EHRAC Staff Advisory Board

An nu al R e p o r t

2 0 1

Annual Report 2014 European Human Rights Advocacy Centre Contents

Foreword 4 Mission 5 How do we work? 6 Partners 7 Working with partners 10 Achievements in 2013 11 Judgments in 2013 15 New litigation 17 Advocacy 24 Implementation 25 In-country actions 27 Legal Skills Development Programme 28 Publications 29 Raising awareness 30 Volunteers 31 Staff 33 Our supporters 34 Financial information 35 4 Foreword

2013 was a significant year for EHRAC. It saw our move to Middlesex University (in north London), where we are now part of the School of Law. We would like to thank the University, and especially our colleagues within the School of Law, for the very warm welcome we received, and for their real interest in, and support for, EHRAC’s work. In 2013 we celebrated EHRAC’s 10th anniversary with a photo exhibition and held a public panel discussion on the repression of civil society in Russia. This year we also established a new Advisory Board for EHRAC, chaired by Samantha Knights (Matrix Chambers). We are very grateful to Samantha and to all the other members of the Board: Dr. Chaloka Beyani (London School of Economics), Professor Joshua Castellino, (Middlesex University), Simon Erskine (MHA MacIntyre Hudson), Luke Harding (The Guardian), Natalia Prilutskaya (Amnesty International), Sir Keir Starmer QC (Doughty Street Chambers) and Dr Elizabeth Teague (formerly FCO). The Board provides advice and support on operational matters, and its role is complementary to that of the International Steering Committee, which brings together expertise on, and from, our target region. This Annual Report seeks to give readers a sense of our priorities and activities over the past year. Among the most worrying recent developments in the region have been repressive legislative changes in Russia, aimed at human rights NGOs which are supposedly acting as ‘foreign agents’. We are working with a group of Russian NGOs to challenge both the law itself, and its implementation, at the European Court of Human Rights. EHRAC’s work arising from conflict in the North Caucasus and South Ossetian regions continues to throw up new challenges, and the Report highlights in particular new partnerships and casework in Azerbaijan and Armenia. The European Court handed down its judgment in our first case from Ukraine this year, in which it ordered Oleksandr Volkov’s reinstatement as a Supreme Court judge – the first time such an order had ever been made. Finally, I’d like to say a huge ‘thank you’ to all those who have worked with, and supported, us in 2013 – particularly to our interns, partners, lawyers, advisers and funders.

Professor Philip Leach Professor Bill Bowring Director, EHRAC Chair, International Steering Committee Taken during Gay Pride, St Petersburg, June 2013. Photo by Valentine Egorshin. during Gay Pride, St Petersburg, June 2013. Photo by Valentine Taken

5 EHRAC’s vision Every person in the former Soviet Union has a voice, access to justice, and can hold their state to account over human rights violations. EHRAC’s Mission EHRAC is an independent apolitical organisation that stands alongside victims of human rights abuse in order to secure justice. Working in support of civil society organsations, we bring strategic cases to the European Court to challenge impunity for human rights violations. We raise awareness of violations and means of redress for victims, and we build capacity of individuals and organisations through mentoring, training and advocacy. Each judgment we secure - contributes to an objective account of human rights abuse that cannot be refuted.

6 How do we work?

We undertake strategic litigation at the European Court of Human Rights, working in partnership with local human rights lawyers and NGOs in Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine on cases where violations of the European Convention of Human Rights have taken place. Our focus is on cases where the right to life has been violated, especially those arising from conflict situations, as well as protecting those who are at risk of extradition, ill-treatment or whose rights to private and family life have been violated. We also take on cases concerning violations of the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and the right to a fair trial. Every time a judgment is passed down in one of our cases, we monitor and advocate for its effective implementation in order to bring about necessary reforms to domestic law and practice. Our philosophy has always been to build the capacity of our partner NGOs, mentoring lawyers through the process of litigation, advocacy and implementation to ensure the continuation of effective human rights protection and, ultimately, the independence and sustainability of their work. We produce publications on legal human rights issues in order to raise awareness of human rights in the region, as well as maintaining English and Russian language websites, utilising social media and engaging with the press to secure coverage of our judgments on an international scale.

Russia

Ukraine

Georgia Azerbaijan

Armenia -

7 Our main partner organisations

Memorial Human Rights Centre (Memorial HRC) Memorial was EHRAC’s first partner organisation, and is one of the leading human rights NGOs in the Russian Federation. It was established in 1991 and has 58 branches Russia-wide and 140 affiliates. EHRAC works with lawyers in their strategic litigation department who bring cases to the European Court. The centre also focuses on politically motivated persecution in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, discrimination on ethnic grounds and analysing the situation of refugees and forced migrants. Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) EHRAC has worked with GYLA since 2006 on various cases, including multiple cases arising from the 2008 South Ossetian conflict. GYLA is the original and largest professional union of lawyers in Georgia. It is committed to establishing standards of professional ethics, providing legal and civic education, and raising awareness among and providing legal aid to vulnerable members of the Georgian population. Currently, GYLA brings together more than 800 lawyers and law students from all over the country, working through its head office in Tbilisi and seven regional branches. Legal Guide – Armenia Legal Guide is EHRAC’s first partner organisation in Armenia, with whom we are collaborating on the case of Sargsyan v Azerbaijan, concerning violations committed during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Legal Guide promotes respect for the protection of human rights in Armenia through law and litigation before the European Court of Human Rights and disseminates ECHR related information, materials and effective human rights protection mechanisms among legal professionals in Armenia. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly - Vanadzor (HCAV) HCAV is EHRAC’s newest partner organisation in Armenia. The organisation works predominantly in support of those in the Lori Region of Armenia. HCAV is a non-political, secular NGO which supports the principles of democracy, tolerance, pluralism, and human rights. Its focus areas are human rights, civil initiatives and advocacy, as well as peace-building through seminars, public hearings and actions, trainings, legal actions, studies/research, monitoring and lobbying. EHRAC and HCAV are jointly litigating several cases against Armenia before the European Court.

