Implementation update: CM meeting, December 2022
In December, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers (CM) held its quarterly Droits de l’Homme (DH) meeting, which focuses on the implementation of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.
The December meeting considered a number of cases co-litigated by EHRAC and its partners.
Mammadli group v Azerbaijan
– Concerning the use of pre-trial detention to punish human rights defenders and stifle opposition.
– EHRAC case summaries: Aliyev v Azerbaijan; Yunusova and Yunusova v Azerbaijan.
The CM has criticised Azerbaijan over a period of years for its lack of progress on implementing these judgments.
Although the convictions of a number of the applicants in the group, including our client Rasul Jafarov, have been quashed, the convictions of Mr Aliyev and the Yunusovs remain. We have called a number of times (including in our most recent submissions – Aliyev; Yunusovs) for progress on this issue.
The CM noted the need for urgent action:
Restitution “in this group of cases urgently requires the quashing of the remaining applicants’ convictions, their erasure from their criminal records and the elimination of all other consequences of the criminal charges brought against them, including by fully restoring their civil and political rights”.
Committee of Ministers, December 2022
The CM has now classed the quashing of convictions as a general measure ‘which will establish a solid and consistent national judicial practice against retaliatory and abusive detentions and prosecutions’.
This group of cases will be on the CM agenda at its next DH meeting in March 2023.
Namazov group v Azerbaijan
– Concerning the disbarment of lawyers
– EHRAC case summary: Bagirov v Azerbaijan
In a joint Rule 9 submission, EHRAC and our partners the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) and the Independent Lawyers Network set out general measures necessary to be taken by the Government to address the use of the disbarment of lawyers as a tactic to stifle criticism.
The CM called for Mr Bagirov and another applicant to be “provided with restitutio in integrum without delay.”
The CM also said that:
– domestic laws should provide ‘for specific grounds which could serve as a basis for exclusion from the (Azerbaijani Bar Association)’ – the key issue we challenged in the Bagirov case
– that the Government of Azerbaijan must put in place sufficient safeguards to prevent undue disciplinary action against lawyers
– the Government must ensure that such proceedings are initiated on relevant and sufficient grounds, the decisions are duly reasoned, principles of fairness and adversarial procedure are complied with, and the sanctions imposed are proportionate
The Government was asked to provide an update on the steps taken by 1 June 2023.
Sargsyan v Azerbaijan
– Concerning: the violation of property rights during the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
– EHRAC case summary: Sargsyan v Azerbaijan.
EHRAC has repeatedly noted, including in our most recent Rule 9 submission, the ongoing failure to pay just satisfaction – compensation – to Minas Sargsyan as an individual measure.
The CM noted no payment has yet been made, despite Azerbaijan indicating its willingness to do so.
“During further bilateral consultations in September 2022 and in writing in the above communication, the authorities of Azerbaijan confirmed their acceptance of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and their readiness to sign it. The authorities will liaise with the Secretariat to determine the exact date of transfer of the sum to the Council of Europe’s account, pending the receipt of notice of approval from Armenia of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the case of Chiragov v. Armenia.”
Committee of Ministers, December 2022
This case will be reviewed again in Sept 2023.
Identoba group v Georgia
– Concerning the ill-treatment of, and discrimination against, various marginalised groups, primarily LGBTI and religious groups.
– EHRAC cases (EHRAC case summaries linked where available): Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v Georgia concerns humiliating, homophobic police conduct during the search of a LGBTI NGO’s premises; Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v Georgia concerned violations and the failure to protect during a LGBT rally; Mikeladze and Others v Georgia, which was co-litigated with the Social Justice Centre, concerned discrimination against the Muslim minority. The first two cases cases were co-litigated with GYLA and WISG. Mikeladze and Others v Georgia was co-litigated by EHRAC and the Social Justice Center.
– HUDOC EXEC summary
Mikeladze and Others v Georgia was recently added to the Identoba group of cases, and the December meeting was the first occasion on which Mikeladze was examined by the CM. EHRAC and the SJC made a submission focusing on both individual measures and general measures concerning the problems of the Muslim minority in Georgia.
The Government of Georgia had asked the CM to close its examination of this group of cases. The CM instead identified the need to ‘establish a specialised investigative unit’ for hate crimes on grounds such as sexual orientation, gender identity and religion. This is not a new measure, but very limited progress has been made in fulfilling it. The CM asked the Georgian authorities ‘to engage in consultations with the Secretariat’ on this issue.
In our joint Rule 9 submission with GYLA and WISG (on Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v Georgia and Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v Georgia), we noted, among other issues, that the Government had not involved the LGBTI community in its draft National Strategy for the Protection of Human Rights for 2022-2030, and that this community’s needs were not addressed.
In its decision, the CM ‘called upon the authorities to rectify these shortcomings and to ensure close co-operation with the stakeholders, in particular LGBTI organisations’.
This group of cases will next be reviewed in December 2023.
Tkhelidze group v Georgia
– Concerning violence against women (VAW) in Georgia.
– EHRAC case summary: Tkhelidze v Georgia. A summary of A and B v Georgia will be published shortly.
The two cases in this group were co-litigated with Union Sapari and GYLA.
This was the first review of this group by the CM as these are two new cases (the first ever VAW cases v Georgia that have come before the CM).
In advance of the CM meeting, EHRAC lodged a Rule 9 submission jointly with Union Sapari, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, and the International Partnership for Human Rights. In our submission, we noted, as key general measures to focus on: the need for the Georgian police to improve its approach to the recording and management of evidence, and to risk assessments; the failure to accurately note gender discrimination as a factor in cases; and the tendency to only use electronic surveillance technology as a preventative measure in a small number of cases. We called for a greater focus on tackling femicide, including legislative changes, and greater accountability in regards to police investigations of these crimes.
On individual measures concerning victims in these case, the CM
“called upon the authorities to conduct the ongoing investigations in a fully independent, prompt and thorough manner and to establish the responsibility of the relevant officials in relation to their failure to respond properly to the gender-based violence, which led to the death of victims; invited them to provide clarifications on the legal classification of the offence and the scope of the investigation in the A and B case.”
Committee of Ministers, December 2022
On general measures, asked the Georgian authorities to provide ‘concrete information on the domestic practice in respect of ensuring accountability of law-enforcement officials for their failure to respond properly to complaints on gender-based violence’. The CM also said ‘further sustained and robust action is required to address the root causes of the problem’. The CM also called, amongst other things, for ‘stronger efforts’ for ensuring effective application of electronic surveillance system and the other deterrent mechanisms in practice; disaggregated statistical data, accompanied with a qualitative analysis in respect of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and sanctioning for gender-based crimes.
This case will be reviewed again at one of the 2023 meetings.
