Posted on

Concern due to measures imposed on lawyers

PRESS RELEASE

Concern due to the disproportionate precautionary measures imposed against Arantza Zulueta, Jon Enparantza and José Campo

The Association of Democratic Lawyers previously expressed their concern about the arrest and the hardness of the precautionary measures taken against the Basque Lawyers Arantza Zulueta, Jon Enparantza and José Campo and also denounced the persecution of the Basque Lawyers and their professional practice in the recent police operation that ended with 12 lawyers arrested.

We want to show our disagreement with the hardness of the precautionary measures taken due to which they remain in prison under high isolation conditions for over a year, without having determined the date of judgment.

Arantza Zulueta was already on probation for a similar charge, so we believe that her second arrest is questionable.

We request the all three to be released as soon as possible and their liability to be determined, in any case, in court. From AED-EDL we further emphasize that:

  • The prison precautionary, unconditional and provisional measure is highly burdensome that applies to very specific cases. We understand that, in this case, does not fit at all. Thus, we consider it disproportionate and, in this case, another precautionary measures could be taken, if so appropriate.
  • There is no reason to believe that there is a risk of scape. In the case of Arantza Zulueta, she is on probation for another procedure.
  • The State must guarantee the right of lawyers to carry out their professional functions without the intimidation or persecution, and without suffering any interference in their work.

    Therefore, we request to the JCI number 6 with the proceeding number 11/2013, their release as soon as possible so that the violation of their rights cease immediately.

    Brussels, February 7th, 2015

Posted on

DAY OF THE ENDANGERED LAWYER – 23rd January 2015

PRESS RELEASE

Lawyers under Death Threat in the Philippines

Lawyers all over Europe protest this day in Ankara, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Bern, Bilbao, Brussels, Düsseldorf, The Hague, Istanbul, Izmir, London, Madrid, Manila, Milan, Paris, Rome and Vienna. This year the Day of the endangered Lawyer is focussed on lawyers in the Philippines who are murdered and who receive death threats because they defend the rights of the poorest, and who work on cases of human rights violations.

The reported total number of lawyers that have been killed after 2001 is 41, nine (22%) of whom were directly involved in handling human rights cases or issues. On top of this, 57 lawyers have been threatened, harassed, intimidated, surveilled, labelled and attacked in other forms, a sizable 43 (76%) of whom were directly involved in human rights cases or advocacies. In addition, 18 judges have been murdered since 2001. Of the known perpetrators recorded, 65% were identified to be members of the military while 20% were from the police service. More than half, however, of all attacks have no known perpetrator to date.

Among the lawyers who have been killed recently are: Rudolfo Felicio, Noel D. Archival, John Mark Espera, Ian Vela Cruz, Jubian Achas, Sulpicio Landicho, Lazaro Gayo, Christobal Fernandez. (For more details read the Basic Report on the human rights lawyers under continuing threat in the Philippines http://www.eldh.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/ejdm/events/2014/Basic_report_for_the_Day_of_the_Endangered_ Lawyer_2015.pdf

In the past there has been international pressure on the Philippine government to address the issue, to make important steps to prosecute the perpetrators and to stop the situation of impunity. But in the last year the situation has again deteriorated. The documented reports about the killings and attacks on Philippine lawyers and also judges show an increasing number of killings, harassments and other attacks on the profession. Only very scarcely a perpetrator is arrested and nearly never prosecuted or punished by the courts. The government of the Philippines is criticized from many quarters about this poor result.

For the endangered lawyers, their families, the victims of the killings and other different forms of attacks, it is unacceptable that the State does not take the full responsibility to act according to the rule of law and to make all necessary steps to fulfill its human rights obligations and legal and ethical duties.

Four years after 30 June 2010, the day that Benigno Aquino III succeeded Gloria Arroyo as President, we have to draw the very sad conclusion that President Aquino’s promises – not to tolerate extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, and to prioritise the judicial reform and the strengthening of the judicial system – seem to have been hollow promises, as far it is shown by all the new attacks and killings that have victimized also members of the legal profession which have occurred after 2010, in the last four years. Only in the case of the murder of the judge Reynerio Estacio Senior on 28 February 2014 in Tugbungan village there was a suspected gunman arrested. This judge handled politically sensitive cases including cases about policemen and politicians.

