Foreword. Chair, International Steering Committee

Transcription

1 ANNUAL REPORT 2006

2

3 Contents Foreword 5 What is EHRAC? 6 Taking Cases to the European Court of Human Rights 7 Russia, Georgia and the European Convention 8 The First Six Chechen Cases 9 Environmental Pollution and Human Rights 11 Effecting Change 12 Litigation at the European Court - NGO Roundtable 13 EHRAC Admissibility Decisions and Judgments 14 Working on the Ground in Chechnya 15 International Advocacy 16 Training Local Lawyers 17 Providing Legal Consultants 18 The Legal Skills Development Programme 19 Supporting NGOs Development 20 An Opportunity for Students to Get Involved 21 Publications 22 EHRAC s Work in the Headlines 24 Case Studies 26 Our Partners 29 Our Staff 0 Thanks to... 1 Accounts 2

4 4

5 Foreword LEFT: Grozny, Chechnya; CENTRE: A former resident of Kogi, Chechnya, holds pictures of her sons who died when Russian forces allegedly bombed the village in EHRAC is taking a case to the European Court on behalf of some of the former residents; RIGHT: Philip Leach and Professor Bill Bowring are interviewed by Russian television channel, Ren-TV, following the Fadeyeva judgment The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) was established four years ago with financial backing from the European Commission. Since that time, it has developed a distinctive international human rights litigation programme, in collaboration with colleagues from Russia and Georgia. During that period - working on more than 100 cases at the European Court of Human Rights we have been able to provide ongoing advice, support and assistance to the legal teams at Memorial, the Georgian Young Lawyers Association and a number of other NGOs. This Annual Report will give you an insight into what has been achieved. At a time when human rights defenders all over the world face increasing pressures, we pay tribute to the dedicated professionalism of the lawyers and human rights activists with whom we work in both Russia and Georgia, and to the courage displayed by many of the litigants themselves. We are extremely grateful to our various funders for continuing to back us over the last four years. We would also like to acknowledge the support we have received from London Metropolitan University, where EHRAC is based. Philip Leach Director Bill Bowring Chair, International Steering Committee 5

6 What is EHRAC? LEFT: Case meeting with lawyers from GYLA; RIGHT: Lord Judd speaking at the EHRAC launch The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) was set up in December 2002 when the European Commission awarded London Metropolitan University a threeyear grant to help the Russian non-governmental organisation (NGO) Memorial to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. EHRAC has since grown to work with other organisations and in other countries, but its primary objective remains assisting individuals, lawyers and NGOs from the former Soviet Union (particularly Russia and Georgia) to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). At the same time EHRAC works to transfer skills, build capacity and raise international and local awareness of the human rights situation in the region. EHRAC is an exciting development. With its determination to turn Human Rights into a practical, accessible reality for those who suffer abuse, it challenges us all. At a time when erosion of commitment to human rights across the world is dangerous, there could not be a better initiative by London Metropolitan University. Lord Judd, former PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) rapporteur for Chechnya Who Are EHRAC s Partners? Memorial Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) The Slavic Centre for Law and Justice (SCLJ) Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) What Does EHRAC Do? We work with our partners to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. We help lawyers to develop their legal skills through ongoing advice, assistance and training. We work with our local partners to define the scope and plan the implementation of activities, and solve any problems they might encounter. We support our partner organisations in fundraising, improving operational capacity and administration. Around 90% of our work is in the Russian Federation, 10% in Georgia; while we also offer assistance to those in other parts of the former Soviet Union. The value of the work currently being undertaken by EH- RAC cannot be overstated. Through their enormous professionalism and dedication they are helping to give real meaning to the Russian Federation s recognition of the right of individual petition to the European Court. This is something of enormous value not just to the individual applicants concerned but to Russian society as a whole. It is only when individual rights are properly protected by independent courts that democracy can truly exist. EH- RAC is making a great contribution to this vital task. Tim Otty QC, Vice Chair, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) EHRAC was awarded Partnership Status with the Council of Europe in

7 Taking Cases to the European Court of Human Rights EHRAC Case Statistics Total cases 107 Judgments 15 Cases declared admissible 0 Applicants and other primary victims 342 As of 1 December A primary victim here is someone, usually a relative of the applicant, whose rights have also been violated. RIGHT: The European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg 100% Success Rate EHRAC has a 100% success rate in establishing at least one violation of the Convention in judgments of the European Court against the Russian Federation. These include, amongst other influential decisions, positive judgments in the first six cases arising from the conflict in Chechnya to be decided by the Court. EHRAC provides an effective and timely human rights intervention in a country of great importance and where political advocacy has often proven inconclusive. A genuine partnership between UK/Russian NGOs, it has delivered justice for victims of gross human rights abuses and built local legal expertise. Critically, it provides the foundations for sustained legal advocacy for years to come. Adrian Arena, Oak Foundation such organisation and efficiency before. EHRAC has also provided SCLJ with ongoing support and advice in putting together a grant application and project budget and identifying prospective funders for our joint project. Roman Maranov and Tatiana Tomaeva, Slavic Centre for Law and Justice EHRAC is the only organisation of its calibre that works with Russian NGOs to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. SCLJ s legal work is benefiting from ongoing advice from EHRAC s lawyers and also from the time that the EHRAC Legal Consultant, discrimination expert, Samantha Knights, spent in our office working with us on cases. She also conducted a training seminar for lawyers from the SCLJ network on the European Convention on Human Rights. The EHRAC Legal Skills Development Programme, in which I took part, is very impressive. The entire Programme was very useful and the visit to the European Court was unforgettable. Seeing the EHRAC office at work was an eye-opener, as I had never witnessed EHRAC has achieved significant successes over the past few years. Several tough cases, which would not have been possible without EHRAC s support, have been won. Precedents in cases like Fadeyeva or the Chechen cases have been set and followed by other European Court decisions against Russia and are now referred to in Russian legal practice......i deeply respect EHRAC for its work in Russia, versus Russia, but for Russia. Arkady Gutnikov, Vice-President, St. Petersburg Law School; Director, Clinical Legal Education Centre; Vice-President, Russian Association for Civic Education 7

