EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY CENTRE

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY CENTRE ANNUAL REPORT 2010

2 Thanks to RFE/RL s Georgian Service for the picture on pg. 10 and to Varvara Pakhomenko for the images on pgs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 15, 21, and 25. EHRAC would also like to extend special thanks to Amy Greenbank for designing this report. Graphic designs for human rights organisations, NGOs and the charity sector Contact: amygreenbank@gmail.com

3 CONTENTS Foreword Mission Our work in brief Litigation before the European Court 2010 judgments What kind of cases do we take? Kiladze v Georgia Abuyeva & Others v Russia What do judgments mean to applicants? Addressing attacks on journalists in Russia Freedom of expression in Azerbaijan Providing ECHR expertise to Armenia Sargsyan v Azerbaijan Starting cooperation with Azerbaijan Key events calendar 2010 Supporting Georgian NGOs to effectively litigate conflict cases Training lawyers from the North Caucasus Enforcement of European Court judgments European Court reforms and advocacy EHRAC Legal Skills Development Programme Roundtables Developing NGOs capacity Mentoring and legal consultancy Developing lawyers Internships Training resources and raising awareness EHRAC s partner organisations EHRAC staff and thanks Accounts

4

5 FOREWORD This Annual Report records EHRAC s most important contributions and achievements during 2010 working in close collaboration with our various partners in Russia and the South Caucasus, notably Memorial HRC in Russia, and the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA). During the year we secured 18 more judgments at the European Court of Human Rights (against Russia and Georgia) in each case the Court found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that EHRAC has now secured 66 judgments since its inception, and is working on a total of 280 cases before the Court, acting on behalf of more than 1,000 applicants and primary victims. In relation to Russia, we highlight the important judgment in Abuyeva, concerning the civilian deaths caused by a military operation at Katyr-Yurt in Chechnya in February In an unprecedented decision, the Court expressly referred to the failure of the Russian authorities to implement the earlier Isayeva judgment (concerning the same operation) because no effective investigation had been carried out. The Report also considers the impact of human rights litigation. For example, as a direct result of the Kiladze judgment against Georgia, a new law has already been drafted, and is currently being debated in Parliament, which will finally ensure that several thousand victims of repression during the era of the Soviet Union will be paid the compensation which the Georgian Parliament decided they should receive, back in During the year, EHRAC began a new litigation programme in Azerbaijan, in collaboration with three NGOs: the Democracy and Human Rights Public Union, the Legal Education Society and the Media Rights Institute. We also worked with the Armenian NGO, Legal Guide, on a ground-breaking case concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. We would like to take this opportunity to thank our funders, and everyone who assisted us throughout the year in so many capacities, including London Met students, our team of lawyers and a host of interns. Prof. Philip Leach, Director, EHRAC Prof. Bill Bowring, Chair, International Steering Committee

6 MISSION EHRAC s mission is to assist non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and lawyers in Russia and the South Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights and to build the capacity of the local human rights communities. Our emphasis is on developing strategic litigation skills and pushing for better implementation of European Court judgments in order to bring about positive change on the ground to laws, policy and practice. We also seek to raise awareness of the European Court system and the human rights situation in the countries in which we work. Peace, progress and human rights these three aims are inextricably linked, you cannot achieve any single one of them if you neglect the others. Slogan at Sakharov Centre, Moscow

7 OUR WORK IN BRIEF Throughout our activities we strive to work in partnership or consultation with local NGOs. Our main areas of work are: Human rights litigation and advocacy Giving our local partners the support they need to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of victims of human rights abuses Pressing for the enforcement of European Court judgments Advocacy work at the Council of Europe and UN Human rights capacity building Mentoring lawyers at partner organisations with a focus on their own professional development and independence Providing a range of training initiatives on the European Convention on Human Rights for local lawyers and NGOs Producing tailor-made training materials for local lawyers Building the operational capacity of our partners in areas such as project and financial management Raising awareness and disseminating information Publicising the results of our work through press releases and our websites Raising awareness of the European Court system and human rights violations in the countries where we work through the EHRAC Bulletin and our websites EHRAC was granted Partnership Status with the Council of Europe in 2006.

8 Applicants in the environmental pollution case of Ledyaeva & Others v Russia, which EHRAC-Memorial HRC won before the European Court LITIGATION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT 2010 saw significant progress in our litigation work with more judgments than ever before, including in important and ground-breaking cases against Russia and Georgia. We began joint litigation work with three NGOs in Azerbaijan and worked on our first case with colleagues in Armenia as well as submitting full applications in our 32 cases arising from the 2008 South Ossetia conflict. Litigation status As at 31 December 2010: Judgments: Finding at least one violation of the ECHR Communicated cases: The State concerned has been made aware of the case and asked to respond to questions posed by the Court Applications lodged: That have yet to be communicated Applications in preparation: Total cases: These 280 cases are on behalf of some 1,000 applicants and primary victims also directly affected by the violations in question.

9 In 2010, the European Court ruled in 18 of EHRAC s cases and found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in all of them: JUDGMENTS Kiladze v Georgia Dubayev v Russia & Bersnukayeva v Russia Zakayev & Safanova v Russia Kayankin v Russia Gultyayeva v Russia Mutsolgova & Others v Russia Abayeva & Others v Russia Sadulayeva v Russia Khatuyeva v Russia Khutsayev & Others v Russia Ilyasova v Russia Yuldashev v Russia, Isakov v Russia & Sultanov v Russia Lopata v Russia Amuyeva v Russia Abuyeva v Russia Collectively, these cases contain a total of 61 violations of Convention articles, including 10 findings of a substantive violation of the right to life in respect of 40 people. Impossibility of obtaining compensation for political repression Disappearance in Chechnya following surrender to State authorities under an amnesty in March 2000 Removal from Russia in violation of private and family life Length of proceedings seeking damages for having been conscripted into the army when seriously ill Conditions of detention and right to liberty and security Disappearance from home in Ingushetia in December 2003 Disappearance following detention in street in Chechnya in September 2000 Disappearance after being stopped for identity checks whilst travelling by car in Chechnya in December 2002 Disappearance following detention at home in Ingushetia in August 2004 Disappearance after being detained at home in Chechnya in December 2001 Disappearance following detention at home in Chechnya in November 2002 Threatened extradition to Uzbekistan where applicant would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment Ineffective investigation of allegations of torture and ill-treatment by police officers in September 2000 Extrajudicial executions in Chechnya in February 2000 and ineffective investigation into these events Bombardment of Chechen village in February 2000 and non-compliance with an earlier similar judgment

10 WHAT KIND OF CASES DO WE TAKE? EHRAC s litigation work covers a wide range of issues - we have cases addressing almost all European Convention rights. Our broad expertise means that we are able to respond to new situations as they arise. Below are examples of our different types of cases: Article 2 right to life The applicants in K v Russia allege that Russia failed to conduct a timely and effective investigation into their daughter s rape and murder. Article 3 prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment In the case of Gisayev v Russia State agents were found to have tortured Akhmed Gisayev. Article 4 prohibition of slavery/forced labour One of the applicants in A & B v Russia argues that he was made to perform forced labour whilst in detention during the 2008 South Ossetia conflict. Article 5 right to liberty and security The applicant in Batiashvili v Georgia alleges that he was unlawfully detained on two separate occasions. Article 6 right to a fair trial The applicant in M v Georgia argues that procedural violations regarding forensic evidence and the admission of conflicting testimonies unfairly led to his conviction for murder. Article 8 right to respect for private and family life Several people resident within a sanitary security zone around a chemical plant in Vladikavkaz plan to complain to the European Court that Russia is not protecting them from long-term environmental pollution from the plant. Article 9 freedom of thought, conscience and religion The applicant in K v Russia states that he was convicted of terrorist crimes due to his membership of an Islamic political movement considered to be a terrorist organisation by the Russian Supreme Court.

