Posted on

European Fact-finding mission to clarify the circumstances leading to the conviction of 18 Turkish lawyers

A group of 15 lawyers from 7 European countries met in Istanbul from 13 till 15 October 2019 for a fact-finding mission to clarify the legal circumstances that led to the conviction of 18 Turkish lawyers by the 37th High Criminal Court in March of this year, resulting in long prison sentences.

There are currently two mass trials in Turkey against members of the Turkish lawyers’ organisation ÇHD Çagdas Hukukçular Dernegi (Progressive Lawyers Association). In the first trıal, which opened in 2013, 22 lawyers are accused (CHD I proceedings). In the second, which was opened in autumn 2018, 20 lawyers have been accused (CHD II proceedings). Eight of the lawyers accused in both cases are identical, with the same accusation of being a member of a terrorist group. In the second trial in March 2019, 18 defendants were sentenced to between 3 and 18 years and 9 month imprisonment.  The chairman of the ÇHD was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months. All lawyers were convicted for activities connected with their professional functions and were identified with their clients’ causes. Istanbul Regional Court has rejected the appeal without an oral hearing. All of them will seize the Supreme Court.

The European lawyers come from Belgium, Catalonia/Spain, Greece, Germany, France, UK, Italy and Austria. They represent, among others, two international association of lawyers, two European lawyers’ organisations, the European umbrella association of bar associations, various national and regional bar associations and lawyers’ organisations.

Most of the European lawyers have already participated as observers in the mass trials of lawyers in Turkey and other politically motivated proceedings. Their main focus was on the question of whether Turkish and European law was violated in the proceedings. The results of these observations were recorded in reports.

The observations of the two CHD trials as well as numerous other politically motivated trials in Turkey, raised serious concerns about the respect for the rights of the accused and the defence lawyers. This was particularly the case with the 37th Heavy Criminal Court in Istanbul. Among other cases, it was in charge of the proceedings against Selahattin Demirtaş (one of the two HDP presidents), Canan Kaftancioglu (the Istanbul CHP president), Ahmet Altan (writer and journalist), Şebnem Korur Fincancı (the president of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey and one of the academics for peace), İhsan Eliaçık (theologian and author).

During their stay in Istanbul, the European lawyers held talks with the defence lawyers of the 18 Turkish lawyers convicted, with 4 lawyers imprisoned in Silivri, including the chairman of the Turkish lawyers’ organisation CHD, Selçuk KOZAGAÇLI, with defence lawyers from other politically motivated trials before the 37th High Criminal Court (see above), with the President of the Istanbul Bar Association, and with members of the Turkish Parliament.

They have also examined the question, taking into account the reasons for the judgement,

  • the extent to which the independence of the court was respected in the proceedings
  • whether the principle that no one should be tried twice for the same offence has been respected (ne bis in idem)
  • whether the principles of a fair trial applicable under Turkish and European law have been respected
  • whether the evidence satisfied the legal requirements

Following their visit, the observers will record the results of their visit in a report, draw the necessary legal conclusions and ask the Turkish Minister of Justice for an interview to present the results of their visit and their conclusions.

Represented organisations:

  • ELDH – European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights
  • AED-EDL – European Democratic Lawyers
  • The foundation The Day of the Endangered Lawyer
  • IADL – International Association of Democratic Lawyers
  • Progress Lawyers Network
  • Giuristi Democratici
  • CCBE The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe
  • French National Bar Council
  • OIAD – Observatoire International des Avocats (The International Observatory of Endangered Lawyers)
  • Unione Camere Penali Italiane
  • Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italian National Bar Association) .
  • DSF AS – Défense Sans frontière – Avocats Solidaires
  • UIA (International Association of Lawyers);
  • OBFG/Avocats.be (Association of French speaking Bars of Belgium)
  • Paris Bar Association
  • Athens Bar Association
  • Barcelona Bar Association
  • Berlin Bar Association
  • Brussels (French-speaking) Bar Association
  • Brussels (Dutch-speaking) Bar Association (NAOB)
  • Liège Bar Association
  • Vienna Bar Association

 

This is a link from the web site of Pir News Agensa which participated the press statament (only in Turkish) It includes the video recording of the conference.

Posted on

No to the aggression of the people of North-East Syria (Rojava)

The AED-EDL expresses its firm condemnation of Turkish military
operations aiming at the invasion of Northern Syria-Rojava.

This invasion has the sole purpose of putting an end to the experience
of the North-East Syrian Democratic Autonomous Administration, and will
cause suffering and mourning primarily in the civilian population.

