Posted on

What’s after Moria?

The end of EU refugee policy in compliance with human rights

RAV and AED-EDL zoom press conference with European lawyers and Moria refugees, September 17, 2020, 10.00am

To register and for details: gs@rav.de or: 030.417 235 55
Background information: https://www.rav.de/themen/migration-asyl/

Moria represents the fact the decisive achievement of European civilization – that states subject themselves to rights and duties – is at stake. Lawyers from three European countries explain their experiences, a Moria refugee concretely reports on the consequences of failures of national and EU-law; Karl Kopp from pro asyl will place this in the context of the European asylum reform of recent years.

RAV and AED-EDL invite you to a zoom press conference in German and English language focusing on the current situation in Moria and EU preparations for a ›Moria 2.0‹.

  • Raed Alabd, Afghan refugee from Moria, will report on his current survival struggle.
  • Greek lawyer Elli Kriona represents many refugees from Moria legally. She explains the Greek and EU legal background and clarifies the causes of the failure of European asylum policy on the background of the EU-Turkey deal. Due to her practice she has precise information on the situations of the refugees in Moria.
  • Italian lawyer Lucia Gennari, who accompanied refugees on ships to enable them to safe entries into EU harbors; she also represents many refugees from the Italian hot spots. Lucia Gennari also explains the Italian experiences with the failure of the European asylum system, especially with the hot-spot (non)-system.
  • German lawyer Berenice Böhlo, legally representing many refugees arriving from Greece to Germany, comments on the misguided German discussion on indisputable human rights-based requirements, binding legal and procedural guarantees within the European asylum system. Demands of the European lawyer associations will be presented.
  • For years, Karl Kopp of pro asyl deals with the survival of refugees in Europe and explains why – from a civil society perspective – only a fundamental reform of the European asylum system can guarantee for a humane procedural legal process.

 

Download invitation

 

Here is the video of the conference. Co-president of the AED-EDL Berenice Boehlo talks at around 50:00 min.

Posted on

Open statement in connection with the detention of Belarusian lawyers Ilya Salei and Maksim Znak

September 10, 2020

We express our deep concern at the detention of lawyers Ilya Salei and Maksim Znak on September 9, 2020, in Belarus, in a criminal case which is undeniably politically motivated. We consider this to be a gross violation and interference with their professional legal activities and with their rights to express professional opinions, as established by international legal standards. This case is a direct consequence of a dire situation, problems and violations of professional rights of attorneys and lawyers and overall functioning of the legal profession in the Republic of Belarus. These problems were highlighted by both international organizations and representatives of the legal community before.[1]

According to information posted on the website of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus, “the investigation of the criminal case opened by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus under Part 3 of Art. 361 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus. At the moment, in the course of the investigation, evidence has been obtained that testify to the commission by individuals of a non-governmental organization called the Coordination Council, actions aimed at destabilizing the socio-political, economic situation and public awareness in the country, causing harm to the national security of the Republic of Belarus. These actions were carried out using the media and internet resources. With regard to the suspects Maria Kolesnikova and Maksim Znak, with the approval of the prosecutor, a preventive measure was chosen in the form of detention. Ilya Salei was also detained on suspicion of committing this crime.”[2]

However, detained Ilya Salei is a lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, one of the leaders of the Belarusian protest movement and a member of the Presidium of the Coordination Council, who is also in jail.[3] Second detained lawyer Maksim Znak was representing Viktor Babariko, who ran for the President of the Republic of Belarus, but was not allowed to register as a candidate and was recognized as a political prisoner. Maksim Znak was also an attorney for the former presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, on whose behalf he created the Coordination Council. As a member of the Presidium of the Coordinating Council, Maxim Znak was providing legal assistance as an attorney. Maxim Znak’s lawyer Dmitry Laevsky notes: “all his statements, appeals, comments were public, transparent, their content was absolutely legal and did not carry any illegal intentions.”[4]

We would like to emphasize that, in accordance with the United Nation’s Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers[5], governments must ensure that lawyers can perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference. Lawyers, like other citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights, and to join or form local, national or international organizations and attend their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful actions or their membership in a lawful organization.

The Belarusian Helsinki Committee appealed to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers with a report about the situation of lawyers Maksim Znak and Ilya Salei.[6] The report called for urgent action to be taken in connection with the detention of the lawyers and requested to send an urgent message to the Government of Belarus on the need to comply with the Basic Principles concerning the role of lawyers.

Belarusian lawyers and jurists have made an open statement in connection with the detention of their colleagues.[7]

We also demand from the authorities of the Republic of Belarus to:

– immediately release lawyers Maksim Znak and Ilya Salei and comply with international legal standards of the independence of legal profession and the exercise of the right to defense;

– stop the persecution of lawyers and attorneys who are exercising their constitutional right of free expression by expressing their opinions[8] while performing professional functions;

– strictly observe the provisions of Art. 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus: “everyone has the right to exercise and protect rights and freedoms, including the right to use at any time the assistance of lawyers and their other representatives in court, other state bodies, local government bodies, at enterprises, institutions, organizations, public associations and in relations with officials and citizens. Opposition to the provision of legal assistance in the Republic of Belarus is prohibited by law.”[9]

Download in English and Russian

Signatories:

