Comparison of the legal aid systems in Europe: which standards for an effective legal aid?

Date 29th september 2023
Time : 15h-18h
Place : La Fleur en Papier Doré, Rue des Alexiens, 53-55 à 1000 Bruxelles
Price: free

Legal aid, as the provision of assistance to people who are unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system, is regarded as central in providing access to justice. Legal aid ensures equality before the law, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial.

Legal aid is essential to guaranteeing equal access to justice for all, but the practical application of this guarantee differs from country to country. The speakers of the colloque are working lawyers in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece and Turkey, confronted in their professional experience with legal aid, and will explain its functioning in the law and in the everyday praxis.

Through the presentation and analysis of these different national systems of legal aid, this initiative aims at exchanging strengths and weaknesses of the models and thus at elaborating minimal standards for legal aid. Legal aid, which can effectively provide assistance for those in need.

15h00 : Introduction, by Hélène DEBATY
15h15: Legal aid system in the Netherlands. Speaker: Sturla SPANS
15h30: Legal aid system in Spain. Speakers: Gorka VELLE BERGADO and Blanca DOMINGUEZ PARRA
15h45: Legal aid system in Belgium. Speaker Aurore LEBEAU
16h00: Legal aid system in France. Speaker Bénédicte MAST
16h 15-16h30: Break
16h 30: Legal aid system in Germany: Julius BECKER
16h45 : Legal aid system in Greece: Giota MASSOURIDOU
17h00 : Legal aid system in Turkey: Gulsah KURT
17h 15: Questions
17 h 30: Conclusions, by Hélène DEBATY

Defend human rights and the rule of law at Europe’s borders!


Push-backs, violence and inhumane treatment in violation of international law have become a permanent reality at Europe’s borders. They put people seeking protection in danger of their lives, as the deaths at the Polish-Belarusian border have also shown. Refugees are dehumanized by being called a “political weapon” or “a form of hybrid threat” by leading politicians.


We, the undersigned organizations, have been supporting people affected by this border violence for years. We note that the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are systematically violated at Europe’s borders. EU member states disregard the principle of non-refoulement, a unique humanitarian and legal achievement that guarantees basic individual rights to those seeking protection.


This is not only an attack on the right to asylum and human rights. If lawless zones are accepted, if the rule of law is undermined, then this development also threatens democracy in Europe.


On October 6, a journalistic research collective published further evidence of violent push-backs at the EU’s external borders in Greece and Croatia. Videos and photos show the brutality of special police units.


Push-backs and the violence against those seeking protection are an expression of a policy of deterrence instead of protection – at all costs. The EU and its member states are involved in this form
of illegal border protection financially, logistically and often by deploying forces under the mandate of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex.

The German government supports the Croatian border police with technical and logistical equipment, Poland has been offered similar support. German forces are part of the Frontex operation in Greece.

Berlin: For a fresh start in European refugee policy!

The three coalition parties, which negotiate in working groups since October 27, have made it clear in their exploratory paper: “We are committed to the humanitarian responsibility arising from the German constitution, the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. From this, we derive the task of making efforts with our European partners to end the deaths on the Mediterranean as well as the suffering at Europe’s external borders.”


We welcome this declaration of intent. To translate it into political action, it needs to be specified in the coalition agreement. Only the consistent enforcement of international law at Europe’s borders, safe and regular pathways, a European sea rescue system and the solidary reception of protection seekers
within the EU can end the suffering and death at Europe’s borders

We demand from the future federal government:


●Defend the right to asylum in Europe: access to the asylum procedure, access to the legal system and humane accommodation. No to a Europe of detention, refugee camps and border procedures!


●Defend human dignity, the rule of law and human rights – the very values on which the European Union (EU- Treaty Article 2) is based.


●The initiation of infringement procedures against Poland, Croatia and Greece by the European Commission. We also call on the EU to include human rights violations by Member States in the field of asylum and migration when initiating rule of law procedures in case of serious violations of the values mentioned in Article 2 EU-Treaty.


●The establishment of an independent, transparent and effective human rights monitoring mechanism that allows for unannounced visits to borders and the prosecution of perpetrators. Human rights monitors must have a mandate to secure evidence. The aim must be that this well-funded and well-staffed institution prevents human rights violations in the future.


●The end of any support for the border regime in Poland, Croatia, Greece and other states that violate international law at their borders.


●Firm reactions to human rights violations in Frontex operations: Suspension of funding and deployment of EU border guards in countries that violate international human rights
standards.


●A civilian EU sea rescue program to prevent deaths in the Mediterranean. Boat refugees must be granted humane reception and access to a fair asylum procedure after landing in a safe
European port. Safe and regular pathways to Europe must be created.


