Posted on

WE ARE HERE SINCE 1974

After years of persecution and resistance, the CHD has decided to renew
the association.

 

ÇAĞDAŞ HUKUKÇULAR DERNEĞİ ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

“WE ARE HERE SINCE 1974”

Our Association was closed down by the government in 2016. We had then announced that this was not a legitimate decision for us; we would not accept it. When our offices were looted, and the doors of our offices were locked up and sealed, “ÇHD does not exist merely in the offices”, we said. As we account for the hard process we have gone through we have the honor to keep to our word.

We are honored, that is correct. However, we are not surprised with the seamless will to struggle of our Association as well as its attitude in the face of the contemporary of state of affairs in our country. For this outcome comes naturally out of the power and legitimacy of our tradition. It is equally the immediate result of our faith in and aspiration for a just, free, classless world that does not welcome exploitation. In this process, some of our valued Bu members were held captive; they were tortured; they were convicted to ten year-long imprisonment. But we have persisted to convey to our friends and foes, to Turkey and to the whole world that another lawyering practice is possible and that ÇHD will never and ever withdraw from opting for this practice.

The Conference that we organized within the scope of the Ordinary General Assembly, on January 18, 2020 was turned into a vibrant platform for struggle where our decisiveness, our will to solidarity and resistance came to the fore, showing the impossibility to end the ÇHD by despotic measures.

The Ordinary General Assembly also showed that the ÇHD is not alone in its struggle; that it has hundreds of comrades who would join the struggle for a just world. The messages of friendship and solidarity, sent by many lawyers’ organizations to our Association are examples of this. The messages that we received from the workers in the tents of struggle, from the families of Soma miners, from the families of Çorlu train massacre, from the families of our friends who were taken from us in the October 10 Train Station massacre and in Gezi resistance once more confirmed the historical importance of the lawyering practice of the ÇHD. The messages of friendship, comradeship and solidary that we received from our colleagues in Italy, Portuguese, United States, Phillippines, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Asia-Pacific countries, Catalonia, Greece who struggle with similar faith and decisiveness also showed the extent of our reach throughout the world, that we are part of a global comradeship. In this respect, the first conclusion that we have is as follows: We claim each and every concern of social opposition in the world, in general, and in Turkey, in particular! We claim the concern of each and every resistance tent, strike, boycott, the demands of a body, vanishing for justice, the demands of women, resisting on the streets, the demands of our colleagues in France, throwing their robes, the claims of the lawyers in Pakistan – our comrades who were killed – all our claims, too! They claim ours! The hope for free, just and bright features lies in such true solidarity.

“The Crisis of Capitalism, the Crisis Law”

The Ordinary Constitutive Assembly that we held under the title, “Crrisis of Capitalism, the Crisis Law” opened a space where we could underline the social dynamics of the present historical period and discuss the agendas of social opposition – to which the ÇHD has been a historical party – and the requisites brought in by these agendas. Many members of our Association have contributed significantly to these discussions with their presentations.

Assessing the presentations and discussions together we reached the following conclusions:

  • We are at a critical historical phase not only in Turkey but throughout the world. On the one hand, we observe the aggressive imperialist policies that increase with the deepening economic crisis. On the other hand, we witness the rise of resistance in different parts of the world. These developments point at the main lines of struggle and possible alliances in the coming years.
  • ÇHD, is the name for a certain practice of lawyering. In the process ahead of us, it should be the main mission of all its members to carry this practice of lawyering, developed by the ÇHD laboriously into the new period. ÇHD is the organization of the lawyers who are the workers of struggle, turning the law into a means for justice – and not those lawyers who approach the law as a technical asset. With such awareness we cite the following topics to be included in the agenda of the ÇHD:
  • ÇHD started its Ordinary General Assembly in the absence of our dear Chair, Selçuk Kozağaçlı, and our respectable members Behiç Aşçı, Aytaç Ünsal, Aycan Çiçek, Ebru Timtik, Barkın Timtik, Oya Aslan, Ayşegül Çağatay and Engin Gökoğlu since they were imprisoned. The first item of the ÇHD in the past, present and future shall be the freedom of their colleagues who were taken prisoner, who were taken hostage. It is certain that ÇHD should organize effective actions for the freedom of our colleagues who are imprisoned. It is also important that the ÇHD should also adopt an effective working style in matters listed below for the strengthening of social opposition – which is also significant for the freedom of our imprisoned colleagues. We shall not step back from the maxim, “Freedom to Imprisoned Lawyers”, until our last imprisoned comrade gains her/his freedom.
  • ÇHD shall continue to take sides with the workers and labor in the face of all attacks against the working class. It is clear that it should be the capitalists to pay for the crisis, not the workers. ÇHD believes in the legitimacy of the working class struggle; we shall not reduce the working class struggle to the laws and the courtrooms. We shall be in solidarity with the working class on this basis; we shall struggle in solidarity with the working class. We shall continue to be in solidarity with the working class whenever and wherever they are attacked, whenever and wherever they are hurt, whenever and wherever they stand up.
  • The suicides that span through the country is a concern for the ÇHD. ÇHD does not approach the suicides as individual cases; it knows that anti-capitalist struggle is the only bulwark against the increase in the number of suicides due to the crisis of capitalism.
  • The process of the State of Emergency (Olağanüstü Hal, OHAL) was used as a grounds to dissolve the public space and to continue with the neoliberal transformation. ÇHD acknowledges that its our duty to keep up with solidarity with the public workers who were dismissed from public service and who were almost pushed to die civil death.
  • The power bloc in Turkey is accelarating its attacks and violent practices against the Kurdish people. ÇHD, as its also stated in our by-laws shall defend the right of nations to self-determination. Pursuant to this principle we shall put solidarity with Kurdish people in every sphere and at every level among our prior duties in the coming period. ÇHD defines the imprisonment of the political representatives of Kurdish people and the appointment of trustees to the elected municipal administrations as part of colonial politics and a matter of political injustice. Our Association shall continue its stance against the war against the Kurdish people that involve occupation and annihilation in our country as well as across the borders. ÇHD shall stand against all kinds of aggressiveness by Turkey, of all reactionary-fascist countries in the region and cross-border imperialist forces against the will of the Kurdish people.
  • It is obvious that the region is under attack of the aggressive imperialist policies that are aimed to reshape it; to open up space for wars that would bring in evermore blood, hunger, poverty to the peoples in the region. It shall be one of the main duties of the ÇHD to adopt the maxim, mperyalist talan ve saldırganlık politikaları karşısında “war against the palaces, peace to the cottages” to be an active party to the anti-imperialist struggle that would enhance solidarity with the peoples in the region.
  • The environmental plunder, the right to the environment, and climate rights are the topics that concern us. ÇHD takes sides with all struggles against Channel İstanbul, hydroelectric power plants and similar practices that are environmentally destructrive.
  • Today in Turkey, the average number of women who are killed in domestic violence daily is five. The OHAL process brought in a period when violence against women and the LGBTIQ+ was increased and reinforced by the conservative rhetoric that has been circulated by the government. In the meantime, the courts have been functioning as mechanisms of impunity in cases of violence and rape. One of the topics in the ÇHD’s agenda for struggle in the new period is to eliminate the current impunity in the juridication concerning cases of gender-based violence.
  • Gender equality is one of the main topics of concern for ÇHD. This was true yesterday, and it still is true today. We shall develop the means for ensuring gender equality in every social sphere and to struggle against sexism.
  • Prisons shall be one of the main concerns for ÇHD’s struggle. This was the case in past; it shall be the case today. Today it is obvious that illegality is the norm; thus the prisons are filled with political prisoners. In our country, political prisoners are involved in actions, extending from hunger strikes to death fasts in order to defend and/or claim their most basic rights. ÇHD shall continue to work to defend the rights of the political prisoners and stand by them. All political prisoners who are imprisoned due to their claim to a classless, free and just world where exploitation is eliminated are ÇHD’s clients, friends and comrades.
  • ÇHD shall also follow the attacks against the profession. Lawyers are impoverished increasingly, lawyers-as-workers try hard to make ends meet, they are exploited. We shall not forget our colleague Gökhan Vural Arı who committed suicide. We shall keep struggling for our colleagues’ economic and social rights as one of the main topics of concern of the ÇHD.
  • The licences of legal apprentices are usurped. This usurpation is realized in an arbitrary fashion and a group of legal apprentices are tried to be prevented by the power-holders at the very initial stages of their career, since they are perceived to be “threats”. This attack grows out of a futile fear, but it has serious consequences. Eliminating against this attack shall be one of the main topics in ÇHD’s new period.
  • Enhancing the solidarity with the migrants and refugees shall clearly be a main topic of concern for ÇHD. Millions of migrants who have been turned into objects of bargaining by Turkey and the power-holders in Europe are also victims of racism that has been deliberately provoked by the same power-holders. ÇHD shall approach the rights and liberties of the migrants and refugees on an equal stand with the rights and liberties of citizens’ rights and liberties.
  • There is no jurisdiction in Turkey. Criminal jurisdicion is conducted directly by command; thousands are deprived of the right to just jurisdiction; their right to defence are restricted; they are imprisoned. In this period when coursehouses fall short of ensuring justice, it is the ÇHD’s duty to take sides with the rights struggles of the oppressed, repressed and whose rights are violated.
  • ÇHD is aware of the significance of the international solidarity of progressive lawyers. In this respect, it shall further develop the activities that it has already been pursuing. In this respect, we shall support our colleagues who are in resistance in France. In the meantime, we shall look for ways and methods to stand by the Pakistani democratic lawyers, to whom the Day of the Endangered Lawyers is dedicated in 2020. One step in this regard shall be active participation in the international action that will take place on January 24, 2020.