8 Russia, Georgia and the European Convention Applications to the European Court against Russia as a percentage of total applications Admissibility of cases against Russia examined in 2005 Russia and Georgia and the European Convention on Human Rights The Russian Federation ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998 and Georgia in Individuals and groups in these countries can complain to the European Court about human rights abuses that have occurred since these dates, where the courts in their own country have failed to help them. In Russia, there is a continuing problem that those who abuse human rights often escape punishment. This means that, in many cases, the European Court offers the only form of justice for Russian victims. The number of new applications from Russia is rising: in 1999 there were 972 new applications submitted, in 2005 there were 8,781. Of 46 member countries, Russia alone accounted for 21% of new applications sent to the Court in What do these statistics mean? There is a poor human rights situation in Russia Russian Courts are not dealing adequately with this problem Awareness of the European Court is growing in Russia The Admissibility Hurdle Once an application has been sent to the European Court, the first major decision is on admissibility that is, whether the case should be accepted for consideration. For example, the European Court must decide whether an applicant has first been to the national courts. If an application does not comply, it is declared inadmissible and the Court will not consider the case further. If a case is declared admissible it progresses to the judgment stage. Admissibility is a significant hurdle in Russian cases. In 2005 only 2% of the applications against Russia examined by the Court were declared admissible. Some of these cases may raise important issues, but they are rejected because of a lack of understanding of the European Court system. EHRAC s work seeks to ensure that lawyers are well trained in how to take cases to the European Court so that their applications are well-argued and comply with the Court s rules. 8

9 The First Six Chechen Cases European Convention violations alleged in EHRAC s cases Note: Applications generally allege more than one Convention violation, therefore the number of violations argued is greater than the total number of cases The First Six Chechen Cases In February 2005, the European Court issued its first judgments on applications concerning the conflict in Chechnya. This was the first time that an international court had held that the Russian armed forces used grossly disproportionate force in Chechnya with utter disregard for the risk to civilian life. EHRAC-Memorial lawyers represented the applicants in these cases. Khashiyev and Akayeva v Russia concerned the torture and extra-judicial execution of five of the applicants relatives in Grozny (the Chechen capital) in January The bodies of the applicants relatives were found with numerous gunshot wounds. Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia (see page 10) arose out of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians leaving Grozny by car in October Due to the bombing, the first applicant was wounded and her two children and sister-in-law were killed, the second applicant was wounded and the third applicant s cars were destroyed. Isayeva v Russia concerned the indiscriminate bombing of the Chechen village of Katyr-Yurt in February As a result of the bombing, the applicant s son and her three nieces were killed. In each case, the Court found that the applicants right to life had been violated and ordered the Russian government to pay compensation to the applicants. These cases set significant precedents that the European Court will take into account when deciding similar cases in the future. Importantly, they can also be used in the Russian courts. I admire your work. When several years back we were collecting the evidence in Nazran, writing the first pleadings almost by feel, we didn t believe that anything would work out. It is only when you came along, I saw how professionally you acted that s when I started to think that somebody was going to win. The applicant, Libkhan Bazayeva These judgments are a significant step to end impunity against human rights violations in Chechnya because they recognize that serious human rights violations have taken place and that the Russian Federation bears the responsibility. Amnesty International press release, 24 February

10 Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia LEFT: Libkhan Bazaeva, one of the applicants in the first six Chechen cases; CENTRE: A SU-25 jet fighter, of the type that fired upon the convoy in Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia; RIGHT: The European Court of Human Rights All three applicants were residents of the war-torn city of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. In October 1999, local media announced that, for one day, a humanitarian corridor would be opened for civilians to escape from the fighting. The next morning many people, including the applicants, left Grozny heading towards the neighbouring Republic of Ingushetia. The border guards were not prepared for the huge volume of people wishing to cross the border. Those who arrived early were told that the border would open at 9am. However, at 11am, over 1,000 people were still waiting for the border to open. The senior military officer at the border announced that the border would remain closed for the day and that people should return home: to the very place they were fleeing from. The convoy of vehicles and people stretched for over 12 km, therefore it took a while for the news of the border closure to filter down, and even longer for people to start to move. As they did begin to move, two Russian military jets appeared in the distance flying at low altitude fully laden with missiles. The pilots of the jets and their air traffic controller had apparently not been made aware of the humanitarian corridor and so were not expecting to see the convoy of vehicles. The pilots claimed that they were fired upon from two trucks within the convoy and consequently took retaliatory action but this claim was not accepted as credible by the European Court. They fired twelve S-24 missiles into the convoy. On exploding, S-24 missiles create some 4,000 splinters over a radius exceeding 300m. As a result of the attack, the first applicant s two teenage children were killed, the first and second applicants were wounded and the third applicant lost all of her possessions when the truck carrying them was destroyed. The three women applied to the Russian courts seeking justice for what had happened to them and their families. This was not successful and an application was sent to the European Court of Human Rights. In its judgment the Court was critical of the Russian authorities and in particular it thought that the military should have been aware of the humanitarian corridor and the convoy. Consequently, they should have used extreme caution with regard to the use of lethal force. The Court found that the operation had not been planned and executed with necessary care for the lives of the civilian population. The Court, therefore, found that the applicants rights had been violated both by the failure to protect their lives, and their children s lives, and also in failing to investigate the attack after it had taken place. The applicants were awarded damages of 42,000. To sum up, even assuming that the military were pursuing a legitimate aim in launching 12 S-24 non-guided air-to-ground missiles on 29 October 1999, the Court does not accept that the operation near the village of Shaami-Yurt was planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilian population. Judgment of the European Court in Isayeva, Yusupova & Bazayeva v Russia, 24/02/