11 Article 10 freedom of expression The applicants in O v Russia allege a violation of their right to freedom of expression following defamation proceedings opened against them about statements they made that Ramzan Kadyrov (the President of Chechnya) and the Chechen authorities were responsible for the death of human rights activist Natalia Estemirova. Article 11 freedom of assembly and association In D v Russia a group of human rights activists were disbanded by police and the applicants charged with violating procedures for organising and conducting meetings. Article 13 right to an effective remedy In Sargsyan v Azerbaijan the applicant alleges that there are no effective remedies available to ethnic Armenians who were forced to leave their homes in Azerbaijan. Article 14 prohibition of discrimination In N & S v Russia the applicants claim that they have been refused valid national passports because of their ethnicity. Article 1 of Protocol 1 protection of property In A v Russia the applicant was charged with fraud after having initially been granted State compensation for damage to his property resulting from a Russian military aerial bombardment. Article 2 of Protocol 4 freedom of movement The European Court found that the authorities refusal to grant Maxim Karpachev residence in his home town (a closed city in Russia) on account of his criminal conviction had violated his right to choose his place of residence. Article 4 of Protocol 4 prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens In C v Russia the applicants claim that they were detained without reason and deported from Russia along with thousands of other Georgian nationals without right to appeal. Article 4 of Protocol 7 right not to be tried or punished twice In Zolotukhin v Russia the applicant was found to have been convicted twice for the same minor disorderly acts in a police station.

12 Klaus Kiladze KILADZE v GEORGIA Paving the way for up to 20,000 Georgian victims of Soviet political repression to receive compensation Klaus and Yuri Kiladze s father was executed in 1937 and their mother was sent to a GULAG (corrective labour camp) in 1938 for alleged crimes against the Soviet regime. Their parents flat in Tbilisi and all their belongings were confiscated. Klaus and Yuri were sent to an orphanage in Russia where they lived in cramped and unsanitary conditions for two years before returning to Georgia to live with their grandmother. In 1956 and 1957 the applicants mother and father were rehabilitated. Having been recognised as victims of political repression in 1998, in 2005 the Kiladzes applied to the Georgian courts seeking compensation under a 1997 law on the recognition of citizens of Georgia as victims of political repression. However, the domestic courts rejected their claims as a further law, which was necessary to determine the sum of moral damages due to them, and to stipulate how to pay the damages, had not been adopted. In 2006 they applied to the European Court with the assistance of EHRAC and one of its Georgian partners, GYLA. On 2 February 2010, the European Court ruled that a legislative void had prevented Klaus and Yuri Kiladze from obtaining compensation to which they were entitled as victims of political repression and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to property). The Court required the Georgian authorities to rapidly introduce the necessary legislative, administrative or budgetary measures to ensure that those people who are entitled to do so, can benefit from their rights under the 1997 law.

13 the Court does not see any reason why the State has failed, after more than 11 years, to take even the smallest step to starting the process of adopting the law [...]. Furthermore, the State is apparently not ready to start this task, thus denying the elderly applicants any hope of enjoying, during their lifetime, the rights envisaged in Article 9 of the law of 11 December Judgment, Klaus & Yuri Kiladze v Georgia, para. 75 Meeting to commemorate political repression in Chechnya As a result of the judgment not only the Kiladzes, but up to 20,000 other people, should now receive compensation as the Georgian Government is drafting a new law to rectify the problem. This is due to come into force in EHRAC and GYLA are closely monitoring this process, including by liaising with the Georgian Government.

14 ABUYEVA & OTHERS v RUSSIA A step forward for independent investigations in Chechnya The European Court s judgment in the EHRAC case of Abuyeva & Others v Russia was a significant step forward in the difficult task of ensuring that the authorities carry out effective investigations into gross human rights abuses in the North Caucasus. A proper investigation leading to answers and justice for victims relatives is very often more valuable to applicants than financial compensation. From the beginning of Russian military operations in Chechnya in autumn 1999, Katyr-Yurt was treated as a safe zone and by February 2000 up to 25,000 people were living there. The authorities did not inform the residents that insurgents might soon arrive in the village, although they had information to this effect. On 4 February the village was captured by Chechen fighters and the Russian military assaulted the village with bombs and missiles. The two roads out of the village were controlled by military roadblocks. One roadblock allowed people to leave, but the other remained closed trapping civilians. Extracts from applicant statements: Marusya Abuyeva, her husband and her son Ali took the body of Ruslan Abuyev and tried to leave the village through the roadblock, heading north towards the village of Valerik. According to the applicant, it took them about two hours to cross the distance of six or seven hundred metres to the roadblock because of the shelling and confusion. By the time they reached the roadblock, there were already many other residents there. The military refused to let anyone through. Early in the morning on 4 February 2000 the applicants [Raisa, Khava and Madina Vakhayeva] took shelter in the large basement of Nurzhan Vakhayeva s two-storey house. About 150 people gathered there, including old people and children. Heavy shelling continued all morning. At about noon there were two strong blasts which destroyed the house and damaged the basement. Four people died immediately and another seven died later of their injuries.

15 On 2 December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights held the Russian authorities responsible for failing to protect the lives of the 29 applicants in this case and their relatives who died or were wounded during the attack in violation of the right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention). The Court also found that the Russian authorities criminal investigations into the deaths had been ineffective. The applicants, who were represented by EHRAC and Memorial HRC, were collectively awarded 1,720,000 for non-pecuniary damages, a record sum. Significantly, in 2005 the European Court had already ruled on the events in Katyr-Yurt in EHRAC-Memorial HRC s case of Isayeva v Russia and identified serious failings in the domestic investigations. However, in the new judgment: [...] the Court concludes that all the major flaws of the investigation indicated in 2005 persisted throughout the second set of proceedings, which ended in June Most notably, it cannot discern any steps taken to clarify the crucial issues of responsibility for the safety of the civilians evacuation and of the reprisal character of the operation against the population of Katyr-Yurt. It does not appear that any additional questions about these aspects of the operation were posed to the military or civilian authorities or to the servicemen involved at ground level. No one was charged with any crime. Judgment, Abuyeva & Others v Russia, para. 210 This led the Court to leave the question of what should be done in terms of complying with the judgment to the Committee of Ministers rather than to Russia. It also stated that it considered it inevitable that this should include a new, independent investigation. [...] the respondent Government manifestly disregarded the specific findings of a binding judgment concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation. Judgment, Abuyeva & Others v Russia, para. 241