  1. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland
  2. ARTICLE 19, United Kingdom
  3. The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe
  4. The Bar Association of Luxembourg
  5. The Swedish Bar Association
  6. The French and German speaking bars association of Belgium AVOCATS.BE
  7. The European Association of Lawyers AEA-EAL
  8. Lawyers for Lawyers, The Netherlands
  9. FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
  10. Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights YUCOM, Serbia
  11. OMCT World Organisation Against Torture
  12. Human Rights House Foundation, Norway
  13. Centre de la protection internationale, France
  14. Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Lithuania
  15. International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), Belgium
  16. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee
  17. Freedom Now, USA
  18. Crude Accountability, USA
  19. All-Ukrainian Association of Lawyers Providing Free Legal Aid – Odesa Division, Ukraine
  20. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Russia
  21. Pskov Regional Human Rights Environmental Public Movement “Svobodnyi Bereg”, Russia
  22. Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative, Ukraine
  23. German-Russian Exchange in St. Petersburg
  24. Stichting CAAT Projects, The Netherlands
  25. MEMORIAL Deutschland e. V. Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte, Germany
  26. Legal Policy Research Center, Kazakhstan
  27. Public Association Dignity, Kazakhstan
  28. Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan”
  29. Belarusian Helsinki Committee
  30. Human Constanta, Belarus
  31. Center for Participation and Development, Georgia
  32. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor, Armenia
  33. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement, Ukraine
  34. SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, Russia
  35. Souchastiye v Sud’be, Blagotvoritel’nyy Tsentr, Russia
  36. Human Rights Embassy, Moldova
  37. Libereco Partnership for Human Rights, Germany
  38. Public Verdict Foundation, Russia
  39. Human Rights Group “Grazhdanin, armia, pravo”, Russia
  40. DRA – German-Russian Exchange, Germany
  41. Social Action Centre, Ukraine
  42. Helsinki Committee of Armenia
  43. Helsinki association, Armenia
  44. Macedonian Helsinki Committee
  45. Swedish OSCE-network
  46. Albanian Helsinki Committee
  47. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
  48. Women of the Don, Russia
  49. Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia
  50. Human Rights House Zagreb, Croatia
  51. Human Rights Center, Georgia
  52. Mogilev Human Rights Center, Belarus
  53. Netherlands Helsinki Committee
  54. Human Rights Center ZMINA, Ukraine
  55. The Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House
  56. “Ekumena” Center, Belarus
  57. Youth Memorial – Perm, Russia
  58. Human Rights House in Chernihiv, Ukraine
  59. The Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
  60. Östgruppen – Swedish initiative for democracy and human rights, Sweden
  61. IDP Women Association Consent, Georgia
  62. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, Kazakhstan
  63. Czech Bar Association, The Czech Republic (tbc)
  64. Civil Initiative Against Lawlessness in Courts and Prosecutor’s Office, Belarus
  65. AED-EDL (Avocat.e.s Européennes Démocrates / European Democratic Lawyers), Barcelona, Spain
  66. Freedom House, USA
  67. Independent Social Ecological Movement – NESEHNUTI, Brno, The Czech Republic
  68. Stichting CAAT Projects, the Netherlands
  69. La Asociación Libre de Abogados, Spain
  70. RAW for Women and Girl Survivors of War (Raw in War)
  71. Citizens Network Watchdog, Poland
  72. ORDRE DES AVOCATS DE PARIS / Paris Bar, France
  73. The Сouncil of the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates, Poland
  74. Russian LGBT Network
  75. Board of the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum
  76. Freedom of Religion and Believe – FORB, Belarus
  77. Human Rights Center Memorial, Russia

[1] See https://www.hfhr.pl/en/report-on-the-situation-of-legal-profession-in-belarus/ https://probusiness.io/law/7462-kogda-slesari-bastuyut-advokatam-stydno-molchat-obrashchenie-advokatskogo-soobshchestva-belarusi.html, https://fondadvokatov.ru/belarus

[2] See https://sk.gov.by/ru/news-ru/view/sledstvennym-komitetom-prodolzhaetsja-rassledovanie-ugolovnogo-dela-o-publichnyx-prizyvax-k-dejstvijam-9248/

[3] Coordination Council – public initiative, created with the goal of overcoming political crisis in Belarus and ensuring peace and understanding, and also for protection of sovereignty and independence of the republic of Belarus. More information about the Council please see https://rada.vision/en

[4] See https://news.tut.by/economics/699898.html

[5] Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990, see https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/role_lawyers.shtml

[6] See https://belhelcom.org/be/node/1244

[7] https://news.tut.by/economics/699922.html

[8] Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus https://kodeksy-by.com/konstitutsiya_rb/33.htm

[9] See https://kodeksy-by.com/konstitutsiya_rb/62.htm

Posted on

OBITUARY – Ebru Timtik will always be in our minds and hearts!

Ebru passed away yesterday after 238 days on Hunger Strike. She fought until her last breath for the right to a fair trial and independence of lawyers. The Turkish State is responsible because it ignored her claims.

Last October we visited her and the other colleagues of the ÇHD in Silivri hight security prison (near Istanbul) with an International Delegation of lawyers, we spoke with her about her determination to continue denouncing all forms of injustice.

We know that the right to a fair trial has been violated in the so called ÇHD2 Case. We have seen, observing the trial, that the Court was unfair. The lawsuit was a masquerade (not enforcing procedural rules, nonsense statements of a secret witness were the base of the decision, and the verdict was given before the right of defence was exercised). The international delegation of Lawyers, in which AED-EDL and the Foundation Day of Endangered Lawyer participated monitoring the trial, has been expulsed from the Courtroom before the last statement was given by the defence lawyers and before the final decision.

The denying of the demand Ebru made for a fair trial made her choose the way of a hunger strike. This hunger strike was not meant as a special request for herself but for the whole profession of lawyers and for the Kurdish and Turkish people. When her situation was already very grave on the 14th of August a request to release Ebru and her colleague Aytaç Unsal was denied by the Constitutional Court of Turkey.

Everyone has to know that the death of Ebru could have been prevented. For all of us, her death will be remembered as a shame for the Turkish Judiciary.

The lesson we can obtain of Ebru’s death is that we must be more conscious to fight for fundamental Rights in Turkey and other Countries. Her action will help and motivate us to defend the right to a fair trial.

Ebru, your life was brilliant, your death is very sad, and your example is a light in this time of troubles in Turkey!

 

Rest in peace, our sister.

 

28.08.2020

Posted on

Resolution on European border control in the Mediterranean Sea

IADL, AED and ELDH condemn the tactics employed by the European Union and other European countries member to the Schengen/Dublin Area through their agents and agencies, particularly Frontex, to repel and collectively expulse migrants seeking to enter Europe by sea from Turkey and North Africa. IADL, AED and ELDH call for a radical defunding of Frontex; an end to cooperation with the Libyan Coast Guard (“LYCG”); respect for the principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition on collective expulsions; and for Search and Rescue operations to be adequately resourced and carried out within European and international waters.

 

  1. Border control in Libyan waters

 

The European Union – and its “associated States” –, via the European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex, provides training, equipment and funds to Libyan coast guard forces (“LYCG”) to enable them to intercept boats in both Libyan coastal waters and international waters, including via aerial surveillance.[i] Frontex officers engage in a systematic praxis of interpretation of the international law of the sea by alerting only the “competent” Rescue Coordination Centre of the detection of a migrant boat, which means that, when boats are intercepted in the disputed Libyan Search and Rescue (“SAR”) region, they will only alert the LYCG and not any other ships, including those of NGOs, that might have assisted faster.