11 Environmental Pollution and Human Rights A Landmark Environmental Case: Fadeyeva v Russia......Used as a Precedent: Ledyaeva and Others v Russia Mrs Fadeyeva lived in Cherepovets, a major steel-producing centre in Russia. Her council flat was within an area known as the sanitary security zone (SSZ) around a steel factory. Under Russian law no one is supposed to live within an SSZ because of hazardous substances in the air. Mrs Fadeyeva believed that living in the SSZ was a danger to her life and health and appealed to the local authorities to be rehoused. As a result she was simply put on a general waiting list for rehousing. She then applied to the European Court, with EHRAC and Memorial representing her. On 9 June 2005, the European Court ruled that Russia had violated Mrs Fadeyeva s right to respect for her home and private life. It found that a state s responsibility in environmental cases can be engaged by a failure to regulate private industry. On 26 October 2006, the Court issued judgments in a further four EHRAC-Memorial cases concerning the SSZ in Cherepovets. It used the precedent set by the Fadeyeva case and ruled in favour of the applicants in all these cases. Information referred to in the Fadeyeva judgment is fully relevant in the present four cases and will be taken into account by the Court. Judgment in Ledyaeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotaryeva & Romashina v Russia Lots of people live in a comparable situation to Mrs Fadeyeva. Now they have a tool to fight against the companies that are polluting the air, water or soil around them. EHRAC-Memorial lawyer, Kirill Koroteev, quoted in The Times, 19/06/2005 this was no small step towards greater state accountability in environmental matters. Anna Kotzeva writing about the Fadeyeva judgment in New Law Journal, 08/07/

12 Effecting Change LEFT AND CENTRE: Applicants in the first six Chechen cases at the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg; RIGHT: Meeting with delegates from EHRAC, Human Rights Watch, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, Amnesty International and Demos to discuss the implementation of the judgments in the first six Chechen cases Our Work Does Not End With a Judgment Council of Europe to take steps to ensure that governments respect European Court judgments and to prevent future violations. Maintaining effective access for applicants to the European Court, and the successful implementation of the Court s judgments, remain critical questions for the Council of Europe and its member states. EHRAC s work continues to make an important contribution in these areas. Andrew Drzemczewski, head of the Secretariat, Committee on Legal Affairs & Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. A successful judgment in a case is only the first step. EH- RAC s litigation and advocacy work aims to ensure that judgments are also fully enforced and respected by the governments in question. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe oversees the enforcement of judgments. They publish interim resolutions, noting which measures have already been taken and urging Governments to provide a timetable for further reforms needed to tackle those as yet unresolved. Court judgments are concrete and objective evidence of human rights abuses. With sustained media and public awareness initiatives, EHRAC is able to highlight judgments and draw case findings into the public domain. The Russian Federation s compliance with European Court judgments is inadequate, despite continuing pressure from the Council of Europe and civil society groups. EHRAC works closely with like-minded organisations (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Stichting Russian Justice Initiative) to encourage the Submissions to the Committee of Ministers on the First Six Chechen Cases EHRAC continues to lobby the Committee of Ministers to put pressure on the Russian government to respect the judgments handed down in the first six Chechen cases. In March 2006, the Committee issued a Memorandum urging the government to implement specific measures associated with the six cases and more general measures designed to prevent further abuses in Chechnya. The Committee noted that criminal investigations had been reopened into the deaths of the relatives of the applicants in Khashiev v Russia and Akayeva v Russia. EHRAC welcomes this development, but will try to ensure that those investigations are conducted as effectively as possible. Ensuring Respect for Human Rights in Chechnya and the North Caucasus EHRAC and its partners are working to influence decisionmakers on a number of levels. In Russia, we have pushed for a working group to be established to monitor the enforcement of European Court judgments, as well as supporting an initiative to involve the Russian Human Rights Ombudsman and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in the enforcement of European Court judgments. continued on page 13 12

13 Litigation at the European Court NGO Roundtable LEFT and RIGHT: NGO round table, Moscow Litigation at the European Court NGO Roundtable In September 2006, EHRAC, in conjunction with Memorial, held an NGO Roundtable in Moscow. This event was an opportunity for NGOs to discuss the following: Intimidation and harassment of applicants or their representatives Pressure on NGOs Interim measures and urgent cases Non-disclosure of documents Enforcement and implementation of ECHR judgments Participating organisations included: the Slavic Centre for Law and Justice, St Petersburg Institute of Law, Chechen Committee for National Salvation, Human Rights Watch, Stichting Russian Justice Initiative and the Georgian Young Lawyers Association. (continued from page 12) While the Council of Europe has been a vocal advocate for human rights in this region, EHRAC believes that more can be done. We continue to call for the resumption of the Council of Europe s independent monitoring and reporting of the human rights situation in the region. We also support the Council of Europe s efforts to address the structural causes of human rights violations in the Russian Federation. Finally, EHRAC continues to closely monitor proposed reforms of the European Court of Human Rights, and is following the development of the proposals contained in Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention and those advocated by the Group of Wise Persons. GYLA s cooperation with EHRAC is very productive and successful. Georgian lawyers have benefited from the training seminar organised by the joint project. They improved their skills in identifying potential European Court cases and their awareness of strategic litigation. The project s website is also a useful resource for Georgian lawyers thanks to the numerous Court-related materials that we have translated into Georgian and posted there. In terms of my own professional development, cooperation with EHRAC has helped me to improve my drafting skills immensely. I receive input from EHRAC s expert lawyers on all the documents that I send to the Court, which means they are very well argued and importantly, I learn from this process. In addition, my participation in EHRAC s Legal Skills Development Programme was highly beneficial. I hope that EHRAC and GYLA s cooperation will continue for a long time. Sophio Japaridze, ECHR Lawyer, EHRAC-GYLA project, Tbilisi 13

