much is being done in this respect by the Commissioner for
Human Rights and in its
Resolution
1891 (2012), the Assembly strongly supported his work.
Although he has no specific
mandate to follow individual cases, the Commissioner expressed concerns
regarding attacks on individual human rights defenders in various
member States on several occasions, during his country visits or
in his written comments, reports and other documents. Since the
adoption of this resolution, several round tables with human rights
defenders have been organised by the Commissioner for Human Rights.
On 5 October 2012, the Office of
the Commissioner organised a round table in Paris on the protection
of migrant rights in Europe with the participation of human rights
defenders from 15 member States. On 19 December 2012, the Commissioner
published a “Human Rights Comment” on “
Restrictions
on defenders of migrants’ rights should stop”, in which he raised concerns about the defamation,
threats, verbal and physical attacks, administrative sanctions and
judicial harassment used to deter defenders from working with migrants.
He pointed out that human rights defenders should have access to
places where migrants were deprived of their liberty, encouraged
national human rights institutions to support their work and Council
of Europe member States to adhere to the letter and spirit of the
1998 United Nations Declaration on human rights defenders. He also
urged national authorities to end impunity for violations against
defenders who protect migrants, by carrying out effective investigations
into all such incidents.
36. On 30 and 31 May 2013, I took part in another round table
organised in Kyiv (Ukraine) by the Office of the Commissioner –
on human rights and the security sector. About 20 defenders from
seven countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic
of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine) participated in
the event, which was aimed at assessing human rights issues, including
abuses, stemming from the work of the security sector (for instance
in the framework of counter-terrorism activities or if political opponents
and civil society actors are targeted). Human rights defenders from
certain countries (mainly Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation)
indicated that their working environment had deteriorated, mainly
due to the adoption of more restrictive legislation, increased harassment
or problems in accessing foreign funding.
37. On 22 September 2015, the Commissioner for Human Rights issued
a comment entitled “
Remove obstacles
to the work of women’s rights defenders”, following a round table organised by his Office in
Vilnius (Lithuania) in July 2015. In his human rights comment, the
Commissioner enumerated numerous challenges that women’s rights
defenders encounter in their work: restrictive legislation and repressive
practices against civil society (Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation);
smear campaigns, audit and inspections against several women’s rights
organisations benefiting from the EEA NGO Fund (Hungary); labelling
as “gender ideology promoters” of groups challenging patriarchal
values and sexist stereotypes (for example in Armenia, where women’s
rights organisations and defenders were violently targeted in 2013
during the discussion and adoption of the Law on Equal Rights and
Equal Opportunities between Women and Men); defamation campaigns
or other measures of intimidation (for example in Ireland, against
groups working on abortion issues); impunity for such actions; risk
of experiencing gender violence, including through the increasing
use of hate speech (for example against members of the NGO Women
in Black in Serbia); limited access to funding due to austerity measures
(for example for shelters for women victims of violence run by NGOs);
not being consulted on relevant policies and laws by the authorities
or not being considered as equals by fellow human rights defenders.
Moreover, according to the Commissioner, “in some countries, independent
activists feel overshadowed by NGOs which are close to the government
– the so-called “GONGOs” (Government-Organised Non-Governmental
Organisations)”. I do think, however, that this remark refers to
all independent human rights defenders and not only to women activists.
The Commissioner for Human Rights also proposed specific measures
that could be taken to address the issue of threats to the work
of women’s rights defenders at international and national level,
such as the ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe
Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and
domestic violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) and the
reaffirmation and implementation of national and international obligations
to end discrimination and human rights violations based on gender,
by all Council of Europe member States.
8. The situation of lawyers
before the European Court of Human Rights
38. As regards the situation of
lawyers representing applicants before the European Court of Human
Rights, States Parties are bound not to hinder the exercise of the
right of individual application (Article 34 of the Convention
) and to co-operate with
the Court (Article 38). On the basis of Rule 39.1 of the Rules of
Court, the Court can “indicate to the parties any interim measure
which they consider should be adopted in the interests of the parties
or of the proper conduct of the proceedings”, and according to the
case law of the Court, non-observance of such an interim measure
may amount to a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.
Interim measures
are mainly applied by the Court in cases concerning expulsion of
applicants; however, the Court also made such indications in cases
concerning problems with the legal representation of applicants.