16 Relatives of a kidnapped person block the Kavkaz highway in Ingushetia in protest WHAT DO JUDGMENTS MEAN TO APPLICANTS? A finding of fact by the European Court is of immense importance to applicants, particularly those who have been left without answers about their loved ones for years. This is especially true of our applicants from the North Caucasus whose relatives were taken away, often from their own homes in front of their families, and then disappeared. Bersunkayeva v Russia On 13 June 2001, a group of servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks and carrying machine guns arrived at the house of Raisa Bersunkayeva s brother-in-law in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. Her son, Artur Bersunkayev, was living there at the time. According to the family, the servicemen beat Artur and his uncle with the guns and covered Artur s eyes and mouth with adhesive tape before taking him away. Despite repeated enquiries to officials, Raisa has been unable to find her son. The European Court ruled that the Russian Government was responsible for Artur s disappearance and that he must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents. When we applied to the European Court we weren t thinking about the financial compensation. Although it was hard to understand, we found that our own Government wouldn t take responsibility and that it didn t want to implement its own laws and constitution. That is why we wanted to prove that there are problems here. I was always certain that several official bodies knew about my son s disappearance, but they always told me that they didn t have anything to do with my son s detention. What they did was simply murder. We had such a huge amount of evidence that my son was detained by State agents, but we didn t know who to go to with it. A year or two passed like this and then I was lucky to find out about the European Court of Human Rights through Memorial HRC. Raisa Bersunkayeva, European Court applicant

17 Mutsolgova & Others v Russia Bashir Mutsolgov disappeared from near his home in Karabulak, Ingushetia, on 18 December According to witnesses, he was forcibly placed in a vehicle by a group of armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms. The driver of the vehicle produced a special permit prohibiting a search when stopped by a police officer. Although the local law enforcement agencies told Bashir s family that they had not arrested him, they were approached by people presenting themselves as FSB officers offering information about Bashir s whereabouts in exchange for money. Despite concerted efforts Bashir s family were unable to ascertain his fate. On the basis of the evidence, the European Court ruled that Bashir was abducted by State agents and that he must be presumed dead. My wish was for the European Court to give a just and fair decision. What happened to my brother was a violation of our family s rights. The Government is guilty for what happened and they also didn t conduct a proper investigation. We also hope that the European Court decision will influence the investigation and case that is going on here. I still don t know where my husband is. I saw the people who took him away. I saw their faces. When I applied to the European Court, I wanted to find my husband and nothing else. I hoped that the people who did this would be punished. I wanted justice and I still want them to find my husband. Even if they would find his body or his ring, then at least I could bury that. I was running to different organisations for help. When they took my husband they also took all our money. I lost everything. I wrote to the Red Cross, the United Nations, Putin, and the ombudsman, Vladmir Lukin. Seven years have now passed and I still don t know anything for sure. But in the end Memorial HRC and EHRAC helped me. Applicant in a disappearance case from Chechnya The European Court decision helped us on a moral level. An independent court officially recognised that our and my brother s fundamental rights were violated the right to life and the right to an effective investigation. This is a serious moral victory for us. Of course the Russian Government also paid us the financial compensation that we were granted, but this was not the most important thing. Maybe it is even the least important thing. It is important in principle, of course, but in essence what was important for me is that we won and that independent judges told us that we were right. We keep on hoping. We continue to ask the local courts here to carry out an effective investigation and to find the people who are responsible. I don t still hope he is alive, but I do still hope that one day they will show us where they buried him. Magomed Mutsolgov brother of Bashir and European Court applicant

18 ADDRESSING ATTACKS ON JOURNALISTS IN RUSSIA According to the International Press Institute, Russia is an extremely dangerous place for journalists to work and it has recorded the murders of 11 journalists in Russia in the past three years alone. In 2010 EHRAC began assisting two families to seek justice for the murder of their relatives, both journalists who were both killed in Maxim Maximov Maxim Maximov was a Russian investigative journalist who disappeared on 29 June 2004, and is presumed dead. Prior to his disappearance he had been investigating corruption in the St Petersburg police. His mother believes that a number of the police officers that he had been investigating are responsible for his murder. She has made repeated efforts to have her son s disappearance investigated effectively but states that the relevant authorities have failed to do so. Paul Klebnikov On 9 July 2004, Paul Klebnikov, the editor of Forbes Russia, was shot nine times from a car in the street outside his office in Moscow. He died from the wounds in hospital that night. Some of the assailants were apprehended, but were acquitted at trial. Paul s relatives intend to bring a case to the European Court, represented by EHRAC, alleging that the investigation of the case violated the right to life (Article 2 ECHR). With the assistance of EHRAC she is applying to the European Court asking it to find Russia responsible for Maxim s disappearance and presumed murder and the inadequate investigation into this. The case will also argue that there is a systemic failure by the Russian State to effectively investigate and bring to justice those responsible for attacks on journalists.

19 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN AZERBAIJAN Azerbaijan was ranked 152nd of 178 countries in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index One of the most high-profile examples of the persecution of journalists and violations of the freedom of expression in Azerbaijan is that of Eynulla Fatullayev, a journalist and the editorin-chief of two newspapers well known for their harsh criticism of the Azerbaijani Government. In 2007 Fatullayev was convicted of crimes including terrorism and incitement to hatred following controversial publications about the Khojaly tragedy that took place during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Following his conviction Fatullayev applied to the European Court complaining of a violation of his freedom of expression. In April 2010 the Court ruled that his publications were not defamatory and that he should be released from prison. However, four months prior to the European Court ruling Fatullayev was searched in prison and found to be in possession of drugs. He was sentenced for this in July The human rights community asserts that this case was fabricated to prevent Fatullayev s release from prison under the European Court s judgment. EHRAC is helping the Legal Education Society in Azerbaijan to bring a new case to the European Court about Fatullayev s drug conviction and his ongoing imprisonment despite the European Court s order that he be released.

20 EHRAC Director Philip Leach and Narine Gasparyan of Legal Guide preparing for the Sargsyan hearing PROVIDING ECHR EXPERTISE TO ARMENIA In 2010 the Armenian NGO Legal Guide contacted EHRAC to request assistance with an oral hearing before the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the case of Sar gsyan v Azerbaijan. Sargsyan is likely to be the first case against Azerbaijan about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be decided by the European Court. Therefore it is crucial for the precedent that it will set for pending and potential future applications about the conflict. The case is particularly challenging due to the time that has passed since the events in question and the related difficulties in obtaining evidence. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous province within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic inhabited by 75% ethnic Armenians and 25% ethnic Azeris. Armed hostilities began in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988 when Armenia demanded it be incorporated into its territory. In January 1992 the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic declared its independence from Azerbaijan and the conflict escalated to full-scale war resulting in hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons on both sides. A ceasefire agreement was signed in May 1994, but no final political settlement to the conflict has ever been reached. On behalf of Legal Guide I would like to thank you for your involvement in the case of Sargsyan and your committed work. Through this cooperation we have all seen many things in our work changed for the better, which is an inspiration to us. We truly enjoyed working with EHRAC, which proved to be more than just an organisation: it is a great team involving highly dedicated people. Thank you again for your support and we hope that there will be other opportunities to collaborate. Narine Gasparyan, President, Legal Guide