14 EHRAC Admissibility Decisions and Judgments LEFT: Members of the EHRAC legal team at the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (left to right, Philip Leach, Kirill Koroteev, Dokka Itslaev and Professor Bill Bowring); RIGHT: Case meeting in the Moscow office EHRAC Admissibility Decisions and Judgments Judgments Judgments Khashiyev v Russia (Right to life) Akayeva v Russia (Right to life) Isayeva v Russia (Right to life) Yusupova v Russia (Right to life) Bazayeva v Russia Right to life) Isayeva v Russia (Right to life) Volkova v Russia (Right to fair hearing) Novoselov v Russia (Prison conditions) Fadeyeva v Russia (Environmental pollution) Zdanoka v Latvia (Right to free elections) Dobrokhotova v Russia (Environmental pollution) Romashina v Russia (Environmental pollution) Zolotaryeva v Russia (Environmental pollution) Ledyaeva v Russia (Environmental pollution) Cases declared admissible Zolotukhin v Russia (Degrading treatment) Bitiyeva v Russia (Degrading treatment) Iduyeva-Bisiyeva v Russia (Right to life) Magomadov & Magomadov v Russia (Disappearance) Alikhadzhiyeva v Russia (Disappearance) Musayev v Russia (Right to life) Magomadov v Russia (Right to life) Labazanova v Russia (Right to life) Lopata v Russia (Inhuman and degrading treatment) Cases declared admissible Goncharuk v Russia (Inhuman or degrading treatment) Tangieva v Russia (Right to life) Makhauri v Russia (Right to life) Mezhidov v Russia (Right to life) Kukayev v Russia (Right to life) Kaplanova v Russia (Disappearance) Gusev v Russia (Criminal justice) 14

15 Working on the Ground in Chechnya LEFT: Dokka Itslaev, EHRAC-Memorial Regional Lawyer, Urus-Martan, Chechnya and Vice Chair of the EHRAC International Steering Committee; CENTRE: Philip Leach and Dokka Itslaev at the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg; RIGHT: Novy Aldy looking towards Grozny An Interview with Dokka Itslaev Dokka Itslaev is one of EHRAC-Memorial s Regional Lawyers and is Vice Chair of the EHRAC International Steering Committee. He works in Memorial s office in Urus- Martan, Chechnya. How long have you been working for EHRAC-Memorial project? I started working for the EHRAC-Memorial project in 2003 as a volunteer and became a Regional Lawyer in May In September 2006, I was elected Vice Chair of the EHRAC International Steering Committee. What is your role? I select cases and in conjunction with my colleagues in Moscow and London, I prepare them for the European Court. This includes making sure there are no further routes of appeal in Chechnya. What have you learnt from the project? My involvement in the project, which has included training, has played an inestimable role in my professional development. The knowledge that I have gained allows me to provide help as a consultant to other lawyers working in Chechnya. For example, I have conducted a seminar in Grozny for other Memorial lawyers based in Chechnya. What are the main human rights problems in Chechnya? Although the human rights situation in Chechnya has begun to show signs of improvement, one of the main problems remains the lack of accountability enjoyed by employees of various Russian security agencies. Extensive monitoring of human rights abuses has not led to the punishment of officials who are guilty of committing crimes against civilians. It is estimated that the number of forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in Chechnya from Spring 2000 to 2005 is four to five thousand people. Although nearly all of these cases have been recorded by human rights organisations, the Russian authorities have not conducted effective investigations into any of these cases and the guilty have not been found and punished. What impact could European Court cases have for your region? Taking cases to the European Court could, in the foreseeable future, influence fundamental changes to the whole human rights situation in the Chechen Republic. Over the last few years the Russian Federation has been subject to criticism from intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations for its actions in Chechnya. 15

16 International Advocacy LEFT: Moot court during a training seminar; RIGHT: Philip Leach training at the EHRAC-Memorial training seminar in Novorossijsk Intimidation of European Court Applicants Individuals bringing cases before the European Court of Human Rights from the Chechen region do so at risk of intimidation, violence and even death. EHRAC and Memorial have repeatedly brought cases of intimidation to the attention of the Court, as well as the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and appropriate UN Rapporteurs. Due to intimidation, some applications have been withdrawn. As a result of this serious, continuing problem, not only is access to justice being denied for victims of human rights abuses, but also accountability is being successfully obstructed by the perpetrators of those abuses. Engagement with the Council of Europe On 5 July 2006, EHRAC and other international human rights NGOs issued an open letter to the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe giving evidence of the intimidation of applicants and the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. This letter asked the Assembly to continue to provide dedicated monitoring and reporting of human rights abuses in the North Caucasus region. In one case, the European Court of Human Rights has responded to evidence provided by EHRAC by granting interim measures to ensure that the applicant in that case is not intimidated. Emphasis must be placed on crimes against human rights defenders, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, forensic doctors and other law enforcement officials and against applicants to the European Court of Human Rights and their family members. It is intolerable that reprisals against applicants to the Strasbourg Court take place and remain unpunished. Human rights violations in the Chechen Republic, Report by Rudolf Bindig, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 21/12/2005 Engagement with United Nations Human Rights Bodies EHRAC and its partners have also provided evidence of intimidation to the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Violence Against Women and Extra-judicial Executions, the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Disappearances. They have then taken up the problems of intimidation in their own thematic investigations or in the course of their interactions with the Russian authorities. EHRAC and Memorial have written to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the continued harassment of applicants. We also encourage the European Court to put pressure on the Russian government to prevent such harassment and intimidation. 16

