DOCSLIB.ORG

Eastern Partnership Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Eastern Partnership Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries Efficient Judicial Systems Report 2014 Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law Strasbourg, December 2014 1 The Efficient Judicial Systems 2014 report has been prepared by: Mr Adiz Hodzic, Member of the Working Group on Evaluation of Judicial systems of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Mr Frans van der Doelen, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Security and Justice, The Netherlands, Member of the Working Group on Evaluation of Judicial systems of the CEPEJ Mr Georg Stawa, Head of the Department for Projects, Strategy and Innovation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Austria, Chair of the CEPEJ 2 Table of content Conclusions and recommendations 3 Part I: Comparing Judicial Systems: Performance, Budget and Management Chapter 1: Introduction 11 Chapter 2: Disposition time and quality 17 Chapter 3: Public budget 26 Chapter 4: Management 35 Chapter 5: Efficiency: comparing resources, workload and performance (28 indicators) 44 Armenia 46 Azerbaijan 49 Georgia 51 Republic of Moldova 55 Ukraine 58 Chapter 6: Effectiveness: scoring on international indexes on the rule of law 64 Part II: Comparing Courts: Caseflow, Productivity and Efficiency 68 Armenia 74 Azerbaijan 90 Georgia 119 Republic of Moldova 139 Ukraine 158 Part III: Policy Making Capacities 178 Annexes 185 3 Conclusions and recommendations 1. Introduction This report focuses on efficiency of courts and the judicial systems of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, commonly referred the Easter Partnership Countries (EPCs) after the Eastern Partnership Programme of the European Union. The aim of the report is to give a comprehensive analysis of the judicial systems and review more systematically the input, workload and performances of both the national judicial system and the courts and the way this is managed in EPC. The report is a follow up and update of an earlier report published in English and Russian in March 2013 at the website of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).1 This report, besides presenting recent figures, contains three new elements added to this update: Indicating the effect of measures; Exploring quality indicators and rule of law indexes; Rating courts based on the use of resources and performance. The report consists of three parts. Part I analyses the budgets, management and overall performance of the judicial system of the EPCs. The analysis at large is based on the data of the report 2014 (data 2012) of the CEPEJ concerning European Judicial Systems. Part II contains an elaborate comparative analysis of the budgets and performance of courts within each of the EPCs. This analysis is based on court data that the countries provided at request to the Working Group on Efficient Judicial Systems.2 Part III concerns a revisit of the normative framework on the institutional and policy making capacities that allow the EPCs to make strategic choices concerning the functioning of the judiciary. This framework was applied in a seminar that was organised for the EPC representatives in Strasbourg, in November 2014. 2. Part I: Comparing judicial systems: performance, budget and management Part I of the report is an extract from European Judicial Systems 2014 (data 2012) report focussing on budgets, management and backlogs of the judicial systems in the EPCs. In order to compare the situation in the EPCs with European trends – the report uses as a reference European minimums, maximums and averages/medians. The relative wealth and size of the EPCs of course are taken into account. The scores on the EPCs on international indexes on the rule of law are explored in order to better understand the indications on the effectiveness of the judicial systems. The following conclusions and recommendations have been drawn up: Performance: disposition time and quality In general the disposition time of civil cases are the shortest of all court sectors in EPC. Developments since 2010 show a mixed picture. Disposition time of litigious commercial cases is getting longer in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, and getting shorter in Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. Keeping in mind this mixed picture (in some case types disposition time increased, in others it decreased), a closer monitoring and evaluation of the civil sectors of courts is needed (see Part II of this report). Insolvency cases appear to last about six times longer than a general litigious case in EPCs and need a special attention. Disposition time of administrative cases is longer than of the civil ones in 2012: in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia it is about twice long. In almost all the EPCs (except Ukraine) the disposition time increased substantially since 2010. The limited functioning of the administrative sector of the judiciary seems to be a structural matter in all the EPCs. It is recommended to review the current laws and 1http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/cepej/cooperation/Eastern_partnership/FINAL%20efficient%20judicial%2 0systems%20EN%20March%202013.pdf 2 The working group has been crated within the framework of the joint project “Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries” funded by the European Union and implemented by the Council of Europe. 