The Autonomous Administration was born of the common struggle of the
people of North-East Syria, in all their ethnic and religious components
(not only Kurds but also Arabs, Armenians, Turkmen, Chechens, Yazidi,
Alevi, Muslims, Christians) against ISIS while experimenting a new model
of real democratic coexistence.

The invasion of the Turkish troops with the consent of the American
President, aims to annihilate this political project while terrorizing
and massacring, not only those who valiantly fought and beat the ISIS
but also the civilian population.

This invasion risks returning the area to a reconstitution of the
Islamic State.

Realpolitik cannot justify the inertia towards this crime of countries
that proclaim themselves democratic.

We strongly ask that the European Governments:
– Condemn the aggression of the people living in this region: Kurds,
Arabs, Armenians, Turkmen, Chechens, Yazidi, Alevi, Muslims, Christians
– Impose with immediate effect a ban on arms trade with Turkey

As peace and justice are under threat as result of this military
operation, we demand:
– the immediate suspension of the EU-Turkey agreement, because Turkey is
not a safe third country;
– the resettlement of refugees from Turkey to Europe

We express our solidarity with our Kurdish and Turkish colleagues whose
working and living conditions will be even worse in a state of war. We
also want to show our solidarity to all the Turkish citizens who in
spite of the new wave of repression, protest against this military
aggression. Furthermore, we express our solidarity to the people of the
region, asking from now for an international investigation of the facts.

Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Colmar, Madrid, Milan,
Paris, Rome, Toulouse, Turin….2019

Posted on

International Statement of Solidarity

4 October 2019 – We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply shocked by the brutal killing of our Dutch colleague Derk Wiersum. We extend our deepest condolences to Mr. Wiersum’s family, friends, colleagues and all others affected by his death.

Mr. Wiersum, a well-respected lawyer and deputy judge, was shot in broad daylight right outside his house in Amsterdam in the early morning of 18 September 2019. He was representing a crown witness in the so-called Marengo-trial, a high-profile criminal case against members of an organization accused of several murders and attempted murders in the last couple of years. Although the events are still being investigated, it is assumed and highly likely that the death of Mr. Wiersum is related to his work as a lawyer.

This killing of a lawyer, apparently in connection with his work, raises serious concerns for the safety of lawyers and poses a threat to the proper functioning of the rule of law and the adequate protection of rights, including the right to remedies and fair trial.

Lawyers, as well as judges and prosecutors, should be able to do their work freely and independently. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specify that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (principle 17).

We welcome the prompt and public condemnation of this crime and the immediate measures taken by the Dutch authorities to initiate an investigation, which should lead to the identification and prosecution of the perpetrators. We also welcome that measures were taken promptly and immediately to protect lawyers and all others who need protection in the Marengo-case. We expect that the Dutch authorities will do everything in their power to ensure that lawyers can do their work safely, freely, and independently in all circumstances.

We stand in solidarity with all colleague-lawyers, judges and prosecutors in the Netherlands, who are at risk for simply doing their job.

Organizations

 

Download the press statement here

 

Posted on

DECLARATION

Haarlem, September 18, 2019

 

The Board and the Coordinator of the Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer are deeply shocked by the horrifying murder attack this morning in Amsterdam on the human rights lawyer Derk Wiersum, based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Our thoughts are with his family members and friends.

 

Our Foundation notes that this murder is also an attack on the State of Law and the Rule of Law. We wonder how the protection or the safety of this very fine colleague was taken care of by the State, especially because he had been threatened recently as a lawyer in the ‘crown witness case’.

We wonder how it is possible that the fact that our wonderful colleague gave legal aid can lead to this murder attack?

The United Nations principles on the role of lawyers not only strongly condemn all attacks on lawyers who perform their professional duty, but also urge states to guarantee the safety of lawyers and take all necessary measures to reach that goal. Furthermore, we see the attack on our colleague as very inhumane and urge the Dutch government to start a thorough investigation to those who ordered and committed this murder.

 

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

Sea Watch 3 and European Rights adrift

The grave case of the ship Sea Watch 3, which has been denied access to Italian ports after rescuing 42 migrants at sea and waiting for more than 14 days between Libya and Sicily for more than 14 days, is the case of fundmental rights in Europe.

Maritime laws requires the rescue of those in danger at sea through the identification of a place of safety.

 

The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits collective expulsions and inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

The Convention on the status of refugees imposes the principle of non-refoulement to a place where the person would be at risk of persecution.