In the light of these statements and decisions, our General Assembly considers the letter sent by Selçuk Kozağaçlı as a statement and announces the following decisions:

From now on, ÇHD shall continue with its solidarity acts in the past, and “shall take its place in strike tents, in front of the morgues, in the faculty boycotts, behind the barricades, in front of the queues. ÇHD shall concern not to be more intelligent than the ones with whom we struggle together but to turn the potential to fight together, to trust to each other into action in order to weave an axis of struggle.”

ÇHD Ordinary General Assembly is determined to show that, “to be nuts is preferable than to be obedient”! For it us who claims the reputation to be the nuts, to pursue the impossible and not to hesitate to tresspass; we shall not turn it over to anyone!

ÇHD IS HERE; IT WILL ALWAYS BE HERE!

Posted on

Statement on the Judgement of the Spanish Supreme Court on the Catalan Referendum Case

in English:

Berlin, on the 23rd of November 2019

 

The AED was part of the dozens of international organizations monitoring the Trial on the Catalan Referendum Case in Madrid. In a statement this February we warned of the lack of procedural guarantees and the danger of violating human rights if there were a conviction.

On Monday, the 14th of October, the Spanish Supreme Court issued an unprecedented ruling in Europe, condemning the Catalan political and social leaders to a total of 100 years in prison. In this sentence, peaceful demonstrations or peaceful resistance represented the crime of sedition (“public uprising and tumultuary“). This sentence clearly restricts the exercise of freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, as well as public political participation.

The Court dropped the State Prosecutor’s charges of rebellion, but issued severe sentences for the crimes of sedition, embezzlement of public funds, and disobedience, in the context of the Referendum on the Independence of Catalonia, on the 1st of October 2017.

The AED recalls that the referendum was a non-violent act of civil disobedience, organized peacefully to allow the voices of many Catalans to be heard. The only violence on the 1st October was perpetrated by the Spanish Police, in actions of disproportionate violence.

AED considers:

– These have been political proceedings, putting people on trial for their political ideas.

– The prison sentences imposed represent a historical error, which, far from solving the problem, worsens it.

– The powers of the Spanish Kingdom have done nothing to resolve this situation, which should have been solved politically through dialogue, and not through the involvement of the judicial power and therefore with the intervention of the State Prosecutor’s Office, directly appointed by the Spanish Government.

– Far from providing any solution, the verdict against the political prisoners shifts the conflict to the European arena and the international courts of Justice, which will not solve the problem either. If the international community, particularly the European Union, does not play an active role in helping resolving the conflict, an international call for dialogue and a peaceful and democratic solution is needed.

AED condemns the violation of Human Rights (civil and political rights listed and recognized by Treaties and Conventions dully signed by the Kingdom of Spain), the violation of criminal and procedural principles, as well as the criminal law principles of fragmentation, proportionality and last resort, by the criminal proceedings and its sentence of last 14th of October 2019.

The grave violation of the abovementioned rights and principles in this sentence and its logic, renders it impossible to analyze from a strictly legal point of view. Any earnest attempt at interpreting this sentence based on technical and legal concepts, such as sedition, uprising, violence or fundamental right becomes partially unsuccessful. The reason is because it is an ideological resolution aimed at replacing the political solution that is needed in the conflict in Catalonia.

AED asks the executive powers of both the Spanish and Catalan governments to seek through dialogue and compromise to end the criminal response to the underlying political problem, to put an end to the repression by police, to free the prisoners and bid the safe return of the exiles and, instead, finally seek to start a negotiation to find a political solution to the conflict based on dialogue and respect.

 

in French:

Motion sur l’arrêt de la Cour suprême espagnole sur l’affaire du référendum catalan

Berlin, le 23 novembre 2019

L’AED a participé avec dizaines d’organisations internationales dans l’observation du procès sur l’affaire du référendum catalan. Dans une déclaration faite en février dernier nous avons mis en garde contre l’absence de garanties procédurales et le risque de bafouer les droits de l’homme des accusés en cas de condamnation.