21 SARGSYAN v AZERBAIJAN Minas Sargsyan and his family, who are ethnic Armenians, lived in a house in the village of Gulistan in a region of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic bordering Nagorno-Karabakh. The region was later claimed by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. During the war Gulistan was bombed by Azerbaijani forces and the entire village fled fearing for their lives. Minas house was destroyed in the bombing. On the morning of 13 June 1992 the Azeri special police squad started shooting in the Shahumyan Region and the surrounding villages. The shooting was nonstop one could see the houses and churches being bombed and destroyed. The bombing was constant and everything was destroyed yards, schools, bridges and hospitals. They would not spare anything and were shooting from morning till evening. Extract from a statement by Minas Sargsyan submitted to the European Court With the assistance of Legal Guide, in August 2006 Minas complained to the European Court about his forced displacement from Gulistan and the Azerbaijani Government s continuing refusal to allow him access to his home and belongings under the protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention) and his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). He also complained that no effective remedy (Article 13) was available to him in Azerbaijan due to the unresolved nature of the conflict. Minas Sargsyan s house in Gulistan Minas died in 2009 without seeing justice, however his wife and children are now pursuing his application.

22 EHRAC training seminar in Baku STARTING COOPERATION WITH AZERBAIJAN 2010 saw EHRAC expand its work into Azerbaijan with a training seminar in Baku and new partnerships with three local NGOs. Training seminar taking cases to the European Court In May 2010 EHRAC held its first ever training seminar in Azerbaijan. The subject matter was taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights and it was run in partnership with the Baku-based Legal Education Society. It was attended by 28 human rights lawyers representing 11 local NGOs, as well as private law firms and academics. New partnerships in Azerbaijan EHRAC is very pleased to have started cooperation with three NGOs in Azerbaijan to provide them with expert advice on European Court cases. Our new partners are: Legal Education Society (Baku) Media Rights Institute (Baku) Democracy and Human Rights Public Union (Sumgait)

23 KEY EVENTS CALENDAR 2010 Below is an overview of some of our major events and successes from the past year: January EHRAC Skills Development Programme in London (see pg. 28) February ECHR training seminar in Tbilisi, Georgia (see pg. 22) 32 South Ossetia conflict case applications lodged Judgment in Kiladze v Georgia (see pg. 10) Judgments in four cases against Russia April Legal consultancy in Moscow, Russia Judgments in five cases against Russia May ECHR training seminar in Baku, Azerbaijan (see pg. 20) Judgment in one case against Russia June EHRAC Legal Skills Development Programme in London (see pg. 26) Pilot judgment seminar in Strasbourg Judgment in one case against Russia July Judgments in three cases against Russia September Grand Chamber hearing in Sargsyan v Azerbaijan (see pg. 19) ECHR training seminar in Moscow, Russia (see pg. 23) NGO roundtable in Moscow, Russia (see pg. 27) Legal consultancy in Moscow, Russia November Judgments in two cases against Russia December Judgment in Abuyeva & Others v Russia (see pg. 12) Implementation roundtable in London (see pg. 27)

24 SUPPORTING GEORGIAN NGOs TO EFFECTIVELY LITIGATE CONFLICT CASES In response to local needs, in February 2010 EHRAC ran a training seminar in Tbilisi, Georgia, focusing on litigating European Court cases arising from the 2008 South Ossetia conflict. The seminar was held in conjunction with the NGO Article 42 of the Constitution and with the support of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. Collectively the seminar participants were litigating conflict cases on behalf of several hundred applicants. The programme looked at the practical challenges involved in litigating conflict cases, including questions of jurisdiction, ongoing property violations and evidence. Legal clinics for participants to seek expert advice on specific cases were also offered. This is what some of the participants said about the seminar: The issues that the trainers raised were extremely interesting and I was completely unaware of several of them before the event. I was given proper answers to my questions during the seminar. During the seminar I realised that the applications that I had already submitted had defects, but I was also given assistance as to how those defects could be corrected. In February 2010 following the provision of significant expertise and guidance from EHRAC, the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) submitted 32 applications against Russia on behalf of 134 applicants to the European Court in relation to the 2008 South Ossetia conflict. EHRAC s Russian partner, Memorial HRC, also contributed to the cases by providing assistance with the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Russia. We also gave advice and assistance to the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative in relation to South Ossetia conflict cases. The EHRAC-GYLA cases include air attacks on villages, allegedly by Russian armed forces, which resulted in the destruction of property and the killing or injuring of civilians, and the deliberate burning and looting of villagers houses by Russian soldiers or Ossetian militia. Additionally, with the generous support of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, in 2010 EHRAC provided Article 42 with substantial advice and expert assistance with two South Ossetia conflict cases before the European Court. One of the cases, Kighuradze & Others v Russia, is about the shooting of a group of journalists in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, on 8 August 2008.

25 TRAINING LAWYERS FROM THE NORTH CAUCASUS In September 2010 EHRAC and its main Russian partner Memorial HRC held a training seminar in Moscow on taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights. This was aimed at human rights lawyers from the North Caucasus. Some of the topics covered were: Presenting evidence to the European Court effectively How to establish discrimination The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment Drafting Strasbourg pleadings The right to a fair trial EHRAC s expert trainers were joined by lawyers from the Moscow office of the EHRAC-Memorial HRC joint project, who passed on the European Court knowledge and experience that they had gained from working on the project to colleagues from the North Caucasus. The seminar was very well organised and the issues raised and discussed were comprehensive and will be fundamental in allowing me to provide more effective legal assistance to people in my work as an advocate. Sapiyat Magomedova, advocate, Dagestan

26 While European Court judgments often require compensation to be paid to applicants, they also oblige states to implement individual measures, such as the restoration of property or an effective investigation into a disappearance, and general measures to prevent similar violations happening to others in the future. The enforcement of these measures is crucial to ensure meaningful redress for applicants and positive change to society as a whole. The process is officially supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. EHRAC, however, believes that NGOs must also contribute, especially where political will to implement certain actions or changes is lacking. Some of our achievements and initiatives in this regard in 2010 have been: ENFORCEMENT OF EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTS Making requests to the Chechen Prosecutor s Office to rectify failings in previous domestic investigations, primarily into disappearances, identified by European Court judgments Liaising with the Georgian Government agent about the implementation of the Kiladze judgment (see pg. 10) Providing information to the PACE rapporteur on the implementation of European Court judgments ahead of meetings with Russian officials Consulting Russian and Georgian NGOs on questions of enforcement Together with Memorial HRC securing compensation in the local Chechen courts for Mrs Damayeva, whose son was detained and killed by Russian forces in November 2000, by reference to our judgment in Kukayev v Russia about the same events Raising the issue of the enforcement of ECHR judgments in Russia with members of the UK Foreign Secretary s Human Rights Advisory Group The need for effective remedies against nonenforcement of domestic judicial decisions, the reform of the nadzor system and the excessive length of pre-trial detention are all at long-last being tackled in an appropriate fashion. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. But, to my regret, the same cannot be said with respect to the findings, by the Strasbourg Court, of serious violations of the European Convention in the Chechen Republic. Christos Pourgourides, PACE rapporteur on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, statement of 10 February 2010 about the Russian Federation

