Azerbaijan’s disbarment of human rights lawyer violated ECHR
CW: torture
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that the domestic disbarment of a leading Azerbaijani human rights lawyer led to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The judgment, in Imanov v Azerbaijan, is the latest concerning Azerbaijan’s attempts to silence lawyers who highlight human rights violations and the erosion of fair trial rights.
Currently, in Azerbaijan, almost all rights have been abolished. There are very few human rights lawyers left in the country, and they work under very difficult conditions, constantly at risk of losing their licenses and being arrested. In such a situation, any possible solidarity with them should always be a priority. This decision will someday contribute to the development of the Azerbaijani advocate system.
Yalchin Imanov, human rights lawyer, and the successful applicant in this case.
EHRAC has co-litigated a succession of cases involving the disbarment of lawyers in Azerbaijan, as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights defenders. In our submission to the September Committee of Ministers (CM) meeting, concerning the Mammadli Group of cases, we asked the CM to trigger infringement proceedings against Azerbaijan for its repeated non-compliance with the judgments in these cases.
The case
In 2017, Yalchin Imanov was informed by a client, Abbas Huseynov, that Huseynov had been the victim of sustained and repeated torture at the hands of prison officials. Huseynov said he had been held alone in a ‘punishment cell’, handcuffed and beaten. Huseynov showed Imanov his injuries, which were consistent with torture.
On 8 August 2017, Imanov shared Huseynov’s allegations with the media and asked the authorities to open an investigation. The following day, the prison service asked the Azerbaijan Bar Association (ABA) to disbar Imanov, claiming he had defamed the prison officials and damaged the reputation of the law enforcement agencies. On 20 November 2017, the ABA adopted a decision to seek his disbarment from a court, and on 22 February 2019 Mr. Imanov was indefinitely disbarred, preventing him from practising as a lawyer in Azerbaijan.
In July 2019, Imanov submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, in a case co-litigated with EHRAC.
In separate proceedings, Imanov’s client, Huseynov, lodged his own case at the European Court of Human Rights. In that case, the Government of Azerbaijan admitted a violation of Article 3 ECHR, the prohibition of torture or ill treatment.
The judgment
In its judgment, the ECtHR found violations of both freedom of expression (Article 10) and the right to private life (Article 8) of Yalchin Imanov. The Court found that the domestic courts did not take into account relevant factors when disbarring Imanov, including the fact that statements about ill-treatment of a prisoner are ‘without a doubt a matter of public interest’, the fact that those allegedly defamed did not take legal action themselves, and the fact that his allegations had a factual basis, particularly taking account the Government’s later acknowledgement that it violated the prisoner’s rights. The Court also took account of the disproportionate sanction of disbarment against Imanov, particularly as no reasons had been given by the domestic courts for choosing ‘the harshest disciplinary sanction in the legal profession’, which is ‘capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel’. In particular, the Court noted that disbarment of a lawyer must be supported by ‘particularly weighty reasons’, given the background of a ‘series of cases [where the Court] has noted a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists, journalists and human rights defenders’.
The Court awarded 10,000 EUR compensation to Imanov.
Disappointingly, given the systemic use of disbarment against human rights lawyers, the ECtHR found no need to make findings on whether there was an ulterior purpose for the disbarment (violating Article 18). However, the judgment was accompanied by a powerful partial dissent by Judges Ktistakis and Pavli, who found that the majority’s decision not to find a violation of Article 18 was ‘unwarranted as a matter of case-law and misguided as a matter of judicial policy’, and that a violation of Article 18 should have been found due to the fact that the disbarment pursued no legitimate aim, was grossly disproportionate, and must be set in the context of a pattern of the ‘misuse of disciplinary powers by the ABA as a means of suppressing dissent within the profession’.