17 Training Local Lawyers LEFT: EHRAC-SCLJ training seminar, Moscow; CENTRE: Philip Leach and Sophio Japaridze at the EHRAC-GYLA training seminar, Tbilisi; RIGHT: Philip Leach (left) gives advice to participants during a legal clinic session at an EHRAC-Memorial training seminar Training Local Lawyers By training local lawyers, EHRAC aims to give ordinary people across Russia and Georgia access to lawyers who have the knowledge and skills to represent them effectively at the European Court. Those participating lawyers are then able to pass on their new skills to other colleagues and organisations in their region. EHRAC helps by: Holding Training Seminars EHRAC training seminars are: Practical Interactive Based on participants needs For practicing lawyers Conducted by experts A chance to ask experts questions about real cases Networking opportunities Four seminars were held in 2006: Reaching Out to Lawyers in the North Caucasus The Pyatigorsk seminar was aimed at practicing lawyers from Chechnya and Ingushetia, and other parts of the North Caucasus where some of the worst human rights abuses in Russia occur. The event was attended by lawyers from organisations including: Nizam Bar Association, Grozny, Chechen Republic Bar Association of the Republic of Dagestan Bar Association of the Republic of Kabardino- Balkaria Chechen Committee for National Salvation Bar Association of the Stavropol Region Bar Association of the Republic of Karachai-Cherkessia Participants feedback: The programme was very practical, I have got answers to many questions that I could not answer before.. I am 100% certain that the knowledge we gained here will be put to good use for the welfare of people and society. April 2006: with the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, Tbilisi, Georgia; July 2006: with Memorial, Novorossiysk, Russia; September 2006: with Memorial, Pyatigorsk, North Caucasus, Russia; October 2006: with the Slavic Centre for Law and Justice, Moscow, Russia Offering Ongoing Support All training participants are invited to maintain contact with EHRAC in order to seek advice and guidance on their European Court cases. 17

18 Providing Legal Consultants LEFT: Oksana Sadchikova, Bar Association of the Stavropol Region, participant at the EHRAC-Memorial training seminar in Pyatigorsk; CENTRE: Samantha Knights (EHRAC Legal Consultant) and Vladimir Ryakhovsky (SCLJ, Director) at the EHRAC-SCLJ training seminar in Moscow; RIGHT: Samantha Knights, Philip Leach and Drew Holiner discussing the forthcoming statement taking exercise in Krasnodar Training Participant Profile Providing Legal Consultants My work as an advocate focuses on civil cases I also frequently assist victims of crime. In many of my cases, officials abuse their powers and refuse to open criminal cases. National measures to protect peoples rights are ineffective due to corruption or the absence of much needed human rights defence mechanisms. I often find that the Procurator will take a longtime to respond to a person complaining about a crime. When pressured, the courts open cases, but do not carry out effective investigations. Therefore, access to international mechanisms for rights defence, particularly the European Court of Human Rights, is essential. In September I participated in EHRAC s training seminar in Pyatigorsk. It was extremely beneficial to have trainers from the UK and presentations from Chechen lawyers. Even though we live in the same country, we cannot begin to imagine the difficulties experienced by our colleagues working in Chechnya. The trainers explained the latest tendencies and changes to the work of the European Court and I broadened my knowledge of its practice. I was also able to get advice and assistance on concrete cases that I am working on. Such seminars are essential for sharing experiences and for contact-making among human rights lawyers. Oksana Sadchikova, Bar Association of the Stavropol Region Each year EHRAC sends a legal consultant to Russia to work directly with the lawyers at its partner organisations. This year, the consultant was discrimination and European Convention expert, Samantha Knights. Samantha is a barrister at Matrix Chambers and an active member of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. Her consultancy included: Giving guidance and advice on cases to EHRAC-Memorial lawyers in Moscow, Ryazan and Saint-Petersburg; Providing training at seminars in Pyatigorsk and Moscow; Coordinating the legal team in taking statements from potential European Court applicants in Krasnodar (together with Drew Holiner (St Petersburg Bar), EHRAC s legal consultant, 2005) The combined work that is being done by the lawyers working in Memorial with the assistance of EHRAC is of fundamental importance to the rule of law in Russia. Their current work includes the implementation of Strasbourg judgments in the cases concerning Chechnya, implementation of the judgment in the Fadeyeva case and work at the domestic level relating to the cases of the Yezidis in southern Russia who are currently stateless. Samantha Knights, Matrix Chambers 18

19 The Legal Skills Development Programme LEFT: Participants on the Legal Skills Development Programme meet with representatives of Amnesty International; CENTRE: Drew Holiner runs a case study session during an EHRAC-Memorial training seminar; RIGHT: Legal Skills Development Programme participants visiting the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg The work of organisations like EHRAC is essential for human rights protection in Russia as the volume and scope of problems requiring attention today far outstrips the number of local lawyers sufficiently trained and funded to provide effective representation in this area. In three short years, I have seen EHRAC make an invaluable contribution to the growth and experience of local lawyers that continue to apply their training to help real people in Russia even after they have moved on to other projects, and is now opening greater access to human rights protection in new regions of Russia through a second generation of volunteers Drew Holiner, Saint Petersburg Bar The Legal Skills Development Programme In October 2006, nine human rights lawyers from Russia, Georgia and Armenia took part in a two-week intensive Legal Skills Development Programme at EHRAC s London office. The participants were selected from lawyers at EHRAC s partner organisations or were undertaking internships at EHRAC funded by the Open Society Institute (OSI) or the Ford Foundation. They were: Grigor Avetisyan (EHRAC-Memorial, Moscow) Eleonora Davidyan (EHRAC-Memorial, Moscow) Marina Dubrovina (EHRAC-Memorial, Novorossijsk) Aslanbek Isaev (Nizam, Grozny/Ford Foundation intern) Sophio Japaridze (GYLA, Tbilisi) Shushan Khachyan (OSI intern) Tamar Khidasheli (GYLA/OSI intern) Nikoloz Legashvili (Article 42 of the Constitution, Tbilisi) Roman Maranov (SCLJ, Moscow) They took part in training seminars on the European Convention, legal English classes and networking meetings. They also undertook a two-day study visit to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There, they attended the Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ramsahai v Netherlands: We saw for ourselves how the European Court operates, what kind of questions are asked, how both the applicants and the State s representatives intervene. Marina Dubrovina, EHRAC-Memorial The group also met with the Russian and Georgian judges and Court Registry lawyers. We got concrete answers to the practical questions that we were interested in. Nikoloz Legashvili, Article 42 of the Constitution In London, participants met with other human rights NGOs, including Amnesty International and Interights, to discuss strategic litigation, case management and international advocacy. The organisation [Interights] has vast experience of strategic litigation and it was very interesting to hear their informed views and ideas on the queries we posed. Sophio Japaridze, Georgian Young Lawyers Association Finally, there was a visit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London where participants met with Russia or South Caucasus desk officers and researchers. 19