27 EUROPEAN COURT REFORMS AND ADVOCACY EHRAC actively engages in Court reform processes, as these could have a direct impact on our applicants ability to access justice through the European Court. Our work in this area is often in collaboration with other UK and international NGOs. We also make information about proposed changes available to NGOs and lawyers in our target countries via our English- and Russian-language websites. In 2010 EHRAC: has taken an active role in dialogues surrounding the Interlaken process to reform the European Court has opposed the proposal to impose fees on individuals lodging cases with the European Court as we believe that inability to pay should never obstruct access to a remedy for alleged human rights abuses has conducted research into European Court pilot judgments culminating in the publication of a book, Responding to Systemic Human Rights Violations, and a seminar held in Strasbourg has supported joint NGO submissions calling for transparency and clarity in how cases are selected for the pilot judgment procedure arranged meetings with human rights lawyers and European Court applicants for the UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG) for a fact-finding mission it conducted to Chechnya advocated for the use of the new infringement procedure in Chechen cases to have cases referred back to the Court where judgments have not been complied with Though the delegates are unsure how viable, at least for the time being, setting up an International Commission of Inquiry into the violations committed in Chechnya would be, a more feasible option may be to take action against those named in ECHR judgments as having been involved in atrocities, when the Russian authorities refuse to follow up with further investigations, say by putting travel bans in place. More generally, more could be done to get Russia to take its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe more seriously, particularly in relation to the judgments handed down against it by the European Court of Human Rights. PHRG Chechnya Fact-finding Mission Report, pg 29.

28 We have been running practical legal skills development programmes for human rights lawyers from our target countries for a number of years. In 2010 five practising human rights lawyers from our partner organisations in Russia and Georgia benefited from this intensive programme of lectures, classes and meetings. Among 2010 s sessions were: EHRAC LEGAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments a practical approach to dealing with deaths and ill-treatment in custody legal English classes legal administration to support the lawyers substantive drafting work meetings with UK-based NGOs a visit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to share information and experiences with desk officers and research analysts Feedback from the participants included: I really enjoyed the programme. It was beneficial to hear about the experiences of successful English barristers. It was also useful to learn how different organisations dealing with human rights issues find and select cases strategically. Participating in the programme has definitely improved my spoken English. The session on developments in the Russian legal system was brilliant, very informative and very interactive. Going through the latest case law of the Russian Supreme Court was very useful in order to identify the latest trends and find out the place of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Russian legal system.

29 ROUNDTABLES September 2010: ECHR litigation EHRAC brought together a number of Russian NGOs involved in European Court litigation in Moscow to discuss topical issues, problems encountered and potential solutions. Among the discussions were: implementation of European Court judgments the use of Rule 39 (interim measures) in extradition and disappearance cases implications of new European Court jurisprudence in disappearance cases It was useful, especially in terms of what could be done together with other NGOs on implementation. December 2010: Tackling impunity in Council of Europe Member States This event held in London in conjunction with the UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG) and RE- DRESS considered strategies to address the non-implementation of European Court judgments with particular reference to Russia.

30 Alongside its work to train legal practitioners, EHRAC recognises the need to develop the management, financial and fundraising skills of support staff at local NGOs in order to improve their long-term sustainability and effectiveness. Without well functioning organisations the work of the lawyers we train will be compromised. EHRAC works to build the capacity of partner organisations through ongoing on-the-job training for joint project support staff. In 2010 we also ran our first ever Skills Development Training Programme. This intensive four-day programme was run in London for the Project Manager and joint EHRAC-Memorial HRC Project Coordinator from our main Russian partner organisation, Memorial HRC. In my daily work as Financial Manager at Memorial HRC, I greatly benefited from EHRAC s Project Manager s willingness to share her experience with others. The training she gave me on preparing budgets and good reporting practices was very useful. Equally helpful were the tips I learnt from our day-to-day interactions on communicating with donors, structuring reports and even filing principles. These are the kind of things that you can t learn from textbooks, but that come from practical experience. Galina Sergeeva, Financial Manager, Memorial HRC, Moscow, Currently Grants and Finance Manager, Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, Moscow DEVELOPING NGOs CAPACITY During the Programme there were meetings with different NGOs and the chance to discuss financial matters and reporting styles with their finance and project managers, which was a great opportunity to compare practices. Some of EHRAC s funders also gave us talks and answered our questions, which was a unique possibility to talk to funders to gain experience and confidence in this area. The programme was something new and very helpful for the professional development of Russian NGO staff in the administrative sphere. From my point of view, collaboration with EHRAC has greatly benefitted both Memorial HRC and my own professional development. Together with former colleagues I have recently set up and fundraised for a new project about hate crimes. Thanks to what I learnt from working with EHRAC, I was the only one who knew anything about how to go about fundraising. Natalia Sokolova, Project Coordinator, EHRAC-Memorial HRC joint project, Moscow,

31 MENTORING AND LEGAL CONSULTANCY When working on joint cases it is EHRAC s policy to mentor partner lawyers with a focus upon their own professional development, independence and responsibility for their own caseload. We aim to engender our colleagues with a feeling of empowerment in their own skills as a litigator as well as a firm sense of ownership over the cases in question. This is done through detailed comments and feedback on each piece of drafting, as well as advice on practical issues such as case selection, managing client expectations and gathering evidence as and when questions arise over a period of months and years. This mentoring is supplemented with visits from legal consultants commissioned by EHRAC to spend time working alongside our partner lawyers and giving them individual assistance tailored to their current professional needs. In 2010 Samantha Knights, a human rights barrister at Matrix Chambers in London, made two visits to Moscow as our legal consultant to provide expert assistance to our colleagues at Memorial HRC. Working with EHRAC has been an invaluable opportunity to improve professional skills. I have learnt a lot from EHRAC s legal experts - how to present a well-constructed case, which is convincing and at the same time easy for the Court to grasp the main points of your pleading. Direct involvement and input of EHRAC experts in particular cases has vital importance. Their comments and arguments are usually similar to those posed by the Court when the case is communicated to the parties. Natia Katsitadze, EHRAC-Article 42, Tbilisi ( ) EHRAC-GYLA, Tbilisi (2009-present) I owe most of my professional development to EHRAC. I started with the EHRAC-Memorial HRC joint project as a young student with almost no knowledge of the ECHR or litigation. Over the years I not only gained knowledge of ECHR law and procedure, I also learnt a lot about being a lawyer in terms of both ethics (a subject that barely exists in Russian law schools) and practical skills such as drafting in English, structuring arguments, case management, and collecting and organising evidence. Two things in particular helped me to do this. Firstly, EHRAC s expert lawyers were available on an almost daily basis reviewing my drafts and providing crucial advice on evidence and procedure. Secondly, the presence of legal consultants in the office in Moscow with us, who we could ask for guidance at any time, was invaluable. Kirill Koroteev, Project Lawyer ( ) and Case Consultant (2007-present), EHRAC- Memorial HRC Joint Project, Moscow; and Research and Teaching Assistant, University of Paris X Nanterre