Lundi 14 octobre, la Cour suprême espagnole a rendu un arrêt sans précédent en Europe, condamnant les dirigeants politiques et sociaux catalans à 100 ans de prison au total. Dans cette arrêt, les manifestations pacifiques ou la résistance pacifique représentaient le crime de sédition (“soulèvement public et tumulte”). Cette phrase restreint clairement l’exercice de la liberté d’expression, le droit de réunion pacifique, ainsi que la participation politique publique.

La Cour a abandonné les accusations de rébellion portées par le Procureur de la République, mais a prononcé des peines sévères pour les crimes de sédition, de détournement de fonds publics et de désobéissance dans le cadre du référendum sur l’indépendance de la Catalogne, le 1er octobre 2017.

L’AED rappelle que le référendum était un acte non violent de désobéissance civile, organisé pacifiquement pour permettre à de nombreux Catalans de faire entendre leur voix. La seule violence du 1er octobre a été perpétrée par la police espagnole, dans des actes de violence disproportionnée.

L’AED observe que

  • Il s’agit de procédures politiques, de poursuites judiciaires contre des personnes pour leurs idées politiques.
  • Les peines d’emprisonnement imposées représentent une erreur historique qui, loin de résoudre le problème, l’aggrave.
  • Les pouvoirs du Royaume d’Espagne n’ont rien fait pour résoudre cette situation, qui aurait dû être résolue politiquement par le dialogue, et non par la participation du pouvoir judiciaire et donc par l’intervention du Procureur, directement nommé par le gouvernement espagnol.
  • Loin d’apporter une solution, le verdict contre les prisonniers politiques déplace le conflit vers l’arène européenne et les tribunaux internationaux de justice, ce qui ne résoudra pas non plus le problème. Si la communauté internationale, en particulier l’Union européenne, ne joue pas un rôle actif dans la résolution du conflit, un appel international au dialogue et à une solution pacifique et démocratique est nécessaire.

 

L’AED condamne la violation des Droits de l’Homme (droits civils et politiques énumérés et reconnus par les Traités et Conventions dûment signés par le Royaume d’Espagne), la violation des principes pénaux et procéduraux, ainsi que les principes de fragmentation, de proportionnalité et de dernier recours du droit pénal, par cette procédure pénale et l’arrêt du 14 octobre 2019.

La violation grave des droits et principes susmentionnés dans cette phrase et sa logique rendent impossible une analyse d’un point de vue strictement juridique. Toute tentative sérieuse d’interprétation de cette phrase fondée sur des concepts techniques et juridiques, tels que la sédition, le soulèvement, la violence ou les droits fondamentaux, échoue partiellement. La raison en est qu’il s’agit d’une résolution idéologique visant à remplacer la solution politique nécessaire dans le conflit en Catalogne.

L’AED demande aux pouvoirs exécutifs des gouvernements espagnol et catalan de chercher, par le dialogue et le compromis, à mettre fin à la réponse criminelle au problème politique sous-jacent, à mettre fin à la répression policière, à libérer les prisonniers et à demander le retour des exilés en toute sécurité et, enfin, à entamer une négociation pour trouver une solution politique au conflit basée sur le dialogue et le respect.

 

 

 

Posted on

THE PHILIPPINES: ATTACKS AGAINST LAWYERS ESCALATING

Texte en français

17 September 2019

We, the undersigned organizations, lawyers, and members of the legal profession, express deep concern over the increasing attacks against lawyers in the Philippines and the oppressive working environment they face since the start of President Duterte’s administration. We call on the Duterte Government to adequately protect the safety and independence of lawyers and end the culture of impunity in which these attacks occur.

Extrajudicial killings and harassment of lawyers

Since President Duterte took office on June 30, 2016, the number and intensity of attacks against lawyers have increased significantly. At least 41 lawyers and prosecutors were killed between July 2016 and 5 September 2019, including 24 practicing lawyers. Lawyers are also harassed and intimidated. They are subjected to (death) threats, surveillance, labelling, and other forms of attacks. In addition, at least five judges and retired judges have been murdered since July 2016, bringing the total number of jurists extrajudicially killed in the Philippines to at least 46 in the same period. Eight jurists survived attacks on their life.

Lawyers at risk

Most killings and attacks of lawyers took place as a result of discharging professional duties or are believed to be otherwise work-related. Especially at risk are lawyers representing people accused of terrorist or drug related crimes, or government critics, such as journalists, political opposition leaders, and human rights defenders. Lawyers providing legal representation in high-profile cases impacting established interests, such as land reform, or lawyers taking part in public discussion about human rights issues, also face reprisals.

Grave implications of threats and labelling

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, recently noted that senior officials of the Government of the Philippines have threatened lawyers and others who have spoken out against the administration’s policies, and she added that this “creates a very real risk of violence against them, and undermines rule of law, as well as the right to freedom expression”.

Prior to being attacked, some lawyers were labelled as “communist” or “terrorist” by state agents. The practice of labelling (i.e. classifying persons as “enemies of the state” or otherwise) combined with the culture of impunity was identified by national and international fact-finding missions as one of the main root causes of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines in the past and continues unabated.

Sharp deterioration of human rights

The attacks against lawyers, prosecutors and members of the judiciary and the extrajudicial killings of other human rights defenders in the Philippines during the past three years have occurred within the context of the so-called war on drugs and are being carried out across the country in an apparent climate of institutional impunity.

Concerned with the sharp deterioration of the human rights situation, eleven UN human rights experts, in a 7 June 2019 press release, called on the UN Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigation into human rights violations committed in the Philippines. “

Culture of Impunity

The UN experts also noted that “the Government has shown no indication that they will step up to fulfil their obligation to conduct prompt and full investigations into these cases, and to hold perpetrators accountable in order to do justice for victims and to prevent reoccurrence

Consequences

The attacks against and extra-judicial killings of lawyers and the impunity shielding perpetrators impair the ability of lawyers to provide effective legal representation, make lawyers increasingly wary of working on sensitive cases, and consequently severely undermine the proper functioning of the rule of law and the adequate protection of rights, including the right to remedies and fair trial.

International obligations

According to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (Basic Principles), States should ensure that all persons within their jurisdiction have effective and equal access to lawyers of their own choosing, and that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference. The Basic Principles require that lawyers are adequately protected when their security is threatened because of carrying out their legitimate professional duties, and not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes. The Basic Principles affirm that lawyers, like other citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression and assembly. The duty to respect and guarantee these freedoms forms an integral part of the Philippines’ international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Recommendations

In view of the above, the undersigned organizations and individuals urge the Government of the Philippines to:

  1. Investigate promptly, effectively, thoroughly and independently all extrajudicial killings and attacks against lawyers, and other jurists, with the aim of identifying those responsible and bringing them to justice in proceedings that respect international fair trial standards;
  1. Take all reasonable measures to guarantee the safety and physical integrity of lawyers, including the provision of adequate protection measures, in consultation with the persons concerned;
  2. Consistently condemn all forms of threats and attacks against lawyers publicly, at all political levels and in strong terms; and,
  3. Fully comply with and create awareness about the core values underlying the legal profession, amongst others by bringing the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers to the attention of relevant stakeholders, especially members of the executive, police, and the military.