20 Supporting NGOs Development LEFT: Tina Devadasan (centre) meeting with representatives of the Georgian NGO, Article 42 of the Constitution; RIGHT: Staff and interns in the EHRAC London office Supporting NGOs Development Interns and Volunteers The EHRAC team supports partner organisations in identifying and building relationships with donors; preparing funding proposals, budgets and project progress reports; public relations including press work and website development; and administrative matters such as document management, recruitment and the organisation of events. This challenging and sensitive project is extremely timely and relevant for Russia. Very important legal precedents capable of impacting on the whole system of domestic justice in Russia have been established. The capacity of Russian human rights NGOs to bring human rights cases has been considerably enhanced. These outstanding results are due to the professionalism, commitment and obvious personal courage of EHRAC s representatives and that of its partners in Russia. Tatiana Bokareva, Delegation of the European Commission to Russia Through hard work, professionalism and dedication EHRAC has made a major contribution to the defence of human rights in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Its litigation before the European Court of Human Rights has brought relief to victims, empowered its local partners and secured a measure of state accountability where none existed before. The EHRAC-Memorial project offers internships in both London and Moscow. These are undertaken by lawyers, trainee lawyers and students from institutions in Russia and the UK, and provide invaluable hands-on experience of human rights work. Interns work on legal research and translation work, prepare training materials and contribute to the bulletin, presswork and fundraising. EHRAC is very grateful for the invaluable support it receives from interns and volunteers. My Internship with EHRAC: Lala Stone At EHRAC I had a chance to dive into all aspects of international law and really learn about the inner workings of a not-for-profit organisation. One of the things that really made the work personal was the pictures of Chechen applicants on the wall in the EHRAC office. These were real people holding pictures of lost loved ones, and suddenly they became more than just names on case files. These were the people that EHRAC were helping every day. And, for a while, I was a part of that. My internship experience at EHRAC has inspired me to go to law school with a focus in international law. Maybe someday I ll be back at EHRAC - next time as a lawyer. Kevin Boyle, Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Centre University of Essex, UK 20

21 An Opportunity for Students to Get Involved LEFT: Professor Bill Bowring leads a session during the Legal Skills Development Programme; RIGHT: Natalia Prilutskaya (clinical module student) in the EHRAC London office An Opportunity for Students to Get Involved As part of EHRAC s strong links with London Metropolitan University and our commitment to education and training, Human Rights Masters students at the University have the opportunity of taking a clinical course module: Litigation at the European Court of Human Rights. Rather than being based on a lecture format, students are assessed in carrying out work related to the European Court cases. The students spend time in the EHRAC office assisting with the casework and experiencing first-hand how a human rights NGO operates. The module was the most enjoyable subject that I studied during my LLM at London Metropolitan. I gained great exposure to the types of cases the European Court deals with, practical experience in drafting documents for use in the court proceedings, as well as an insight into how the Court operates. I would recommend the module to any student and still feel fortunate that I was accepted into the module. Clare Dart, Solicitor (Australia) The clinical module is an excellent opportunity to gain practical skills. The EHRAC office is a friendly place where under the supervision of practicing lawyers you can learn the logistics of submitting a case to the Court, gain a deeper insight into the work of the European Court of Human Rights and broaden your understanding of the human rights situation in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. But the best thing about it is that you do a real job helping real people to get justice. Natalia Prilutskaya, Lecturer in Law, Novokuznetsk branch of Kemerovo State University, Russia Part of the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute (HRSJ) EHRAC is part of the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute (HRSJ) at London Metropolitan University. The Institute aims to strengthen the link between human rights and social justice through interdisciplinary research, policy analysis, consultancy and training. Joining EHRAC has given me the opportunity to become directly involved in human rights to do something rather than just talking about it. Through working in the field with experienced lawyers and attending training seminars both in Russia and abroad my knowledge of human rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights in particular have grown immensely. My work brings me into contact with diverse and incredibly interesting people, from international experts and world-famous professors to representatives of an ethnic minority community, who are fighting for their rights. Eleonora Davidyan, Lawyer, EHRAC- Memorial Moscow office 21

22 Publications Taking Cases to the European Court of Human Rights A Manual (Russian language) The manual is a practical reference work to European Court litigation from a Russian perspective. It includes a translation of four chapters from Philip Leach s book Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (2nd Edition, OUP, 2005) as well as unique chapters by various contributors on domestic litigation, admissibility issues and judgments in Russian cases. Precedent pleadings and a case study are included as training resources. Five thousand copies have been distributed to lawyers, NGOs, universities, legal clinics and libraries across Russia. One hundred copies went to the Council of Europe for the human rights library in the Chechen State University, Grozny. This will help us to fill the gap that currently exists in our public and university libraries A.G. Kozitsky, Human Rights Ombudsman for the Krasnodar Region, Russia The training materials are really useful, especially Taking Cases to the European Court of Human Rights. With a seminar, you can never retain everything, but with these training materials I will be able to add to my knowledge in practice. Participant, Pyatigorsk training seminar, 2006 Six Cases A joint initiative between EHRAC, Memorial, the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles resulted in the Russian translation and publication of the judgments in the first six Chechen cases. The book was distributed widely to lawyers, judges, NGOs and universities in Russia, particularly in the North Caucasus region. The Group considers that national judicial and administrative institutions should be able to have access to the case-law of the Court in their respective language. This would assist them in identifying any judgments which might be relevant to deciding the cases before them. In the Group s view, responsibility for translation, publication and dissemination of case-law lies with the member states and their competent bodies. Each country should make its own arrangements while taking due account of the importance of these texts. Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers, 10 November