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to leave a country.

All these international treaties and conventions are violated for political interest.

In this case as in many other cases, people, at risk of dying at sea, escaping from war and Libyan concentration camps, are used as pawns in political negotiations and as instruments of propaganda.

By denying the landing in the port of Lampedusa, the Italian government violates these conventions and the rights of people; turning to the other side, the European governments and the European Union itself violate those conventions and the rights of those people.

The European Court of Human Rights, by not applying precautionary measures, is not justifying this situation,it is merely saying that it was not certain if  Italian jurisdiction was applicable because the Sea Watch 3 was still in international waters. Furthermore it decided there was no imminent danger to the lives of the people. Whether this decision is correct or not, it does not state that it is permissible to leave them at sea. Nor does it say that the Italian Minister of the Interior is right when he states that Lybia is a safe haven. The reports of all international organizations and UNHCR have long established that migrants in Libya are locked up in real concentration camps, tortured, mistreated, killed.

One day there will be a Nuremberg of the Sea, which will condemn those who today refused to help and legitimized torture in Libya, but we can not wait for this day.

As lawyers and as jurists, we strongly demand that human rights, the principles of international law and law be restored as soon as possible in Europe and in each of its Member States.

We demand

 

that Sea Watch and all ships working to save lives from shipwrecks and avoiding that migrants return  to Libya,

 

that shipwrecked people be allowed to go ashore and seek protection in Europe,

 

that it be recognised that those who save migrants at sea obey the rules of the natural right of solidarity, and  have committed no crime.

 

Il caso della Sea Watch 3 e la deriva dei diritti in Europa

 

Il gravissimo caso della nave Sea Watch 3, da oltre 14 giorni in mare tra la Libia e la Sicilia dopo aver salvato 42 migranti, alla quale è negato l’approdo nei porti italiani, ci interroga sul rispetto dei diritti fondamentali in Europa.

Il diritto del mare che obbliga al salvataggio di chi è in pericolo in mare e all’individuazione il più preso possibile di un place of safety, la Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo che vieta le espulsioni collettive e i trattamenti inumani e degradanti, la Convenzione sullo status dei rifugiati che impone il principio di non refoulement verso un luogo ove la persona sarebbe a rischio di persecuzione, la stessa Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti dell’Uomo che sancisce che ogni individuo ha diritto a lasciare qualunque paese, sono calpestate per interessi politici e propagandistici.

In questo come in molti altri casi persone che rischiavano di morire in mare, fuggite dalla guerra e dai campi di concentramento libici, sono usate come pedine di trattative politiche e come strumenti di propaganda.

Negando l’approdo nel porto di Lampedusa il Governo italiano viola quelle convenzioni ed i diritti di quelle persone; girandosi dall’altra parte i Governi europei e la stessa Unione Europea violano quelle convenzioni e i diritti di quelle persone.

La Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, non applicando misure cautelari, non giustifica tutto questo: essa si limita a dire che non vi è certezza della giurisdizione italiana sulla situazione in cui si trovava la nave (con una decisione presa quando la Sea Watch era in acque internazionali) e che non vi sarebbe un pericolo imminente per la vita di quelle persone. Corretta o meno che sia questa decisione, non dice che è lecito lasciarli in mare. Tantomeno dice che ha ragione il Ministro dell’Interno italiano, quando dice che un porto sicuro c’era ed era in Libia. I rapporti di tutte le organizzazioni internazionali e dell’UNHCR hannno da tempo accertato che in Libia i migranti sono rinchiusi in veri campi di concentramento, sottoposti a torture, maltrattamenti, uccisi.

Ci sarà un giorno una Norimberga del mare, che condannerà chi oggi ha rifiutato aiuto e ha legittimato le torture in Libia; ma non possiamo aspettare questo giorno.

Come avvocati e come giuristi chiediamo con forza che venga rispristinato al più presto in Europa e in ognuno degli Stati membri il rispetto diritti umani, dei principi del diritto internazionale, del Diritto.

Chiediamo che venga autorizzato l’approdo della Sea Watch e di tutte le navi che operano per salvare le vite umane dai naufragi e dal rischio di respingimento in Libia, che venga concesso ai naufraghi di scendere a terra e di chiedere protezione in Europa, che venga riconosciuto che chi li ha salvato ha obbedito alle regole del diritto naturale della solidarietà, e non ha commesso alcun reato.