●The cooperation with the “Libyan Coast Guard” and the associated ongoing breach of international law in the Mediterranean must be stopped immediately.

Signatories:

European Democratic Lawyers (AED-EDL)

European Center for Constitutional Rights (ECCHR)

Center for Peace Studies

Pro Asyl

Refugee Support Aegean

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

the protection of European borders prevails over the right to asylum

The European Court of Human Right (ECHR) just took a decision in favour of the Spanish authorities, by endorsing the practice known as “push-back” of people trying to reach the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Although another body of the Court had already condemned Spain in 2017 for this illegal practice[1], its Grand Chamber decided this time that Spain had not violated the rights of the exiles who had already crossed its border by sending them back to Morocco quickly and widely. With this highly serious decision, the ECHR legitimizes the generalization of the principle of non-refoulement. Furthermore, it endorses the impossibility of applying for asylum in case of illegal border crossing and welcomes the good collaboration with Morocco in the repression of exiles.

Migrants face refoulement practices all along their way at the EU’s external borders which are increasingly extending to the South, and to the East. They also face it when they try to cross the Sahara[2], the Balkan countries[3] or when they attempt to flee the Libyan hell[4]. This reality (which can lead to death in the most dramatic cases) also affects the European territory, as illustrated by the recurrent deportations of migrants at the French borders with Italy and Spain[5]. The refoulement practices are multiplying and have become an increasingly standardised form of management of the illegalised mobility that it’s necessary to stop by any means.

For at least two decades they have suffered from the violence of the Spanish border guards while trying to enter in the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. The Spanish militaries are not to be outdone: numerous NGOs reports show that Morocco regularly conducts violent repressions and roundups to keep exiles away from the border[6].

Despite this old and well-documented reality, the ECHR in its judgement of 13 February concludes that Spain has not committed any violation, finding “(…) that the applicants [had] placed themselves in an unlawful situation” by attempting to cross the Melilla border at an unauthorised location. It adds that “They thus chose not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully (…)”. Misleading argument considering only exiles who entered through an accredited border post could be protected from refoulement or that they could apply for asylum at the consulate without hindrance. However, numerous human rights organisations – whose reports were deliberately disregarded by the Court – have established that black people are especially tracked by the Moroccan security forces who prevent them from reaching the border posts of the enclaves. Access to the asylum office in Ceuta and Melilla (established in 2015) is thus impossible for them. They have no other choice but to climb over fences and their sharp blades, or set sail, risking their lives[7].

The ECHR, by reversing Spain’s conviction, gives a strong signal to the European States for the generalization of these violent practices of refoulement and to the legitimation of the externalisation of asylum. Indeed, by figuring that a Member State can restrict the right to seek protection on its territory in some places or some circumstances, the Court endorses practices contrary to international law and that the EU has been trying to promote for a long time: preventing the arrival of those who are looking for protection, either by erecting physical or legal barriers, or by subcontracting its obligations to countries notoriously hostile to migrants.

The signatory associations strongly condemn the Court decision. We refuse to allow the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of the right to asylum, to be questioned in the name of the externalisation policy and of the borders protection of the EU and its Member States. We support migrants in the exercise of their freedom of movement, and we fight against the violence and racism that they suffer along their illegalized trajectories.

Signataries :

  • Association Européenne pour la défense des Droits de l’Homme – AEDH (Europe)
  • European Democrates Lawyers (Europe)
  • Borderline Europe (Allemagne)
  • Euromed Rights (réseau Euro-Mediterranéen)
  • Group of lawyers for the Rights of Migrants and Refugees (Grèce)
  • Lawyers for Freedom – OHD (Turquie)
  • Migreurop (réseau Euro-Africain)
  • Progressive Lawyers association – CHD (Turquie)
  • Republican Lawyers Association – RAV (Allemagne)

 


 

[1] ECHR, October 3, 2017, N.D. et N.T. c. Spain, req. n° 8675/15 et 8697/15

[2] Amnesty International report, « Forced to leave – stories of injustice against migrants in Algeria », 2017 ; Alarmphone Sahara, « Octobre 2019 à Janvier 2020: Continuation des convois d’expulsions de l’Algérie au Niger », January 2020

[3] Le Monde « La Bosnie, cul-de-sac pour les migrants », December 30,2019 ; See also the website of « Welcome» which informs on violence in the Balkan countries. https://welcome.cms.hr/index.php/en/

[4] Brief n°7 « Libya: where thugs are funded by Europe to mistreat migrants », May 2018 ; Forensic Oceanography, “Mare Clausum”, May 2018