23 EHRAC Bulletin The EHRAC Bulletin is published twice a year in Russian and English. It covers developments in the human rights field that are relevant to Russia or Georgia. I find the material and information very helpful in relation to our work on Chechnya and Russia more generally. Nicole Piche, Parliamentary Human Rights Group Project Websites EHRAC has both English and Russian language websites: and They carry information on casework, project activities, and contain downloadable training materials and relevant articles from legal and other specialist journals. 23

24 EHRAC s Work in the Headlines Russia attacked over policies and rights (Financial Times, 25/02/2005) A court for the first time has confirmed what has happened, and that it was unlawful. (Philip Leach) Russia ordered to pay for Chechen deaths (The Guardian, 25/02/2005) The landmark judgments, which require damages to be paid to the families of 11 civilians killed by federal troops will pave the way for dozens of similar lawsuits for aggrieved Chechens. (the verdict) shows the utter disregard for the safety of civilians in unplanned operations that were massively excessive. (Phillip Leach) Russia put to the test on human rights (Philip Leach, The Times, 12/07/2005) The Russian government also tried to get the hearing of the Chechen cases in Strasbourg postponed and have the press and public excluded. In February (EHRAC) secured the first successful human rights court judgments concerning gross violations by the Russian army in Chechnya. (12/06/2006, James Meek, copyright Guardian News and Media 2006) For those who have suffered there is no mechanism other than the European Court. It s the only way. (Katya Sokiryanskaya) Legal victory gives hope to victims of Russia s smokestacks (The Times, 10/06/2006) As Russian citizens seek justice in Strasbourg their advocates allege harassment back home (Wall Street Journal, 26/04/06) 24

25 Russia s new justice on trial Russians appeals to court bring intimidation, death (The Times, 31/05/2005) After years of reform, the legal system is still under a political shadow My verdict is that magnificent things have been happening and you have this reforming programme. But then you have an army sent to Chechnya on the basis that you do what you like and forget the [human rights convention] with complete impunity. (Professor Bill Bowring) (The Washington Post, 11/07/2006) Россиян, которые жалуются в Страсбургский суд, пытают и убивают Chechnya: The Fight for Rights Russians who complain to Strasbourg Court are tortured and killed (Russian Newsweek, 06/03/2006) (Time, 03/02/2003) Чеченцы получили компенсации от российских властей Condamnée par la Cour de Strasbourg, la Russie indemnise des civils tchétchènes Chechens received compensation from the Russian authorities (Kommersant, 04/10/2005) Condemned by the Strasbourg Court, Russia pays compensation to Chechen civilians (Le Monde, 30/09/2005) Man tortured to admit crime that never was (Wall Street Journal, 26/04/2006) 25

26 Case Studies LEFT: Temporary accommodation centre for internally displaced Chechens in Ingushetia; CENTRE: A former resident of Kogi, a Nogai village in Chechnya, by the remains of his home that was allegedly bombed by Russian forces. EHRAC is talking a case to the European Court on behalf of some of the former residents; RIGHT: Residents of Kogi flee to Dagestan following the bombing of their village Kaplanova v Russia The applicant lived in Grozny, the Chechen capital, with her family. She states that on 12 May 2001, a large group of soldiers wearing masks and armed with machine guns, broke down the doors and searched the applicant s house. They did not take anything but ordered her son, son-in-law and a neighbour who was visiting to go with them. The neighbour was released the next day. The reason given for his detention was that he had insulted soldiers at a military roadblock, even though all three had been arrested in a private house. Neither her son nor her son-in-law has been seen since. The applicant claims that the Russian Federation has violated the right to life of her son and son-in-law. On 24 October 2006, the European Court declared the application admissible. Ugdyzhekov v Russia The applicant is a member of the minority Khakas population of the Republic of Khakasia, Siberia. For eight years he was the editor of a newspaper owned by the Khakasian Government and the Supreme Council of Khakasia. The applicant says that during this time he tried to make the newspaper more relevant to the Khakas people and was also critical of the Governor of Khakasia. In February 2005, the applicant was dismissed by the Governor. He took his case to a local court and won. However, on appeal, this verdict was overturned. The applicant considers his dismissal to be unfair and that it violates his right to freedom of expression. EHRAC and Memorial lodged an application with the European Court in June 2006 in this case. Makhauri v Russia The applicant lived in the village of Tashkala, Chechnya. From the beginning of the resumption of hostilities in Chechnya in 1999, the village had been shelled by artillery. On 21 January 2000, the applicant, together with two other women, left the bomb-shelter they had been hiding in and went to inspect their houses. On the way to their houses they were seen by a group of soldiers, who threatened them with automatic weapons, accusing them of being informers. The women were blindfolded and led away. When the applicant pulled off her blindfold she saw a soldier pointing a rifle at her. She begged the soldiers not to kill her, telling them that she had small children. According to the applicants, the soldiers shot the three women. However, the applicant was saved from many of the bullets by the second woman, who was standing in front of her. She then pretended to be dead, and later lost consciousness. She received medical treatment in Ingushetia three days later and spent two months in hospital. She has lost the use of her left hand. The applicant claims that as a result the following rights were violated: the right to life, prohibition of torture and to an effective judicial remedy. On 18 May 2006, the European Court declared the application admissible. Musayev v Russia Mr Musayev was with three of his cousins at their house in Grozny when automatic gunfire was heard nearby. Another cousin arrived at the house and said that he and his two nephews had been stopped that morning by Russian soldiers, but he had managed to escape. Two of the cousins decided to go and find the two nephews. 26