Download the press statement

—

PHILIPPINES: ESCALADE DES ATTAQUES CONTRE LES AVOCATS

17 Septembre 2019 –

Nous, les organisations, avocats et membres des professions juridiques soussignés, exprimons notre profonde préoccupation face aux attaques croissantes contre les avocats aux Philippines et à l’environnement de travail oppressif auquel ils sont confrontés depuis le début de l’administration du président Duterte. Nous appelons le gouvernement Duterte à protéger de manière adéquate la sécurité et l’indépendance des avocats et à mettre fin à la culture d’impunité dans laquelle ces attaques se produisent.

Assassinats extrajudiciaires et harcèlement d’avocats

Depuis l’entrée en fonction du président Duterte le 30 juin 2016, le nombre et l’intensité des attaques à l’encontre d’avocats ont considérablement augmenté. Au moins 40 avocats et procureurs ont été tués entre juillet 2016 et le 29 juillet 2019, dont 24 avocats en exercice. Les avocats sont également harcelés et intimidés. Ils sont soumis à des menaces (de mort), à une surveillance, à un étiquetage et à d’autres formes d’attaques. En outre, au moins cinq juges et juges à la retraite ont été assassinés depuis juillet 2016, ce qui porte le nombre total de professionnels du droit tués de manière extrajudiciaire aux Philippines à au moins 46 au cours de la même période. Sept juristes ont survécu à des attaques visant leur vie.

Les avocats en danger

La plupart des assassinats et des attaques contre les avocats ont eu lieu dans le cadre de l’exercice de leurs fonctions professionnelles ou sont apparemment liés à leur profession. Les avocats représentant des personnes accusées de crimes liés au terrorisme ou à la drogue, ou critiquant la politique ou le comportement du gouvernement, tels que les journalistes, les dirigeants de l’opposition politique et les défenseurs des droits de l’homme sont particulièrement exposés. Les avocats assurant une représentation juridique dans des affaires très médiatisées ayant un impact sur des intérêts établis, tels que la réforme agraire, ou les avocats prenant part au débat public sur des questions relatives aux droits de l’homme, sont également victimes de représailles.

Graves implications des menaces et de l’étiquetage

La Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l’homme, Michelle Bachelet, a récemment noté que de hauts responsables du gouvernement philippin avaient menacé des avocats et d’autres personnes qui s’étaient exprimés contre les politiques de l’administration. Elle a ajouté que cela “crée un risque très réel de violence contre eux et une atteinte à l’État de droit, ainsi qu’au droit à la liberté d’expression ».

Avant d’être agressés, certains avocats ont été qualifiés de « communistes » ou de
« terroristes » par des agents de l’État. La pratique de l’étiquetage (c’est-à-dire la classification des personnes comme « ennemi de l’État » ou similaire) combinée à la culture de l’impunité a été identifiée par les missions d’enquête nationales et internationales comme l’une des principales causes des exécutions extrajudiciaires perpétrées aux Philippines dans le passé et qui continue à exister sans relâche.

Forte détérioration des droits de l’homme

Les attaques contre des avocats, ainsi que des procureurs et des membres du système judiciaire, ainsi que l’assassinat extrajudiciaire d’autres défenseurs des droits de l’homme aux Philippines au cours des trois dernières années se sont déroulés dans le cadre de la

prétendue guerre contre la drogue lancée à travers le pays dans un climat apparent d’impunité institutionnelle.

Préoccupés par la forte détérioration de la situation des droits de l’homme, onze experts des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies ont, dans un communiqué de presse du 7 juin 2019, exhorté le Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies à ouvrir une enquête indépendante sur les violations des droits de l’homme commises aux Philippines. « Au lieu d’ [le gouvernement] envoyer un message fort que ces assassinats et ce harcèlement sont inacceptables, il y a une rhétorique croissante contre les voix indépendantes dans le pays et des actes d’intimidation et d’attaques continues contre des voix qui critiquent le gouvernement, y compris les médias indépendants, les défenseurs de droits de l’homme, avocats et journalistes “, ont déclaré les experts.

Culture de l’impunité

Les experts des Nations Unies ont également noté que « le gouvernement n’a montré aucun signe indiquant qu’il s’acquitterait de son obligation de mener rapidement des enquêtes approfondies sur ces affaires et de tenir les auteurs présumés responsables afin de rendre justice aux victimes et d’éviter que les violations ne se reproduisent. »

Conséquences

Les attaques et les exécutions extrajudiciaires d’avocats et l’impunité qui protège les auteurs compromettent la capacité des avocats de représenter efficacement leurs clients, ce qui rend les avocats moins enclins à travailler sur des affaires délicates et ce qui porte donc gravement atteinte au bon fonctionnement de l’État de droit, au respect du droit et à la protection adéquate des droits, y compris le droit à un recours et à un procès équitable.

Obligations internationales

Selon les Principes de base des Nations Unies relatifs au rôle du barreau (Principes de base), les États devraient veiller à ce que toutes les personnes relevant de leur juridiction aient un accès effectif et égal aux avocats de leur choix et à ce que ces derniers puissent exercer leurs fonctions professionnelles sans intimidation, entrave, harcèlement ou ingérence indue. Les Principes de base exigent que les avocats soient protégés de manière adéquate lorsque leur sécurité est menacée en raison de l’exercice de leurs obligations professionnelles légitimes, et ne soient pas identifiés à leurs clients ou aux causes de leurs clients. Les Principes de base affirment que les avocats, comme les autres citoyens, ont droit à la liberté d’expression et de réunion. L’obligation de respecter et de garantir ces libertés fait partie intégrante des obligations juridiques internationales des Philippines en vertu du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques.

Recommandations

Au vu de ce qui précède, les organisations et personnes soussignées exhortent le gouvernement des Philippines à :

  • Enquêter rapidement, efficacement, de manière approfondie et indépendante sur tous les meurtres extrajudiciaires et les attaques contre des avocats et autres juristes, dans le but d’identifier les responsables et de les traduire en justice dans le cadre d’une procédure respectant les normes internationales en matière d’équité des procès.
  • Prendre toutes les mesures raisonnables pour garantir la sécurité et l’intégrité physique des avocats, y compris par la mise en place de mesures de protection appropriées, en consultation avec les personnes concernées.
  • Condamner systématiquement et publiquement toutes les formes de menaces et d’attaques dirigées contre les avocats, à tous les niveaux politiques et avec force, et
  • Respecter pleinement les valeurs fondamentales de la profession juridique et créer une sensibilisation, notamment en attirant l’attention des parties prenantes concernées, en particulier des membres de l’exécutif, de la police et de l’armée, sur les Principes de base des Nations Unies sur le rôle du barreau.