 

Libya does not meet “the criteria for being designated as a place of safety for the purpose of disembarkation following rescue at sea” under international law.[ii] Migrants who are returned to Libya are frequently detained indefinitely in inhuman and degrading conditions leading to high rates of death from disease and where torture is reported to be widespread.[iii] Crimes of deportation, murder, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts are being committed against migrants in Libyan detention camps and torture houses.[iv] Immigration detention centres are frequently located near to active conflict zones which has led to the deaths of migrants held in them due to both indiscriminate and targeted attacks.[v] The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial or Arbitrary Executions has found the gravity of the situation to be such that; “the International Criminal Court should consider preliminary investigation into atrocity crimes against refugees and migrants”.[vi]

 

The EU’s assistance to LYCG is motivated by a desire to reduce arrivals in Europe and to avoid triggering EU non refoulement obligations through an illegitimate interpretation of international law.[vii] Through progressive reduction of European coast guard and maritime rescue activities, criminalisation of NGOs carrying out Search and Rescue operations, and the outsourcing of SAR and border policing to the Libyan coastguard, EU actors have violated their SAR obligations and are as a minimum complicit in the systematic violation of human rights including Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR through forcing return to Libya.[viii] A convincing case has been made that EU officials and their agents are liable for crimes against humanity committed as part of a premeditated policy to stem migration flows from Africa via the Central Mediterranean route, which is currently under examination in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.[ix]

 

 

 

  1. Border control in the Aegean Sea

 

Since early this year, organisations active in the Aegean Sea[x] have been recording an increased number of illegal expulsions of migrants, both from Greek waters and from the Aegean islands and mainland, by European actors including the Greek Coast Guard and Frontex, In carrying out such expulsions, these authorities make use of aerial surveillance in the place of search and rescue operations.

 

Aggressive deterrence tactics employed to push back boats in Greek waters include the confiscation of fuel and destruction of engines, the firing of shots into the sea next to boats, and vessels circling migrant boats to create dangerous waves, with reports identifying perpetrators as Greek Coast Guard.[xi] Such incidents are ongoing: on 29 June 2020, four individuals are believed to have drowned, after the Greek coast guard confiscated their boat’s engine and fuel, towed the boat into Turkish waters, and punctured the hull as part of a pushback.[xii] A Danish Frontex ship declared on 6 March 2020 that they had received and refused orders from headquarters to forcibly return the 33 people they had just rescued to their dinghy, and tow them out of Greek waters back towards Turkey.[xiii]

 

There have also been dozens of reports of people being returned to Turkey after landing on the Aegean islands, without being given the chance to apply for asylum.[xiv] While pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish land border are now a regular occurrence, there have been recent accounts of hundreds of people being removed illegally from closed inland detention spaces, again before their asylum procedure has been exhausted.[xv]

 

The foregoing actions, both direct push backs and unfair and illegal asylum and return procedures, are a clear breach of the principle of non-refoulement, the cornerstone of international refugee protection as enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 19(1) of The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly prohibits collective expulsions, such as these, and rescue of people at sea is a fundamental duty under the law of the sea and violates international and EU refugee law The right to seek asylum requires that individuals have access to a fair and efficient procedure for the examination of their claims upon established procedures applicable to any actor involved in the decision making process.

 

The tolerance or involvement of Frontex and EU member states NATO boats operating in the area should be independently and efficiently investigated. All boats operating in the Aegean sea seem to have knowledge of boats in distress and push back incidents through their radars.[xvi] Therefore, the internal investigations of Frontex do not qualify as fair and effective rather add to the lack of transparency. The same stands for the complaints about illegal actions by Frontex in relation to Frontex officer’s actions in the asylum procedure in the Greek hotspots (initial registration and identification, age and nationality assessment of newcomers) and return procedures (Frontex readmission procedures from Greek hotspots to Turkey for the implementation of the EU Turkey Statement). Up to now, no complaint has been effectively investigated. Participation of EU Agencies in national administrative procedures must promote transparency and apply fully the EU’s ‘acquis’ and international and national procedural standards.

 

EU and other European actors, some in silent complicity and some in active engagement with these processes, are failing to rescue people in distress, and violating their obligations under international law.

 

 

  1. Demands

 

IADL, AED and ELDH therefore call for:

 

  1. A radical defunding of Frontex, which is not conducting search and rescue but instead causing deaths at sea and perpetuating border violence, and an end to the violent militarisation of European borders;

 

  1. An immediate end to EU assistance to the LYCG, whether through funding, training, equipment or intelligence;

 

  1. European actors to carry out their obligations to rescue people in distress at sea and not to violate the principle of non-refoulement, whether by returning individuals or through collective expulsions and whether directly or through their agents;

 

  1. An end to the use of aerial surveillance in place of adequate search and rescue operations.

 

  1. An end to the criminalisation of individuals and organisations seeking to assist migrants at sea;

 

  1. The implementation of legal pathways to allow safe migration to Europe.

 

  1. An end to the externalisation of EU and EU member states protection responsibilities through cooperation with third countries such as Turkey and Libya

 

  1. An end to unofficial political solutions such as the EU – Turkey Statement and immediate implementation of established EU law and procedures.

 

To this end IADL, AED and ELDH will:

 

  1. Hold EU and other European officials and their agents accountable by supporting strategic legal challenges and campaigns against the current widespread breaches of international legal obligations to migrants;

 

  1. Call for a recommitment by member states to the principles of the Geneva Convention;

 

  1. Call for a commitment from Greece that there will be no further suspension of the right to claim asylum (as happened in March 2020);

 

  1. Support NGO rescue and monitoring operations in the Mediterranean particularly where individuals are charged with criminal offences in respect of their humanitarian actions in solidarity with migrants;

 

  1. Request an investigation and report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Migrants and Internally Displaced into conditions in the closed detention centres in Greece.