 

 

Posted on

Quand manifester n’est plus un droit mais un risque

Les manifestations des travailleuses et des travailleurs ce 1er mai ont à nouveau fait l’objet de violences d’Etat contre les manifestantes et les manifestants, notamment en France, en Italie: interdictions de manifestation au dernier moment, arrestations sans motif, utilisation de la violence par les forces de l’ordre, sous prétexte de sécurité publique, contre tout manifestant sans distinction de comportement ni de nécessité absolue de protéger les biens ou les personnes…

Ainsi, de nombreux manifestants ont été blessés hier, dont l’avocat au Barreau de Turin, Gianluca Vitale, membre du bureau de notre association et à qui nous apportons tout notre soutien fraternel.

Les violences du 1er mai viennent confirmer une tendance de ces dernières années dans les pays européens : il devient dangereux de manifester pacifiquement sans risquer de se faire gazer, frapper par les forces de police, nasser et empêcher de circuler librement, voire même arrêter par mesure préventive et sans raison légale.

Sous des prétextes sécuritaires, le droit de manifester se réduit jour après jour et la violence sert finalement aux Etats à faire taire toute opposition trop bruyante.

L’association des avocats européens démocrates rappelle pour sa part qu’elle défendra sans relâche les libertés d’expression collective ou individuelle, libertés fondamentales et nécessaires à toute société démocratique. Les avocates et les avocats de nos associations resteront toujours mobilisés pour défendre ces droits et les victimes de répression, quelles que soient les intimidations des Etats contre l’exercice de la défense.

 

When demonstrating is no longer a right but a risk

The workers’ demonstrations on the 1st of May were once again subjected to state violence against demonstrators, particularly in France and Italy: bans on demonstrations at the last minute, arrests without cause, use of violence by police forces, under the pretext of public security, against any demonstrator without distinction of behaviour or absolute necessity to protect property or persons…

Thus, many demonstrators were injured yesterday, including the lawyer of the Turin Bar Association, Gianluca Vitale, a member of our association’s board and to whom we give our full fraternal support.

The violence of 1 May confirms a trend of recent years in European countries: it is becoming dangerous to demonstrate peacefully without risk of being gassed, beaten by police forces, surrounded and prevented from moving freely, or even arrested as a preventive measure and without legal reason.

Under security pretexts, the right to demonstrate is being reduced day after day and violence is finally being used by States to silence any opposition that is too loud.

The Association of European Democratic Lawyers reminds us that it will relentlessly defend the freedoms of collective or individual expression, fundamental freedoms necessary for any democratic society. The lawyers of our associations will always remain mobilized to defend these rights and the victims of repression, whatever the intimidation of States against the exercise of the defence.

Posted on

THE CATALAN REFERENDUM TRIAL

After gathering in Madrid on the morning of February 9th, 2019 and discussing the impending Catalan Referendum Trial, which will begin in the Spanish Supreme Court on February 12th, 2019, Avocats Européens Democrates-European Democratic Lawyers (AED-EDL) has reached the following CONCLUSIONS:

1.- There is concern that all the procedural guarantees may not be met during the trial, due to the following reasons:

– The first trial session (February 12th) was set on February 1st. This does not give enough time for the defence teams to prepare properly.

–  The different defence teams do not have full access to the total information on the trial. For instance, they do not know the identity of the police officers who will testify during the hearings, only their identification numbers.

–  Most of the witnesses during the trial will be police officers. Several of the witnesses proposed by the defence teams have been rejected by the Court.

–  Nine out of the twelve defendants are in pre-trial detention and have been in this situation for several months, which clearly difficults the preparation for the hearings. They are currently being held in prisons in Madrid, hundreds of kilometres away from their defence attorneys and families.

–  There are three accusing parties in this trial: the State Prosecutor, the State Attorney and the far right-wing political party, Vox; each of them with their own accusation and agenda.

2.- There is concern regarding the prohibition of arbitrary detention:

–  We call for the immediate release of the nine defendants in pre-trial detention. We believe they are in prison due to political reasons and call for this situation to stop1.

–  In regards to the imprisoned elected officials, we would like to point out that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey judgment, issued on 20 November 2018, concluded that Turkey had violated Article 18 of the Convention (limitation on use of restrictions on rights, i.e., the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed) and the right to vote and hold office, with regards to Demirtaş’ pre-trial detention. There is an undeniable similarity to the case of the imprisoned elected officials.