4 practices concerning the administrative judicial sector and redesign it if necessary (see also Part II of this report for more details at the national courts level). Disposition time of criminal cases is also increasing in almost all of the EPCs, except Ukraine, with 10-50%. The increase in more specific crime cases, like robbery and intentional homicide, is even more dramatic. The doubling of disposition time in almost all of the EPCs (except Azerbaijan for robbery) for these two case types, should be of great concern for all the EPCs, as these criminal cases have a big impact on public trust in general. The adaption and implementation of new criminal laws by the criminal sector of courts should be facilitated well and monitored intensively (see Part II of this report for more details at the national courts level). In order to achieve practical improvement of disposition time it is recommended to implement at the CEPEJ-Time Management Checklist (Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system)3. It is a tool available for internal use of courts whose purpose is to help justice systems to collect appropriate information and analyse relevant aspects of the duration of judicial proceedings, in order to reduce undue delays, ensure effectiveness of the proceedings and provide necessary transparency to the users of the justice systems. The report presents a preliminary and exploratory exercise on quality indicators of the EPCs based on the CEPEJ data of 2012. The results suggest that Georgia has gathered several good practices in this respect, for example concerning aspects like appeal ratios, disciplinary proceedings, sanctions and challenges against judge, the probation period for judges, the combination of functions of judges, user surveys and quality standards. Also Azerbaijan has valuable practices in stimulating the quality of the judiciary considering setting time limits for various complaint proceedings, the remuneration of judges at the beginning of the career, the relative high level of the budget for education and training and also survey users and quality standards. It is exchange of these practices within the EPCs is recommended. In order to improve the quality of the judiciary also the implementation of CEPEJ- Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys for court users is recommended. Budget Between 2010-2012 in all of the EPCs there an increase of the relative budget for courts, as it was also the case between 2008-2010. But the increase is still smaller than the European median, so the courts in almost all of the EPCs (except the Republic of Moldova) are underfunded. In order to meet the European benchmarks the budgets for the courts should be increased more in the near future. The (budgetary) balance between judiciary and public prosecution in the EPCs should be a point for consideration, as to some extent it is also reflected in the increasing disposition time in criminal cases since 2010. In some of the EPCs large-scale judicial reforms and rebalancing the role of judges took place within the legal system, specifically in relation to the traditionally powerful Soviet Prokuratura. In Armenia and Georgia the budgetary level of prosecution services is slightly less than the European benchmark. In Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova this level is slightly higher. In Ukraine the relative large budgets for public prosecuting remain to be high and even are increasing. In the European context of comparatively small number of court cases per capita. In this respect the development of legal aid in the EPCs is important for the issue of access to justice. While Georgia and the Republic of Moldova are achieving almost the level of the European benchmark, a system of legal aid is improving in Armenia and Georgia (data for Azerbaijan, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine are not available). Effort for improvement of legal aid should be intensified and continued in the next years. In 2012 the total public budget for judiciary, prosecution and legal aid in the Republic of Moldova is in line with the European benchmark, while Ukraine even exceeds it. Concerning Georgia and Azerbaijan there appears to be relative underfunding of the judicial system (data for Armenia is not 3 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1031259&Site=COE 5 available). Since 2010 budgets in the EPC increased more than the European median. Continuation of this policy - with special attention to budget for legal aid - may result in meeting European standards in the near future. Management Scaling up the size of and merging courts can, when properly managed, raise opportunities for improving the efficiency and quality of judicial services, as for example reforms in Georgia have demonstrated.
Recommended publications
  • Azerbaijan 2015 International Religious Freedom Report