32 DEVELOPING LAWYERS Sophio Japaridze, a Georgian lawyer, left, describes how working on a joint project with EHRAC contributed to her professional development. Sophio was a lawyer and project coordinator of the EHRAC-GYLA joint project at GYLA in Tbilisi from 2006 to Sophio now works as a lawyer at INTERIGHTS in London focusing on strategic litigation in the South Caucasus. Working with EHRAC immensely contributed to my professional growth and helped me to develop the skills needed to successfully litigate complex cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The comprehensive feedback that EHRAC lawyers provided on the draft submissions that I prepared were extremely helpful. They enabled me to identify my mistakes and significantly improve the pleadings. I believe EHRAC s legal expertise on the cases considerably increased their chances of success. Cooperation on the cases related to the Russia-Georgia armed conflict was extremely productive for me. I was in contact with EHRAC lawyers on a daily basis asking them various questions on the case selection criteria, interviewing techniques, managing complicated narratives and various other questions related to dealing with complex group applications. Collaboration with EHRAC resulted in the best possible outcome for me as a lawyer. From a lawyer with a strong theoretical background in law I transformed into an ECHR lawyer experienced in strategic litigation by developing excellent skills in the management of complex cases and working with labour-intensive documents.

33 After a two-month internship at EHRAC s office in London in 2005 Grigor Avetisyan became a lawyer on the EHRAC-Memorial HRC joint project in Moscow. He left in 2009 to take on a role specialising in the implementation of European Court judgments at Stichting Russian Justice Initiative in Moscow. My experience with EHRAC stands out for the unique way in which the project works to develop young lawyers. Each of my drafts was reviewed on a one-to-one basis and this had a huge impact on my development. I have no doubt that this method, together with daily general support provided by EHRAC s legal experts, has allowed Russian lawyers to effectively absorb world-class litigation skills and that behind the success story of many lawyers trained by EHRAC is the meticulous revision work conducted by the London team of experts. EHRAC s administrative team have also contributed a lot to the work of Memorial HRC and the success of many young Russian lawyers who are currently litigating European Court cases. The human rights movement in Russia grew out of the dissident movement, which was a voluntary union of intellectuals resisting repression, and as such it only has a very short history as a professional institution. On the operational level EHRAC helped Memorial HRC to introduce several vital practices, such as transparent recruitment, procedures for recording annual leave, training administrative staff and a more professional approach to human resources generally. This has helped Memorial HRC to develop its management capacity, which in turn has fostered the development of strategic litigation. As well as great professionalism I also felt a spirit of encouragement, support and cooperation from EHRAC which I greatly appreciated. Undoubtedly, the skills gained during my time with EHRAC help me immensely in my current role with regard to the implementation of European Court judgments in cases from the North Caucasus. Even though I have left the EHRAC- Memorial HRC project, I continue to consult EHRAC in my current role.

34 INTERNSHIPS EHRAC offers a range of internships that support various areas of its work, including legal, translation, administrative and finance roles. Interns from a broad range of backgrounds, including students from London Metropolitan University and NGO lawyers from the former Soviet Union on study programmes in the UK all make a valuable contribution to our work. Whilst working at EHRAC I felt I was a part of a team, and not just an intern. EHRAC has provided me with unique and invaluable training and practical experience in financial management and administration in a supportive and friendly environment. I have enjoyed my time here and believe that I have made a positive contribution to the excellent work that EHRAC does in striving to build a strong human rights community. Sarah Basith, EHRAC finance intern & London Met student, Accounting & Finance As an undergraduate student of International Relations & Law at London Metropolitan University the internship at EHRAC catered ideally to my academic needs. It gave me an insight into how NGOs operate as well as giving me access to current human rights cases. Apart from developing a deeper understanding of the litigation process in the European Court of Human Rights I have gained invaluable handson experience with human rights law. What I found to be most rewarding in the internship was being part of a cause that helps ordinary people whose fundamental rights were violated by their home state. Jedrzej Dzierzanowski, EHRAC intern & London Met student, International Relations & Law

35 EHRAC aims to disseminate its training resources about the European Court mechanism and information about the results of its work to a wide audience, including lawyers, NGOs, law students, officials, academics and human rights activists across Russia, the South Caucasus and Europe. We hope that this will make them of benefit to as many people as possible and will increase pressure on states to end human rights violations. We do this through: TRAINING RESOURCES AND RAISING AWARENESS EHRAC Bulletin The EHRAC Bulletin is published biannually in English and Russian. The Russian edition provides many people in our target countries with up-to-date information that is not available elsewhere in Russian and that can inform their legal or advocacy work. Websites EHRAC has websites in English and Russian. Among the information we make available on them are: Judgments in our cases and Russian translations of European Court judgments Academic articles about the European Court and the Court reform process Submissions we have made to official bodies in the course of our advocacy or enforcement work Training materials about the European Convention on Human Rights Press releases We send out press releases to journalists and a mailing list about judgments in our cases. We also provide information and comment to the press on our cases and the European Court system more generally. What is important - very, very important - is that the court specifically says in this judgment that the government must now bring into force this law and must therefore also have a sufficient budget, have the funds available to enforce this law, says Philip Leach, a lawyer for the London-based European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, which helped the Kiladzes file their complaint in Strasbourg. Radio Free Europe, 4 February 2010

36 EHRAC S PARTNER ORGANISATIONS Memorial Human Rights Centre (Memorial HRC) Memorial is one of the leading human rights NGOs in the Russian Federation, and is EHRAC s first partner. The Memorial HRC was established in 1991, with 58 branches Russia-wide and 140 affiliates. Memorial HRC focuses on politically motivated persecution in the CIS countries, discrimination on ethnic grounds and analysing the situation of refugees and forced migrants. It also provides legal support. Planet of Hopes Planet of Hopes was founded in response to the need for a truly independent organisation defending ecological and social human rights in Russia s closed nuclear cities. It works to protect the environment; defend the rights of those affected by environmental disasters and of those living in closed cities; and to build civil society in closed cities. NIZAM NIZAM was founded in 2000 by a group of young Chechen lawyers with the aim of protecting human rights and the rule of law in Chechnya. Today, the organisation runs three legal clinics in Grozny, Shali and Urus-Martan. NIZAM also implements a successful information project within the framework of which articles by lawyers on topical legal problems in Chechnya are published in the local media. Since 2001 NIZAM has been an implementing partner of UNHCHR in providing legal defence. South Siberian Human Rights Centre (SSHRC) SSHRC was founded in 1999 and is based in Novokuznetsk. It pursues an aim of ensuring equal access to justice by providing free legal aid to vulnerable groups and striving to develop a system of legal aid in the Siberian region. Since 2006 it has implemented projects providing legal assistance to victims of torture and other human rights abuses committed by the law enforcement agencies in the Kemerovo Region. Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) GYLA is the original and largest professional union of lawyers in Georgia. It is committed to establishing standards of professional ethics, providing legal and civic education, and raising awareness among and providing legal aid to vulnerable members of the Georgian population. Currently, GYLA brings together more than 800 lawyers and law students from all over the country, working through its head office in Tbilisi and seven regional branches. Article 42 of the Constitution Article 42 is a non-political, human rights NGO that has been operating in Georgia for over ten years. Its members provide free legal advice and representation to the victims of human rights abuses. Its mission is to promote the establishment of the rule of law in Georgia through the introduction of international standards for the protection of human rights and freedoms, and increased legal awareness among the public.