For these reasons three European lawyers associations the EUROPEAN DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS (AED- EDL, www.aed-edl.net ), the EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY & WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS (ELDH, www.eldh.eu ) and the EUROPEAN BAR HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE (IDHAE, www.idhae.org ), which together represent lawyer’s associations all over Europe, have decided to promote greater public awareness of the severe situation of lawyers in the Philippines on the Day of the Endangered

Organized by:

  •   European Democratic Lawyers (AED-EDL), Rue Albert Ier, 236, 6240 Farciennes, Belgium, https://www.aeud.org/
  •  European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), Platanenstrasse 13, 40233 – Düsseldorf,Germany, www.eldh.eu
  •  European Bar Human Rights Institute (IDHAE), 4-6, rue de la Boucherie, L – 2012 Luxembourg, idhae@idhae.orgSupported by:
  •   International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), www.iadllaw.org
  •   NationalUnion of Peoples’Lawyers (NUPL) in the Philippines, http://www.nupl.net/
  •  Lawyers for Lawyers in Holland, http://www.advocatenvooradvocaten.nl

2

Lawyer. Therefore lawyers in different European countries will protest in front of Philippine Embassies, Consulates or other institutions.

The Day of the Endangered Lawyer is an initiative which was started by AED-EDL in 2010, on behalf of the lawyers of Iran. The date of 24 January was chosen in remembrance of the assassination of 4 trade union lawyers and one employee in the Atocha Street in Madrid in 1977 (Massacre of Atocha), in the time of transition after the death of the Spanish dictator Franco (in 1975). The perpetrators arrested were close to far- right parties and organisations.

AED-EDL, ELDH and IDHAE condemn in the strongest possible terms the above mentioned actions against lawyers and demand the following from the Government of the Philippines:

• Appropriate measures to guarantee safety for legal practitioners, as provided in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers

  • to recognise publicly the legitimacy of the work done by human rights defenders, including lawyers
  • to put an end to the impunity tolerated by the State for those who violate human rights
  • to take measures to sanction public servants and politicians who stigmatise them
  • The immediate release of all lawyers detained, investigated, and imprisoned as a result of their professional dutiesThey further demand an international independent investigation into the actions noted above with the objective of holding those accountable who are responsible for violations of basic human rights of lawyers.

    

    Prof. Bill Bowring, barrister, President of ELDH, London, England www.eldh.eu
    Frédéric Ureel, barrister, President of AED-EDL, Farcienne, Belgium www.aed-edl.net

    Bertrand Favreau, , President of IDHAE, Paris, France www.idhae.org

    Thomas Schmidt, solicitor, Secretary General of ELDH, Düsseldorf, PHONE 0049-211-444 001 endangered-lawyers@eldh.eu
    Hans Gaasbeek, barrister, Vice President of AED, Haarlem, 0031 6 52055043, hgaasbeek@gaasbeekengaasbeek.nl, Director of the Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer
    Gorka Vellé Bergado, Mr. Alejandro Gamez Selma, barristers, Coordinators of the Commission Defence of the Defence, European Democratic Lawyers (EDL), gorka_velle@yahoo.es



For more information, please contact:

Mr. Hans Gaasbeek (see above) Mr. Thomas Schmidt (see above)



Posted on

Letter to the Philippine Ambassador in France

SYNDICAT DES AVOCATS DE FRANCE

Le président

 

Madame l’Ambassadeur,

Le Syndicat des Avocats de France, membre de l’organisation européenne AED (Avocats Européens Démocrates), a été alerté sur la situation de nos confrères philippins qui n’a cessé de se dégrader malgré plusieurs alertes internationales.

Le nombre d’agressions et d’assassinats d’avocats philippins n’a cessé d’augmenter, sans que l’état ne semble s’en préoccuper.

Depuis 2001, 41 avocats ont été assassinés et 57 ont été sévèrement maltraités. La plupart d’entre eux étaient engagés dans la défense des droits fondamentaux et des droits de l’homme. Tous ont subi ces horreurs en raison de leur engagement professionnel. Ceci est inacceptable et l’est d’autant plus qu’il apparaît que les forces militaires ou de police ne sont pas étrangères à ces crimes.