[5] ANAFE, Persona non grata –Conséquences des politiques sécuritaires et migratoires à la frontières franco-italienne, Observation report 2017-2018

[6] See for instance: Migreurop, « War on migrants – The black book of Ceuta and Melilla » 2006, Human Rights Watch « Abused and Expelled Ill-Treatment of Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Morocco », 2014 ; Caminando Fronteras « Tras la frontera », 2017 ; GADEM « Coûts et blessures – Rapport sur les opérations des forces de l’ordre menées dans le nord du Maroc entre juillet et septembre 2018 », 2019

[7] See for instance : collective report « Ceuta et Melilla : centres de tri à ciel ouvert aux portes de l’Afrique ? », December 2015 ; Third party intervention by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights – Applications No. 8675/15 and No. 8697/15N.D. v. Spain and N.T. v. Spain: https://rm.coe.int/third-party-intervention-n-d-and-n-t-v-spain-by-nils-muiznieks-council/1680796bfc ; Third party intervention by Aire Centre, Amnesty International, ECRE and the International Commission of Jurists: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR4191102018ENGLISH.PDF

Police Complaint Mechanism

POLICE COMPLAINT MECHANISM

In cases of violence committed by police officers against citizens, the police itself usually investigates crimes allegedly committed by their colleagues. Often camaraderie reigns and police officers protect each other. As a result, most of the cases are dismissed. In addition, in the very few cases that go to court, judges hold police officers as highly credible and they often end with an acquittal. If a complaint against a police officer is filed, the response is often that the police files a counter-complaint against the victim of police violence for resistance or other offences.

Moreover, the broad majority of cases remain unreported. The estimated number of unreported cases is as high as five times the reported cases.

To build trust in the rule of law, to end impunity and to prosecute cases of police violence properly, experts have suggested that the establishment of an independent mechanism, which is not part of the police but well equipped with sufficient powers and resources, is an adequate response.

Policy paper on an independent complain mechanism

***

MÉCANISME INDÉPENDANT DE PLAINTES CONTRE LA POLICE

Dans les cas de violences commises par des policiers contre des personnes, c’est généralement la police elle-même qui enquête sur les crimes qui auraient été commis par leurs collègues. Souvent, la camaraderie règne et les policiers se protègent mutuellement. En conséquence, la plupart des affaires sont rejetées. De plus, dans les très rares cas qui sont portés devant les tribunaux, les juges considèrent que les agents sont très crédibles et les procès se terminent souvent par un acquittement. Si une plainte est déposée contre un policier, la réponse est souvent que la police dépose une contre-plainte contre la victime de violence policière pour résistance ou autre infraction.

En outre, la grande majorité des cas ne sont toujours pas signalés. Le nombre estimé de cas non signalés est jusqu’à cinq fois plus élevé que le nombre de cas signalés.

Pour instaurer la confiance dans l’état de droit, mettre fin à l’impunité et poursuivre correctement les auteurs de violences policières, les experts ont estimé que la mise en place d’un mécanisme indépendant, qui ne fait pas partie de la police mais dispose de pouvoirs et de ressources suffisants, était une réponse adéquate.

téléchargez le document

***

MECANISMO INDEPENDIENTE DE DENUNCIA DE LA POLICÍA

En casos de violencia cometida por agentes de policía contra personas, es por lo general la propia policía la que investiga los delitos presuntamente cometidos por sus colegas. A menudo reina la camaradería y los agentes de policía se protegen unos a otros. Como resultado, la mayoría de las demandas son desestimados. Además, en los pocos casos que llegan a los tribunales, los jueces consideran a los agentes de policía altamente creíbles y los juicios suelen terminar en absolución. Si se presenta una denuncia contra un agente de policía, la respuesta suele ser que la policía presenta una contrademanda contra la víctima de la violencia policial por resistencia u otros delitos.

Además, la gran mayoría de los casos no se denuncian. El número estimado de casos no denunciados es hasta cinco veces mayor que el de los casos denunciados.

Para fomentar la confianza en el estado de derecho, poner fin a la impunidad y enjuiciar debidamente los casos de violencia policial, los expertos han sugerido que el establecimiento de un mecanismo independiente, que no forme parte de la policía pero esté bien dotado de poderes y recursos suficientes, es una respuesta adecuada.

Descargar/Leer documento

 

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.

 

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

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

Here are the interventions in their original language:

AVOCATS/MAGISTRATS DUO/DUEL

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS COMMUNES :

 

I. L’indépendance de la justice

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

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

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

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

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

II. Magistrats / Avocats

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

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

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

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

III. Autorégulation et responsabilité

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Communication et rapport à l’Opinion Publique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruxelles, 26 mai 2018.