[i] Alarm Phone, Borderline Europe, Mediterranea – Saving Humans, Sea-Watch, “Remote control:

the EU-Libya collaboration in mass interceptions of migrants in the Central Mediterranean”, 17 June 2020, accessible at: https://alarmphone.org/en/2020/06/17/new-report-aerial-collaboration-between-the-eu-and-libya-facilitates-mass-interceptions-of-migrants/ p. 2

[ii] UNHCR Position on Returns to Libya (Update II), September 2018. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5b8d02314.pdf

[iii] Amnesty International Libya 2019 report, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/libya/report-libya/

Médecins Sans Frontières, “Out of sight, out of mind: refugees in Libya’s detention centres”, 12 July 2019 https://www.msf.org/out-sight-out-mind-refugees-libyas-detention-centres-libya

[iv] International Criminal Court, 2017, “Statement of the ICC Prosecuotor to the UNSC on the Situation in Libya,” available at:

https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=170509-otp-stat-lib; German diplomat in an internal cable to Angela Merkel, 29 January 2017 quoted in: Deutsche Welle, 2017, “Libyan Trafficking camps are hell for refugees, diplomats say”, available at: https://p.dw.com/p/2WaEd

[v] Amnesty International Libya 2019 report, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/libya/report-libya/

[vi] Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in her Report to the UN General Assembly, on the “Unlawful Death of Refugees and Migrants”, 15 August 2017. United Nations General Assembly, A/72/335. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1725806.pdf

[vii] Human Rights Watch World Report 2020, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/libya

[viii] “As a systematic praxis, Frontex officers engage in an illegitimate and formal interpretation of international law of the sea by alerting only the “competent” RCC according to the geographical position of the SAR event. This means that if the distress event happens to take place in the disputed Libyan SAR region, only the Libyans will be asked to intervene, even when NGO ships or other ships could help in a faster and more appropriate way. When the Libyans intervene in SAR operations it is very well known by all the EU authorities that shipwrecked people will be brought back to Libya, a place designated by many international organisations as generally unsafe (for migrants in particular) and which does not meet “the criteria for being designated as a place of safety for the purpose of disembarkation following rescue at sea”. This formal interpretation of the coordination procedures for rescues, as defined in the international law of the sea therefore leads, concretely, to the violation of migrants’ fundamental rights.”

Alarm Phone, Borderline Europe, Mediterranea – Saving Humans, Sea-Watch, “Remote control:

the EU-Libya collaboration in mass interceptions of migrants in the Central Mediterranean”, 17 June 2020, available at: https://alarmphone.org/en/2020/06/17/new-report-aerial-collaboration-between-the-eu-and-libya-facilitates-mass-interceptions-of-migrants/

[ix] Communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute, ‘EU Migration Policies in the Central Mediterranean and Libya (2014-2019)’, Omer Shatz and Dr. Juan Branco, available at: https://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/jun/eu-icc-case-EU-Migration-Policies.pdf;

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, has called on the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to: “examine whether investigations for crimes against humanity or war crimes are warranted in view of the scale, gravity and increasingly systematic nature of torture, ill-treatment and other serious human rights abuses[…] as a direct or indirect consequence of deliberate State policies and practices of deterrence, criminalisation, arrival prevention and refoulement” in his “Report of the Spcial Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhum or degrading treatment or punishment”, 26 February 2018, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/37/50

[x] Alarm Phone, Aegean Boat Report, Mare Liberum

[xi] Between the end of March 2020 and 25th May, at least 11 cases have been recorded of people being dragged back into Turkish waters. Facebook post from Mare Liberum: https://www.facebook.com/MareLiberumOfficial/posts/635491837179723

Bellingcat report, ‘Masked Men On A Hellenic Coast Guard Boat Involved In Pushback Incident’, available at: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/06/23/masked-men-on-a-hellenic-coast-guard-boat-involved-in-pushback-incident/

[xii] https://www.facebook.com/AegeanBoatReport/posts/864260654097040?__tn__=-R

[xiii] ‘Danish boat in Aegean refused order to push back rescued migrants’, news article available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/danish-frontex-boat-refused-order-to-push-back-rescued-migrants-report/

[xiv] One investigation confirmed 39 people who were picked up from a drifting life raft by the Turkish Coast Guard on 29th April had landed on Samos the day before. Bellingcat report, ‘Samos and the Anatomy of a Maritime Push-Back’, available at: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/05/20/samos-and-the-anatomy-of-a-maritime-push-back/

Eyewitness accounts suggest at least 200 people have been removed in this way since the end of April. Bordermonitoring Aegean report, available at: https://dm-aegean.bordermonitoring.eu/2020/06/17/greece-carries-out-collective-expulsion-of-over-900-asylum-seekers-under-the-complicit-silence-of-the-european-union/

[xv] Border Violence Monitoring Network, ‘Press Release: Collective Expulsion from Greek Centres’, available at: https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/Press-Release_Greek-Pushbacks.pdf

[xvi] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/videos-and-eyewitness-accounts-greece-apparently-abandoning-refugees-at-sea-a-84c06c61-7f11-4e83-ae70-3905017b49d5-amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2hVI5Tgo3b3Bf3gXPMlbY967LD07rQ5i_lU_LAIT8pVfYmJDdYM27fjgU

Posted on

Fact-Finding Mission on CHD Trials in Turkey

 

Breach of a fair trial, independence of the judiciary and principles on the role of Lawyers.

October 2019, Istanbul

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 the following 18 Turkish lawyers by the 37 High Criminal Court of Istanbul in March 2019:

– For “founding and leading a terrorist organization” – Barkin TIMTIK: 18 years and 9 months For “membership of a terrorist organization” – Ebru TIMTIK and Özgür YILMAZ: 13 years and 6 months – Behiç ASÇI and Sükriye ERDEN: 12 years – Selçuk KOZAGACLI (President of the ÇHD) : 11 years and 3 months – Engin GÖKOGLU, Aytac ÜNSAL and Süleyman GÖKTEN : 10 years and 6 months – Aycan ÇIÇEK and Naciye DEMIR: 9 years – Ezgi CAKIR: 8 years

– For “willfully and knowingly aiding a terrorist organization” – Aysegül CAGATAY, Yagmur EREREN, Didem Baydar ÜNSAL and Yaprak TÜRKMEN: 3 years 9 months – Zehra ÖZDEMIR and Ahmet MANDACI: 3 years, 1 month and 15 days (sentence reduced because of their presence at the hearing on 20 March 2019, unlike the other defendants).