8 Legal Education Society (LES) EHRAC began cooperating with the Legal Education Society in Baku in 2010. LES provides free legal assistance to members of the public, provides legal support to mass media and non-governmental organisations, publishes legal literature, monitors legislative reforms and organises training seminars. EHRAC has trained lawyers from LES during various events and has provided advice on their cases before the European Court. Media Rights Institute (MRI) The Baku-based Media Rights Institute focuses on the promotion and defence of freedom of expression and freedom of information in Azerbaijan. It monitors the state of freedom of expression and information in Azerbaijan, runs training seminars on these issues for journalists, lawyers and public officials, publishes books about freedom of expression and information and renders legal assistance to journalists and the media, including journalists who are being prosecuted for having criticised the Government. EHRAC is currently supporting lawyers at MRI to bring two such cases of violence against journalists to the European Court. Democracy and Human Rights Public Union (DHRPU) The DHRPU is based in Sumgait and gives free legal advice to and the public and represents individuals in court where necessary. It also provides support to other NGOs working in the field of human rights in the regions of Azerbaijan. It has taken several cases to the European Court and EHRAC lawyers have provided advice in these cases, as well as training their lawyers on skills such as the use of evidence in human rights litigation and strategic litigation.

9 10 How do we work with partners?

When bringing cases to the European Court, we work closely with the local lawyer and collaborate on every aspect of the case. Cases are usually proposed to EHRAC by the local lawyer if they feel it has sufficient grounds to be successful at the European Court and particularly if it has the potential to address a systemic issue affecting a high number of people. If we agree to take a case, we then provide advice to the local lawyer, when requested, at all stages of proceedings, on evidential, legal and procedural issues. In addition to mentoring partner lawyers, we hold regular training seminars on specific aspects of European Court litigation, either in-country or in the UK. We also produce publications and online resources, in Russian and English, which provide more opportunities for lawyers in the region to benefit from EHRAC’s expertise. As the process of bringing a case to the European Court can take several years, we often develop close working relationships with our partner lawyers. Furkat Tishaev worked with us as Senior Lawyer during his time working at our partner Memorial HRC from 2009 to 2013.

“My cooperation with EHRAC began in early 2009. When I found out that EHRAC had a joint project with the Russian Human Right Center Memorial – I decided to join the project by any means. I even left Strasbourg to get professional experience within the EHRAC/Memorial joint project and I declined several job offers in the commercial sector. Looking back, five years later, I’m confident that my decision was the right one. Although I had some experience in litigating before the European Court prior to joining the project, I have to admit that EHRAC’s expertise seriously developed my professional skills. In particular, thanks to EHRAC’s professionals, I have sig- nificantly improved the way of building the best tactics for successful litigation, legal reasoning and the methodology of drafting procedural submissions. Case discussions with EHRAC lawyers contributed to developing a strategic approach to litigating cases in Strasbourg. In addition, a friendly working environment with a ‘horizontal’ structure helped me to further develop my professional skills and credibility. I am very thankful to all the EHRAC team for such an excellent experience and I hope to stay in contact with EHRAC in the future.” Furkat Tishaev during the EHRAC Legal Skills Development Programme, 2011. Photo by EHRAC. Furkat Tishaev

11 Achievements in 2013 securing justice for victims of human rights violations

Right to life Justice for relatives of VICTIMS ‘disappeared’ by Russian servicemen In 2013, the European Court ruled in eight cases brought by EHRAC and Memorial HRC concerning individuals who were ‘disappeared’ from the North Caucasus region between 2001 and 2011. A similar pattern is found in each case whereby the victims are arrested, taken away and never heard of again. Relatives try without success to ascertain their whereabouts, and any official investigation is ineffective and fails to identify those responsible or offer an explanation for the disappearance. Such cases before the European Court are hugely significant for these families and may represent their only path to justice as an international court rules that their rights, and the rights of their relatives, were violated at the hands of the State, that compensation is due and such decisions should also lead to an effective investigation being carried out. Turluyeva v Russia In October 2009, 19 year old Sayd-Salekh was detained by the police in Grozny, Chechnya following an alleged armed skirmish at his family house. According to his uncle, who had been brought to the police station at the same time, Sayd-Salekh was beaten at the station, appeared frightened and had difficulty standing up. His uncle was told by police officers that two police officers had been wounded and one killed during the alleged skirmish, and the “blood feud” for the death of the policeman would fall on Sayd-Salekh and his family. His uncle was released soon afterwards, and was the last person to see Sayd-Salekh at the police station. The family has had no news of Sayd-Salekh since. In June 2013, the European Court ruled that given the length of time following Sayd Salekh’s disappearance, and taking into account similar cases from the North Caucasus region, he must be presumed dead, and that his death is attributable to the Russian State in violation of the right to life, adding that the authorities failed to “act rapidly and decisively” to protect his life. The distress and anguish suffered by Raisa Turluyeva (Sayd-Salkh’s mother) and the way her complaints were dealt with were found to constitute inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Given that her son was detained without legal grounds, a violation of the right to liberty and security was also found. A further violation was found due to the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation.