Vous comprendrez, dans ces conditions, notre émotion et l’appel solennel que nous souhaitons adresser à votre gouvernement, par votre intermédiaire, pour que de tels actes cessent et que les coupables soient jugés.

Nous vous informons donc que, le vendredi 23 janvier 2015 à 11 heures, à l’occasion de la journée de l’avocat menacé, trois associations européennes d’avocats : l’association des Avocats Européens Démocrates (A.E.D.), l’Association Européenne des Juristes pour la Démocratie et les Droits de l’Homme (E.L.D.H.) et l’Institut des Droits de l’Homme des Avocats Européens (I.D.H.A.E.) organisent un rassemblement devant l’ambassade des Philippines en France, afin d’attirer l’attention sur la grave situation des avocats philippins, victimes d’intimidations, d’arrestations, de violences et d’assassinats.

Nous souhaitons que vous puissiez à cette occasion accorder une audience à une délégation de plusieurs avocats membres de ces associations, afin de vous remettre une pétition adressée à M. le Président de la République des Philippines BENIGNO AQUINO III, à Mme la ministre de la Justice, à M. le ministre de l’Intérieur et aux autres membres du gouvernement de la République des Philippines.

Vous remerciant par avance de l’accueil que vous voudrez bien nous réserver,

Nous vous prions de croire, Madame l’Ambassadeur, à l’assurance de notre haute considération.

Pour l’A.E.D., Didier LIGER, avocat, représentant du Syndicat des Avocats de France à l’A.E.D. Pour l’IDHAE, Christophe PETTITI, avocat, secrétaire général
Pour le S.A.F., Florian BORG, avocat, président

SAF 34, rue St Lazare 75009 PARIS Tél. 01 42 82 01 26

saforg@orange.fr

à:

Madame Theresa P. LAZARO Ambassadeur des Philippines 4, Hameau de Boulainvilliers 45, Rue du Ranelagh

75016 Paris

Par courrier postal
Par télécopie : 01 46 47 56 00 Et par courriel : paris.pe@dfa.gov.ph

 

Posted on

Police Identification: the petition

The EDL (European Democratic Lawyers) is promoting an European Campaign to sign a petition directed at the European Commissioner, European Commission and the Human Rights commision of the European Parliament, asking them to take the necessary measures to adopt an European directive for the identification of police officers on the basis of a preceding decision of the European Parliament.

Our intention is to collect the highest number of signatures in all member states and then hand it to the European Authorities.

In the petition we ask the European Authorities to take the necessary steps and introduce a debate aiming at adopting a directive or framework decision in this matter and give a response to the problem of the visible identification of police officers.

The aim being to avoid the violation of fundamental rights, safeguard the rights of the defense, the independence of judicial power and its role of control as well as to banish from everyday life the impunity of criminal actions of police officers and their administrative and political superiors with the following criteria:

I.- The general obligation of identification on the uniforms of all police forces.

II.- Simple and clear visibility of identifications, based upon precise dimensions and specifications.

III.- The establishment of an obligation for all police officers to identify themselves at the demand of a citizen.

IV.- A clear system of sanctions for offenders

sign the petition

Posted on

Current Norms on Police Identification

BELGIUM There is a generalized obligation for police officers to carry a nameplate with a name, level and police unit. This norm is not always respected and disciplinary sanctions are envisaged for those who do not wear the nameplate.

FRANCE Since the 01/01/2014 the general obligation exists to wear a white stripe with a number composed of 7 digits.
The are now sanctions envisaged for those do not wear the identification.
The recent introduction of the norm does not permit to monitor its effects.

GERMANY The Federal Police does not posses any identification number, but in the different states (Länder) legislation varies.
In most of the German Länder police officers are free to decide to wear an identification label.

In Berlin, police officers are obliged to wear a name tag or an identification number.

In Sachsen-Anhalt the general obligation exists, but the special units in charge of demonstrations are exempted from this general obligation.

HOLLAND Police officers in uniform are obliged to carry a nameplate on the uniform. During public order policing they wear a number on the helmet.
The nameplate is part of the uniform, but it is possible to hide it in certain circumstances.
There are no particular sanctions for those who do not carry an identification.

ITALY There is no norm containing a system of identification of police forcers.
A proposal exists for a law concerning the identification of police officers during their public order policing.