Texte en français

Posted on

RIGHTS AT THE BORDERS

RIGHTS AT THE BORDERS

INDEPENDENT LAWYERS’ ACCOUNT OF THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EU BORDERS

Saturday 8 June Colloquium AED Athens

Venue: Athens Bar Association, Akadimias str. 60, Athens

Language: English ***professional consecutive interpretation provided only for the Turkish speakers for Turkish – English and vice versa)

 

PROGRAMME

11:00 Welcome

Introduction: Robert Sabata Gripekoven (European Democratic Lawyers AED) and Harry Ladis (Lawyers’ union for the Defense of Human Rights LUDHR)

 

 

11:30 – 13:15   1. FIRST SESSION: External borders of the European Union

Moderator: Yianna Kourtovik, (LUDHR)

Turkey: N. D.  (Progressive Lawyers Association ÇHD)

Greece: Yiota Masouridou. (LUDHR)

Italy: Laura Martinelli, Legal Team Italia (Legal Team Italia LTI)

Spain: Adria Font (ACDDH- Catalonia) and Natanael Tejerina Ortega, (Free  Association of Lawyers ALA- Madrid)

13:15- 14:00         LUNCH

14:00 – 14:50     2. SECOND SESSION: Internal borders of the European Union

Moderator: Carsten Gericke (Republican Lawyers Association RAV)

Italy – France: Laura Martinelli, (LTI)

France – Italy/Spain: Flor Tercero, (French Lawyers’ Union SAF)

Germany: Berenice Böhlo (RAV)

The Netherlands: Andrea Pool (Dutch Social Lawyers’ Union- VSAN)

15:00 – 15: 10     3. THIRD SESSION: Non state actors/ EU Agencies: Frontex and Easo

Moderator Berenice Böhlo (RAV)

Yiota Masouridou, (LUDHR)

Carsten Gericke (RAV) Legal struggles against EU Agencies

15:10 – 16:00          4. Discussion and Final Declaration

Download the programme here

Posted on

AUDIO: New Tools of Repression of Social Movements and Counterpractices in Europe

On the 20th of October the AED organized a European Colloquium in Turin.

Here are the interventions in their original language:

Posted on

Aquarius: le naufrage des valeurs européennes

 

14/06/18

Aquarius: le naufrage des valeurs européennes

L’Espagne vient d’accepter d’accueillir les 620 passagers de l’Aquarius. C’est tout à son honneur mais cela ne saurait dédouaner les autres pays européens de leurs responsabilités, à commencer par l’Italie, laquelle a violé ses obligations spécifiques en droit international et interne, exposant les personnes à bord à des risques pour leur vie.

Comme le rappelle l’Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione dans son communiqué, l’obligation de porter assistance et de permettre l’accostage dans un lieu sûr incombe principalement à l’État côtier. Le navire se trouvant dans une situation telle que la vie des personnes à bord est menacée, quel que soit le statut de ces passagers, jouit d’un “droit” d’accès au port et ce conformément à la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer.

En refusant de porter secours aux rescapés de l’Aquarius, lesquels avaient des besoins élémentaires tels que boire, manger mais également nécessitaient des soins médicaux  urgents, l’Italie les a exposé à un risque grave pour leur vie.

Ainsi, sous des prétextes nauséabonds de refus des migrations, les Etats européens en arrivent à mettre en danger la vie de femmes, d’hommes et d’enfants, que ce soit en Méditerranée, dans les Alpes, La Manche ou La Mer du Nord.

Cette situation dramatique risque de se répéter compte tenu d’une part des situations de guerre, de mutations climatiques et de crises économiques qui frappent de nombreux pays, et de l’égoïsme des gouvernements européens d’autre part.

Elle illustre le naufrage des valeurs européennes de solidarité à l’origine de la construction de l’Union et le cynisme des gouvernements européens tels que celui de la France, la Belgique, l’Italie ou la Hongrie qui se renvoient mutuellement leurs responsabilités sans les assumer.

L’AED se joint à l’appel de l’ASGI à l’endroit de toutes les forces démocratiques pour s’assurer que les obligations d’hospitalité soient respectées par les Etats européens.

 

14/06/18

Aquarius: the shipwreck of European values

Spain has just accepted to host 620 passengers from the ship Aquarius. It’s all to it’s credit but this does not discharge other European countries of their responsibilities, starting with Italy, which has violated its obligations in international and domestic law, putting the lives of people on board at risk.

As the Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione recalls in its statement, the obligation to bear assistance and to allow berthing in a safe place is responsibility of the coastal state. The ship, in which the life of those on board is threatened, whatever the status of these passengers might be, enjoys a “right” of access in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea.

By refusing to rescue the survivors of the Aquarius, who had basic needs such as drinking, eating but also required urgent medical care, Italy has put their lives at risk.

Thus, under nauseating pretexts of refusing migrants, European states endanger the lives of women, men and children, whether in the Mediterranean, in the Alps, The Manche or in the North Sea.

This dramatic situation is likely to be repeated given war, climate change and economic problems afflicting many countries, as well as the egoism of European governments on the other hand.

The fate of the Aquarius illustrates the wreckage of European values ​​of solidarity, at the origin of the construction of the European Union and the cynicism of European governments such as France, Belgium, Italy or Hungary who remind each other’s responsibilities without assuming their own.

The AED joins the call of ASGI for all democratic forces to ensure that fundamental obligations of hospitality are respected by all European states.

 

14/06/18

 

Aquarius: l’affondamento dei valori europei

La Spagna ha appena accettato di accogliere i 620 passeggeri dell’Acquario. È a suo merito, ma non assolve gli altri paesi europei dalle loro responsabilità, a cominciare dall’Italia, che ha violato i suoi obblighi specifici nel diritto internazionale e interno, esponendo le persone a bordo a rischi per la propria vita.

Come ricorda l’Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione nel suo comunicato, l’obbligo di fornire assistenza e di consentire l’approdo in un luogo sicuro è principalmente di competenza dello Stato costiero. La nave in una situazione in cui la vita delle persone a bordo è minacciata, indipendentemente dallo status di tali passeggeri, gode di un “diritto” di accesso al porto in conformità con la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul Diritto del mare

Rifiutando di salvare i sopravvissuti dell’Acquarius, che avevano bisogni basilari come bere, mangiare ma necessitavano anche cure mediche urgenti, l’Italia li esponeva a un serio rischio per le loro vite.

Così, sotto i pretesti nauseanti del rifiuto della migrazione, gli stati europei mettono in pericolo la vita di donne, uomini e bambini, sia nel Mediterraneo, nelle Alpi, nella Manica o nel Mare del Nord .