27 LEFT: Case meeting in Novorossijsk (Philip Leach, Marina Dubrovina and Elenora Davidyan); RIGHT: Dina Vedernikova in the EHRAC London office Soon after a group of soldiers entered the area and began firing at both houses and people. After several hours the soldiers left and Mr Musayev went out of the house to see if anyone was injured. Six bodies were found in the street, all of whom had been shot. His cousins were among the dead. As Mr Musayev and his family were moving the bodies from the streets another group of soldiers fired upon them, killing another member of his family. Mr Musayev argues that his relatives right to life has been violated and that no effective investigation has been carried out. He also claims that, as a result of the intense feelings of fear, anguish and emotional distress that he suffered in connection with witnessing the killing of his relatives and neighbours and being subjected to death threats, he had suffered inhuman treatment. On 13 December 2005 the European Court declared the application admissible. The neighbours later told the applicants that the soldiers started with 176 Mazayeva Street, entered into the houses, killed the inhabitants and burned the houses one by one. Admissibility decision of the European Court in Musayev v Russia, 13/12/2005 Novoselov v Russia In October 1998, following a complaint lodged by his neighbour, Mr Novoselov was arrested and taken into custody in prison in Krasnodar. He was later found guilty of disorderly behaviour and sentenced to six months imprisonment. He was held in a cell measuring approximately 42m 2 together with up to 50 other inmates. The inmates had to sleep in rotation. The food was of very poor quality and there were swarms of insects in the cell. A toilet was only separated from the rest of the cell by a bed sheet provided by one of the inmates. The table where meals were eaten was only one metre away from the toilet. During his detention the applicant contracted scabies but was not isolated from other inmates. He twice fell ill with flu. By the time of his release, the applicant had lost 15kg, felt short of breath while walking, tired easily, could not run, and suffered from general weakness. He therefore lodged a case with the European Court, claiming that the conditions of his detention constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court agreed in its judgment of June 2005 and awarded him 3,000 in damages. The applicant claimed that a thick, black and foot worn layer of dirt had covered the floor. Inmates clothing swarmed with lice, spiders and other insects. Judgment of the European Court in Novoselov v Russia, 02/06/2005 Perevedentsev v Russia Mikhail Perevedentsev was called up for military service in May In February 2004 his family received a letter from his military unit saying that he had been found dead with a noose around his neck. The Perevedentsev family received no more information than this and appealed for help to an NGO, the Ryazan Committee of Soldiers Mothers. The garrison s military prosecutor s office initiated criminal proceedings into his death. The officers consider this to be a case of suicide, but Mikhail Perevedentsev s parents believe that he was murdered, and that his neck had been placed in a noose to create the appearance of suicide. Over two years have passed since Mikhail s death. This has affected the quantity and quality of available evidence. 27

28 Case Studies LEFT AND RIGHT: EHRAC lawyers discuss the possibility of taking a case to the European Court with members of the Yezidi community in Krasnodar Krai, Russia In October 2005, the Perevedentsevs, appealed to the European Court, with assistance from lawyers from EHRAC and Memorial complaining about the circumstances of their son s death and the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation. The case is currently pending at the Court. These informal rules allowed second-year conscripts to treat new recruits like slaves whom they could order around with utter arbitrariness, punish in whatever way they saw fit for invented infractions, or abuse for no particular reason at all. The Wrongs of Passage, Human Rights Watch The Yezidi Community in Krasnodar The Yezidi are followers of a Middle Eastern religion with ancient origins. The largest Yezidi community was, until 1988, living in Soviet Armenia. In 1988 an earthquake caused almost all the community to flee to the Krasnodar region of Soviet Russia. Since relocating to Russia, the community has experienced discrimination from the Russian authorities in the Krasnodar region. They are not recognised as Russian citizens and are therefore deprived of basic civil, political, economic, and social rights. Their problems include difficulties in children accessing education, harassment by administration and law enforcement officers and acts of violence. In September 2006, EHRAC sent two legal consultants and three project lawyers to the community to take detailed statements from the villagers concerning the abuse of their rights. Thirty-eight potential applicants were interviewed in order to build up a broad picture of the kind of problems and discrimination they face. These statements are currently being analysed. Before an application can be sent to the European Court all rights of appeal in Krasnodar must first be exhausted. This process is now underway. Kiladze v Georgia The applicants parents were both victims of political repression that took place under the Soviet regime. In 1937 the Military Board had sentenced the applicants father to death. The following year, their mother had been arrested and deported to the far north of the Soviet Union. All the applicants property, including their clothes, was confiscated. The applicants, who were only nine and eleven years old at the time, were placed in care in state institutions where the conditions were very poor. In 1998 the applicants and their parents were recognised as having been victims of political repression under the Georgian law on victims of political repression. The law established a right for people who had been recognised as victims of repression (or their relatives) to claim compensation. In 2005 the applicants applied to the Georgian Court of Appeal, seeking compensation for their property that was confiscated by the Soviet regime and for the moral damage caused by the political repression of their parents. The Court dismissed their application on the basis that a law had not yet been introduced to set out how such compensation would be calculated and awarded (and this was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia). The applicants allege that Georgia has violated their right to property, in failing effectively to implement the law on compensation for the victims of political repression. In March 2006 the European Court decided to treat the case as a priority. 28

29 Our Partners LEFT: Tatiana Tomaeva (SCLJ)and Kirsty Stuart in the EHRAC London office; CENTRE: Sophio Japaridze, EHRAC-GYLA project lawyer; RIGHT: Tatiana Kasatkina, Executive Director of Memorial Human Rights Centre Memorial Human Rights Centre (MHRC) Memorial is EHRAC s original partner. Memorial is one of the leading human rights NGOs in the Russian Federation. In 1991 it established the Memorial Human Rights Centre (the MHRC) with 58 branches Russia-wide and 140 affiliates. MHRC 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. Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) In February 2006, EHRAC formalised a partnership with GYLA. Founded in 1994, GYLA is the original and largest professional union of lawyers in Georgia dedicated 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. Today, 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 branch offices. Bar Human Rights Committee of England and 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. The Slavic Centre for Law and Justice (SCLJ) The SCLJ is one of very few organisations in Russia that deals specifically with religious and ethnic discrimination. It is well known for its successes in the Russian domestic courts and is also starting to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. SCLJ has a network of around 50 lawyers across the Russian Federation, who are working in the field of religious and ethnic discrimination. 29