SPAIN There is a general obligation to wear the nameplate, except during public order policing. The law is not always abided, but no sanctions are envisaged for those who do not wear the identification.
There are significant regional differences.

Posted on

On Legalteams

The EDL, in the course of a bureau meeting in Istanbul on the 18th of October 2014, has decided:

Whereas:

  • In the course of a trial taking place in Turin, Italy, against dozens of citizens, who have actively demonstrated for years in defence of the territory of the Valley of Susa threatened by the construction of a devastating and useless high speed train, the Public Prosecutor has requested high penalties. During the hearing of the 14th October 2014, the lawyer defending the State affirmed:

“The so-called Legal Team was present on the scene on the 27th of June and the 3rd of July. This trial, which has lived of filmed images, has given us the possibility of seeing these lawyers in places where crimes were being enacted…the moment has come, where one has to choose between the Legal Team jacket or the Lawyers’ robe because wearing both is difficult and the credibility of the lawyer is at stake”

  • Since the G8 in Genoa in 2001, in all mass demonstrations, lawyers in all Europe have worn the legal team jacket and taken to the streets in support of the free demonstration of opinion and following the principle that fundamental rights are not only defended in the courts of justice but everywhere where they are under threat.
  • The grave statements of the lawyer representing the state, given the context and place where they were pronounced, constitute an unacceptable form of intimidation of defence lawyers in this particular trial, as well as of lawyers working for citizens under trial for opposing the destruction of the environment and living conditions of people.

Now, therefore:

The EDL expresses its greatest outrage at the attacks against the freedom of organization of lawyers and the attempt to intimidate the defence lawyers, undermining the guarantees of the defence within and outside the trial.

The EDL expresses its solidarity to the Legal Team Italy and to the courageous lawyers of Turin who work under particularly difficult circumstances.

The EDL reiterates that the activity of Legal Team is part of the heritage of democratic struggle and a legitimate exercise of lawyers’ professional activity.

The EDL appeals to all institutions of self-government of lawyers and magistrates, as well as to all citizens to intervene to avoid attacks on democratic lawyers and the rights of the defence.

 

Bureau of the EDL

Istanbul, 18/10/2014

Posted on

Arrest of three Basque Lawyers

PRESS RELEASE

London, Düsseldorf, Farciennes 21 July 2014

The European Lawyers Associations AED and ELDH have received information concerning several situations of grave concern in relation with the pressure and persecution Basque lawyers are suffering.

First, we express our concern over the arrest and imprisonment of the three Basque lawyers Jon Enparantza, Arantza Zulueta and Jose Campo, arrested six months ago who still remain under preventive detention since then. The restrictive security measures to which they are subjected involve a high degree of isolation.

The cases of Arantza Zulueta and Jon Enparantza cause particular concern. In the case of Zulueta, she is suffering a situation of extreme isolation in the prison Puerto III, 980 km far away from the Basque Country, and living a lifestyle that is not compatible with her rights1. These conditions threaten her physical and mental integrity. She has not been convicted and this is incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Jon Enparantza is exactly under the same situation in the prison of Segovia, 410 km away from Donostia, where he lives with his family.

Second, we express our concern concerning the information recently leaked to the media, which could be considered to be part of an operation against a specific group of lawyers. Without having any news other than that leaked to the media, we are led to believe that the conditions described are not compatible with the exercise the right to a defence.

1

The routine she is facing at present is as follows: since entering in prison she has been in the isolation module, alone, with no contact with any other prisoner. Now she is in a special isolation module withe no human contact, she has 4 hours in the yard which measures 15 x 5 steps in the morning or in the afternoon, at the discretion of the prison officers.

She is subjected to daily personal body searches on going to the yard, and often while in the yard, her cell is turned upside down, and she can receive phone calls only when prison officers arbitrarily decide and they remain in her presence. This situation is quite irregular and contrary to the regime officially applied to prisoners.

In the cell she is only allowed to have two books and some clothes. All her belongings are retained by the authorities and even the letters received must be returned, once read, to be stored with the rest of her retained belongings. All her letters are intercepted, both incoming letters that take about two weeks to arrive, and her own letters, in addition to having the number of letters that can be sent reduced to two people, per week.

2

We therefore declare:

First. The fact that our lawyers colleagues have been arbitrarily detained must be admitted, and their right to physical and mental integrity should be safeguarded.

