The post Gavrilov’s Night – landmark judgment finds Georgian protestors and journalists suffered ill treatment appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

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’.

The post Azerbaijan’s disbarment of human rights lawyer violated ECHR appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

This group of cases (FARMANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA) was co-litigated by the Armenian lawyers Vahe Grigoryan and Artak Zeynalyan and EHRAC.

The ECtHR found that the initial violent dispersal of the peaceful protest by police without warnings was unjustified and disproportionate as well as escalatory, resulting in the subsequent disorder. It dismissed the Government’s contention that the protesters were armed with firearm type weapons and held that the deaths of three applicants from the firing of gas cannisters at close range and of four applicants from the firing of live ammunition “resulted from a badly planned and executed operation involving the improper use of crowd-control weapons and the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of lethal force.”

The ECtHR found violations of the substantive and procedural limbs of the right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights). The additional failure of the authorities to provide the relevant evidence to the Court constituted a further violation of Article 38 of the Convention. All applicants were awarded 30,000 Euros in compensation.

‘This case is of national significance to Armenia. On 1 March 2008, a peaceful protest turned into a matter of life and death because of the authorities’ unregulated and totally disproportionate use of live ammunition and firing of tear gas cannisters as weapons. This case highlights what the Court referred to as a ‘systemic problem’ concerning the lack of regulation and supervision of less lethal and lethal force. EHRAC will continue to challenge the use of these life-threatening measures against protestors.’

Jessica Gavron, Co-Director, EHRAC

The protests and police response

In the aftermath of the February 2008 presidential elections, the main opposition candidate, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, called for mass protests, claiming electoral fraud. Crowds established a camp in the area around Yerevan’s Freedom Square, and maintained a peaceful presence there for several days.

In the early hours of 1 March, police attempted to disperse the estimated 1000 protestors. They destroyed the protestors’ tents, and beat them with rubber truncheons. A running battle followed, as protestors tried to evade the police.

On the evening of 1 March, armed police launched a further operation opening fire on protestors with live ammunition and tear gas cannisters fired from grenade launchers. This continued into the following day.

The applicants’ relatives died due to a combination of gunshot wounds and traumatic head injuries.

Main image: Serouj – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3653411

The post European Court delivers judgment in case concerning Armenians killed protesting 2008 election result appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The speakers emphasised that their focus is on delivering a victim-oriented approach, and minimising the risk of re-traumatisation:

• it should be possible for those who have suffered loss and damage to submit a claim themselves, without the support of a lawyer
• This is not a judicial mechanism, and it is not necessary to provide the same level of detail or evidence as when making a claim through a court. Claimants can upload basic documentation, or even just a written description of their losses, to support their claim
• All claims must currently be submitted through the online portal, but the Register is actively developing additional ways to submit a claim. The aim is to ensure that all victims can participate.

The Register’s mandate relates to the crime of aggression. Claims are therefore limited to loss and damage suffered as a consequence of the international, unlawful actions of the Russian Federation since the full-scale invasion, which began on 24 February 2022.

It is currently possible to submit claims in ten categories. The RD4U aims to have all 43 categories open for submissions by the end of 2025. It is possible to submit claims in more than one category.

CSOs were encouraged to engage through the Register’s Co-ordination Platform. This will make it possible for RD4U staff to better understand the support being provided by CSOs, identify any under-served communities, and improve its own outreach. Registering with this platform will also enable CSOs to contribute to ongoing developments.

Next steps include the establishment of a claims commission, which will assess the merits of submitted claims, and award appropriate compensation. A third mechanism will then be responsible for securing funds to finance the reparations awarded.  – The primary source of these funds will be frozen Russian assets.

For more information and to access open categories of claims, visit the official RD4U website: https://rd4u.coe.int/en

Thank you to our three speakers from the RD4U:

• Igor Karaman, Legal Advisor
• Ganna Khrystova, Head of the Kyiv Office
• Iryna Kiryeyeva, Representative for Co-operation with Ukraine

We are grateful to everyone who joined this webinar for their active engagement and positive feedback.

The post Webinar brings together victims’ representatives to learn about Register of Damages for Ukraine appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The head of the online news platform Azel.TV had been held since August 2024 pending extradition to Azerbaijian. On 28 February, following a request for interim measures made by EHRAC and Social Justice Center, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) granted a permanent injunction designed to prevent Sadigov’s extradition.

