Freedom of Expression

ECHR Halts Deportation of Iraqi Family Fleeing ISIS, Citing Human Rights Violations

By: Rabiya Shamim

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On 6 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a landmark ruling in J.A. and A.A. v Turkey regarding the rights of asylum seekers. The case involves a family seeking asylum in Turkey, fearing persecution and violence if returned to their home country of Iraq.

 
Convening of the European Court of Human Rights. | Photo courtesy of Bianet.
  

The applicants, an Iraqi husband and wife with four children, voiced serious concerns over the security situation in Iraq, especially considering that they fled due to ongoing armed conflict, terrorism, and sectarian strife. In support of their claim for international protection, the family highlighted the presence of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and the targeted brutality against civilians, especially those perceived to have collaborated with Iraqi security forces.

The ECHR emphasized Article 2 of the Convention, which protects the right to life, as one of the fundamental provisions. Similarly, Article 3 embodies a fundamental principle of the democratic societies forming the Council of Europe. Central to the ECHR’s ruling was the applicant’s claim that their expulsion to Iraq would breach their fundamental rights outlined in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life and freedom from torture and inhuman treatment. The Court stressed that these protections are absolute, particularly when people are at genuine risk of persecution or violence upon return to their home country.

The ECHR reviewed the evidence presented by both applicants, and Turkish authorities, acknowledging the complexity of asylum petitions and the difficulties faced by people in substantiating their fears within a short timeframe. The ruling emphasized that states must thoroughly evaluate asylum petitions, particularly in cases where there is a risk of persecution or violence.

Despite the applicants’ diligent efforts to establish the imminent danger they would face in Iraq, the Court found shortcomings in the domestic authorities’ evaluation of their claims. While the Turkish Constitutional Court initially acknowledged the credible basis of the applicants’ fears, subsequent decisions failed to sufficiently address the consequences of the situation in Iraq, especially in the Ninewa region.

The ECHR’s decision reaffirmed the idea that the right to life includes not only protection from immediate harm but also the obligations of states to prevent foreseeable risks to individuals within their jurisdiction. The Court underscored the need to promptly address the plausible threat to the applicants’ safety by granting an interim measure that will prohibit their expulsion until further evaluation.

The ECHR concluded that the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention would be violated if they were deported to Iraq without first undergoing a thorough reassessment of the risks they face. The ruling emphasizes the critical role of international human rights law in safeguarding security and dignity, especially in times of conflict and persecution. 

For further information, please see:

Bianet – ECtHR: Deportation of Iraqi Family fleeing ISIS constitutes violation of right to life – 8 Feb. 2024

Council of Europe – European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

ECHR – CASE OF J.A. AND A.A. v. TÜRKİYE- 09 Jan 2024

Syriac Press – European Court halts deportation of Iraqi family fleeing ISIS citing human rights violations – 9 Feb. 2024

 

 

ECHR Rules Russia Violated Journalists’ Rights to Life and Freedom of Expression

By: Firdevs Okatan

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 30, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia breached fundamental rights of journalists Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev and Khadzhimurad Kamalov, whose murders in Dagestan, Russia highlighted critical systemic failures and underscored the ongoing risks to press freedom.

 
Media coverage of of the death of journalists Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev and Khadzhimurad Kamalov | Photo Courtesy of Anadolu Ajansi.
  

The case before the ECHR, which was brought by relatives Mutaelum Akhmednabiyev and Ali Akhmedovich Kamalov, sought justice for the journalists and highlighted systemic failures in the Russian judicial system. Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev, Deputy Editor of Novoye Delo and Correspondent for Kavkazskiy Uzel, was included on a death threat leaflet in September 2009. On July 9, 2013, he was assassinated near his home in Semender, Russia. Khadzhimurad Kamalov, founder and editor of the Dagestan newspaper Chernovik was named also in the leaflet that targeted journalists, human rights defenders, and lawyers. Kamalov was murdered in Makhachkala, Russia on December 15, 2011.

In December 2011, Russian authorities initiated criminal investigations into the murders. The investigations sought to uncover the motives behind these crimes, which was seemingly linked to the journalists’ professional activities and their criticisms of local authorities. Akhmednabiyev and Kamalov’s families experienced numerous challenges throughout the legal process, including perceived inadequacies in the investigations’ thoroughness and pace, leading to claims of procedural violations. The investigations were marked by delays, suspensions, and allegations of ineffectiveness, raising serious concerns about the commitment to fully uncover the truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The ECHR found Russia violated of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) in both procedural and substantive aspects of Akhmednabiyev’s case, and only in the procedural aspect of Kamalov’s case. The Court underscored the lack of effective investigation by Russian authorities and the failure to provide adequate protection to the journalists, despite known threats to their lives.

The Court ordered Russia to pay EUR 26,000 to Akhmednabiyev’s family and EUR 20,000 to Kamalov’s, acknowledging the resulting non-pecuniary damage suffered from the state’s failure to protect their rights.