37 Legal Education Society (LES) The Legal Education Society was founded in 1998 and is based in Baku. Its main activities are providing free legal assistance to members of the public on low incomes, providing legal support to massmedia and non-governmental organisations, publishing legal literature, monitoring legislative reforms and organising training seminars. Media Rights Institute (MRI) The Baku-based Media Rights Institute focuses on the promotion and defence of freedom of expression and freedom of information in Azerbaijan. It monitors the state of freedom of expression and information in Azerbaijan, runs training seminars on these issues for journalists, lawyers and public officials, publishes books about freedom of expression and information and renders legal assistance to journalists and the media, including to journalists who are being prosecuted for having criticised the Government. DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PUBLIC UNION Democracy and Human Rights Public Union (DHRPU) The DHRPU is based in Sumgait and was founded in 2003 and officially registered in The main focus of its activities is giving free legal advice to and preparing legal documents for the public and representing them in court where necessary. It also provides support to other NGOs working in the field of human rights in the regions of Azerbaijan. Bar Human Rights Committee of England & Wales (BHRC) The BHRC is primarily concerned with the protection of the rights of advocates and judges around the world. It is also concerned with defending the rule of law and internationally recognised legal standards relating to the right to a fair trial. EHRAC s partnership with the BHRC gives unlimited access to a network of lawyers experienced in human rights litigation, who are willing to work or assist on EHRAC s cases. International Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of England and Wales The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. Its International Human Rights Committee works to promote and support effective access to justice for all, international human rights standards and the rule of law. It also supports lawyers whose own human rights have been violated as well as providing training on international human rights standards and mechanisms.

38 EHRAC STAFF EHRAC Staff (London) Philip Leach, Director Tina Devadasan, Project Manager Joanna Evans, Senior Lawyer Oksana Popova, Case & Project Support Officer Kirsty Stuart, Development & PR Officer EHRAC s partners are: EHRAC-Memorial HRC project (Moscow, Russia) Tatiana Kasatkina, Director Natalia Sokolova, Project Coordinator (until March 2010) Uma Kerimova, Project Coordinator (from March 2010) Nadezhda Ermolayeva, Lawyer Anastasia Razhikova, Lawyer (from June 2010) Furkat Tishaev, Lawyer Tatiana Chernikova, Implementation Monitoring Officer EHRAC-Memorial HRC project (Russian regions) Ingushetia, Isa Gandarov, Lawyer St. Petersburg, Olga Tseytlina, Lawyer Chechnya, Dokka Itslayev, Regional Head & Lawyer EHRAC-Planet of Hopes project (Ozersk, Russia) Nadezhda Kutepova, Head & Lawyer EHRAC-NIZAM project (Grozny, Russia) Aslanbek Isaev, Head Beslan Dautmerzaev, Lawyer EHRAC-SSHRC project (Novokuznetsk, Russia) Elena Burmitskaya, Director & Lawyer EHRAC-GYLA project (Tbilisi, Georgia) Giorgi Chkheidze, Executive Director Natia Katsitadze, Lawyer & Project Coordinator Tamar Abazadze, Lawyer EHRAC-Article 42 Project (Tbilisi, Georgia) Nazi Janezashvili, Executive Director Vanda Jijelava, Lawyer EHRAC-LES project (Baku, Azerbaijan) Intigam Aliyev, President & Lawyer EHRAC-MRI project (Baku, Azerbaijan) Rashid Hajili, Director & Lawyer EHRAC-DHRPU (Sumgait, Azerbaijan) Asabali Mustafayev, President & Lawyer EHRAC International Steering Committee Chair: Prof. Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College Vice Chair: Dokka Itslaev, EHRAC-Memorial HRC Regional Head & Lawyer, Urus-Martan, Chechnya Alexander Cherkasov, Memorial HRC Giorgi Chkheidze, GYLA ex officio Simon Cosgrove, Rights in Russia Svetlana Gannushkina, Memorial HRC Arkady Gutnikov, St. Petersburg Institute of Law Drew Holiner, St. Petersburg Bar; Monckton Chambers Tatiana Kasatkina, Executive Director, Memorial HRC Samantha Knights, Bar Human Rights Committee; Barrister, Matrix Chambers Philip Leach, Director, EHRAC, ex officio Tatiana Lokshina, Human Rights Watch Oleg Orlov, Memorial HRC Alexander Ossipov, Memorial HRC Vitaly Ponomarev, Memorial HRC Svetlana Stephenson, London Metropolitan University EHRAC has also established links with the following institutions and organisations: AIRE Centre, London Amnesty International, London Article 19, London BPP Law School, London Chechen Committee for National Salvation, Nazran Centre for International Assistance in Human Rights Protection, Moscow Citizens Watch, St. Petersburg Civic Assistance Committee, Moscow Committee to Protect Journalists, New York Demos, Moscow Eastern Research Group of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office European Council of Refugees and Exiles, London European Roma Rights Centre, Budapest International Federation for Human Rights, Paris Human Rights Centre, University of Essex Human Rights Priority, Tbilisi Human Rights Watch, Moscow INTERIGHTS, London Justice, London Legal Guide, Yerevan Liberty, London Media Legal Defence Initiative, London Minority Rights Group International, London Parliamentary Human Rights Group, London Public Interest Law Institute, Moscow Public Verdict Foundation, Moscow REDRESS, London Russian Chechen Friendship Society, Finland Saint Petersburg Institute of Law, Saint Petersburg Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, Moscow Sutyajnik, Yekaterinburg