“With three separate findings of a violation of the right to life, this shocking case is another serious indictment of the security forces in Chechnya, which have been found to have carried out enforced disappearances since 1999. The European Court has already diagnosed a ‘systemic dysfunction’ in the investigation of such cases. The international community must now take further action to ensure full investigations are carried out.”

Prof. Philip Leach, Director of EHRAC. Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov. Photo supplied by the Committee against Torture. Photo supplied by the Committee against Torture. Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov.

12 “I believe that you did everything possible to help me when I was left to face my son’s abduction alone. I only regret not coming to you sooner.”

Raisa Turluyeva, on hearing the European Court’s judgment in June 2013.

13 “This decision will, of course, be hugely disappointing to the relatives of the victims of the Katyn massacre, who continue to hope for an effective investigation into the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths. However the Court’s reasoning in this case serves to highlight the significance of the rights protected by the European Convention since 1950 and the importance of its continued protection for victims of gross human rights violations in the present day.”

Joanna Evans, EHRAC Senior Lawyer.

14 Right to a fair trial Challenging unfair dismissal in the Ukrainian judiciary In January, in our first case against Ukraine, a landmark judgment was issued in Volkov v Ukraine which found violations of the rights to a fair trial and respect for private life of Mr Volkov, who was dismissed from his post as a Supreme Court judge in May 2010 due to an alleged “breach of oath”. Ukraine was ordered to reinstate him “at the earliest possible date”; the first time the European Court has made such an order. Since the judgment became final we have been following up on its implementation of this judgment with the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe. The judgment also obliges Ukraine to make legislative changes to end the endemic political interference in the appointment and dismissal of judges. Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2007 Bronze Soldier protests in Estonia In March 2013 the European Court ruled that Estonia violated the rights of protesters who were unlawfully detained and subjected to ill-treatment, including beating with truncheons, at the hands of the police in 2007. The protest was against the relocation of a monument commemorating the entry of the Soviet Red Army into Tallinn during the Second World War. Complaints to the Chancellor of Justice and the public prosecutor’s office were dismissed without any investigation. The Court found in particular that the force used by law-enforcement officers was ‘excessive’ and that the authorities “made no attempt to obtain any additional evidence, be it by questioning the applicants in person…or by interviewing the witnesses.” Right to private and family life Ageyevy v Russia In this case, the applicants had adopted two children in 2008 from foster care. In 2009, following an incident when one of the children was found at the foot of the stairs with burns on his face, the applicants took him to hospital, where his condition was described as ‘serious’. On being discharged, the applicants were informed that the children were to be removed from their care. The applicants challenged the decision but were denied access to the children, and the adoption was subsequently revoked by the authorities. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on various charges including ‘non-fulfilment of duties relating to the care of minors’. Some of the evidence used in court had been obtained by members of the press, who had gained access without the consent of the applicants to the child whilst in hospital. The second applicant was sentenced to a cumulative sentence of eighteen months’ ‘correctional’ work. The European Court issued a judgment on 8 April 2013. Although the initial removal of the children into public care had been in accordance with the relevant law, the decision to revoke the adoption was seriously deficient and therefore was found to have violated their right to respect for their private and family life. Other violations were found on account of their lack of access to the children, the conduct of hospital staff, who had given the media access to information about the injured child and allowed photos to be taken without seeking permission or informing the applicants, the failure to investigate the leaking of confidential information relating to the adoption, and the domestic court’s failure to protect the applicants’ right to a reputation as a result of the sensationalist and defamatory press coverage. Fighting for the right to truth: the Katyn massacre Janowiec & Others v Russia In early 2013, EHRAC, Memorial and the Essex Transitional Justice Network, saw an opportunity to intervene in the case of Janowiec & Others v Russia, brought by relatives of the victims of the Katyn massacre, in which several thousands of Polish prisoners of war were killed by the Soviet secret police in 1940. The relatives claimed that the Russian authorities had failed to properly investigate the Katyn massacre, and that their ‘dismissive’ attitude to the investigation had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. EHRAC’s intervention provided expertise on the obligation of states to investigate gross human rights violations and the right of relatives to know the truth about the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths or disappearance. The European Court delivered its judgment in October 2013. Although it did not question the “profound grief and distress that the applicants have experienced as a consequence of the extrajudicial execution of their family members” and called the facts of the massacre ‘indisputable’, it ruled that it had no competence to examine the effectiveness of the investigation, as the massacre happened before the European Convention on Human Rights had been drafted. It did, however, find that Russia had failed to provide the necessary evidence. Specifically, the decision to discontinue the investigation remained classified, without the Russian courts having conducted proper analysis of the reasons for maintaining that classification

Memorial to the victims of Katyn in Krakow, Poland. Photo by Markus Kolletzky. Poland. Photo by Markus Kolletzky. Memorial to the victims of Katyn in Krakow, more than 70 years after the events in question.

15 Judgments passed down by the European Court in 2013

Case Date of No. of Violations found Total damages Judgment applicants awarded (Euros)

Oleksandr Volkov v 09/01/13 1 Article 6 § 1, 6,000 Ukraine Article 8 (No. 21722/11)

Suleymanov v Russia 22/01/13 1 Article 3 12,500 (No. 32501/11)

Avkhadova v Russia 14/03/13 5 Articles 2, 3 5 60,000 (No. 47215/07) and 13

Kasymakhunov v Russia 14/03/13 1 No violation N/A (No. 26261/05)

Askhabova v Russia 18/04/13 1 Articles 2, 3, 5 60,000 (No. 54765/09) and 13

Ageyevy v Russia 18/04/13 2 Article 8 55,000 (No. 7075/10)