Following the ECtHR’s decision, Sadigov ended a 161-day hunger strike. He had been refusing water since early February. He is reported to have lost over 40kg in weight and has required a wheelchair.

On 16 April, he was released on bail.

Azerbaijan had sought Sadigov’s extradition to face allegations of extortion. This is the same charge as has been used to detain a number of journalists and other government critics in Azerbaijan following a renewed crackdown on dissenting voices.

Following his release, Afgan Sadigov commented: ‘The support of the organizations involved in preparing my case before the European Court of Human Rights has been of profound significance to me. Following nearly nine months of imprisonment and a 161-day hunger strike, the European Court of Human Rights emerged as the principal guarantor of protection against authoritarian repression. Its intervention prevented my extradition and reaffirmed that, irrespective of whether my case is officially deemed politically motivated in Georgia or Azerbaijan, justice remains attainable.

‘I extend my deepest gratitude to all those who have supported me throughout this journey. Your solidarity has been essential in sustaining both my personal resolve and the broader fight for human rights.’

Sadigov has previously exposed corruption in Azerbaijan and continues to be a vocal critic of the authoritarian regime in that country. Before moving to Georgia, he faced threats, multiple arrests and ill treatment in Azerbaijan at the hands of the authorities. In 2020, he was sentenced to seven years in prison, reduced to four years on appeal, also on charges of extortion. Having undertaken an extended hunger strike, and suffered serious health problems in detention, he was released after two years as part of a government amnesty. He subsequently left Azerbaijan with his family and has been living in exile in Georgia since December 2023.

Sadigov’s news platform Azel.TV has been repeatedly blocked in Azerbaijan.

This case is highly significant given the current circumstances in the region. It highlights again the widespread ill treatment and repression facing journalists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan. The Georgian courts’ willingness to approve Sadigov’s extradition, in the absence of any evidence provided by their Azerbaijani counterparts, provides further evidence of the close relationship between the two countries.

Two weeks before his most-recent arrest, Sadigov attempted to board a plane to Turkey, but was told by officials that he could only leave Georgia if he travellied to Azerbaijan.

In 2017, the Azerbaijani journalist and activist Afgan Mukhtarli was abducted from his home in Tbilisi, and forcibly returned to Azerbaijan, passing through both Georgian and Azerbaijan border posts without challenge. He was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison, on trumped-up charges. Prior to his arrest, Mukhtarli had been reporting on alleged corruption by individuals close to Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.

The latest developments in this case come as the Georgian Dream Government continues to attack civil society groups and media organisations, to disrupt peaceful protests, and to fine and imprison opposition figures. Alongside our partner human rights defenders, EHRAC is continuing to challenge these developments and to fight against civil society repression in both countries.

The post Azerbaijani journalist Afgan Sadigov released after European Court of Human Rights grants interim measures appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

What is the current situation for LGBTI communities in Armenia?

‘The situation of LGBT+ people in Armenia continues to be worrying, as the number of the offences because of victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity is only increasing. During 2024 PINK Armenia documented 65 cases involving human rights violations, of which 38 were cases of domestic violence. Meanwhile the willingness to report incidents to law enforcement is constantly decreasing. Only 10 victims of these 65 documented offences have agreed to report them, and only one investigation is still ongoing. The main reason for this situation is mistrust towards the investigative authorities.

‘The incidents are not being effectively documented and investigated, which leads to impunity on one hand and disappointment on the other hand.

‘It’s already three years since the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Oganezova v. Armenia, but this judgment still cannot, unfortunately, be considered implemented. Specifically, both the legislative and practical issues identified by the Court as leading to human rights violation remain. Furthermore, the training that has been organized for the law enforcement agencies has had little practical impact.’

How is PINK Armenia challenging this situation?

‘Pink Armenia continues its advocacy efforts towards comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, as well as criminal legislation regarding hate crimes and hate speech. We also monitor the measures undertaken by the authorities to assess their compliance to the recommendations of the European Court of Human Rights, preparing follow-up reports for the Committee of Ministers.’

The post International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia: A perspective from Armenia appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

On the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (17 May), we asked our partners WISG to share their experiences of homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia in Georgia.