The European lawyers of the monitoring team came from Austria, Belgium, Catalonia/Spain, Greece, Germany, France, and Italy. They represented, among others, two international associations of lawyers, two European lawyers’ organizations, the European umbrella association of bar associations, various national and regional bar associations and lawyers’ organizations.

These are their findings: REPORT

The lawyers of the monitoring team represented the following organizations:

  • 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
  • CNB – French National Bar Council (Conseil national des barreaux)
  • OIAD – Observatoire International des Avocats en Danger (The International Observatory
    of Endangered Lawyers)
  • UCPI – Unione delle 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 (NOAB)
  • Liège Bar Association
  • Vienna Bar Association
Posted on

The Instrumentalization of the Pandemic

Possible legal strategies and actions before national jurisdictions and international bodies

On the 12th of June 2020, the AED-EDL held a special webinar dedicated to the instrumentalization of the COVID pandemic.

The speakers highlighted different aspects of the question and country reports where presented

 

Here are the interventions of our speakers

 

Nicola Canestrini on Rights, emergency and the rule of law

Flor Tercero on Covid and Migrants rights in France

Volker Eick on the effects of the pandemic on lawyering in Germany

Ceren Uysal on Covid and Prisons: the Turkish example

Annette Terpstra on Covid and Labour law

Robert Nestler on Borders under the Covid threat

 

Here are the country reports to read:

BELGIUM

THE NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

ITALY

 

 

Posted on

Covid-19 – No time to lose ! – Why imprisoned lawyers must be released immediately

The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH) and the European Democratic Lawyers (AED-EDL) are European lawyers’ organisations with members in over 20 European countries, including Turkey. Both organisations have been monitoring court cases in Turkey for many years, especially the mass trials against lawyers of their two member organisations ÇHD – Çagdas Hukukular Dernegi – (Progressive Lawyers Association) and ÖHD – Ozgurlukcu Hukukcular Dernegi – OHD (Association of Lawyers for Freedom). The foundation The Day of the Endangered Lawyer’s goal is to promote the unobstructed practice of the lawyers’ profession anywhere in the world who, under repressive regimes come to the defence or support of clients whose human rights are at stake.

Currently, 7 lawyers of the CHD are detained (Selçuk Kozağaçlı, Behiç Aşçı, Engin Gökoğlu, Aytaç Ünsal, Aycan Çiçek, Barkın Timtik, Oya Aslan, Ebru Timtik; Sulçuk Kozağaçlı is the ÇHD President, a human rights attorney who received several Human Rights Awards. and Doğukan Ünlü, Halil İbrahim Vargül, Semra Özbingöl Çelik are lawyers of the ÖHD.

The worldwide spread of the C-19 epidemic does not stop at the prison gates. On the contrary, the overcrowding of prisons increases the risk of proliferation among prisoners and staff. The Turkish government has therefore rightly decided to release almost a third of the more than 300,000 prisoners from prison or place them under house arrest. However, those accused of supporting, being a member of or leading a terrorist organization are excluded from this measure. This decision also affects lawyers who, in the exercise of their professional duties, have represented alleged terror supporters in court.

The lawyers began a hunger strike on Feb. 3 in protest of the lengthy jail sentences imposed on them for terrorism charges and after the 30th day of the hunger strike, 4 of them announced a break. Presently 4 lawyers (Ebru Timtik, Barkın Timtik, Oya Aslan, Aytaç Ünsal), who are all members of the Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD), are on a hunger strike in prison, demanding a fair trial and justice for themselves and for their clients. All the lawyers were arrested in a September 2018 operation. Two of the lawyers have announced to start fasting to death on the 5th of April, that is the Day of Lawyers in Turkey.

Lawyers around the world and human rights representatives of international organisations have repeatedly appealed to the all governments to release prisoners as far as possible.

  • The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged governments and relevant authorities to work quickly to reduce the number of people in detention.
  • 32 Turkish bar associations demanded on 19 March 2020 that the Turkish government takes appropriate measures to protect the lives of the detainees from the spreading C-19 epidemic and to release them. The bar associations explicitly mentioned lawyers who have been imprisoned for political reasons.
  • Last week, more than 70 lawyers from all over the world followed the call of the International Association of Democratic Lawyer (IADL), of the two European Lawyers Associations ELDH, AED-EDL, and of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (England) for a video conference in solidarity with lawyers imprisoned for political reasons in Turkey, with interventions from Ayşe Bingöl of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Barbara Spinelli of Giuristi Democratici, and Şerife Ceren Uysal, of the Progressive Lawyers Alliance (ÇHD). The lawyers unanimously called for the immediate release of the lawyers detained in Turkey.

The Turkish Government should bear in mind:

  • Although the official number of victims of C-19 in Turkey is still relatively low, Turkey is the country with the fastest increase in the number of victims.
  • The lives of the imprisoned lawyers, including 8 lawyers of the ÇHD and 3 lawyers of the ÖHD, are acutely endangered by the spreading C-19 Pandemic and the prison conditions in Turkey.
  • Because of Ebru Timtik’s hunger strike against unjustified conviction, which has already lasted 90 days for (over 60 days for 3 of them) , her organism is weakened and the risk of death in case of infection is significantly increased. This also applies to the other 2 lawyers who have announced to start the fasting to death on April 5, 2020
  • Many observers of the trials against ÇHD and ÖHD lawyers came to the conclusion that the accusations lack any factual basis and were based on incorrect assessment of the evidence. They expressed severe doubts concerning compliance with the fair trial standards of the ECHR and the independence of the tribunals.
  • Even the competent Turkish court, initially had no reservations about releasing the defendants from custody during the ongoing proceedings. They were released. Only after a questionable exchange of judges was detention ordered again. There is therefore no justification for endangering the lives of the lawyers by the increased risk to them in detention.
  • The lawyers concerned have not yet been finally convicted. They have all appealed against their conviction. As long as the proceedings continue, they must not be treated as if their guilt had been finally adjudicated.

Under these circumstances, the immediate release of the detained lawyers is the imperative for the government if it is not to be responsible for serious damage to the health or even death of the detainees.