Turluyeva v Russia 20/06/13 1 Articles 2, 3, 5 60,000 (No. 63638/09) and 13

Korobov v Estonia 28/03/13 7 Article 3 47,000 (No. 10195/08)

Yandiyev v Russia 10/10/13 4 Articles 2, 3, 5 83,000 (No. 34541/06) and 13

Bersanova v Russia 10/10/13 1 Articles 2, 3, 5 60,000 (No. 43811/06) and 13

Elikhanova v Russia 10/10/13 1 Articles 2, 3, 5 60,000 (No. 47393/10) and 13

Chilayev & Dzhabayev 31/10/13 2 Articles 2, 3, 5 130,000 (No. 27926/06) and 13

Total 27 633,500 EUR

16 Litigation since 2003

• Judgments secured in 100 cases • Violation(s) of the European Convention on Human Rights found in 96% of cases • €8.8 million in damages awarded in total to applicants in our cases

17 New litigation against Azerbaijan

Minasyan v AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY In March 2013, EHRAC and three Armenian lawyers launched a case at the European Court concerning the transfer, pardon and release of Ramil Safarov, an Azerbaijani citizen who was convicted in 2004 in Hungary of the murder of Gurgen Margaryan and the attempted murder of Hayk Makuchyan, both citizens of Armenia. Safarov had been sentenced to life imprisonment in Hungary, but was transferred to Azerbaijan in 2012 in agreement with the Hungarian government. On his return, he received a Presidential pardon, was promoted to the rank of major, given an apartment and awarded eight years of back pay. The applicants complain that Azerbaijan violated the right to life (Article 2) of Gurgen Margaryan and Hayk Makuchyan, since the murder and attempted murder was committed by a military officer, and is therefore attributable to the State, and also because of the failure to implement his sentence fully after his transfer to Azerbaijan. As the murder was found to be ethnically motivated, and was effectively endorsed by the Azerbaijani Government in their treatment of Safarov, a violation of the prohibition of discrimination is also argued. It is also argued that Hungary breached their positive obligations under Article 2 in permitting Mr Safarov’s transfer without ensuring that his full sentence would be served.

Attacks on journalists

Following a visit to Azerbaijan in June 2013, we developed stronger ties with our partner NGO the Media Rights Institute, and they consequently sought our advice in two cases involving attacks on journalists and restrictions to freedom of expression through politically motivated arrests, intimida- tion and violence: Taghiyeva v Azerbaijan Rafiq Tagi was a journalist who was fatally stabbed by unknown assailants in November 2011. No effective investigation has been carried out into the attack. He was a doctor and a journalist, and that evening had finished work at a first aid station. He was not afraid of criticising the Government, specifically on the influence of Iran, and also extremist religion, for which he was made the subject of a fatwa (a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar). He was charged and sentenced to three years in prison for incitement of religious hostility. The case is brought by Rafiq’s wife, who argues violations of the right to life on account of her husband’s murder, as well as serious violations of the right to freedom of expression. Abbasov v Azerbaijan Idrak Abbasov is an award-winning reporter for the newspaper Zerkalo and the Institute for Report- ers’ Freedom and Safety. In March 2012, he received an international prize for his reporting from Index on Censorship. He was among several journalists reporting on the demolition of houses by the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), when he was singled out and attacked by their security guards. He was left unconscious, sustained head injuries and remains in hospital to date. So far there has been no effective investigation into this incident. The case raises issues under the right to life, the prohibition of torture and the right to freedom of expression. Event marking 5 years since the murder of Gurgen Margaryan. Photo by Sedrak Mkrtchyan.

18 19

a i

d e

o t

a, i n e

m r

A n i n o ti c le e l ia t n e id s re P e th g in w o ll o f s st te ro p f o 1 1 ay D

Cases against Armenia

1 March 2008 DEMONSTRATION During a peaceful demonstration held in the wake of the presidential election on 1 March 2008, ten people died as a result of the use of excessive and lethal force by police who were dispersing the protest. EHRAC is representing applicants in cases initiated by the relatives of eight civilians and an army conscript who were killed during the protest. Political prisoners We are involved in six cases at various stages which concern trials of political prisoners and infringements of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. As victims of politically motivated prosecutions who have been detained and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment, these cases raise various issues under the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and non discrimination. Deaths in the armed forces In collaboration with the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, we are bringing cases to the European Court relating to deaths in the armed forces and the inhuman treatment of conscripts. These cases represent the first time the issue of deaths in non-combat situations are being openly discussed in Armenian society. ELECTION MONITORS In partnership with the NGO ‘Europe in Law’, we are working on a case concerning reform of the Electoral Code of Armenia, specifically regarding protection of the rights of observers and journalists while they monitored polling stations during the Yerevan Municipal elections. The outcome of this case has the potential to impact on the way future elections are held and monitored in Armenia.

Ongoing violations in South Ossetia .

s The aftermath of the South Ossetian conflict in 2008 continues to impact on the human rights landscape in Georgia. Problems were

n o

m further aggravated in 2013 by the erection of razor wire fences by the Russian and/or South Ossetian authorities along the Georgian/ m

o South Ossetian border, which encroach on Georgian land and affect around 15 villages. Residents have effectively been banished

a i

d from their own land, thus depriving them of their livelihood. We are supporting our partner the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association e m in litigating on behalf of villagers whose rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property have been unlawfully infringed.