These procedures,
however, do not seem to be efficient and speedy enough when it comes
to serious intimidation of applicants’ lawyers.
9. The recent work of the European
Union, the OSCE and the United Nations
40. The European Union adopted
its
Guidelines
on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders in 2004 and updated them in 2008; they apply only to
non-EU countries. The European Union provides support for human rights
defenders in those countries through different actions. EU diplomats
meet regularly with human rights defenders, visit detained activists,
monitor their trials, and lobby for their protection, by issuing
statements on individual cases. The European Union and its member
States’ diplomats regularly meet with representatives of civil society
and raise individual cases in bilateral or multilateral forums.
Moreover, the
European
Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) provides dedicated financial assistance to organisations
providing support to the work of human rights activists. According
to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World,
in 2014, 15 new projects, worth more than €15 million, were launched
in support of human rights defenders and added to the 150 existing
projects in this area (of a total value of €120 million).
The European Union also provides
direct, urgent financial assistance to human rights defenders at
risk, through the
EIDHR
emergency fund for human rights defenders.
The latter fund allows the European
Commission to give direct small grants of up to €10 000 per grant
to human rights defenders, be it individuals or organisations, who
are in need of urgent support. By the end of 2014, over 220 grants
of a total value of over €1.6 million had been disbursed.
The
European Parliament supports the work of defenders, namely through
the activities of its subcommittee on human rights and the awarding
of the Sakharov Prize.
41. In the last few years, the OSCE has also paid increased attention
to the work of human rights defenders. Following consultations with
numerous stakeholders, including the Council of Europe and human
rights defenders from different countries, in June 2014, the OSCE/ODIHR
published its “
Guidelines on the Protection of
Human Rights Defenders”. On 10 and 11 June 2014, a joint Conference organised
by the Swiss Chairmanship and the OSCE/ODIHR entitled “The OSCE
and Human Rights Defenders: The Budapest Document 20 Years On” took
place in Bern. During this conference, the OSCE/ODIHR presented
its Guidelines. The Council of Europe was represented by the Commissioner
for Human Rights and by our committee colleague Mr Boriss Cilevičs
(Latvia, SOC), who kindly replaced me on that occasion. The above-mentioned
Guidelines are based on OSCE commitments and universally recognised
human rights standards; they do not set new standards or seek to
create “special” rights for human rights defenders but concentrate
on the protection of the human rights of those who are at risk as
a result of their human rights work. Furthermore, in December 2014,
the OSCE/ODIHR jointly with the Venice Commission published “
Guidelines
on Freedom of Association”, addressed both to legislators tasked with drafting
laws which regulate or affect associations and to associations,
members of associations and human rights defenders, to support advocacy
in this area. In addition, the OSCE/ODIHR regularly invites NGO
representatives to its annual Human Dimension Implementation Meetings.
42. In the United Nations, the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights defenders, Mr Michel Forst, has a special mandate
to follow this subject. On 28 December 2014, he published his report
on this issue, for the 28th United Nations Human Rights Council
session.
He recommended, amongst others,
that States should repeal legislative obstacles to the work of human
rights defenders and combat impunity and that national human rights
institutions should be more engaged in protecting human rights defenders
who were in danger. Moreover, on 16 June 2015, during the 29th United
Nations Human Rights Council session in Geneva, a public side event
on “Attacks and reprisals against human rights defenders: enhancing
accountability for violations” took place. At the event, United
Nations and regional intergovernmental mechanisms assessed the situation
of human rights defenders and explained how they addressed obstacles
to the defenders’ work, also through joint initiatives. They noted
with concern the shrinking space for the work of human rights activists
and the persisting impunity for violations targeting human rights
defenders as well as reprisals against human rights defenders who
co-operated with intergovernmental organisations.
In his note of 30
July 2015 to the Secretary General, the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders expressed concerns about the trends
alluded in to in his reports, especially with regard to the most
exposed groups of defenders: women human rights defenders, defenders
of LGBT rights, of rights relating to land, defence of the environment
and corporate responsibility, rights of minorities and refugees,
combating corruption and impunity, those working in countries at
war or beset by internal conflict, journalists and bloggers as well
as human rights lawyers. He also concluded that defending and promoting
human rights had become “an extraordinarly dangerous activity” in very
many countries and stressed the importance of human rights education
in order to ensure that society recognises the work of defenders.