Second. These lawyers should be released from custody in accordance with international standards. Their release is urgent, because the lawyers are suffering a particularly severe isolation regime, away from their homes and away from their families, and the presumption of innocence to which they are entitled is being violated.

Therefore, we demand their immediate release awaiting prosecution and trial. The full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedom should be restored to them, in particular, those corresponding their capacity as lawyers and human rights defenders.

Third. Their prosecution before a special court (Audiencia Nacional) should be terminated, and the use of special courts for the suppression of terrorism is not justified.

Fourth. The Spanish State should instruct the Guardia Civil that police operations based only on exceptional reports such as those which have led to the detention of these three lawyers must end.

Fifth The right of full and adequate defence must be guaranteed, to be exercised freely and without any pressure or constant threats.

ELDH – European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, Platanenstraße 13, 40233 Düsseldorf, Germany, www.eldh.eu

EDL – European Democratic Lawyers, Rue Albert Ier, 236, 6240 Farciennes, Belgium, https://www.aeud.org/

Posted on

Aide Légale en Europe

Schermata 2015-10-31 alle 17.00.52

 

par: Gilberto Pagani

Dans tous les textes constitutionnels et dans la Charte des droits Fondamentaux de l’Union Européenne, le droit à la justice et à l’aide juridictionnelle est consacré comme droit fondamental.
Sur le mur de toutes les salles d’audience est écrite la phrase qui devrait représenter ce principe: la loi est égale pour tous.

Ces mots ont un sens double : d’une part, les lois s’appliquent sans aucune distinction à tous les citoyens, de l’autre, tous les citoyens sont égaux devant la loi.
Mais demandons-nous: au-delà des pétitions de principe, tous les citoyens sont-ils vraiment égaux devant le procès?

Déjà dans les années ’50, le grand avocat et juriste italien Piero Calamandrei observait que

quand le pauvre s’aperçoit que, pour invoquer l’égalité de la loi à sa défense, l’aide de cette richesse qu’il n’a pas lui est indispensable, alors cette phrase, la loi est égale pour tous, semble une mauvais plaisanterie à sa misère.
Notre tradition constitutionnelle et procédurale voit le rapport entre le citoyen et la justice comme réduit aux deux figures de la justice imposante et majestueuse, et du citoyen soumis à la puissance de la loi et à la force punitive de l’Etat.

Mais c’est une vision rhétorique et contraire à la réalité, parce que le citoyen ne se défend pas tout seul (parce que d’autres règles constitutionnelles imposent l’assistance d’un avocat) et il ne pourrait pas se défendre tout seul parce que, évidemment, il ne possède pas les instruments techniques nécessaires pour affronter un procès, pas plus que le détachement indispensable par rapport aux émotions qui constellent un procès.

Alors nous pouvons dire tranquillement que la différence de traitement des citoyens devant la loi dérive de la possibilité plus ou moins grande d’avoir à son côté un bon avocat. À l’égalité de la loi, à l’égalité d’indépendance du juge, à l’égalité des systèmes, la différence est faite par l’avocat.

Le système de l’aide légale devrait être le mécanisme qui permet aux pauvres d’avoir une tutelle procédurale efficace avec un avocat de confiance.
Nous verrons au cours de nos travaux si et comment ce système fonctionne et s’il est vraiment apte à s’acquitter de son devoir.

Il est de toute façon évident que, au moment où viennent à manquer les ressources pour garantir un certain niveau de welfare, diminuent aussi les fonds pour le parrainage des pauvres.
Une des conséquences de la fin du rêve du bien-être pour tous est que sont venus à manquer les instruments de médiation sociale qui prévenaient la montée des conflits. Cela signifie que le conflit ne trouve pas de débouchés institutionnels; un nombre énorme de travailleurs dont les droits ne sont pas défendus n’ont plus aucune possibilité de se