Questa drammatica situazione si ripeterà alla luce delle guerre, dei cambiamenti climatici e delle crisi economiche subite da molti paesi e così come dell’egoismo dei governi europei.

L’Aquarius illustra l’affondamento dei valori europei di solidarietà, all’origine della costruzione dell’UE e il cinismo dei governi europei come quello di Francia, Belgio, Italia o Ungheria che si rimandano reciprocamente le proprie responsabilità senza assumerli.

L’AED aderisce all’appello dell’ASGI indirizzato a tutte le forze democratiche per garantire che gli obblighi di ospitalità siano rispettati dagli stati europei.

Posted on

AVOCATS/MAGISTRATS DUO/DUEL

AVOCATS/MAGISTRATS DUO/DUEL
Colloque
26 mai 2018
Maison des Associations Internationales (40, Rue de Washington, Bruxelles)

CONCLUSIONS

Dans son rapport présenté au Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU en juin 2017, le Rapporteur Spécial sur l’Indépendance des Juges et des Avocats a constaté, notamment, que :

L’état de droit ne peut être protégé que s’il existe un système effectif de séparation des pouvoirs qui garantisse l’indépendance de l’institution judiciaire ;

Les ingérences, les pressions et les menaces risquent fortement de compromettre l’indépendance des juges et de rendre ceux-ci particulièrement vulnérables face à la corruption ;
Les ordres des avocats, qui ont un rôle vital à jouer dans la protection des normes et de la déontologie de la profession, doivent assumer leurs responsabilités à cet égard et adhérer aux Principes fondamentaux relatifs à l’indépendance de la magistrature et aux Principes de base relatifs au rôle du barreau ;

Il incombe aux États de veiller à la sécurité et à la protection physique de tous les professionnels du droit, afin de garantir l’indépendance de l’institution judiciaire ;
Les médias ne peuvent travailler de manière impartiale que sous certaines conditions. C’est à l’État qu’il incombe de faire en sorte que ces conditions soient réunies en garantissant la liberté d’expression et la liberté de la presse. Par ailleurs, les médias doivent être conscients de leurs responsabilités et veiller à diffuser des informations exactes de manière professionnelle et rigoureuse, dans le respect de l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire.

Partageant ensemble de longue date ces préoccupations, pour la première fois, AED et MEDEL ont organisé un colloque pour débattre ensemble la contribution des avocats et des magistrats à la réalisation d’une justice indépendante, et sont arrivés à ces

CONCLUSIONS COMMUNES :

 

I. L’indépendance de la justice

1. Les menaces contre l’indépendance de la justice et l’État de Droit se multiplient dramatiquement partout et sont actuellement un problème global ;

2. Les autorités Turques ont démantelé l’État de Droit – aujourd’hui la protection des libertés et droits fondamentaux des citoyens turcs n’est plus garantie ;

3. L’emprisonnement et la révocation arbitraire de magistrats et avocats en Turquie sont inacceptables ; il en est de même de l’absence totale de procès justes et équitables, devant des tribunaux indépendants ;

4. Les menaces contre l’indépendance du Pouvoir Judiciaire se manifestent au sein même de l’Union Européenne ; ainsi en Pologne, l’action agressive du gouvernement pour assurer sa mainmise sur le système judiciaire est totalement inacceptable ; elle met en danger tout l’espace européen de justice ;

5. Une justice sans moyens ne pouvant être réellement indépendante, AED et MEDEL demandent que les justices européennes soient dotées de moyens leur permettant de rendre effectif, pour tous, le droit à un procès équitable et que soit consacré à l’aide légale un financement significatif ;

II. Magistrats / Avocats

6. Aucun système judiciaire ne peut être vraiment indépendant sans avocats libres ni sans juges et procureurs indépendants ;

7. L’indépendance du Pouvoir Judiciaire n’est pas un privilège des avocats et des magistrats – c’est un droit fondamental pour les citoyens ;

8. Les différences entre les fonctions et les positions institutionnels des avocats et des magistrats ne doivent pas empêcher le dialogue et la collaboration pour l’amélioration du système judiciaire ;

9. Avocats et magistrats ont le devoir de collaborer pour garantir à tous l’existence d’un système de justice indépendant, efficace et socialement juste, seul apte, en respectant un procès équitable, à assurer la protection effective des droits fondamentaux ;

III. Autorégulation et responsabilité

10. Les Conseils Supérieurs de justice, dont la majorité des membres doit être composé de magistrats librement élus par leurs pairs, sont essentiels pour garantir l’indépendance du Pouvoir Judiciaire ;

11. Les cours supérieures et constitutionnelles, dans la mesure où elles analysent des cas qui peuvent être politiquement sensibles, doivent avoir des garanties supplémentaires de non-ingérence des autres pouvoirs de l’État, soit dans la nomination de ses membres, soit dans son processus de délibération et d’exécution de ses décisions ;

12. Le processus de sélection, de formation et de carrière des magistrats doit être clairement établie dans la loi et des garanties effectives de non ingérence des autres Pouvoirs de l’État doivent être mises en place ;

13. Les sanctions disciplinaires des magistrats doivent être clairement prévues par la loi et les procédures disciplinaires doivent être conduites devant des conseils supérieurs, et être équitables, contradictoires et sans aucune possibilité d’interférence des autres pouvoirs de l’État ;

14. AED et MEDEL demandent que le débat soit ouvert afin que le rôle de l’avocat et le Droit de la Défense soit inscrit dans toutes les constitutions ;

15. La profession d’avocat doit être prévue dans la loi comme élément fondamental du système judiciaire, et des garanties doivent être établies pour assurer la totale liberté d’expression et d’action des avocats dans l’intérêt des citoyens ;

16. La profession d’avocat doit être autorégulée, sans possibilité d’aucune restriction ou interférence de la part des autorités publiques – un avocat ne doit être puni que pour des fautes déontologiques établies par la loi et vérifiées par des organes composés d’avocats et avec un procès équitable et contradictoire ;

17. AED et MEDEL demandent que voit le jour la convention européenne sur la profession d’avocat proposée par la PACE en souhaitant qu’une convention à l’identique sur la profession de magistrats/juges soit également élaborée ;

18. AED et MEDEL demandent que le dispositif de mise en place d’une plateforme de protection des défenseurs des droits de l’homme, proposé par la PACE, englobe les magistrats/les juges et que soit réalisée la proposition de révision de la mission du Commissaire aux droits de l’homme, de telle façon qu’il soit habilité à traiter les cas individuels de persécution de défenseurs des droits de l’homme, dont les avocats et les magistrats, dans les Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe ;