For further information, please see:

Caucasian Knot – ECtHR’s decision in case of Dagestani journalist Akhmednabiev becomes moral victory– 01 Feb. 2024

Committee To Protect Journalists – Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev Killed – 09 Jul. 2013

ECHR – Case of Akhmednabiyev and Kamalov V. Russia – 30 Jan.  2024

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

 

 

ECHR Holds French Criminal Defamation Conviction of Workplace Harassment Plaintiff Violates Freedom of Expression

By: Molly Osinoff

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 18, 2024 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that a plaintiff’s criminal conviction of defamation following her pursuit of a workplace harassment lawsuit constituted an Article 10 violation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 

 
France’s Prime Minister for Labour, Full Employment and Inclusion, on the left, and ILO Director-General on the right | Photo Courtesy of the International Labour Organization.
  

Earlier this month, the ECHR issued a ruling in the case of Allée v. France. The plaintiff was a French national living in France who was employed at an education association. In 2015, the plaintiff requested a transfer to another position due to harassment by the association’s executive vice-chair. A year later, the plaintiff’s husband wrote to the managing director, accusing the executive vice-chair of harassing and sexually assaulting his wife. The managing director advised the applicant to take sick leave until her contract could be terminated or she could find a new position.

The plaintiff sent an email titled “Sexual Assault, Sexual and Mental Harassment” to the association’s managing director. She then forwarded it to her husband, the State Labor inspector, the executive vice-chair, and her son, who was the association’s spiritual director. The plaintiff’s husband subsequently posted a message to Facebook to amplify his wife’s allegations, calling the situation a “sex scandal.” The message included the name of the executive vice-chair’s family and the name of the association. Later, the executive vice-chair brought claims against the plaintiff and her husband alleging public defamation.

The Paris Criminal Court found the plaintiff and her husband guilty of public defamation of a private individual, and the Paris Court of Appeals upheld the judgment. In the case brought to the ECHR, the plaintiff argued that her criminal conviction of defamation violated the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) Article 10, which provides the right to freedom of expression.

The ECHR held in the plaintiff’s favor, explaining that the plaintiff’s defamation conviction could have a chilling effect, ultimately discouraging people, and women specifically, from reporting experiences of workplace sexual harassment or assault. It concluded that the restriction on the plaintiff’s right to freedom of expression was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and that the plaintiff had suffered a violation of Article 10.

This case is not the only headway made in workplace combating harassment in France. On April 13, 2023, France officially ratified the International Labour Organization Violence and Harassment Convention’s 2019 standards (C190) for preventing and responding to workplace violence and harassment. France was the 27th country in the world, and the 5th in the European Union, to ratify C190. The Minister of Labor at the time said that “the world of work must not be a source of anxiety or insecurity for women.” The Convention affirms the right to a workplace free from violence and harassment and provides the first globally agreed upon definition of violence and harassment at work, including gender-based violence. While France was a driving force behind the Convention, it did not ratify C190 until four years after the convention.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – The Applicant’s Criminal Conviction for Public Defamation Following Claims of Mental and Sexual Harassment Breached Article 10 of the Convention – 18 Jan. 2024.

Human Rights Watch – France Ratifies Treaty to End Violence and Harassment at Work – 20 Apr. 2023.

International Labour Organization – France Ratifies Convention C190 on Violence and Harassment in the World of Work – 13 Apr. 2023.

 

 

IACHR and Special Rapporteurship for Freedom and Expression Show Concern Over Continued Repression of Indigenous Communities in Nicaragua

By: Gavin Gretsky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NICARAGUA – The Special Rapporteurship for Freedom and Expression (RELE) of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) recently released a statement expressing concern over the repression of indigenous communities along the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. RELE and the IACHR expressed concern over violence by settlers against native communities, the shutdown of indigenous radio stations, and the YATAMA party having its status revoked.

 
A woman protests outside of the Organization of the American States against human rights violations committed by the Nicaraguan government | Photo Courtesy of AP
  

Settlers encroaching into indigenous communities has been an ongoing issue for indigenous communities in Nicaragua, however the encroachment and violence has escalated recently. The land inhabited by the Mayanga and Miskito along the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua is traditionally used for small scale farming, hunting, and fishing. According to community leaders, settlers forcibly occupy these lands for the purpose of commercial exploitation of natural resources. This occupation is often combined with violence, resulting in property destruction, kidnappings, and murder. Despite this violence, there has been no action by the government to prevent further conflict.  While the IACHR has directed the Nicaraguan government to protect these communities the government has not responded despite Nicaragua’s acceptance of the IACHR’s jurisdiction.

The closure of indigenous radio stations also concerned the IACHR and RELE. In the coastal Caribbean region, there were two indigenous radio stations that had been in operation for over two decades, run by the YATAMA opposition party, and were primarily used to advocate for and spread indigenous culture, often in indigenous languages. The Nicaraguan telecommunications regulator stated that the radio stations were confiscated by the government due to operating without the proper permits. However, local leaders state that this was done to silence opposition to the government. The IACHR and RELE are concerned with the closure of the radio stations because they served an important role in facilitating public debate and their closure creates “silence areas” where only state run media is available.