What is it like for LGBTI communities in Georgia currently?

‘The situation for LGBTI communities in Georgia has deteriorated sharply following the adoption of the “Law on Protection of Family Values and Minors.” This legislation effectively criminalizes what authorities term “LGBTI propaganda” (using the new term “popularisation”), severely restricting freedom of expression, assembly, and association for LGBTI individuals and organizations. The law creates a hostile environment where discrimination is institutionalized, leading to increased vulnerability and marginalization.

‘Even before this law takes effect, we are witnessing an alarming exodus of LGBTI individuals from Georgia, with transgender persons particularly affected due to the effective criminalization of gender-affirming care. The main problem is the self-censorship among medical professionals. They now face legal penalties for providing essential hormone therapies and transition-related treatments, forcing many trans individuals to seek refuge elsewhere or resort to dangerous unregulated sources for medication. The legislation’s exceptionally broad scope directly targets healthcare providers, educators, social workers, and even interferes in parent-child relationships by criminalizing supportive discussions of gender identity or sexual orientation within families. This unprecedented intrusion into private family spheres demonstrates the law’s true intent: not protection but erasure of LGBTI identities from Georgian society.’

How are WISG seeking to challenge this situation?

‘At WISG, we’re confronting these discriminatory laws through targeted strategic litigation, working hand-in-hand with EHRAC to prepare robust cases for the European Court of Human Rights. Our legal strategy deliberately focuses on demonstrating how this law fundamentally violates Georgia’s binding commitments under the European Convention, particularly regarding non-discrimination, privacy rights, and freedom of expression. We’re meticulously documenting real-world implementation cases that directly contradict established ECtHR jurisprudence like Identoba, Aghdgomelashvili and A.D. v. Georgia to strengthen our legal position. Additionally, we’re actively supporting the implementation supervision process before the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe, submitting detailed evidence of continued non-compliance with existing judgments and requesting enhanced supervision measures – we’re hopeful these complementary mechanisms will create sufficient pressure to reverse Georgia’s alarming regression on LGBTI rights protection.’

The post International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia: A perspective from Georgia appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

On 26 February 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard a case with clear implications for Georgia’s democratic opposition, for media freedom in that country, and for the policing of protests across Europe.

On 20 June 2019, Sergei Gavrilov, an outspoken member of the Russian Duma, was invited to sit in the chair reserved for the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament. Gavrilov proceeded to address the assembled audience in Russian, a deeply provocative act given the history between the two nations, and the ongoing occupation of Georgian territory by Russian-backed separatists.

In the hours that followed, an estimated 15,000 protestors gathered outside Parliament to express their anger at the government officials who enabled Gavrilov to take this symbolic action. An impromptu rally ensued – parliamentarians called for electoral reform and the resignation of senior figures in the Georgian government.

Around midnight, police opened fire on the crowd, with tear gas then rubber bullets. No prior warning was given and police fired indiscriminately, in some cases from elevated positions, in contravention of both Georgian and international guidelines on the use of these weapons. Police also used brutal force against protestors and journalists. Victims were punched, kicked and beaten with batons.

The dispersal operation lasted for almost seven hours. Police fired over 800 rounds of rubber bullets. 187 civilians and 38 journalists are recorded as having been hurt as the result of police action. Some lost eyes, or their eyesight. Others suffered fractures to their faces as the result of rubber bullets.

Maia Gomuri was eighteen at the time and attending her first protest. She lost her left eye after being struck by a rubber bullet. She recalls screaming while searching for an ambulance. She underwent four emergency operations and suffered constant pain for months after the protest, due to her life-changing injuries.

Giorgi Diasamidze, an experienced multimedia journalist who has been covering protests in Georgia since 2014, was attacked by a police officer while broadcasting live on Facebook, for the news platform Netgazeti. While suffering the effects of tear gas, he was led into a side street, and then to the courtyard of the Parliament building. Along the way, he was struck multiple times by police officers and repeatedly verbally abused. The phone he had been using to share updates on the dispersal operation was smashed by police.

The case, Tsaava and Others v Georgia, has taken on increased importance given the ongoing protests across the country. Last night, a series of rallies converged again on the Georgian Parliament, on the 90^th consecutive night of anti-government demonstrations.