43. Interestingly, within the United Nations there is a system
of reporting on reprisals against those co-operating with this organisation
and its representatives. As established by the Human Rights Council Resolution
12/2, the Secretary General (with the help of the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights) annually reports to the Human
Rights Council about alleged reprisals against persons referred
to in paragraph 1 of the above-mentioned resolution.
This concerns
those who: “(a) seek to co-operate or have co-operated with the
United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field
of human rights, or who have provided testimony or information to
them; (b) avail or have availed themselves of procedures established under
the auspices of the United Nations for the protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, and all those who have provided legal
or other assistance to them for this purpose; (c) submit or have
submitted communications under procedures established by human rights
instruments, and all those who have provided legal or other assistance
to them for this purpose; (d) are relatives of victims of human
rights violations or of those who have provided legal or other assistance
to victims.”
10. NGOs helping human rights
defenders at risk: the example of Front Line Defenders
44. During the hearing before the
committee on 1 October 2015, Mr Anderson from Frontline Defenders presented
ways in which his organisation supports human rights defenders.
Front Line Defenders operates a Security Grants Programme, aimed
at providing timely and efficient financial assistance to defenders
at risk. In 2014, the largest number of the total of 48 emergency
and security grants (for amounts up to €7 500 each) awarded in Council
of Europe member States (out of 411 given globally) were given to
human rights defenders and their families in Azerbaijan, the Russian
Federation and Ukraine. They were used, for example, to install security
equipment in the homes or offices of human rights defenders. A CCTV
camera system and secure doors may well have saved the lives of
staff members of the Joint Mobile Group in Grozny during the attack
on their office. Moreover, financial support was given to Ms Khadija
Ismailova and her family prior to her imprisonment. Front Line Defenders
also has a 24/7 emergency hotline operating in five languages and,
in 2014, it facilitated the temporary relocation of 125 human rights
defenders, seven of whom came from Council of Europe member States.
The organisation also organised security training for human rights
defenders in Ukraine (including in the east) on how to continue
to work in the context of armed conflict. In response to States using
surveillance to undermine the work of human rights defenders, training
was also being offered on digital security, so as to enhance human
rights defenders’ capacity to make their communication and data
storage more secure. In addition, Front Line Defenders was engaged
in advocacy and campaigning on individual cases, and in raising
awareness of the legitimacy and importance of the work of human
rights defenders, whom States were trying to defame and stigmatise.
11. Ways
to protect human rights defenders and promote their role: conclusion
45. According to the United Nations
1998 Declaration on human rights defenders, there are two main defining
criteria for human rights defenders, namely that they work peacefully
and that they do so in the defence of the internationally recognised
human rights of others. Human rights defenders can easily be identified
on the basis of their commitment and dedication to the cause and
genuine human rights defenders continuously take a strong stance
for the protection of human rights in their countries. Defenders,
like all human beings, enjoy the protection guaranteed by the European
Convention on Human Rights. Thus, member States should refrain from
any acts of intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders
and ensure an enabling environment for their work and protection
against any acts of intimidation and reprisals. They should also promote
a human rights culture in their societies and condemn smear campaigns
aimed at denigrating the defenders’ work.
46. The current situation of human rights defenders in many Council
of Europe member States is very precarious. I am particularly worried
about the situation of Azerbaijani human rights defenders, as most
of our partners – including people whom I met during my fact-finding
visit to Baku (such as Ms Leyla Yunus), in Strasbourg during our
sessions or at the round tables organised by the Commissioner for
Human Rights (such as Mr Rasul Jafarov, Mr Intigam Aliyev or Ms
Khadiya Ismayilova) – are still behind bars and serving long sentences.
But I am also concerned about the “foreign agents” and “undesirable
organisations” legislation in Russia, which targets many long-standing
partners of the Council of Europe and aims to shut down human rights
organisations; as their activities mainly depend on foreign funding,
it is highly probable that in view of the lack of domestic funding
prospects, these NGOs will no longer be able to pursue their work.
