House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Written Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre

These submissions are put forward in response to the letter from the Foreign Affairs Committee of 15 November 2004 inviting comments from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre on the FCO's Annual Report on Human Rights 2004.

1. The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)[13] was established at London Metropolitan University in 2003. EHRAC's project-to assist individuals, lawyers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the Russian Federation to take human rights cases to the European Court of Human Rights-is funded for three years by the European Commission, as a grant under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme[14].

2. EHRAC works primarily in partnership with Memorial, one of the leading Russian human rights organisations, as well as with other NGOs and lawyers throughout the Russian Federation, including Chechnya. EHRAC also provides training on human rights law and procedure, publishes and disseminates human rights training materials and conducts human rights internships.

3. A substantial proportion of the European Court litigation which EHRAC has worked on emanates from Chechnya. These cases concern alleged gross human rights violations, including fatalities and destruction of property caused by aerial bombing, extra-judicial killing, enforced "disappearances" and torture. EHRAC is also advising on and assisting in conducting human rights cases from Russia, for example, concerning discrimination against the Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai, poor prison conditions and environmental pollution.

4. These submissions will refer to two issues: (1) Chechnya, and (2) the proposed reforms of the European Court of Human Rights.

Chechnya

5. As noted in our submissions to the Foreign Affairs Committee last year, the influence of the international community with respect to Chechnya remains weak. As the Annual Report notes, the permanent presence of Council of Europe officials in Chechnya ended in January 2004 and the OSCE's mandate has still not been renewed.

6. It is very welcome that Professor Yakin Erturk, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, was able to undertake a mission to Chechnya and Ingushetia in December 2004. On 24 December 2004 she issued a strongly worded press release, stating "I heard first-hand accounts of women being arbitrarily detained and tortured following targeted operations [by the Russian special forces] . . ."[15]

7. However, since his appointment in July 2004, Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, has already been refused permission by the Russian authorities to visit the region.

8. In its report last year, the Foreign Affairs Committee recommended that the FCO should encourage increased access for international human rights monitors in Chechnya, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations. We suggest that this recommendation clearly needs to be renewed.

9. One particular concern resulting from the withdrawal of Council of Europe staff from the Office of the President's Special Representative in Chechnya is that the outcome remains unknown of the "nearly 10,000" applications concerning alleged human rights violations which had been received by that Office by September 2003[16].

10. One of the principal reasons why EHRAC's work focuses on utilisation of the mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights is that it remains one of the very few means by which international oversight can be maintained in respect of Chechnya. For example, in October 2004 the Court held the first hearing in Strasbourg concerning alleged human rights violations in Chechnya (in the cases of Khashiyev and others v Russia[17]). Judgments in these cases, which concern three separate incidents at the start of the present conflict in Chechnya, in late 1999 and early 2000, are expected early in 2005.

11. The European Court's ongoing caseload now includes many cases from Chechnya, and it is to be hoped that the Court's judgments in these cases will not only establish how human rights violations have been perpetrated, but also provide redress to aggrieved individuals. The cases should also lead to further domestic investigations and to more fundamental changes to law and practice within the region.

12. However, three obstacles in particular risk hampering these developments. The first is the intimidation which has been experienced by those who are seeking to utilise international human rights mechanisms. Applicants from Chechnya with pending European Court cases have, in the most serious cases, been killed, or detained and been subjected to "enforced disappearance". Other applicants (and/or their relatives, friends or associates) have been followed, beaten, questioned and threatened. In a number of cases, applicants (or their relatives) have been threatened expressly as a result of the fact that they have made applications to the European Court. In other cases, applicants have been threatened as a consequence of their pursuing domestic avenues of redress. As a result, some applicants have instructed their legal representatives to withdraw their European Court applications.

13. The second obstacle is the increasing pressures which are being placed on human rights NGOs and their staff. There have been recent instances of intimidation of human rights workers. There are also wider concerns about threats to place further restrictions on foreign-funded non-governmental organisations, following President Putin's remarks in his Address to the Federal Assembly on 26 May 2004: "I would like to say a few words about the role of non-political public organisations. In our country, there are thousands of public associations and unions that work constructively. But not all of the organisations are oriented towards standing up for people's real interests. For some of them, the priority is to receive financing from influential foreign foundations. Others serve dubious group and commercial interests. And the most serious problems of the country and its citizens remain unnoticed."[18].

14. The third concern is the response of the Russian government to Strasbourg judgments. In reply to the European Court's judgment in Ilascu and others v Moldova and Russia in July 2004, concerning the unlawful detention of the applicants in the "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria", the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a press release which stated that there was "bewilderment in Moscow at the inconsistency, contradictoriness, subjectivity and clear political engagement of the European Court". The Ministry also criticised the decision as being "erroneous" and as applying "double standards"[19].

15. Accordingly, in views of these developments, we consider that it is essential that the UK government, and other Council of Europe states, should continue to remind the Russian authorities of their legal obligations to apply and uphold the European Convention on Human Rights and to comply with the judgments of the European Court, including allowing individuals freely to pursue national and international legal remedies and to enable NGOs and lawyers working in the field of human rights to assist them.

Proposed reforms of the European Court of Human Rights

16. In our submissions to the Foreign Affairs Committee last year, we commented on the considerable disquiet about certain proposals to reform the mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights (as did a number of other organisations). This year's Annual Report merely notes (p. 111) that a protocol to the European Convention (Protocol No. 14) was adopted in May 2004.

17. In order for Protocol No. 14 to enter into force, it must first be ratified by each Council of Europe state, a process which is expected to be completed by 2006. The Protocol was signed by the UK on 13 July 2004 and was laid before Parliament on 15 November 2004 (pursuant to the Ponsonby Rule). However, this process highlights the fact that there is at present no reliable, systematic parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties (including human rights treaties) before their ratification by the executive. This is a matter of concern, undermining, as it does, the democratic legitimacy of such treaties. This is a matter under review by the Joint Committee on Human Rights[20].

European Human Rights Advocacy Centre

5 January 2005