 

———-

European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH),Thomas Schmidt (lawyer), Secretary General , Platanenstrasse 13, 40233 – Düsseldorf, Germany
PHONE +49 – 211 – 444 001, MOBILEPHONE +49 – 172 – 6810888, Email thomas.schmidt@eldh.eu, Web www.eldh.eu
Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation , Hans Gaasbeek, International coordinator Nieuwe Gracht 5a, NL 2011 NB Haarlem, Netherlands, Telephone: +31 (023) 531 86 57,,Email: hgaasbeek@gaasbeekengaasbeek.nl, Web: http://dayoftheendangeredlawyer.eu/
European democratic lawyers federation (AED-EDL), Robert Sabata Gripekoven,
Col·legiat 20381 ICAB C/ Provença, 332, 3er, 08037 – Barcelona
tel / fax (+34) 93 457 83 58, mòbil (+34) 619 30 43 77, http://www.aeud.org/ , robertsabata@icab.cat
Posted on

Imprisoned Lawyers in Turkey: how can we show solidarity?

 

How to show solidarity with the situation of lawyers in Turkey? Most of the initiatives of the next months have been cancelled or postponed, to explore the possibilities of continuing our political work you are invited to participate in a zoom conference on Thursday 2nd of April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

NO PROSECUTION FOR THE EL HIBLU 3

(La versión en español más abajo)

 

As European Democratic Lawyers we are deeply concerned about the proceedings against two minors and a nineteen-year old, who have been under investigation by Maltese authorities for almost a year.

 

The context

In the night from 25th to 26th of March 2019, a rubber boat left Libya with approximately 114 people on board, including 20 women and at least 15 children. The boat was rescued by the oil tanker El Hiblu 1. A few hours later, the rescuees realized they were being returned to Libya.

As described by testimonies, scenes of despair and panic started, with many shouting that they would rather die at sea than be returned to Libya. According to the information gathered by Amnesty International, at no point during the journey did the rescues engage in any violent action against the captain, the chief officer or any other member of the crew. While the precise circumstances of the events on the El Hiblu 1 will be established at a later stage, nevertheless the responsible crewmembers of El Hiblu 1 decided to direct the vessel towards Malta. Maltese military escorted the ship to Malta where the passengers disembarked.

Three of the 108 rescued passengers – two minors (15 and 16 year old at the time) as well as a nineteen year old teenager were immediately arrested and imprisoned for eight months. They were released on bail in the end of November, 2019 and are known as the El Hiblu 3.

Maltese authorities charged the three teenagers with a series of grave offences, including acts of terrorism as well as for allegedly hijacking the ship and forcing it to go to Malta. Some of these crimes are punishable with life imprisonment. A inquiry is ongoing in Malta to gather evidence, which will be submitted to the court once the Attorney General issues a formal indictment against the youth.

 

The association AED is concerned that Maltese authorities are not appropriately taking into account European and International law, including the fundamental rights of refugees and migrants in distress at sea and the human rights of vulnerable groups like minors.

 

As lawyers we would like to underline the regulations to be followed:

 

Sea rescue to a place of safety (POS) is a fundamental right

  1. The Law of the Sea and international customary law contain the obligation to rescue at sea and determine how this is to be carried out in detail
  2. According to the Hamburg Convention, followed by others, a place of safety[1] is the place where rescue operations are considered to terminate because the survivors’ life is no longer under threat and their basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met, a place of safety in no way jeopardises their fundamental rights, since the notion of ‘safety’ extends beyond mere protection from physical danger and takes into account the fundamental rights of the place of disembarkation. The need to avoid disembarkation in territories where the lives and freedoms of those alleging a well-founded fear of persecution would be threatened has to be taken in consideration as a legal principle of international and European law.

 

  1. International agreement, which includes the EU, state Libya, very clearly, is not a place of safety for the disembarkation of refugees and migrants rescued at sea. UN and European human rights reports document systematic human rights violations against migrants in Libya, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, torture and inhuman detention conditions, alarming rates of malnutrition, sexual and gender-based violence including gang rape, slavery, forced labour and extortion.[2]

 

  1. In addition, EU Member States have to respect their obligations under international refugee law (non-refoulement principle of the 1951 Refugee Convention) and human rights law: the protection against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment as an absolute right and the right to life based on the European Convention on Human Rights/ ECHR. According to ECHR settled case law, the security of the place of safety refers principally to the physical security of the individuals involved but also, to the effective possibility to request asylum. These obligations exist wherever states exercise jurisdiction in the meaning of effective and exclusive control, including places outside their territory e.g. on the high seas.[3] In the light of these clear responsibilities resulting from the ECHR, likewise the principle of non-refoulement of the Refugee Convention has to be interpreted in the same manner: the principle of non-refoulement binds states in each moment of effective and exclusive control.

 

  1. Taking the above into consideration, any instruction of a State to disembark rescued people in Libya is an unlawful order and a violation of several international and European laws. On the one side non-state vessels and their shipmasters have the duty and obligation to obey lawful orders on the other side they have the legal obligation to the national constitutions and domestic laws not to become partner in crime and not to obey unlawful instructions violating international and human rights law. Confronted with these conflicting obligations they are independent not to obey unlawful orders and the people who issue them. Since the Nuremberg trials following World War II, it is clear that individuals must not obey orders of state representatives if these orders violate international and human rights law: “The justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”[4]

 

  1. Considering the above mentioned legal situation the refugees on board of the El Hiblu 1 acted to defend their right to life and their absolute right of not being subjected to torture, rape, slavery and other cruel and inhuman treatment, as forbidden in international and human rights treatis. In a similar case the Tribunal of Trapani acknowledged the proportionality of the defendants’ acts, since the right to life and not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatments cannot be limited by the right of the crew. In the eyes of the judge, if such defensive actions had not been taken, the migrants would have been surely brought back to Libya; the naturally necessity of those actions has to be acknowledged since the defendants did not have the possibility to escape the vessel and its destination.[5] Especially important in the El Hiblu Case is the young age of the minors who tried to save their and the life of all other people on board having in mind what would happen to them when they returned to the “hell of Libya”. There are strong indications that their acting on board was justified under the legal institute of self-defence.