prémunir par la voie judiciaire.
Des millions de chômeurs, de travailleurs précaires, de travailleurs étrangers et leurs familles se trouvent dans une zone de non-droit dès lors qu’ils n’ont pas, objectivement, la possibilité de faire appel à un juge, la législation néolibérale ne les défendant d’aucune manière.
Au contraire, la désagrégation sociale et le manque de structures sociales laissent ces gens isolés ou à l’intérieur de groupes sociaux restreints et marginaux et cela provoque l’augmentation de la criminalité prédatrice, des comportements déviants et, par voie de conséquence, de la prison comme instrument de contrôle social.
Nous ne pouvons penser que le renversement de cet état de choses dépende du bon fonctionnement de l’aide légale.
Mais nous devons nous engager, dans l’attente d’un avenir meilleur, pour que cette institution ne se réduise pas à un simulacre, à une simple fictio juris.
Un des sujets de ce séminaire est l’alternative pro bono ou aide légale, les droits contre la charité.
Nous tous travaillons souvent pro bono, et souvent aussi malgré nous.
Mais le pro bono des grands cabinets d’avocats n’est pas la même chose que l’activité de volontariat et de solidarité sociale qui a vu ces dernières années l’apparition d’associations d’avocats qui assistent gratuitement les gens sans logement, sans papier, les migrants, les minorités de tous types et leur fournissent gratuitement une assistance juridique de qualité.
Je rappelle l’expérience des legal teams qui, depuis Gênes 2001, engagent dans les rues et dans les salles d’audience des centaines ou peut-être des milliers d’avocats qui procurent une assistance aux gens frappés par la répression parce qu’ils manifestent pour la protection des droits fondamentaux.
Le pro bono des grands cabinets d’avocats est avant tout un “asset”, une vitrine qui permet à un cabinet qui d’habitude met ses capacités au service de spéculateurs ou de “white collar criminals” de prendre le masque de la philanthropie.
D’autre part, il faut se garder de tendances qui voudraient voir l’avocat des pas riches, l’avocat commis d’office, comme une espèce de fonctionnaire public qui rend possible par sa présence le déroulement constitutionnel d’un procès mais n’est pas une entrave à l’efficacité du système.
Du reste, il existe des idées et projets qui prévoient un fonctionnaire public comme défenseur d’office et ceci toujours avec le but de rationaliser la justice et en diminuer les coûts.
Nous devons affirmer que le droit à un procès juste est le droit avant tout à une assistance juridique de qualité; cela comporte des coûts, comme le fonctionnement des hôpitaux publics ou les logements sociaux.
Mais ce qui ne peut être mis en cause, c’est la liberté des avocats.
A cette fin, le système de l’aide légale est le seul qui se rapproche d’un accès réel à la justice.
Pour conclure je voudrais rapporter une donnée qui concerne l’Italie.
Le nombre de jeunes avocats est en diminution constante, c’est absolument un nouveau phénomène. Les avocats inscrits au barreau diminuent aussi.
Notre profession n’apparaît plus comme un métier qui permette une entrée dans le monde du travail, difficile et dure mais possible.
Les coupes dans les ressources destinées à l’aide légale, comme l’augmentation des frais de justice, frappe en particulier les jeunes avocats, qui sont les plus pénalisés par cet état de

choses.
Ces dernières années, avec les collègues de l’aed, je me suis toujours étonné des énormes différences existant entre les systèmes juridiques européens.
Nous connaissons toutes les difficultés énormes que rencontre le processus d’intégration européenne.
Les choix néolibéraux ont conduit à l’intégration monétaire totale, à la rationalisation du marché et à l’unification de l’antiterrorisme et des politiques répressives avec le mandat d’arrêt européen.
Au-delà de l’abolition partielle des frontières (Schengen), il n’apparaît pas que se soient faits de grands pas pour l’unification des droits au niveau le plus haut possible et ensuite pour une unité européenne réelle.
En particulier, il n’apparaît pas qu’il ait y eu des efforts pour rendre plus semblables les procédures, pas plus que pour rendre plus homogène le rôle des avocats.
Les seuls progrès dans ce sens sont arrivés par la jurisprudence des Cours Européennes, qui ont opéré de manière efficace et pénétrante pour obvier au manque d’intégration entre des systèmes juridiques différents, dans les limites qu’impose une législation inefficace et partielle.
Mais la défense et le développement d’un droit réel à l’accès à la justice doit être soutenu principalement par les Conseils de l’ordre et par les associations d’avocats, qui ont le devoir de conjuguer le principe du droit à l’assistance légale pour les pauvres avec le principe toutautantintangibledelalibertédel’avocat.

Gilberto Pagani
Avocat à Milan
Président d’honneur de Avocats Européens Démocrates