– The nine defendants who are in pre-trial imprisonment will be transferred daily back and forth from the prisons they are being held at to the Court. This implies waking up at 6 am on a daily basis, travelling during at least two hours a day, and being held in separate quarters during breaks in each session. This will happen on a daily basis for three months. It can have negative implications on the ability to defend oneself. The conditions of transport from Catalan prisons to the detention centres in Madrid have been denounced in the past on the basis of being mocked and ill-treated by police officers3. We would like to remind the public that the ECHR in the recent Mariya Alekinha and others v Russia judgment4, the Court considered that the conditions of the applicants’ transport to and from the trial hearings exceeded the minimum level of severity and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

3.- There is concern regarding the interpretation of the right to peaceful assembly carried out by all of the accusations (State Prosecutor, State Attorney and far right-wing political party Vox):

– A non-restrictive interpretation of what is “violence” is extremely dangerous for our fundamental rights and civil liberties. One must tread carefully on these grounds.

– According to the accusations, on September 20th, 2017, thousands of people gathered on the street, in a demonstration, which blocked the work the police was carrying out and resulted in damages in two police cars. These events, according to the prosecuting parties, warrants charges of rebellion or sedition, which can imply prison sentences that could reach up to 25 years per defendant.

– If what took place on this date was an act of peaceful civil disobedience, as all defence teams claim (something which shall be determined during the outcome of the trial), we believe that any conviction could result in a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

4.- This is not a Spanish affair, but a European one, which can have serious effects on the rule of law. If peaceful civil disobedience is criminalized, all social movements in Europe must fear for their future existence.

5.- There is concern regarding the right to a fair trial:

–  Members of the Supreme Court are elected by the Government of Judges (CGPJ), which is elected by the Spanish Parliament. This can have a serious effect on the independence and political inclinations of different magistrates.

–  We challenge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to try this case instead of the natural judge.

– The fact that the defendants are being tried in the Supreme Court eliminates the possibility of appealing. An eventual conviction would have to be taken up to the Constitutional Court, with the procedural limitations this presents.

Bearing all these facts in mind, the AED-EDL believes it is of vital importance that a well- informed and respectful of the Spanish judicial system international observation is carried out during the entire duration of the trial. Therefore, members of AED-EDL from different European countries will be traveling to Madrid during the following months in order to attend hearings, engage with other international observers and study in depth the legal aspects of the Catalan Referendum Case from a Human Rights perspective.

In Madrid, on February 9th, 2019

 

Download this press statement as pdf

Posted on

¿QUÉ ESTÁ HACIENDO EL ESTADO ESPAÑOL CON EL BARCO DE OPEN ARMS?

Nadie en Europa puede decir que desconoce la situación de vulnerabilidad extrema en que se encuentran las personas migrantes que se trasladan desde países de Oriente próximo y África hasta Europa, debido a las situaciones de guerra y/o crisis humanitaria que sufren. El drama de los/as refugiados/as, que ha convertido el mar Mediterráneo en un cementerio, ha supuesto una crisis en la concepción de Europa como un espacio común fundado sobre valores de dignidad humana, igualdad y solidaridad, y nos ha obligado a todos a cuestionar el papel de Europa en el mundo.Ni las instituciones europeas ni los Estados Miembros han estado a la altura, e incluso algún estado está manteniendo posturas inadmisibles desde la perspectiva de los Derechos Humanos, como pasa con el VicePresidente Salvini en Italia. Efectivamente, han surgido iniciativas que pretenden convertir, fraudulentamente, la crisis humanitaria que sufrimos en un problema de orden público. Evitar la muerte de cientos de personas no es una mera cuestión de orden público ni puede serlo. Construir muros y sellar las fronteras, separando pueblos y despojando a las personas migrantes de su dignidad, no es una respuesta admisible desde la perspectiva de Derechos Humanos. Además, estas políticas exponen al/la migrante a los peligros de elegir cada vez rutas más inseguras, favorecen la aparición de las mafias y su consecuencia más cruda es el naufragio de miles de personas en nuestro mar mediterráneo.

Es esa decepcionante actitud de las instituciones europeas y de los estados miembros de la Unión Europea la que ha provocado que organizaciones como Open Arms intervenga con acciones esenciales de vigilancia y salvamento, salvando miles de vidas en el mar. Estas organizaciones se na puesto, por ello, en el punto de mira de la opinión pública, y también dentro de los objetivos represivos de algunos Estados, que han intentado, también fraudulentamente, criminalizar su actuación. Recientemente el barco de Open Arms llegó a España con 310 personas rescatadas, pues los países más cercanos al lugar de rescate (Italia, Malta) incumplieron sus obligaciones internacionales y negaron el acceso a sus puertos a Open Arms.