W y In November 2013 we assisted GYLA in submitting two letters on the issue to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation b

ie and to President Vladimir Putin, expressing concern about the implications of extending the administrative boundary line between

pl p Georgia and South Ossetia, in violation of international law. u s

o t

P Construction of razor w 8. ir e fence 0 s alon 0 g the 2 Ge or gian a, /S i ou n th O e sse m ti r an bo A rd n er. i P n ho o t o ti by c E le H e RA l C ia . t n e id s re P e th g in w o ll “We remind you that under the principles of inter- o f s st te ro p f national law, South Ossetia is a part of Georgia – o 1 1 ay D as recognized by the international community. The illegal construction of fences within the borders of Georgia violates the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the state, while causing direct damage to the interests of thousands of Georgian citizens living in the villages adjacent to the administrative boundary line. Specifically it violates their right to freedom of movement and their right to property.”

GYLA’s letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, sent at the end of 2013.

21 Challenging repressive laws in Russia

The ‘Foreign Agent’ Law A law passed in late 2012 marked a new low for the Russian human rights community by introducing a new classification of NGOs, the ‘Foreign Agent’. If an NGO receives foreign funding and is engaged in so-called ‘political activity’ then it is required to register as a ‘Foreign Agent’ and is then subject to significant reporting restrictions and regulations. Similar legislation has also recently been considered in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine. In order to challenge the law, in February 2013, EHRAC and Memorial HRC launched a case at the European Court on behalf of 11 leading Russian human rights NGOs, alleging that it violates their rights to freedom of association and expression. A further three applicants joined the case in July 2013. Following a series of inspections on NGOs by the authorities, at the end of April 2013, Memorial HRC was officially ordered to register as a ‘Foreign Agent’ for “being funded from abroad and engaging in political activity”, which is said to be in direct violation of the law. They were given one month to “correct the violations” and to register. Under the law, refusing to register could lead to a series of sanctions, the first being a fine of up to 500,000 roubles (around £10,000) and potentially leading to the suspension of activity, criminal prosecution and liquidation of the organisation. Despite this warning, Memorial HRC has so far resisted joining the register by challenging the order through the domestic courts. the ban on ‘homosexual propaganda’ In 2013, Russia received widespread international criticism over the introduction of new legislation banning the ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ to minors, which turned the spotlight on treatment of the LGBT community in Russia in general. As a result of this new legislation, in 2013 we launched two new cases at the European Court which seek to challenge this specific ban. In Aleksandrov v Russia, the applicant argues that the authorities’ refusal to permit a demonstration raising awareness about issues faced by LGBT teenagers violated the right to freedom of assembly. In the second case, Gubanov v Russia, the applicants were arrested and fined during a public protest against the anti-propaganda law. Although the fines were later quashed, the convictions were upheld and during the protest, three of the applicants allege their noses were broken by Orthodox Christian activists – and that the incident has thus far not been investigated. Challenging the unfair dismissal of judges

Following the successful outcome of our case Volkov v Ukraine, in 2013 we were approached by a former judge of the Commercial Court in the Kemerovo Region, who claims she was unfairly removed from her post by a decision of the Judges’ Qualification Board in Russia. A former Prosecutor General of Ukraine had brought a claim before the Commercial Court and she decided in his favour. It was alleged that she had wrongfully assigned his case to her own panel by interfering with the court’s computer system, and that it should have been heard by another judicial panel. She complains that she did not receive a fair trial, and that her dismissal from post amounts to interference with her private and professional life in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention. This case is particularly significant as the first known case before the European Court to challenge the fairness of disciplinary proceedings against judges and the ease with which they can be dismissed in Russia. Oleg Orlov, Chairman of Memorial in Russia, discovers graffiti on their building calling them ‘Foreign Agents’. Photo by Memorial. Oleg Orlov,

22 23 “On the occasion of the opening of Protocol 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights for signature by the Council of Europe member states, Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Hu- man Rights Watch, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, Open Society Justice Initiative and REDRESS stress that the amendments to the Convention foreseen by this Protocol must not be allowed to result in a weakening of the Convention system and human rights protection in Europe.”

Joint NGO public statement, issued on 24 June 2013 on the occasion of the opening of Protocol 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights for signature by the Council of Europe member states.

24 Advocacy

Raising awareness of the ‘Foreign Agent’ law

Throughout 2013, to raise awareness about the ‘foreign agent’ law, EHRAC lawyers met with diplomats in the UK and abroad to brief them on the situation and on EHRAC’s case before the European Court. A meeting held in September to brief Moscow-based foreign diplomats was attended by representatives from the embassies of France, Italy, Sweden and Denmark, the EU and the Council of Europe. The briefing was extremely well received and calls for further such meetings were made. House of Lords EHRAC’s long-time supporter, Lord Frank Judd (former PACE Rapporteur on Chechnya) spoke about our work and cases at the House of Lords, specifically in relation to the implementation of judgments concerning Chechnya. Following the judgment in Turluyeva v Russia, he posed a parliamentary question asking what the Government was planning to do in relation to its implementation. EHRAC then provided up to date information to Lord Judd on the human rights situation in Russia in advance of a debate at the House of Lords. Collaboration with other NGOs We continued to contribute to joint NGO submissions on the impact and effectiveness of the European Court, specifically in relation to the introduction of Protocol 15, which limits the time limit for lodging applications to the European Court, abolishes the current right of parties to veto relinquishment of a case by a chamber to the grand chamber and includes changes to the ‘no significant disadvantage’ inadmissibility criterion. Meeting foreign diplomats in Moscow, September 2013, to discuss the ‘Foreign Agent’ law. Photo by EHRAC. September 2013, to discuss the ‘Foreign Agent’ law. Meeting foreign diplomats in Moscow,

25 Implementation

Once a judgment is passed down in our cases, we undertake measures try to ensure that the State in question carries out out the necessary reforms to bring about change not only for the individual applicant, but also to benefit wider civil society. Since the judgment in Volkov v Ukraine, in which the Court ordered Mr Volkov’s reinstatement as a Supreme Court judge, after ruling he was unfairly dismissed, we have been advocating for the Ukrainian authorities to fulfil their obligation and reinstate him to post. A great deal of support has come from the international community, and organisations such as Judges for Judges and the Law Society of England & Wales have made their own submissions to the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe. EHRAC made submissions to the Committee of Ministers in July and November calling for ‘infringe- ment proceedings’ to be brought against Ukraine for not implementing this important judgment. In response, the Committee made reference to Ukraine’s obligations in their decisions, noting with concern that Parliament did not reinstate the applicant in his position of judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine when filling one of the two vacancies at the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 5 November 2013.”