IV. Communication et rapport à l’Opinion Publique

19. Fondé sur la protection des droits fondamentaux des citoyens, le système judiciaire a le devoir d’être en capacité de communiquer avec le public et de produire des décisions claires à l’issue de procédures simples, transparentes et compréhensibles pour le citoyen ;

20. Magistrats et avocats sont les principaux responsables de la clarté de la communication avec le public et ont le devoir de travailler en ce sens ;

21. La liberté des media et de la presse est aussi un droit fondamental dans une société libre et démocratique et des médias libres sont essentielles pour favoriser la communication entre la justice et les citoyens ;

22. Avocats et magistrats ont le devoir de fournir aux médias des informations exactes et rigoureuses, afin que les citoyens puissent être informés d’une façon libre et professionnelle ;

23. C’est la responsabilité des médias de veiller à diffuser des informations exactes de manière professionnelle et rigoureuse, dans le respect de l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire et de la présomption d’innocence ;

24. AED et MEDEL condamnent toutes tentatives de contrôle des médias soit par le pouvoir politique, soit par des intérêts économiques ; ils condamnent les campagnes menées par des médias contrôlées, dans des pays comme la Bulgarie ou la Pologne, ayant pour seul but de porter tort à des magistrats.

AED et MEDEL poursuivront leur réflexion commune sur ces thèmes et veulent rendre hommage à tous ceux avocats, journalistes, magistrats et autres citoyens qui paient un prix élevé pour leur courageux combat en faveur de l’État de Droit démocratique et de l’indépendance du Pouvoir Judiciaire.

En cette occasion, AED et MEDEL demandent la libération immédiate de toutes ces victimes d’une répression arbitraire et la cessation de tous les procès inéquitables en cours.

Bruxelles, 26 mai 2018.

 

Posted on

Communiqué sur les mineurs isolés et activistes La Roya

L’assemblée générale de l’AED qui s’est tenue à Nice a été l’occasion d’échanger sur la politique migratoire européenne, avec des activistes de l’association ROYA CITOYENNE, qui sont venus témoigner de la situation des migrants à la frontière franco-italienne.

La vallée de la ROYA a été en effet, durant plusieurs mois, le théâtre d’une tragédie humaine où ont été pris en étau des migrants en détresse, dont de nombreux mineurs non accompagnés que l’Etat a refusé de prendre en charge, leur déniant la qualité d’enfant et la possibilité de demander l’asile.

L’instauration de l’état d’urgence en France avait entrainé le rétablissement de la frontière entre l’Italie et la France, poussant des centaines d’exilés à se réfugier dans la Vallée pour pouvoir passer la frontière et demander l’asile en France. Les réfugié passent désormais en France au niveau du Col de l’échelle, tentant, là encore, de survivre au péril de leur vie.

Parmi ces réfugiés, de nombreux mineurs non accompagnés venant d’Eyrthrée, d’Afghanistan, de Syrie..,ont trouvé refuge auprès des habitants de la Vallée de la Roya.

Ces habitants ont tout fait pour que les droits des ces réfugiés soient protégés, qu’ils soient accueillis dignement et puissent, pour certains déposer une demande d’asile et demander la protection de l’Etat.

Même munis de justificatifs d’ouverture d’une procédure de protection, ils faisaient l’objet de « refus d’entrée », formalisés ou pas, puis de refoulements en Italie, parfaitement illégaux et contraires au droit international.

Devant ce déni de droit et d’humanité, des citoyens n’ont eu d’autre choix que de se substituer à la carence d’un Etat aveugle et sourd. Ils sauvent la vie et rétablissent la dignité de ces hommes et femmes fuyant leurs pays. Ils accomplissent les gestes de première urgence : aide, hébergement, soins et conseils.

Ce sont ceux-là, ces citoyens solidaires, à l’instar de Cédric HERROU ou de Pierre-Alain MANNONI, que l’Etat français a décidé d’harceler, de poursuivre, de placer en garde à vue, de perquisitionner de manière gratuite et brutale et de condamner pénalement pour leurs actions en faveur du respect de la dignité humaine, les avocats qui les défendent menacés de mort.

Dans toute l’Europe, des situations de traitement indigne des réfugiés ont été constatées, des refoulements à la frontière sans possibilité de voir un avocat et d’exercer effectivement leurs droits, des violations quotidiennes des Conventions internationales.

L’AED dénonce cette politique d’exclusion et de refoulement à l’extérieur des frontières menée par les autorités des Etats Membres et les autorités européennes.

L’AED apporte son soutien aux citoyens qui n’hésitent pas à aider des hommes, des femmes, des enfants relégués aux marges de la société, afin de préserver leur dignité et dénonce le non-respect des droits fondamentaux des mineurs et – la traque des citoyens solidaires. Ce sont les politiques gouvernementales qui sont indignes.

L’AED demande l’abandon des poursuites pénales déclenchées à l’encontre de ces citoyens, et l’abrogation du délit de solidarité dans le Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers du droit d’asile qui est en cours de modification en France.

Elle exige l’application de la convention  européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’Homme et des libertés fondamentales et de la Convention Internationale des droits de l’Enfant et le respect par la France notamment de ses engagements internationaux.

 

Posted on

On the isolated minors and activists of the Roya Valley

The General Assembly of the AED-EDL has been held in Nice on the 9th and 10th of February 2018 and has provided us with the opportunity to discuss European migration policy with activists from the association ROYA CITIZEN who have testified of the situation of migrants on the Franco-Italian border.

For several months the ROYA Valley has been the scene of a human tragedy: a valley in which migrants are stranded in distress, including many unaccompanied minors whom the state has refused to take charge of. In fact, the state denies the quality of minor of age to these children and thus denies the possibility of granting them asylum.

The introduction of the emergency laws to regulate the state of emergency in France has led to the restoration of the border between Italy and France. This is pushing hundreds of exiles to seek refuge in the Valley, while they try to cross the border and on their way to seek asylum in France. Currently, refugees have to stopped passing by the Roya Valley and now seek to pass the Col de l’Echelle from Bardonecchia to Briancon, risking their lives in the mountains.

Among these refugees, there are many unaccompanied minors from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria … They have found refuge with the inhabitants of the Valley of Roya. These citizens have done everything to ensure that the rights of these refugees are protected, that they are received with dignity and are able to seek asylum and ask for state protection.

Even with proof of having begun a protection procedure, these migrants received immediate “refusals of entry”, in many case informally. They were pushed back into Italy, which is illegal and contrary to international law.

Faced with this denial of rights and humanity, citizens have had no choice but to substitute a blind and deaf state. They have helped save lives and restore the dignity of those men and women fleeing their countries. They have taken care of the first aid: accommodation, care and advice.

It is citizens who, like Cédric HERROU or Pierre-Alain MANNONI, have joined forces that are now facing the harassment of the French State, as well as prosecution, detention and arbitrary searches. Their actions aimed at the respect of human dignity have ben condemned criminally. The lawyers who defend them have been recently threatened with death.