El día 8 de enero de 2019 el barco de Open Arms debió haber salido del puerto de Barcelona rumbo a la zona SAR de Libia para continuar con su labor esencial de salvar vidas. Sin embargo Capitanía Marítima, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ha bloqueado el buque en el puerto de Barcelona alegando que pese a no ser imputable al propio barco, con su último regreso a España se incumplieron diversos preceptos de la normativa marítima. Como medida preventiva y para evitar futuros incumplimientos, deniega la salida hasta que no se garantice que existe un acuerdo para el desembarco de los auxiliados con las autoridades responsables de las zonas SAR concernidas, algo que difícilmente ocurrirá, pues ni Italia, ni Libia, ni Malta facilitan estos acuerdos.

Tenemos que volver a poner de manifiesto, en voz alta y clara, que es el incumplimiento habitual del resto de países de su deber de auxilio lo que está en el origen del problema, que no es otro que las muertes en el mar. No puede atribuirse ningún incumplimiento normativo a quien precisamente presta ese auxilio, porque el derecho a la vida ha de priorizarse siempre respecto de cualquier normativa marítima. Con el bloqueo del buque no está en juego únicamente su derecho a navegar sino que se pone en riesgo la vida de las personas migrantes a quienes rescata Open Arms ante la pasividad de quienes están obligados a actuar en virtud del derecho internacional humanitario.

Por ello reclamamos que no se obstaculice la labor humanitaria del buque Open Arms anclado en el puerto de Barcelona y exigimos que los incumplimientos de terceros Estados sean denunciados por el Gobierno de España al órgano competente para su sanción, y que, entretanto, colabore activamente con el respeto de los derechos humanos y contribuya a solucionar la crisis humanitaria en que estamos inmersos, en vez de impedir la labor de quienes salvan vidas en el mar.

Barcelona, 18 de enero de 2019

Posted on

COMMUNIQUE: sur l’extradition de Cesare Battisti

Cesare Battisti, ancien membre du groupe “Les Prolétaires Armés pour le Communisme” durant les ‘années de plomb’, vient d’être extradé de Bolivie, où il venait de se réfugier après l’arrivée au pouvoir au Brésil, où il résidait auparavant, du candidat d’extrême-droite Jaïr Bolsonaro.

En 1988 il a été condamné par la Cour d’assises de Milan, par contumace, à la réclusion à perpétuité pour deux assassinats et deux complicités d’assassinat. S’il a toujours assumé politiquement son parcours, il s’affirme innocent des crimes qui lui sont reprochés : ils ont été commis entre juin 1978 et avril 1979 alors qu’il affirme avoir renoncé à la lutte armée suite à l’assassinat d’Aldo Moro le 16 mai 1978.

Emprisonné en 1979 puis condamné en 1981 pour “appartenance à bande armée”, il s’évade peu après et commence un long périple qui va le mener d’abord au Mexique, puis en France et enfin au Brésil.

Réfugié en France en 1990, il va bénéficier de fait de la “doctrine Mitterand”, se faire connaître comme auteur de plusieurs romans policiers, pris sous son aile par Fred Vargas, et reçoit le soutien de nombreuses personnalités. La Chambre d’instruction de la cour d’appel de Paris ayant rendu un avis favorable à son extradition en juin 2004 et le président Chirac allant y donner suite – alors que sa demande de naturalisation allait aboutir -, il prend la fuite pour se réfugier au Brésil.

Arrêté en mars 2007, il sera relâché en juin 2011 et le Conseil National d’Immigration lui accordera le statut de résident permanent, le président Lula ayant entretemps refusé son extradition le 31 décembre 2010…sur laquelle la justice brésilienne s’est prononcée finalement favorablement en octobre 2018. Les faits pour lesquels il est poursuivi, et qu’il conteste, remontent à 37 ans.

Une amnistie serait la bienvenue, ou à tout le moins l’assurance d’un nouveau procès véritablement équitable. On peut en douter au vu des dernières déclarations du ministre de l’Intérieur, d’extrême- droite, Mattéo Salvini, véritable homme fort de l’actuel gouvernement italien. En tout état de cause, nous espérons que Battisti se verra néanmoins accorder les droits qui sont dus à toute personne soumise à la justice italienne, tout en respectant le principe constitutionnel selon lequel la punition ne peut jamais être une vengeance de l’État et que les droits et le respect de sa dignité sont toujours garantis au condamné.

18 janvier 2019