    Azerbaijan 2015 International Religious Freedom Report

    AZERBAIJAN 2015 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT Executive Summary The constitution protects the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs. Several laws and policies limit the free exercise of religion, especially for members of religious groups the government considered “nontraditional.” Authorities restricted the fundamental freedoms of assembly and expression and narrowed the operating space for civil society, including religious groups. The government detained several religious activists. Although reliable figures were unavailable, some local observers estimated the number of religious activists they considered to be political prisoners totaled 46, compared to 52 in 2014. Authorities raided gatherings of minority religious groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Salafis, readers of texts by Islamic theologian Said Nursi, and suspected followers of the Islamic cleric and theologian Fethullah Gulen. Some religious organizations experienced difficulty registering with the government, and unregistered communities could not openly meet. The government imposed limits on the import, distribution, and sale of religious materials. The government sponsored workshops and seminars to promote religious tolerance, hosting the international Inter-Religious Dialogue on Religious Tolerance series, and supporting activities by the Jewish community. There were no reports of significant societal actions affecting religious freedom. U.S. embassy and visiting Department of State officials discussed religious freedom issues, including the government’s arrests of Jehovah’s Witnesses and treatment of minority religious groups, with government representatives. The embassy urged the government to address registration difficulties of religious groups and obstacles to the importation of religious literature and met with leaders of religious groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss specific concerns related to religious freedom.
  • Judicial System in Azerbaijan and Its Impact on the Right to a Fair Trial of Human Rights Defenders

    Judicial System in Azerbaijan and Its Impact on the Right to a Fair Trial of Human Rights Defenders

    The Functioning of the Judicial System in Azerbaijan and its Impact on the Right to a Fair Trial of Human Rights Defenders September 2016 Pre-publication copy This report is produced in the framework of the initiative “Increasing Accountability and Respect for Human Rights by Judicial Authorities” by the Netherlands Helsinki Committee and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. For more information please refer to: www.defendersORviolators.info The publication is available online as a PDF. ISBN: 978-83-62245-58-1 Warsaw, 2016 Editor: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 00-018 Warsaw, Zgoda 11, www.hfhr.org.pl Design: Julianna Mahorowska Table of Contents Executive summary p. 4 Introduction p. 6 I. European standards on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary p. 8 I.1. Independence of judiciary p. 8 I.2. Impartiality of the judiciary p. 9 II. Prosecution authorities in Azerbaijan p. 10 II.1. Organization of the public prosecution service p. 10 II. 2. Selection of candidates p. 11 II. 3. Training p. 12 II. 4. Nomination and appointment of prosecutors p. 13 II. 5. Accountability p. 14 II. 6. Dismissal p. 14 II. 7. Disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors p. 15 II. 8. Conclusions p. 17 III. Organization of the judiciary p. 18 III.1. Selection of candidates p. 19 III. 2. Training p. 20 III. 3. Nomination and appointment of judges p. 21 III. 4. Probation period p. 22 III. 5. Organization of the judiciary p. 22 Judicial legal council p. 22 Constitutional court and the Supreme Court p. 25 Immunity and dismissal of judges p.
  • Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility Republic of Azerbaijan: Road Network Development Investment Program Tranche I: Southern Road Corridor Improvement

    Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility Republic of Azerbaijan: Road Network Development Investment Program Tranche I: Southern Road Corridor Improvement

    Environmental Assessment Report Summary Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number: 39176 January 2007 Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility Republic of Azerbaijan: Road Network Development Investment Program Tranche I: Southern Road Corridor Improvement Prepared by the Road Transport Service Department for the Asian Development Bank. The summary environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. The views expressed herein are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s members, Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. 2 CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 2 January 2007) Currency Unit – Azerbaijan New Manat/s (AZM) AZM1.00 = $1.14 $1.00 = AZM0.87 ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank DRMU – District Road Maintenance Unit EA – executing agency EIA – environmental impact assessment EMP – environmental management plan ESS – Ecology and Safety Sector IEE – initial environmental examination MENR – Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources MFF – multitranche financing facility NOx – nitrogen oxides PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance ROW – right-of-way RRI – Rhein Ruhr International RTSD – Road Transport Service Department SEIA – summary environmental impact assessment SOx – sulphur oxides TERA – TERA International Group, Inc. UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WHO – World Health Organization WEIGHTS AND MEASURES C – centigrade m2 – square meter mm – millimeter vpd – vehicles per day CONTENTS MAP I. Introduction 1 II. Description of the Project 3 IIII. Description of the Environment 11 A. Physical Resources 11 B. Ecological and Biological Environment 13 C.
  • Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scientific institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the first time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N.
  • Azerbaijan Page 1 of 8