Throughout Europe, situations of ill treatment of refugees have been noted: push-backs at the border without the possibility of accessing a lawyers’ advice and effectively exercising their own rights, as well as daily violations of international conventions.

The AED-EDL denounces this policy of exclusion and pushbacks outside the borders, at the centre of the policy of European Authorities and Member States.

The AED supports citizens who do not hesitate to help men, women and children relegated to the margins of society, to preserve their dignity. The association denounces the non-respect of the fundamental rights of minors and – the criminalization of citizens who show their solidarity. It is the government policies that are unworthy.

The AED-EDL calls for the abandonment of criminal proceedings against citizens, and the repeal of the offense of solidarity in the Code of entry and residence of foreigners of the right to asylum, which is being amended in France.

It requires the application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the respect by France of its international commitments.

Nice, 9th and 10th February

Posted on

What is progressive lawyering?

Conclusions of the conference: 30 years of activism

 

When I happen to be the last defender in a row, in trials with lots of participants, I often begin my closing argument saying that this looks like a double-edged sword: on the one hand one can refer to points already made, thus saving time, on the other hand one has to give effort to keep the interest of the judges alive.

There are two major differences in the present case: firstly, the points already made by the colleagues so far have given so much food for consideration that I couldn’ t even sum them up within few minutes so I just picked a couple of them to comment on; secondly, speaking to you makes things significantly better than facing sleepery judges’ faces…!

 

30 years are surely a good motivation for reflecting: reflecting upon experiences, terms, definitions, perspectives. At the same time many things have changed.

The difficulties emerge right in the first moment of the reflection on AED-subjects: who are we talking about? How can we define ourselves?

Left-wing lawyers: My personal dislike for this term had originally to do with my personal political preferences. But the current political situation has further complicated the situation.

And after all: what is called a lawyer who defends demonstrators in Venezuela fighting against a left-wing government? When the greek left-wing minister of justice openly seeks to interfere in a trial even if this happens in favor of a demonstrator, what is called the lawyer who protests against it and seeks to defend the separation of powers? I can only say that the term „left-wing“ appears to be rather problematic.

Movement lawyers: once again we run into theoretical burdens by just staring at the multitude of movements. Movements do unfortunately no longer move only to an emancipating direction, thus making the world more complicated. Movements can be very reactionary. What about the anti-abortion movements of catholics in Poland who, after all, fight for the fundamental right to life? Or the movements against ROMA-people who build militias in Ungarn?

I’ll give an example:

In Greece, gold mine workers fight for their right to work, against the closing down of the mines. They also fight against a left-wing government and three days ago they even occupied the ministry. But their fight is completely anti-ecological, so there’s a kind of civil war going on between them and the anti-gold movement I defend. But aren’t the workers a movement themselves?

Progressive lawyers: this could be an acceptable compromise, though not the best. Progressive can exclude reactionary lawyers, when it comes to movements and signalises the fight against stagnation. For sure you want to get things rolling towards a better future. But what should be the characteristics of a progressive lawyer?

I was very happy to hear Anne Maeschalk‘s remark that introduced the criterium of quality of work: a progressive lawyer in the first place should acquire particular competences so as to be useful, in other words he/she has to be a good lawyer. It serves nothing to supply somebody with legal support of low quality. Unfortunately the latter is often the case back home, when it comes to the defence of demonstrators. Standing as a competent jurist on the side of a movement fills it with pride and dignity: the confrontation with the almighty state power is not like down the street, where the police mechanism is highly equipped and usually beats off the demonstrators; in the courtroom, a good legal defence along with conscious defendants can not seldom celebrate victories against the state.

Then a progressive lawyer must be a solidary lawyer: once again we come across a hard definition, but I could give it a try saying that a solidary lawyer is one who sets the financial aspect of the mandate aside, because he/she is touched by the cause of the struggle to a certain extent. The values at stake are what moves most the lawyer in this case, rather than the professional aspect. In this direction, the lawyer should be able to even defend people that he doesn’t particularly like, if he recognises that the political-legal-human rights stakes are of greater importance the person of the defendant himself. Ceren’s example of the not-solidarity for persecuted judges and persecutors who had taken bad decisions against Kurds etc. in the past gives food for thought in this direction. I can realise what it feels being overloaded and it’s fair enough giving priority to solidarity to other people who deserve it more. But let’s assume the case of such a judge was the only one; should we then leave him alone due to his past decisions or consider the importance of the independence of judiciary and the separation of powers and support him?

A side that wasn’t particularly discussed in the panels is the structure of the office of a progressive lawyer. Lawyers‘ collectives are rather an exception, but can a progressive lawyer be solidary to the movements while he exploits for instance some young lawyers? Can a progressive lawyer work in a hierarchically structured environment and support at the same time emancipation struggles? It’s a long discourse, many fascinating stories could then be heard, as well as experiences of dissappointments. But in an effort to be precise about which lawyers AED represents or includes, I think that this is an important aspect. Of course, the accumulated experience of the legal teams is a relevant topic; AED c proud to have supported most if not all of them.

A further question regards the presentation of political contents in the courtroom. I tend to believe that this is rather the duty of the defendants themselves; the lawyer has to understand the political frame, try to deconstruct the inconsistencies, denounce the indictment, uncover the plots of the police, but not replace the subject of the struggle. It’s often tempting to politicize during a trial; experience has taught me that resisting this temptation gains the respect of the judges which is then reflected positively upon the defendants themselves. And after all: criticizing the behaviour of the police, the system of justice, the law, the processual misconducts, making mistreatments public, suing cases of torture etc – isn’t all this political enough? Presenting the cause of a struggle, its achievements and its goals, this is all a task for the defendants in the first place.

One of the questions also raised today concerned the independence of the lawyer from the client. Should the lawyer present any argument the defendant wishes? Or the contrary: I happened to defend a group of nihilist anarchists who asked me to refrain from any legal arguments during the trial and just denounce the methods of the antiterrorist department etc. I rejected. I think that a lawyer should preserve his/her own dignity. This component „free“ in the word freelance or in the even better word Freiberuf has to mean something, doesn’t it? Or another example has to do with the limits that everybody lawyer sets to himself: can somebody defend a guy who accuses his comrades? Who just changed his mind and regretted former actions? Who is possibly a consequent fighter but too macho within his group? I don’t intend to risk even general answers, because they’re a personal matter of each one of us. What’s for sure, we should see the freedom in our choices while exercising our profession as limitless; if we don’t want it to let it be restrained by the judges, we certainly cannot let our clients deprive us of it.

 

Actually I don’t think that my intervention contained the conclusions it was supposed to. But since there was a „view ahead“ in the initial programme that waw originally sent to me, I just made some sporadic remarks about that. But I’m convinced that AED has the experience, the determination and the potential to view ahead in the next 30 years.

Harry Ladis