Lastly, the IACHR and RELE brought attention to the legal status of the YATAMA party being revoked. YATAMA was a political party in opposition to the governing FSLN party and is rooted in the Miskito people, the largest indigenous community in Nicaragua. The Supreme Electoral Council announced the revocation came because YATAMA “misrepresented reality in the country” in violation of Act 1055. Prior to its revocation, YATAMA was the only political party that could challenge the FSLN in the coastal regions of Nicaragua. The revocation also comes on the eve of regional elections, which advocates state was done to create a single-party system.

Additionally, YATAMA leaders have also come under attack from the government. Former party leaders, Brooklyn Rivera and Elizabeth Henriquez were both arrested with no reason given by the government and their whereabouts are currently unknown according to IACHR. The IACHR stated that this restriction on political opposition would violate many rights and freedoms, including the freedom of expression and association.

In its conclusion, the IACHR and RELE called on the Nicaraguan government to end its repression against indigenous peoples, against YATAMA, and to provide the location and health conditions of those arrested.

For further information, please see:

ABC News – Indigenous people in northeast Nicaragua say armed settlers are pushing them off their land – 10 Aug. 2023

Confidencial – Ortega’s Elimination of the Yatama Party: A mistake of the past and present – 10 Oct. 2023

Havana Times – Police Arrest Indigenous Legislator from Her Home – 2 Oct. 2023

IACHR – IACHR and Its Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression Urge Nicaragua to End Repression Against Indigenous Communities in Its Caribbean Coast – 10 Oct. 2023

UNHR – Oral update by the ASG on the Situation of Human Rights in Nicaragua – 3 Mar. 2023

Reuters – Nicaraguan indigenous party says government has barred it ahead of local elections – 4 Oct. 2023

The Tico Times – Nicaragua Accused of Attacking Miskito People – 8 Oct. 2023

ECHR Finds Turkish Court Violated Right to Freedom of Expression

By: Jacob Samoray

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations Associate Article Editor

STRASBOURG, France – In reviewing the sentencing of two Turkish nationals, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the convictions violated their Article 10 right to freedom of expression. Baran Durukan and İlknur Birol were sentenced by a domestic court for their prior social media posts. Mirroring the Turkish Constitutional Court’s holding, the ECHR also found that the practice of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgement (SPJ) was unconstitutional, striking it from Section 231 of the Turkish Constitution.

 
The Anayasa Mahkemesi, Turkey’s Constitutional Court | Photo courtesy of BBC News: Türkçe
  

Durukan was sentenced in 2018 to over a year of imprisonment for a series of posts deemed to be “propaganda in favor of a terrorist organization.” The posts included pictures and statements supporting the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and the People’s Protection Units, both listed by the government as terrorist organizations. Birol was sentenced to a ten-month internment in 2019 for an offensive tweet made in 2015 referring to the Turkish president as a “filthy thief.” Following both proceedings, the domestic court offered to suspend Durukan and Birol’s judgements under Article 231 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, which would reduce their convictions to three and five years of probation, respectively.

The ECHR, in reviewing the domestic and Constitutional Court’s findings, found that both the sentences and suspension would likely cause a “chilling effect” upon future expression, and so held that they constituted a violation of each applicant’s freedom of expression. Findings by both courts showed a lack of adequate reasoning by lower courts for suspension of judgements, as well as improper consideration of defendants’ arguments. Requests by defendants for the gathering and examination of evidence were also regularly set aside on irrelevant grounds. In addition, the ECHR noted the common practice of asking defendants to consider SPJ at the outset of litigation, likely as a means of pressuring defendants to accept the suspension to avoid a harsher conviction, while encouraging them to implicitly accept guilt for their charges.

The procedure for objecting to SPJ, the only available remedy, was also found to be ineffective, with both the Constitutional Court and the ECHR finding that sentencing courts rarely relied upon sufficient reasoning in upholding suspensions. The Constitutional Court found that neither Article 231 nor any other applicable legal provision could adequately remedy the chilling effect of SPJ, and so struck the offending language of Article 231 as unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to amend the article to eliminate the issue. The Turkish legislature, in following this order, amended the article to require that any reviewing first instance court must review SPJ decisions on the merits of the case. This amendment has been in effect since April 5, 2023.

As part of its judgement, the ECHR has also required the Turkish government to compensate each applicant €2,600 in non-pecuniary damages.

 For further information, please see:

ECHR – AFFAIRE DURUKAN ET BİROL c. TÜRKİYE – 03 Oct. 2023

ECHR – Judgment Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye – conviction of applicants “with judgment suspended” in freedom of expression cases – 03 Oct. 2023

Library of Congress – Turkey: Constitutional Court Strikes Down Rule Allowing Suspension of Pronouncement of Judgment in Criminal Cases – 18 Aug. 2023

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye – Press Release concerning the Decision Annulling the Provision Governing the Suspension of the Pronouncement of the Judgment – 03 Aug. 2023