    Azerbaijan Page 1 of 8

    Azerbaijan Page 1 of 8 Azerbaijan BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR International Religious Freedom Report 2009 October 26, 2009 The Constitution provides for freedom of religion. On March 18, 2009, however, a national referendum approved a series of amendments to the Constitution; two amendments limit the spreading of and propagandizing of religion. Additionally, on May 8, 2009, the Milli Majlis (Parliament) passed an amended Law on Freedom of Religion, signed by the President on May 29, 2009, which could result in additional restrictions to the system of registration for religious groups. In spite of these developments, the Government continued to respect the religious freedom of the majority of citizens, with some notable exceptions for members of religions considered nontraditional. There was some deterioration in the status of respect for religious freedom by the Government during the reporting period. There were changes to the Constitution that undermined religious freedom. There were mosque closures, and state- and locally sponsored raids on evangelical Protestant religious groups. There were reports of monitoring by federal and local officials as well as harassment and detention of both Islamic and nontraditional Christian groups. There were reports of discrimination against worshippers based on their religious beliefs, largely conducted by local authorities who detained and questioned worshippers without any legal basis and confiscated religious material. There were sporadic reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice. There was some prejudice against Muslims who converted to other faiths, and there was occasional hostility toward groups that proselytized, particularly evangelical Christians, and other missionary groups.
  • Armenian Crimes

    Armenian Crimes

    ARMENIAN CRIMES KHOJALY GENOCIDE Over the night of 25-26 February 1992, following massive artillery bombardment, the Armenian armed forces and paramilitary units, with the support of the former USSR’s 366th Motorized Infantry Regiment attacked an Azerbaijani town of Khojaly. Around 2,500 remaining inhabitants attempted to flee the town in order to reach Aghdam, the nearest city under Azerbaijani control. However, their hope was in vain. The Armenian forces and paramilitary units ambushed and slaughtered the fleeing civilians near the villages of Nakhchivanly and Pirjamal. Other civilians, including women and children were either captured by the Armenian soldiers or froze to death in the snowy forest. Only a few were able to reach Aghdam. 1 During the assault both former presidents of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharian, as well as other high-ranking officials (Zori Balayan, Vitaly Balasanyan and etc) of Armenia, participated personally in the Khojaly Genocide. Speaking to foreign journalists, Armenia’s leaders have admitted their participation and shown no remorse. 2 THE VICTIMS OF THE KHOJALY GENOCIDE • 613 people killed, including 63 children; 106 women; 70 elderly; • 8 families completely annihilated; • 25 children lost both parents; • 130 children lost one parent; • 487 wounded; • 1275 taken hostage; • 150 still missing. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 KHOJALY GENOCIDE IN INTERNATIONAL MEDIA The Khojaly tragedy was widely covered in the international media despite the information blockade and the large-scale Armenian propaganda effort. The world community could not close eyes to the gravity of this crime against humanity and cruelty of perpetrators. 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE JUSTICE FOR KHOJALY CAMPAIGN The Justice for Khojaly International Awareness Campaign was initiated in 2008 by Leyla Aliyeva, the Vice President of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation.
  • How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

    How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

    Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should limit in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior publicaton encourage exchange ideas and academic debate. Working GIGA GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems ___________________________ How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries Christian von Soest and Julia Grauvogel No 277 August 2015 www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGA Working Papers 277/2015 Edited by the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Leibniz‐Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien The GIGA Working Papers series serves to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presenta‐ tions are less than fully polished. Inclusion of a paper in the GIGA Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copy‐ right remains with the authors. GIGA Research Programme “Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems” Copyright for this issue: © Christian von Soest, Julia Grauvogel WP Coordination and English‐language Copyediting: Melissa Nelson Editorial Assistance and Production: Kerstin Labusga All GIGA Working Papers are available online and free of charge on the website <www.giga‐hamburg.de/workingpapers>. For any requests please contact: <workingpapers@giga‐hamburg.de> The GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this Working Paper; the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.
  • A Descriptive Study of Social and Economic Conditions