 

AED calls on Maltese authorities

  • to fully implement all obligations stemming from international, European, human rights and refugee-law as well as the obligation regarding the UN Convention on the rights of the child;
  • to respect the right of justified self-defence against unlawful acts subjecting people to torture, rape, slavery and other cruel and inhuman treatment forbidden in international and human rights law;
  • to ensure that fair trial guarantees are fully upheld;
  • to ensure, that the defendants have adequate access to all their rights without any kind of restriction;
  • to recognize that the defendants are vulnerable minors with special needs to be met and to implement all obligations resulting from the UN Convention on the rights of the child in this regard;
  • to stop any kind of cooperation with Libya on migration, ensuring the respect of the rights of refugees and migrants in the country.

 

  • We therefore strongly recommend the establishment on an independent trial observation regarding the criminal proceedings against the “El Hiblu 3”. We call on democratic society to observe the trial and the future of these youngsters.

 

27/03/2020

Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Berlin, Brussels, Athens

[1]               1979 Hamburg Convention, which provides that the State that conducts a rescue operation – even if not in the SAR zone of its competence – is responsible for the landfall and the disembarkation of the individuals in a safe harbour (the so called place of safety, POS); two supplementary protocols to the SOLAS Convention (Ris. MSC. 153 (78), 20 May 2004) and the SAR Convention (Ris. MSC. 155 (78), 20 May 2004), which entered into force on 1 July 2006 and the Guidelines in the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea, IMO Resolution MSC.167(78), 10. Mai 2004, IMO Doc. MSC 78/26/Add.2, Annex 34; (IMO, Facilitation Committee, Principles Relating to Administrative Procedures for Disembarking Persons Rescued at Sea, IMO Doc. FAL.3/Circ.194, 22. January 2009; Council of Europe, Res. 1821(2011) on the Interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers,refugees and irregular migrants, 21th of June 2011)

[2]               https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24569&LangID=E

[3]               ECtHR (GC), Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy, Ap.No.27765/09, 23.02.2012, para 73, 76 et seqq

[4]               United States v. Keenan, Court of Military Appeals, 39 C.M.R. 108, 110 (1969)

[5]               Date of Decision: 23-05-2019, Tribunal of Trapani/ Italy, https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/decision-tribunal-trapani-preliminary-judge-23-may-2019

 

ALTO AL PROCESAMIENTO DE LOS TRES DE EL HIBLU-1

 

Como abogados y abogadas europeos/as demócratas deseamos mostrar nuestra preocupación por las diligencias de investigación abiertas por las autoridades de la Republica de Malta (país integrante de la UE) contra dos menores y un joven de 19 años desde hace casi un año.

 

El contexto

 

En la noche del 25 al 26 de marzo de 2019, una patera, embarcación de goma, que había partido de Libia con aproximadamente 114 personas, incluyendo 20 mujeres y al menos 15 menores fue rescatada por el buque de aprovisionamiento de combustible El Hiblu 1. Varias horas mas tarde los rescatados de la patera comprobaron que les llevaban a Libia. Por los testimonios descritos, se produjeron escenas de desesperación y pánico con protestas en los que se gritaba que preferían morir en el mar que retornar a Libia. Según información recabada por Amnistía Internacional, en ningún momento durante el trayecto hubo acciones violentas contra el capitán, el primer oficial, o ningún otro miembro de la tripulación. Con independencia de que las concretas circunstancias producidas a bordo de El Hiblu 1 sean declaradas probadas mas adelante, lo cierto es que los responsables de la tripulación decidieron llevar su embarcación hacia Malta, al tiempo que militares malteses acompañaron al buque a la costa de Malta donde los pasajeros desembarcaron.

 

Tres de los 108 pasajeros, dos menores de 15 y 16 años (edad a marzo de 2019) así como un joven de 19 años fueron inmediatamente detenidos y enviados a prisión donde permanecieron durante ocho meses, momento en el que fueron puestos en libertad bajo fianza a finales de noviembre de 2019 y a los que se les conoce como los “Los tres de El Hiblu 1″. Las autoridades de Malta acusan a los tres jóvenes de una serie de delitos graves, incluidos supuestos delitos de terrorismo y de secuestro del barco, obligándolo a dirigirse a Malta. Algunos de estos delitos llevan aparejadas condenas de prisión perpetua. La investigación esta llevándose a cabo y llegará al Juzgado una vez el Fiscal General formalice el escrito de acusación contra los tres jóvenes.

 

AED muestra su preocupación puesto que las autoridades de Malta no están teniendo en cuenta, de manera adecuada, la normativa europea e internacional, incluyendo el derecho fundamental de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en situación de peligro en el mar y los derechos humanos de grupos vulnerables como los/as niños/as integrantes de la embarcación.

 

Como letrados y letradas quisiéramos apuntar la distinta normativa que tendrá que tenerse en cuenta puesto que el rescate a un puerto seguro es un derecho fundamental:

 

1.-El Derecho del Mar y la costumbre internacional contiene la obligación de salvamento marítimo y determina en detalle como se debe realizar.

 

2.- Según las Reglas de Hamburgo y demás normativa, un lugar seguro [Place of Safety- POS- en su acepción en inglés][1] es un lugar donde las operaciones de rescate pueden darse por finalizadas puesto que la vida de los supervivientes no corre ya peligro y sus necesidades humanas básicas, tales como la alimentación, cobijo y necesidades sanitarias son garantizadas, es decir un lugar seguro no puede poner en peligro sus derechos fundamentales, puesto que la seguridad (safety en su acepción en inglés) abarca mas allá que la mera protección del peligro físico y tiene en consideración los derechos fundamentales del lugar del desembarco.

 

La necesidad de evitar el desembarco de aquellas personas, que aleguen un motivo fundado de temor a ser perseguidas, en territorios donde sus vidas y libertades puedan suponer una amenaza deber ser tenido en cuenta como principio legal del Derecho europeo y el Derecho internacional.