“In failing to have reinstated Mr Volkov, the respondent Government is in flagrant breach of a binding judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Since the judgment became final on 27 May the Government has simply prevaricated, showing no real intention to secure his reinstatement. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice’s letter of 22 August (to Mr Kivalov) suggests that the Government may be seeking to avoid its obligation to reinstate, by re-opening the case against Mr Volkov.”

EHRAC’s submission to the Department for the Execution of Judgments, November 2013.

Standing up for victims of enforced evictions

From 2001 to 2007, high numbers of residents in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, were forcefully evicted from their homes with little or no compensation, to make room for construction works to begin. This issue was contested at the European Court in the case of Tunyan v Armenia, which reached judgment in 2012 and set an important precedent for domestic courts to start to review other cases. EHRAC is now involved in the implementation of Tunyan v Armenia on two levels: at the Committee of Ministers and in the high courts of Armenia. The issue has the potential to impact on similar cases in the region, such as in Azerbaijan where thousands were evicted from their homes in the centre of Baku when a new stadium was built for the Eurovision Song Contest in 2012. The Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Photo by David (http://goo.gl/jL3akF).

26 27

rb e z

A , u

ak B

n i

d’ l or w

n a le C ‘ n o ti a s ni a rg o s ht g ri ’s n e m o w e h g t tin ee M

‘In-country’ actions in 2013

May: Armenia During a visit to Armenia, we focused on strengthening existing partnerships with Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor; discussing joint cases and capacity-building needs, and meeting other NGOs whom we cooperate with such as the Europe in Law Association, Arni Legal Aid Ltd, and the Rule of Law. We held a round-table for NGOs on the implementation of European Court judgments against Armenia, which was followed by individual case consultations. Prof. Philip Leach also held a lecture and Q&A session for students at the School of Advocates on European human rights protection mechanisms. June: Azerbaijan In Azerbaijan we held meetings with potential new partners, discussing in particular the current pressure and threat to both human rights organisations and individual lawyers. There was, as ever, a great deal of interest in the provision of more practical training seminars and workshops by EHRAC. It was evident that many NGOs are overwhelmed by the number of potential cases and the pressure to take on the role of activist, lawyer, and spokesperson simultaneously. Therefore our support is crucial to the human rights community. September: Russia In Russia we held meetings to discuss the impact of the ‘Foreign Agent’ law and consider how best to counter it. We also met with lawyers at Memorial HRC, and held the annual EHRAC International Steering Committee meeting. EHRAC also met with representatives of the NGOs that EHRAC and Memorial HRC are representing in the ‘Foreign Agent Law’ case before the European Court; NGOs from regions of Russia outside the capital, who have been or may be affected by the ‘Foreign Agent’ law, and diplomats and other members of the international community. December: Georgia Prof. Philip Leach was invited to carry out training for the Council of Europe on ‘Anti-discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights - Protections against Discrimination on the grounds of Religion’. During the visit he took the opportunity to meet with lawyers at our partner organisation GYLA to discuss the progress of our joint cases, and travelled with GYLA lawyers to the Georgian/South Ossetian border to meet with villagers affected by the extension of fences into the Georgian territory by the Russian Federation. He also met the NGO Human Rights Education Priority, and discussed their cases, which mainly concern infringements on the rights of religious minority groups.

E y Legal Skills Development Programme in London

3 In March 2013 we hosted five human rights lawyers from Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in London for an intensive week-long

training seminar.

ne u

, The focus was on the rights to freedom of assembly and association under the European Convention, chosen as a highly relevant theme n a ij for all the participants across the region in light of crackdowns on protest movements in 2012. The aim was therefore to provide a rb e participants with specialist training in both the legal and practical skills required to protect and promote the rights in question, as z

A , well as how to effectively litigate at the European Court in cases where those rights have been violated. u ak B n The hands-on, practical programme, delivered by EHRAC’s legal team, was designed to guide participants through the following i d’ l processes: pre-demonstration notification; taking witness statements; exhausting domestic remedies; preparing a statement of facts, or w and how to draft pleadings. Each session included exercises to give participants the chance to practise what they had learnt and, n a le C crucially, to receive immediate feedback in order to track their development throughout the programme. ‘ n o ti a s Guest presenters contributed sessions on specialist topics and individual case consultations were held with each participant to ni a rg discuss their current cases before the European Court. o s ht g ri ’s n GUEST SESSIONS: e m o w e • Michael Hamilton on ‘OSCE guidelines on freedom of peaceful assembly and an overview of key Strasbourg jurisprudence’ h g t tin ee • Frances Wright on ‘The interface between law and activism and strategising for the protest movement’ M • Professor Bill Bowring on ‘Freedom of assembly in Russian domestic law’ • Jane Gordon on the ‘Legal framework of public order policing in the UK’ • Owen Greenhall on ‘Legal observing and current protest issues in the UK’

“I realised, how important it is to know beforehand the range of necessary questions, i.e. to be well-prepared with regard to being able to spot the nuances of “suitability” of a case for the ECtHR, i.e. to be able to see ahead.”