    A Descriptive Study of Social and Economic Conditions

    55 LIFE IN NAKHICHEVAN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC: A descriptive study of social and economic conditions Supported by UNDP/ILO Ayse Kudat Senem Kudat Baris Sivri Social Assessment, LLC July 15, 2002 55 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary and Next Steps Preface Characteristics of the Region History Governance Demographics Household Demographics and Employment Conditions Employment/ Unemployment Education Economic Assessment Government Expenditures NAR’s Economic Statistics Household Expenditure Structure Income Structure Housing Conditions Determinants of Welfare Agriculture Sector in NAR Water Electricity Financing Feed for Livestock Magnitude of Land Holding Subsidies Markets NAR Region District By District Infrastructure Sector Energy Power Generation Natural Gas Project Water Supply Transportation Social Infrastructure 56 57 Health Education Enterprise Sector People’s Priorities Issues Relating to Income Generation Trust and Vision Money and Banking Community Development ARRA Damage Assessment for the Region Other Donor Activities 57 58 Summary and Next Steps The 354,000 people who live in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic (NAR) present a unique development challenge for the Government of Azerbaijan and for the international community. Cut off and blockaded from the rest of Azerbaijan as a result of the conflict with Armenia, their traditional economic structure and markets destroyed by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, their physical and social infrastructure hampered by a decade or more of lack of maintenance and rehabilitation funding, NAR’s present status is worse than much of the rest of the country and its prospects for the future require imagination and innovative thinking. This report deals with the challenges of NAR today and what peoples’ priorities are for the future.
  • Statement by the Delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan 1287 29 October 2020 Meeting of the Permanent Council, Aggression of A

    Statement by the Delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan 1287 29 October 2020 Meeting of the Permanent Council, Aggression of A

    AZƏRBAYCAN RESPUBLİKASININ PERMANENT MISSION ATƏT YANINDA OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN DAİMİ NÜMAYƏNDƏLİYİ TO THE OSCE _____________________________________________________________________________________ Hügelgasse 2, A-1130, Wien | Tel.: + 43 (1) 403 13 22 | Fax: + 43 (1) 403 13 23 | E-mail: [email protected] Statement by the Delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan 1287th Meeting of the Permanent Council, 29 October 2020 Aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan and situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan Mr. Chairperson, The Delegation of Azerbaijan would like to update the Permanent Council on the ongoing aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan and its consequences as well as situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan in the reporting period since the last meeting of the Permanent Council on 22 October. Azerbaijan once again demonstrating its goodwill and proceeding from the principles of humanism agreed to another humanitarian ceasefire starting as of 26 October, 08 am local time. The agreement was facilitated by the efforts of the United States following the separate meetings of Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan with their US counterpart held in Washington DC on 24 October. In the released joint statement the parties reaffirmed the commitment to implement and abide by the humanitarian ceasefire agreed in Moscow on 10 October. However, the armed forces of Armenia, in gross violation of this new humanitarian ceasefire, on 26 October, at 08:05 am, subjected to artillery fire the units of Azerbaijani armed forces located in the Safiyan village of Lachin region. Later, the city of Tartar and the villages of the Tartar district came under intensive shelling.
  • Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights Mr Thomas Hammarberg on His Visit to Azerbaijan 3

    Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights Mr Thomas Hammarberg on His Visit to Azerbaijan 3