 

3.- Acuerdo internacional, que incluye a la UE, expone que Libia no es en absoluto un lugar seguro para el desembarco de personas refugiadas y migrantes rescatadas en el mar. Los informes europeos y de NNUU sobre los derechos humanos informan de una sistemática violación de los derechos humanos contra migrantes en Libia, e incluye ejecuciones extrajudiciales, detenciones arbitrarias, torturas y condiciones de detención inhumanas, cifras alarmantes de malnutrido, violencia sexual y por razones de genero que incluyen violaciones en grupo, esclavitud, extorsiones y trabajos forzados.[2]

 

4.-Ademas, los países miembros de la UE deben respetar sus obligaciones bajo el Derecho internacional sobre personas refugiadas-Protección internacional (principio de no devolución de la Convención de Ginebra sobre refugiados de 1951) y el resto de normativa de Derechos Humanos: la protección contra la tortura y todo trato inhumano y degradante es un derecho incondicional así como la protección del derecho a la vida estan recogidos en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH). Según jurisprudencia consolidada del TEDH, la seguridad del “lugar seguro” hace referencia principalmente a la seguridad física de las personas que acceden a ese lugar seguro, pero también a la posibilidad de solicitar y tener acceso a un proceso de protección internacional (derecho de asilo). Estas obligaciones existen en todo lugar donde un estado ejerce su jurisdicción con control efectivo y exclusivo, incluyendo lugares fuera de su territorio como en alta mar[3]. A la luz de esta clara responsabilidad en base al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH), de igual forma el principio de no devolución de la Convención de Ginebra de 1951 debe ser interpretado de forma análoga, dicho principio compele al estado a cada momento del control efectivo y exclusivo.

 

5.- Teniendo en cuenta lo anteriormente expuesto, cualquier orden de un Estado para desembarcar a personas en Libia es un acto ilegal y supone una violación de varias normas de Derecho europeo e internacional. Por un lado, las embarcaciones que no tengan pabellón de ningun estado y los capitanes de los mismos tienen el deber y la obligación de obedecer ordenes legales, y por otro tienen la obligación legal en base a las constituciones nacionales y normas internas de no ser participe de un delito y de no obedecer instrucciones ilegales que violen las normas internacionales y de derechos humanos. Cuando se vean ante estas obligaciones en conflicto, son independientes para no obedecer ordenes ilegales y a aquellos que las dictan. Desde los juicios de Nuremberg tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, es claro que los individuos no deben obedecer a los representantes de sus estados si dichas ordenes violan normativa internacional y de derechos humanos. “La justificación de la obediencia debida no aplicaría si las ordenes ejecutadas fueran de tal naturaleza que una persona con sentido y entendimiento común medio las considerara ilegales“[4]

 

6.- Considerando la situación legal anteriormente mencionada, las personas refugiadas a bordo de El Hiblu 1 actuaron para defender su derecho a la vida y su derecho incondicional a no ser sometido a tortura, violación, esclavitud y otros tratos crueles e inhumanos, prohibidos por tratados internacionales y de derechos humanos. En un caso similar, el Tribunal de Trapani reconoció la proporcionalidad de los actos de la parte denunciada, puesto que el derecho a la vida y a no ser sometido a tratos degradantes o inhumanos no puede ser limitado por parte de la tripulación de la embarcación. A ojos del juzgador, si tales acciones defensivas no hubieran sido tomadas, las personas migrantes habrían sido seguramente llevadas a Libia, la necesidad natural de tales acciones debe ser reconocida puesto que la parte denunciada no tenia posibilidad de escapar del buque y del lugar de destino al que les llevaban.[5] Especialmente importante en el caso de El Hiblu 1 es la corta edad de los jóvenes que trataron de salvar su vida y la del resto de sus acompañantes, teniendo en cuenta lo que les iba a ocurrir si volvían al “infierno de Libia”. Hay indicios consistentes de que sus acciones a bordo fueron justificadas bajo la institución de la legitima defensa.

 

AED hace un llamamiento a las autoridades de Malta:

 

  • a cumplir plenamente con sus obligaciones emanadas de la normativa europea, internacional, de derechos humanos y de protección internacional/refugio así como las obligaciones de la Convención sobre los derechos del niño de NNUU.
  • a respetar el derecho a la legitima defensa contra actos ilegales que someten a las personas a tortura, violación, esclavitud y otros tratos crueles e inhumanos prohibidos en la normativa internacional y de derechos humanos.
  • a asegurar que se celebre un juicio con todas las garantías.
  • a asegurar que la parte denunciada tienen un acceso adecuado a todos sus derechos sin ningun tipo de restricción.
  • a reconocer que la parte denunciada son menores vulnerables con unas necesidades especiales que deben ser garantizadas e implementar todas las obligaciones inherentes a la Convención sobre Derechos del niño de NNUU.
  • a parar cualquier cooperación con Libia sobre migración, asegurando el respeto a los derechos de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en su territorio.

 

Por todo lo expuesto recomendamos encarecidamente la creación de un observatorio independiente del proceso judicial de los “Tres de El Hiblu-1″. Hacemos un llamamiento a la sociedad democrática para monitorizar el juicio y el futuro de esos tres jóvenes.

 

 

Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Berlin, Brussels, Athens, marzo de 2020.

 

[1] 1979 La Convención de Hamburgo que estipula que el Estado que lleva a cabo una operación de salvamento marítimo-incluso en la zona de búsqueda y rescate que no sea de su competencia-es responsable de alcanzar tierra y desembarcar a los náufragos en un puerto seguro (el así llamado lugar seguro, POS en su acepción en inglés); dos protocolos suplementarios a la Convención SOLAS (Ris. MSC. 153 (78), 20 May 2004) y la Convención SAR (Ris. MSC. 155 (78), 20 Mayo 2004), que entró en vigor el 1 de julio de 2006 y las Directrices respecto de la actuación ​con las personas rescatadas en el mar, IMO-OMI Resolución MSC.167(78), 10. Mayo 2004, IMO-OMI Doc. MSC 78/26/Add.2, Annex 34; (IMO-OMI, Facilitation Committee, Principios relacionados con los procedimientos administrativos para el desembarco de las personas rescatadas en el mar, IMO-OMI Doc. FAL.3/Circ.194, 22. Enero 2009; Consejo de Europa , Res. 1821(2011) sobre Interceptación y salvamento marítimo de solicitantes de asilo, personas refugiadas y migrantes irregulares, 21 de Junio 2011)

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24569&LangID=E

[3] TEDH (GC), Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy, Ap.No.27765/09, 23.02.2012, para 73, 76 et seqq

[4] United States v. Keenan, Court of Military Appeals, 39 C.M.R. 108, 110 (1969)

[5] Fecha de sentencia: 23-05-2019, Tribunal de Trapani/ Italia,

https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/decision-tribunal-trapani-preliminary-judge-23-may-2019