Stigmatising NGOs as “foreign agents” is not only a way of targeting
such organisations but it is also an attempt to silence their own
citizens, by discouraging them from getting involved in civil society
and by creating a negative image of the organisations. Besides these
developments, I would also like to express my dismay about the developments
in Turkey, where many human rights lawyers and activists were arrested
on charges related to alleged “terrorist” activities, solely because
of their work on human rights or on Kurdish issues. Moreover, cases of
harassment of defenders, especially of those dealing with politically
sensitive issues or defending vulnerable or minority groups, have
also been reported in some other member States.
47. Other international organisations have established ways to
support the work of human rights defenders and/or to conduct a regular
dialogue with them. For example, the European Union provides considerable financial
assistance, the OSCE/ODIHR invites them to their annual Human Dimension
Implementation Meetings, the United Nations have a special rapporteur
on the situation of human rights defenders and a system of annual
reporting about cases of reprisals. In view of the foregoing, one
could hardly say that the Council of Europe has any established
mechanism to protect human rights defenders against reprisals. The sole
possibility to lodge a complaint to the European Court of Human
Rights or to address submissions to the Committee of Ministers in
the context of the implementation of Court judgments is certainly
not sufficient. As regards ways of exchanging of information with
defenders, there is a patchwork of formal (for example, through the
Conference of INGOs or the Commissioner’s Office) and informal mechanisms
(for example, our – Parliamentary Assembly members’ – meetings with
defenders), but still these ways of conducting a dialogue with civil
society are piecemeal and are not co-ordinated at the internal level.
48. In these circumstances, I am convinced that the Council of
Europe should do more to protect human rights defenders and to have
regular exchanges with them. It could, for example, establish a
platform for the protection of human rights defenders, following
the example of the recently established platform for the protection
of journalists. Many of our NGO partners would certainly be interested
in adhering to such a mechanism and providing updated information
on cases of intimidation of human rights defenders. Moreover, I
am of opinion that the Council of Europe should provide for a mechanism
to protect experts who co-operate with its institutions and bodies:
representatives of civil society co-operating with the Council of
Europe monitoring bodies, the Commissioner for Human Rights and
the Assembly, and lawyers who represent applicants before the European
Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers could thus create
a procedure for publicly and regularly reporting on cases of intimidation
of such persons.
49. Such action should also be supported at the national level.
Member States should be more outspoken on cases of reprisals against
human rights defenders and crackdowns on civil society, as well
as on restrictive legislation limiting freedom of association, and
in particular access to foreign funding. They should support activities
by NGOs such as Front Line Defenders and even initiate them, by
setting up a programme of visiting imprisoned human rights defenders,
providing medical assistance for them and supporting their relatives
as well as by giving greater visibility to the fate of human rights
defenders. Granting asylum or other protection status for defenders
at risk should also be a priority in cases of serious persecution
clearly related to their human rights activities.
50. Moreover, we as parliamentarians should do our best at the
national level to grant human rights defenders adequate protection.
We should also make use of their experience and knowledge, by allowing
them to take part in the legislative process, where appropriate,
and strongly condemn acts of intimidation of defenders and reprisals
against them.
51. The Assembly has been using its “parliamentary diplomacy”
to raise such cases and to promote the rights of defenders, also
through the hearings organised in committees or at the side events
during part-sessions. Like the European Parliament, which awards
the Sakharov Prize, the Assembly awards yearly the Václav Havel
Human Rights Prize. I would like to express my satisfaction about
the fact that in 2015 this prize was awarded to Ms Ludmila Alexeeva,
a veteran human rights defender from Russia. However, I am of the opinion
that the Assembly should do more. In my capacity as rapporteur on
this subject, I have tried to react to the most flagrant violations
of the rights of human rights defenders through my own public statements
or by proposing that the committee adopt them. However, I was not
in a position to follow all difficult cases due to time constraints
and the lack of resources. Therefore, I propose that the committee
appoints a general rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders
on the basis of Rule 50.7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.
The general rapporteur could follow closely individual cases and
maintain regular working relations with other Council of Europe
bodies, including the Commissioner for Human Rights, and international organisations,
such as the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations, as
well as present the work of the Assembly relating to them.
52. To conclude, too many human rights defenders are paying a
high price for their work and the Council of Europe’s institutions
and member States should pay greater attention to their plight.