Feedback from an LSDP participant

29 Building wider capacity producing and disseminating human rights resources

The EHRAC Bulletin was redesigned in 2013 as part of an organisational re-brand following our move to Middlesex University. Issue 19, published in June 2013, focused on topics including legal aspects of investigating torture in Georgia, freedom of assembly in Azerbaijan and the judgment in Volkov v Ukraine. Issue 20, published in December 2013, focused on threats to the LGBT community in Russia, women’s rights in Armenia and the recent Presidential election in Azerbaijan. Both issues were widely disseminated and shared online. To mark our 10 year anniversary, in September 2013 we published a special 10 year review of EHRAC’s work in English and Russian. Also: • The EHRAC Witness Statement Preparation Guide was used as a training material during an event for 70 law students in Armenia on writing applications to the European Court, organised by our partner NGO Legal Guide. • The Georgian Bar Association (funded by the EU), translated and published 500 copies of Prof. Philip Leach’s book ‘Taking a case to the European Court’ (3rd ed) enabling Georgian speaking lawyers to access this vital resource.

30 “The significance of EHRAC’s work is difficult to overestimate. Their success in pursuing complaints in Strasbourg to hold the State accountable to Chechen victims of extrajudicial executions, indiscriminate bombings, enforced disappearances and torture is truly remarkable.”

Sir Nicolas Bratza, speaking at the launch of the photo exhibition.

“Please accept my warmest congratulations on such an outstandingly impressive first ten years. What you have achieved on Chechnya and other Russian issues has been outstandingly significant. I take tremendous heart from witnessing at first hand academic legal experts being prepared to engage effectively in grim front line realities. You have set standards which are a challenge to everybody.”

Lord Frank Judd, speaking on the occasion of EHRAC’s tenth anniversary.

or. ’Conn mon O Sir Nicolas Bratza, speaking at the launch of the EHRAC photo exhibition, September 2013. Photo by Si Raising awareness

We organised and participated in a range of events in 2013, including hosting a screening of the Oscar-nominated documentary ‘Pussy riot – a Punk Prayer’ at which the film’s director, Mike Lerner, gave an exclusive Q&A session. Members of the EHRAC team spoke at events at the Legal Defence Institute in Lima on strategic litigation, at Queen’s University Belfast on challenging the oppression of lawyers in times of conflict and at a short course at Matrix Chambers on Developments in European and International Human Rights Practise. We sought media coverage following judgments in our cases and when new cases came into the project. Coverage was seen in The Guardian, The Times Higher Education, Caucasian Knot and a range of other regional online news portals. We had significant coverage of the judgment and ensuing developments in the case Volkov v Ukraine in the Ukrainian, regional and international press. Our online presence continues to grow as we seek new channels to engage with our audience and raise awareness of our work. Using a variety of languages and posting regularly means that followers have access to the very latest information and resources, which resulted in a 30% increase in followers on Facebook by the end of 2013. Celebrating ten years of EHRAC

In September 2013, we celebrated our tenth anniversary with a series of events. A photo exhibition, featuring images of applicants in our cases and striking pictures from the region, went on public view during September at the Russian cultural centre Pushkin House in London, and was later displayed at Middlesex University. We then held a special panel discussion on the ‘foreign agent’ law in Russia, with Oleg Orlov of Memorial, Luke Harding of The Guardian and Anna Sevortian, formerly director of Human Rights Watch in Russia.

31 Interns, volunteers and translators

EHRAC’s work could not be achieved without the critical contribution of interns and volunteers, who offer their time and skills both in our office and remotely. In turn, they have the opportunity to get involved in many aspects of our work, from translation to fundraising, event management to administration. Those with a legal background assist with research, write summaries of our cases and work on individual projects according to their skills. “I had a great opportunity to work with EHRAC as an intern from June to mid-September 2013. During my internship the EHRAC team was involved in many projects, aside from the work related to litigation, case management and day-to-day running of the organisation. I was very lucky to experience the preparation for EHRAC’s 10th anniversary celebration, its first panel debate, the publication of the annual report and the annual meeting with human rights lawyers in Moscow. The variety of tasks I was trusted with allowed me to gain and improve many skills which are indispensable in all kinds of NGO management work. Additionally, carrying out legal administration work helped me to better understand the process of lodging an application in the European Court and the varied nature of cases undertaken by EHRAC. Seeing many stages of human rights litigation allowed me to acquaint myself with the complex relationship between domestic, local actors, international bodies like the European Court and organisations like EHRAC. Apart from gaining many practical skills and broadening my knowledge of human rights issues, I also benefited from the internship in many other unexpected ways. Being part of the EHRAC team gave me valuable insight into work in the non-profit sector and the professional environment in the human rights field. It gave me an opportunity to see people work in different capacities, the opportunities that this given career path offers, as well as its potential challenges. What is more, my internship was not only a great learning opportunity in terms of my intellectual and professional development. It was also a time that I immensely enjoyed. I felt included by all the members of the team and I had a sense that everyone was helping me make the most of my time. I was provided with feedback which allowed me to gradually improve my performance and gain confidence handling tasks which were initially out of my comfort zone. My work was always appreciated and I had a sense of true accomplishment by the end of it! I am truly grateful for this opportunity.” Daria Jarczewska NGO Management intern, 2013