    Strasbourg, 20 February 2008 CommDH(2008)2 Original version REPORT BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MR THOMAS HAMMARBERG ON HIS VISIT TO AZERBAIJAN 3 - 7 September 2007 For the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly CommDH(2008)2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION............................5 CHAPTER 2: THE RULE OF LAW ...........................................................................................7 I. The judicial system .............................................................................................................7 A. The independence of judges and the administration of the judiciary............................7 B. Auxiliaries of justice and legal aid.................................................................................8 C. The Prosecutor General’s Office ..................................................................................9 II. The problems linked to corruption ...................................................................................10 III. Law enforcement agencies.............................................................................................11 A. Law enforcement agencies and conditions of detention.............................................11 B. The Procedural Rules in case of arrest, the guaranties under the common law ........11 C. The interrogation
  • Azərbaycan Arxeologiyasi

    Azərbaycan Arxeologiyasi

    Cild: 20 Say: 2 ISSN 2218 – 0346 2017 AZƏRBAYCAN ARXEOLOGİYASI Təsisçi Hamlet İsaxanlı Baş Redaktor Qüdrət İsmayılzadə Redaktor müavinləri Roza Arazova Tarix Dostiyev Bəhlul İbrahimli Məsul katib Sevda Hüseynova İşçi heyəti Xəqani Həbibzadə Akifə Cəfərli Redaksiya heyəti Yüksel Sayan (Türkiyə) Ayman Dosimbayeva (Qazağıstan) İsmayıl Hacıyev (Azərbaycan) Maisə Rəhimova (Azərbaycan) Bertyill Lyonnet (Fransa) Mehmet İşıklı (Türkiyə) Rauf Munçayev (Rusiya) Lauren Ristvet (ABŞ) Mehmet Özdoğan (Türkiyə) Andreas Şaxner (Almaniya) Vəli Baxşəliyev (Azərbaycan) Murtuzəli Hacıyev (Rusiya) Otar Caparidze (Gürcüstan) Volume: 20 Number: 2 ISSN 2218-0346 2017 AZERBAIJAN ARCHAEOLOGY Founder Hamlet Isaxanli Editor in Chief Qudrat Ismayilzadeh Editorial Assistants Roza Arazova Tarikh Dostiyev Bahlul Ibrahimli Deputy Editors Sevda Huseynova Editorial staff Xaqani Habibzadeh Akifa Jafarli Editorial Board Yuksel Sayan (Turkey) Ayman Dosimbayeva (Kazakhstan) İsmail Hajiyev (Azerbaijan) Maisa Rahimova (Azerbaijan) Bertille Lyonnet (France) Mehmet Ishikli (Turkey) Rauf Munchayev (Russia) Lauren Ristvet (USA) Andreas Mehmet Ozdoghan (Turkey) Schachner (Germany) Vali Baxshaliyev (Azerbaijan) Murtuzali Hajiyev (Russia) Otar Japaridzeh (Georgian) Выпуск: 20 № 2 ISSN 2218-0346 2017 АРХЕОЛОГИЯ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА Учредитель Гамлет Исаханлы Главный редактер Гудрат Исмаилзаде Заместители главного редактора Роза Аразова Тарих Достиев Бахлул Ибрагимли Ответственный секретарь Севда Гусейнова Рабочая группа Хагани Габибзаде Акифа Джафарлы Редакционная коллегия Юксел Саян (Турция)
  • Ecosystems Assessment Report Azerbaijan.Pdf

    Ecosystems Assessment Report Azerbaijan.Pdf

    Identification and implementation of adaptation response to Climate Change impact for Conservation and Sustainable use of agro-biodiversity in arid and semi-arid ecosystems of South Caucasus Ecosystem Assessment Report Baku, 2012 List of abbreviations ANAS Azerbaijan National Academy of Science EU European Union ECHAM 4 European Center HAMburg 4 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change GIZ German International Cooperation GIS Geographical Information System GDP Gross Domestic Product GFDL Global Fluid Dynamics Model MENR Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources PRECIS Providing Regional Climate for Impact Studies REC Regional Environmental Center UN United Nations UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change WB World Bank Table of contents List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................. 6 I. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 7 II. General ecological and socio-economic description of selected regions ....................................................... 8 2.1. Agsu district .............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1. General