Since 2019, the Georgian authorities have watered down the regulatory framework to permit the parallel use of what are known as ‘less-lethal weapons’ – rubber bullets, tear gas and other ‘active special means’ designed to address violent disorder. This is a violation of international standards. Police action to target dissenting voices and suppress protests has become commonplace in Georgia, and the Georgian authorities have been criticised internationally for the mass detention and ill-treatment of protestors.

The Grand Chamber hearing is scheduled for the day after Soviet Occupation Day, the anniversary of the declaration, in 1921, of a Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Red Army’s invasion of Georgia, which led to the overthrow of the Georgian government and the dissolution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, is viewed by many as an example of the effects on the Georgian people of Russian expansionism. Large crowds are expected to attend rallies across the country.

The victims hope that the Grand Chamber judgment will set clear guidance on the policing of protests and the use of less-lethal weapons, in Georgia and in all member states of the Council of Europe.

The Grand Chamber hearing

The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) are representing 22 applicants in this case – 11 protestors and 11 journalists. All sustained injuries as a result of the police dispersal of the protest.

The Court has joined these applications to three other applications by the Georgian NGO, Human Rights Center, concerning four journalists injured at the same protest.

Lawyers from GYLA and EHRAC will argue that:

• the regulation of less-lethal weapons, particularly rubber-bullets, in Georgia is deficient, and the planning and operation of the police dispersal operation on 20-21 June 2019 was inadequate. These systemic issues resulted in the unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force against the applicants (a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
• the police action further violated the protestors’ freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 11) and the journalists’ freedom of expression (Article 10)
• After 5 years, the domestic investigation into the events of 20-21 June 2019 has been shown to be ineffective, leaving the applicants with no effective domestic remedy to redress their complaints (the procedural arm of Article 3 and Article 13)

The need for accountability

The Georgian authorities opened an official criminal investigation into misuse of authority by police officers shortly after the protest and, while hundreds of people were interviewed during this investigation, only three low-level police officers have so far been investigated and charged.

The September 2021 Amnesty Act exempted all involved from criminal liability and punishment for criminal acts related to the events of 20-21 June 2019. The three police officers charged under the domestic investigation were amnestied as a result of this Act.

Referral to the Grand Chamber

On 7 May 2024, in its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights found the State failed to conduct an effective investigation (in violation of procedural Article 3) but “refrained” from coming to a decision on the main issues in this case, on the basis that it believed that the domestic investigation was not ‘irretrievably undermined’ and could still establish the facts.

This was an unprecedented step by the Court, and so GYLA and EHRAC (with the consent of a third NGO Human Rights Center, which is representing four journalists injured in the same protest) requested a referral to the Grand Chamber, arguing that the judgment undermined key aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights. Successful requests are very rare, particularly when made by the applicants, and only occur if there is a serious issue affecting the interpretation of the Convention, or a matter of serious importance for the country concerned.

Fifteen NGOs from around the world that form the International Network of Civil Liberties Organisations (INCLO) have submitted a third-party intervention that sets out the international standards on the use of so-called “less lethal weapons”.

PEN International, PEN Georgia and English PEN have submitted a third-party intervention on the standards protecting journalists at protests and the situation of journalists in Georgia.

You can watch a recording of the Grand Chamber hearing.

The post Georgia: Injured protestors and journalists take case to Europe’s highest human rights court appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

On 10 December 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in FM and others v Russia, a case concerning five women from Uzbekhistan and Kazakhstan who were trafficked to Russia by the owners of a Moscow-based chain of convenience stores, then held in appalling conditions and exposed to gender-based crimes.

EHRAC litigated the case with Russian partner lawyers, and represented four of the five applicants. We argued that the applicants were targeted based on the store owners’ biases in relation to the women’s gender, ethnicity and social position. To support this argument, we provided the Court with an expert report, which we commissioned from Women’s Link Worldwide, explaining why trafficking is a “gendered phenomenon” and a form of violence and discrimination against women.

This case is the first time the ECtHR has considered trafficking from a gendered perspective. In a ground-breaking decision, the Court found substantive and procedural violations of Article 4 (the Prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and a violation of Article 14 (the Prohibition of discrimination) based on the intersectional discrimination experienced by the victims, as women who were also foreign workers without permission to remain in Russia, circumstances which added to their vulnerability. 