“Working for EHRAC was a wonderful experience! Having just completed my postgraduate studies in Human Rights Law when I joined the organisation, my involvement in its work added valuable practical experience to my existing theoretical knowledge in human rights. As I primarily worked on the implementation of judgments in the cases EHRAC had litigated before the ECtHR, this internship placement offered me an insight into the challenges related to the application and implementation of human rights norms, especially in jurisdictions of Eastern European countries. Consequently, I acquired hands-on experience in the implementation process, the difficulties it encompasses and the way it is being realised by member states of the Council of Europe. Yet, it was not solely the interesting subject of my work that made my time at EHRAC enjoyable. What pleased me equally is the friendly working environment. I had an excellent collaboration with permanent staff and my supervisors, all of whom highly appreciated my contribution to EHRAC’s objectives and acknowledged the effort I put in performing my tasks with efficacy and modesty. I will always be grateful to EHRAC and its staff for giving me the opportunity to become part of their team.” Katerina Akestoridi, legal intern, 2013 Daria helping at EHRAC’s 10th anniversary celebration. Photo by Simon O’Connor. 10th anniversary celebration. Photo by Simon O’Connor. Daria helping at EHRAC’s

32 “Being part of the EHRAC team gave me valuable insight into work in the non-profit sector and the professional environment in the human rights field.”

Daria Jarczewska NGO Management intern, 2013

33 EHRAC Staff Advisory board

Tina Devadasan, Finance and Programme Advisor Samantha Knights (Chair) Barrister, Matrix Chambers Joanna Evans, Senior Lawyer Dr. Chaloka Beyani, Associate Professor of International Law, London School of Economics, UN Special Rap- Jessica Gavron, Senior Lawyer porteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Vahe Grigoryan, Legal Officer Persons Oksana Popova, Case and Project Support Officer Professor Joshua Castellino, Dean, School of Law,

, November 2014. Photo by Middlesex University. , November 2014. Photo by Middlesex University. Middlesex University, London Prof. Philip Leach, Director Simon Erskine, DChA, FCA, FCIE, Chartered Account- Amy Reed, Programme Manager ant, MHA MacIntyre Hudson Beth Saffer, PR and Development Officer Luke Harding, Journalist & author, The Guardian Natalia Prilutskaya, Campaigner (Russia), Amnesty The EHRAC International Steering Committee, formed of International representatives of our partner organisations in the region, met in person for the last time in 2013. In future years Sir Keir Starmer QC, Barrister, Doughty Street meetings will be held remotely. This year we established Chambers a new UK-based Advisory board, formed of experts in Dr Elizabeth Teague OBE, formerly Russia Researcher, finance, law, advocacy, fundraising, media, and other UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office professional skills, to guide the development of EHRAC as an organisation. We would also like to thank those individuals and organisations who assisted us with casework, attended training events, contributed to publications and supported our advocacy work in 2013. The EHRAC team at the launch of photo exhibition Middlesex University

34 Interns & volunteers Our supporters

Katerina Akestoridi Maddy Green-Armytage Eleanor Healy-Brit Catriona Gillham Daria Jarczewska Awaz Raoof Michael Rice (Middlesex University) Inessa Shahnazarova Yulia Spytska Halyna Tatara Mariam Uberi We would like to express our sincere thanks to these or- Adela Valkova ganisations for supporting our work in 2013, whose assistance enables us to continue to support human rights organisations, and victims of human rights abuse, in the Our thanks also go to the numerous volunteer translators former Soviet Union. who, year after year, make an immeasurable contribution to our work by translating case documents, which enables the EHRAC legal team to review and provide feedback on our partner lawyers’ work. Without their support, our work would not be possible.

35 EHRAC Statement of Financial Activities January – December 2013

EHRAC is a centre within Middlesex University. The University-wide annual audit of accounts was carried out by independent external registered auditors and chartered accountants, reporting to the Board of Governors of Middlesex University. This summary of financial information represents the period 1 January to 31 December 2013. The information is derived from a schedule of EHRAC income and expenditure, subject to an agreed upon procedures review undertaken in March 2014 by the University’s external auditors. The statutory accounts for the year ending 31 July at Middlesex University can be found at http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/Strategy/financial/index.aspx.

Incoming Resources Grants Other Total

Grants received £506,029 £506,029

Other income received £25,695 £25,695

Total incoming resources £506,029 £25,695 £531,724

Resources expended Grants Other Total

Fundraising and publicity £31,874 £31,874

Charitable expenditure

Litigation and advocacy £145,975 £145,975

Capacity building and training £89,438 £693 £90,131

Raising awareness and disseminat- £55,754 £55,754 ing information

Support costs £1,287 £1,287

Management and Administration £15,563 £15,563

Total resources expended £339,891 £693 £340,584

Net outgoing resources £166,139 £25,002 £191,141

Funds Balances at 1 January 2013* £24,036 £243,221 £267,257

Fund Balances at 31 December 2013 £190,175 £268,223 £458,398

* This includes funds held on behalf of partner organisations in Russia and the South Caucasus.

36 European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) Middlesex University The Burroughs Hendon NW4 4BT Tel: +44 (0)208 411 2826 Fax: +44 (0)208 202 7058 Email: [email protected] www.mdx.ac.uk/ehrac

EHRAC has partnership status with the Council of Europe.

EHRAC is established within Middlesex University. The University is an exempt char- ity by virtue of the Charities Act 1960.

EHRAC relies on grants and charitable donations. Your generous support could enable us to represent more victims of human rights abuse at the European Court of Human Rights, continue mentoring lawyers in Russia and the South Caucasus, and translate and disseminate vital human rights resources.

If you would like to support our work with a donation of any size, please visit www. mdx.ac.uk/ehrac/donate. Thank you for your support.

Printed on 100% recycled paper