39 In Memoriam Kevin Boyle, Barrister, human rights lawyer, Professor of Law at the University of Essex, and a long-standing and very valued supporter of EHRAC, passed away on 25 December He will be greatly missed. We would like to thank the following people who have assisted us with casework, training, publications and/or advocacy work: Julia Arbisman, Clifford Chance Adrian Arena, Oak Foundation Rachel Barnes, Barrister, Three Raymond Buildings Friederike Behr, Amnesty International Diane Bell, Foreign & Commonwealth Office Nadia Bernaz, Middlesex University Law Group Sam Blom-Cooper, Barrister, 25 Bedford Row Alice Boyle, Solicitor, Duncan Lewis Prof. Kevin Boyle, University of Essex Frank Brazell, Frank Brazell and Partners Julie Broome, Sigrid Rausing Trust Carla Buckley, University of Nottingham Michelle Butler, Barrister, Matrix Chambers Miriam Carrion Benitez, Barrister, 36 Bedford Row Catherine Casserley, Barrister, Cloisters Rachel Crasnow, Barrister, Cloisters Kathryn Cronin, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers Francesca Delany, Barrister, 1 Mitre Court Buildings Tim Eicke, QC, Barrister, Essex Court Chambers Diana Ellis, QC, Barrister, 25 Bedford Row Tony Fisher, Law Society of England & Wales Jessica Gavron, Barrister, 9-12 Bell Yard Alexander Halban, Pupil, 3 Hare Court Sarah Harrington, INTERIGHTS Prof. Francoise Hampson, University of Essex Malcolm Hawkes, Barrister, Dyers Chambers Jill Heine, Amnesty International Drew Holiner, Barrister, Monckton Chambers Anthony Jackson, Barrister, 3 Serjeants Inn Sophie Johnson, Barrister, 25 Bedford Row Samantha Knights, Barrister, Matrix Chambers Sabha MacManus, Carmelite Chambers Adrian Marshall Williams, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers Gavin Millar QC, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers Peter Noorlander, Media Legal Defence Initiative Craig Oliphant, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Timothy Otty, QC, Barrister, Blackstone Chambers Richard Partridge, Barrister, 3 Serjeants Inn Angela Patrick, Joint Committee on Human Rights Iryna Peleshko, INTERIGHTS Liz Pepler, Justice Bridget Petherbridge, Barrister, QEB Hollis Whiteman Natalia Prilutskaya, Amnesty International Elizabeth Prochaska, Barrister, Matrix Chambers Lee Rodwell, Liberty Joanne Sawyer, Joint Committee on Human Rights Jessica Simor, Barrister, Matrix Chambers Nicole Staffell, Freelance translator Jemima Stratford, QC, Barrister, Brick Court Chambers Elizabeth Teague, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Tatiana Tomaeva, Freelance translator Dina Vedernikova, Interights Ben Watson, Barrister, Three Raymond Buildings James Welch, Liberty We would like to thank our funders: The MacArthur Foundation, The Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Oak Foundation, The Open Society Institute and The Sigrid Rausing Trust, and also William Horsely and Anthony Jackson for their kind and generous individual donations to EHRAC. Finally, we thank all our interns and volunteer translators who make an invaluable contribution to our work: EHRAC interns Jane Atter Halyna Bocheva Nadia Dmitrova Turgut Gambar Sarah Giaziri Lize Rixt Glas Athanasia Hadjigeorgiou Tanya Korpacheva Maka Meshveliani Alsu Nasyrova Alice Pillar Alina Plakhova Maxim Timofeyev Vakhtang Vakhtangidze Jeff Warren London Met students Sarah Basith Mo Daifi Jedrzej Dzierzanowski Olga Leonova (PG clinical module) Lyubov Malkina (placement module) Volunteer translators Joseph Altham Paul Barker Anastasia Barsukova Alexander Boyd Katherine Danflous Galina Drozdova Vlada Generalova Diana Gobel Simon Paul Hinchliff Alice Holttum Val Jeffrey Otabek Kahhorov Irene Kapralova Maija Leväsalmi Kelly Leviker Philip Wolfe Michaelson Victoria Nagorna Peter Nikitin Andrei Nosov Josefine Olsen Suzanne Pierrejean Anna Prime Natalia Romanchenko Nicole Staffell Ben Taylor Llewelyn Thomas Robin Thomson Elena Verigo Julia Wright Irina Yarovaya

40 ACCOUNTS EHRAC s accounts, from which this summary of information is derived, are the subject of two separate audits: a universitywide independent audit, as well as a dedicated independent audit reviewing EHRAC income and expenditure for the project Strengthening Human Rights Capacity in Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Both audits are carried out by Grant Thornton UK LLP, registered auditors and chartered accountants, reporting to the Board of Governors of London Metropolitan University. The accounts below are not statutory accounts but a summary of information relating to both the Statement of Financial Activities and the Balance Sheet. Statement of Financial Activities Incorporating Income and Expenditure Account for the Period January December 2010 Incoming Resources Grants and Donations Other Income Total Incoming Resources Unrestricted Funds ,802 20,969 Restricted Funds 373, ,407 Total ,574 20, ,376 Resources Expended Fundraising and Publicity Costs Charitable Expenditure Regional Programme: Russ/Geor/Az Human Rights Litigation and Advocacy Human Rights Training (UK) Raising Awareness & Dissemination of Info Support Costs Management and Administration Total Resources Expended - 4,368 1,218 2,240 1, ,110 22, , ,807 26,890 36,749 8,756 8, ,230 22, , ,025 29,130 37,790 8,756 8, ,340 Net Outgoing Resources 11,859 24,177 36,036 Note 1 Accounting Policies Income: Grant income is recognised in the financial statement on the basis of the period for which the grant is given. Other income is recognised on a receivable basis. Expenditure: Expenditure is recognised in the financial statement on an accruals basis in the period to which it relates. Extracts from Grant Thornton UK LLP Audit Report Auditor s responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statement is free from material misstatement. [...] We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statement presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre of London Metropolitan University as at December 31, 2010 in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1 Basis of Accounting.

41 Communication of audit matters to those charged with governance Audit adjustments There are no audit adjustments. Audit report and opinion We intend to issue an unqualified opinion on EHRAC (London Metropolitan University) s financial statement for the year ended 31 December Financial reporting and audit issues identified During the course of the audit we identified no issues that we believe need to be brought to your attention. Design effectiveness of internal controls [...] We are pleased to report that no matters of significance regarding the financial systems and controls operated by EHRAC (London Metropolitan University) came to our attention during the course of our audit of its financial statement for the period ended 31 December FAQs How much do you spend on management and administration? Management and administration costs represent 4.8% of our total expenditure. Project operating costs, however, such as website support, software and hosting, IT support, software licensing, training facilities, library/research facilities, office space, light and heat, travel/building insurance, office maintenance and security services are allocated across the projects in proportion to the cost of each project, as are stationery, postage and telecommunications. As EHRAC s projects (legal and institutional empowerment, and awareness raising) are implemented by staff in-house, staff salaries are allocated proportionally to the relevant projects. 35.4% Regional Programme Direct Cost: RF, GEO, AZ Fundraising & Publicity Management & Administration UK Support for Project Activities How much is spent directly on your project activities? 35.4% was spent directly in Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. This included office running costs, salaries and direct project costs. A further 53.6% was spent in the UK on case expenses (translation of case documents, expert witness reports, etc.), training activity and raising awareness initiatives in direct support of our projects in Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. 6.2% 4.8% 53.6% What is involved in your Raising Awareness and Dissemination of Information project? An important element of EHRAC s work is using case decisions to highlight and raise awareness of human rights violations in Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, and the mechanisms for addressing them. Target audiences include the national and international human rights community, the media, international institutions, governmental agencies and the public. We carry out sustained presswork, publish a biannual legal bulletin and maintain project websites (both in Russian and English). Is EHRAC a registered charity? EHRAC is established within London Metropolitan University. The University is a charity exempt from registration under Schedule 2 of The Charities Act 1993, and a company limited by guarantee no

42

43

44 EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY CENTRE (EHRAC) Faculty of Applied Social Sciences (FASS) London Metropolitan University LH222, Ladbroke House Highbury Grove London, N5 2AD, UK Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Web: EHRAC has partnership status with the Council of Europe London Metropolitan University is a charity exempt from registration under Schedule 2 of The Charities Act Printed on 100% recycled paper