‘This is a precedent-setting judgment that will have ramifications beyond Russia, given that trafficking is a global phenomenon. The Court has for the first time recognised the gendered nature of trafficking women and the multiple vulnerabilities that were exploited. 

‘The Court also specifically acknowledged the gendered abuses enabled by the captivity of the women and in furtherance of the trafficking, including forced reproduction.’ 

 Jess Gavron, Co-Director, EHRAC 

Background 

The Russian authorities’ case file shows that that they were first made aware of allegations of trafficking against the store owners in 2002. 

The applicants in this case were all women trafficked from Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan between 2002 and 2008. On arrival in Moscow, their identity documents were removed by their employers and they were forced to work for up to 22 hours a day, without pay. The women were frequently beaten and subjected to horrendous violence. All the applicants were raped during their time working in Moscow. 

All the applicants suffered severe psychological trauma and bear physical scars as the result of their treatment. 

F.M. and A.M. 

F.M and A.M., who are sisters, were 17 and 18 when they were trafficked. They joined a group of around a dozen women working at a store on Uralskaya Street. They were fed rotting food and forced to drink alcohol by one of the store’s owners, R.M.. According to their submissions, the workers were ‘prohibited from talking to each other, being under permanent surveillance by an assigned coworker and through video cameras installed everywhere in the store… (They were) beaten by the store owners… (and) forced to beat each other in front of the store owners.’ 

In 2008, F.M. escaped from the store, but was returned by police, allegedly in return for a bribe. In January 2009, F.M. gave birth to a baby boy on the premises. R.M. confiscated the child’s birth registration documents. Two months later, he separated the boy from his mother, saying the child would be sent to southern Kazakhstan, but providing no further information on his destination. 

In early 2010, F.M. fled to Kazakhstan. A.M. remained in Moscow and suffered retaliation from the owners following her sister’s escape. In June of that year, representatives from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) raised F.M.’s case with the Russian authorities. The following month, the situation of both the sisters was the subject of a legal assistance request from Kazakhstan’s Ministry of the Interior. Despite these two interventions, Russian police failed to adequately investigate the case. While the local police paid routine visits to the stores, they failed to act on clear evidence that the women had been subjected to ill-treatment. 

G.N. and B.K. 

The third and fourth applicants (G.N. and B.K) had been trafficked separately, some years earlier, to another store owned by the same people, on Novosibirskaya Street. B.K. had given birth to two children during her time there. One, a girl, had been removed by the owners and sent to Kazakhstan. B.K. was subsequently told that she had died there in infancy. G.N, who had spent ten years at the store, had been forced to have an abortion by the store owners. 

On 30 October 2012, a group including representatives from Alternativa, an organisation supporting victims of slavery, and journalists from the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, approached this store. Two of the store owners sought to make a getaway by car, taking some trafficked workers, and the children of others, with them. Members of the group alerted police, who collected evidence from the store. The trafficked workers who remained at the store, who included G.N. and B.K., provided statements to police. 

Reports suggest the trafficked workers were questioned by police for up to fourteen hours, then held pending deportation. They were denied victim status and the police appeared reluctant to act against the store owners.

The judgment

The ECtHR concluded that the Russian authorities failed to protect the women, and so had breached their positive obligations under Article 4 (the Prohibition of slavery and forced labour). The police failed to adequately investigate the allegations received and ignored available evidence. Furthermore, no operational measures were taken to protect the applicants, and no cooperation or assistance was provided to the civil society organisations that had facilitated the applicants’ release. There was also a lack of a suitable regulatory framework to prohibit and prevent trafficking and forced labour.

As regards the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14, the ECtHR noted that a disproportionate number of women and girls are victims of human trafficking, and that migrants – particularly those without a support network and with irregular migration status – are also disproportionately affected. The Court noted the applicants’ submissions about how discrimination had contributed to their vulnerability:

‘Because of their illegal migrant status and because they had believed that the store owners were in collusion with the local police, the applicants had been afraid of the police as much as they had been afraid of the store owners. They had not spoken Russian well. The fact that they had been raped and had given birth to rape-conceived children, who had then been held hostage by the store owners, had made it harder for the applicants to return to their home countries.’ 

For the first time, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4: 

‘(T)he Court considers that the inaction of the respondent State in honouring its positive obligations under (the Prohibition of slavery and forced labour) amounted to repeatedly condoning trafficking, labour exploitation and related gender-based violence and reflected a discriminatory attitude towards the applicants as women who were foreign workers with an irregular immigration status. The respondent State authorities’ general and discriminatory passivity created a climate that was conducive to their trafficking and exploitation.’

The applicants were each awarded between 52,000 and 78,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages. 

The post Landmark judgment finds trafficking and treatment of women rooted in discrimination appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The case, which was litigated by EHRAC and our partner Pink Armenia, related to a series of articles published by the Iravunk newspaper. The first article, written by Iravunk’s Editor-in-Chief, was published in May 2014. The day before the article was published, the applicants had responded on social media to homophobic comments made by members of Armenia’s 2014 Eurovision Song Contest regarding the Austrian winner, Conchita Wurst. The jury members had said their decision to award the lowest points possible to Wurst, a cross-dressing queer man, was due to their ‘revulsion’ at him, a feeling that they compared to how they felt about ‘mentally ill’ people. 

The author of the Iravunk article described the applicants as members of an ‘International Homosexual Lobby’ focused on reducing the birth rate and weakening the military. He accused the members of this ‘Lobby’ of seeking to intimidate those who ’oppose their efforts to make perversion the norm in Armenia’.  

The article provided links to the applicants’ Facebook profiles, described them as ‘Enemies of the Nation and the State’, and called on the government, media companies and those working the education system to deny them work, press coverage and ‘the opportunity to educate the younger generations.’ 

Two weeks after publication of the article, a number of those who it named asked Iravunk to retract it, but the website decided to instead publish a further article by the same author containing insults directed at those who had signed the request. Two weeks later, the applicants launched civil proceedings against the newspaper and its Editor-in-Chief, seeking damages and a public apology. Over the next six weeks, Iravunk published further articles insulting the applicants. 

Six months after the publication of the original article, the Editor-in-Chief and the Chair of Iravunk’s editorial board were honoured by the President of Armenia and the President of the National Assembly. Five days later, the District Court found against the applicants saying that the article was simply the author exercising his freedom of expression. 

Over the next few months, Iravunk continued to target the applicants with further articles containing insults and false accusations. The following March, the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal. 

Judgment 

The applicants complained that the newspaper articles amounted to harassment and hate speech and had interfered with their private life, and that the Armenian State had failed to provide protection against such harassment and hate speech in breach of Articles 3 (Prohibition of torture and ill-treatment) and 8 (the Right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. They also argued that the State had failed to acknowledge and provide protection from the discriminatory motives of the author, including the incitement to discrimination on the grounds of the applicants’ LGBTI-related activism and their perceived sexual orientation, in breach of Article 14 (the Prohibition of discrimination). 

The ECtHR found Armenia had violated Article 8 (the Right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (the Prohibition of discrimination). The ECtHR found that the author of the article had attacked the applicants because of their support for the LGBTI community and had expressly incited the public to commit discriminatory acts against the applicants, and that the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants from speech advocating intolerance and harmful acts. The ECtHR further expressed concern about the ineffectiveness of the legal framework in protecting the applicants from homophobic hate speech.  

“This is the second judgment by the ECtHR which states that Armenia has failed to provide effective protection for LGBTI people against hate speech. In the two and half years since the first such judgment (in Oganezova v. Armenia), the State has failed to provide any evidence that the Criminal Code article on liability for public calls to violence is being effectively applied in practice. 

‘We also note that ten years’ after work began on the anti-discrimination law, the current draft still lacks effective mechanisms to protect LGBTI people. 

‘Pink Armenia and EHRAC will monitor the implementation of this judgment.’ 

Hasmik Petrosyan, lawyer, Pink Armenia

The ECtHR awarded the applicants 2,000 euros each in non-pecuniary damages. 

Photo: Conchita Wurst, after winning the Eurovision Song Contest 2014.

Photo credit: Albin Olsson, used under CC-by-3.0-license. (Creative Commons).

The post Armenians that were branded ‘enemies of the state’ after speaking up for Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst win positive judgment appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).