21 Apr 2017 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
We, representatives of international and national non-governmental organisations, issue this appeal prior to a discussion of the investigation into allegations of corruption at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in connection with its work on Azerbaijan, at the Assembly’s April 2017 session and a meeting of the Bureau of the Assembly before the session. We call upon you to support a full, thorough and independent investigation into the corruption allegations, with full civil society oversight.
We are extremely concerned about credible allegations presented in a December 2016 report by the European Stability Initiative (ESI), “The European Swamp: Prosecutions, corruption and the Council of Europe” building on previous findings by ESI and others published in 2012-16, detailing improper influencing of Assembly members by representatives of the Azerbaijani government. In particular, the reports include credible allegations that PACE members from various countries and political groups received payments and other gifts with a view to influencing the appointment of Assembly rapporteurs on Azerbaijan, as well as reports and resolutions of the Assembly on Azerbaijan, most notably the PACE vote on the draft resolution on political prisoners in Azerbaijan in January 2013.
The allegations regarding improper conduct of PACE members are serious, credible, and risk gravely undermining the credibility of the Assembly, as well as the Council of Europe as a whole. It is essential that these allegations are investigated thoroughly and impartially. Calls and recommendations for independent investigation into these allegations put forward by ESI have been echoed by many civil society actors, including Amnesty International, Transparency International, and a group of 60 members of Azerbaijani civil society actors and 20 international NGOs.
We welcome the decision of the PACE Bureau on 27 January 2017 to set up an independent investigation body to shed light on hidden practices that favour corruption. The Bureau has also committed to revising the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and invited GRECO (the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption) to provide advice to the Rules Committee, charged with the investigation.
On 3 March, Wojciech Sawicki, PACE Secretary General, presented the Assembly Bureau with a draft terms of reference for the external and independent investigation at the Bureau meeting in Madrid. The proposal is credible, defining a wide mandate and competences and including strong guarantees for the independence of the investigation and safeguards against non-compliance with its work.
Unfortunately, the proposal was met with resistance at the meeting, and no agreement was made on its substance. The proposal was further discussed at a meeting of the heads of the PACE Parliamentary groups on 28 March in St Petersburg: again, no consensus was reached on its content, and whether it should be adopted.
A thorough investigation is essential to restore PACE’s credibility and allow it to effectively address human rights violations across the Council of Europe, including in Azerbaijan. The chairman of Azerbaijani NGO the Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety, Mehman Huseynov is already facing reprisals for raising the corruption allegations during the January PACE session. A day after his NGO sent a letter about the corruption allegations to PACE members in January, he was abducted and tortured by police and later sentenced for 2 years on defamation charges for allegedly making false allegations about torture. For PACE to be in a position to respond to such violations, it must be seen as independent and not under the influence of states wishing to influence their conduct.
We call upon members of the PACE Bureau to commit to the Sawicki proposal and to call for a full plenary debate on the proposal at the April session of PACE. We also call on the PACE Bureau to include a mechanism of civil society oversight of the investigation to ensure its full independence and impartiality.
We call upon all Members of the Assembly to support in the strongest possible terms an independent, external and thorough investigation. This can be done by signing a written Declaration on the Parliamentary Assembly Integrity introduced on 25 January 2017 by PACE members Pieter Omtzigt (The Netherlands, Christian Democrat), and Frank Schwabe (Germany, Social Democrat) urging the PACE President Pedro Agramunt (Spain, EPP) to launch a “deep, thorough investigation by an independent panel” that makes its findings public. More than one fifth of the Assembly members have joined the declaration. More voices in support of the Assembly integrity are needed. Moreover, PACE members must insist on their right to discuss the Sawicki proposal at the April session of the Assembly, to ensure that PACE has the mechanisms in place to adequately deal with corruption allegations.
We call on the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland to make a very strong statement to affirm that there will be no tolerance of any corruption, including bribery, trading in influence or taking up of roles that imply a conflict of interest, in the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe in general.
Commitment to the rule of law, integrity, transparency, and public accountability should be effectively enforced as the key principles of the work of the Parliamentary Assembly. If such a decision is not made now, reputational damage to PACE may become irreparable, preventing PACE from fulfilling its role as a guardian of human rights across the Council of Europe region.
Signatures:
1. The Netherlands Helsinki Committee
2. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
3. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
4. Freedom Files (Russia/Poland)
5. Norwegian Helsinki Committee
6. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
7. Analytical Center for Interethnic Cooperation and Consultations (Georgia)
8. Article 19 (UK)
9. The Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Belarus/Lithuania)
10. Index on Censorship (UK)
11. Human Rights House Foundation (Norway)
12. Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan”
13. PEN International (UK)
14. Crude Accountability (USA)
15. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
16. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
17. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) (Switzerland)
18. The Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law
19. Belarusian Helsinki Committee
20. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
21. Promo LEX (Moldova)
22. Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany/Switzerland)
23. Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
24. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
25. Swiss Helsinki Committee
26. Human Rights Information Center (Ukraine)
27. Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
28. Albanian Helsinki Committee
29. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative” (Ukraine)
30. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
31. Women of Don (Russia)
32. DRA – German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
33. Association UMDPL (Ukraine)
34. European Stability Initiative (Germany)
35. International Media Support (IMS) (Denmark)
36. Civil Rights Defenders (Sweden)
37. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) (France)
38. Sova Center for Information and Analysis (Russia)
39. Kosova Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (Kosovo)
40. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
41. People in Need Foundation (Czech Republic)
42. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (Belgium)
43. Macedonian Helsinki Committee
44. International Youth Human Rights Movement
45. Human Rights First (USA)
46. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Georgia/Azerbaijan)
47. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
48. Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS) (Azerbaijan)
49. Media Rights Institute (Azerbaijan)
50. Public Association for Assistance to Free Economy (Azerbaijan)
51. Institute for Peace and Democracy (Netherlands/Azerbaijan)
52. Turan News Agency (Azerbaijan)
53. Democracy and NGO development Resource Center (Azerbaijan)
54. Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (Azerbaijan)
55. Monitoring Centre for Political Prisoners (Azerbaijan)
56. Azerbaijan without Political Prisoners (Azerbaijan)
21 Apr 2017 | Event Reports, News and features, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Alp Toker of the 2017 Freedom of Expression Digital Activism Award-winning Turkey Blocks and Index on Censorship head of advocacy, Melody Patry. (Photo: Centre for Turkey Studies)
The Centre for Turkey Studies (CEFTUS) and Index on Censorship held a public forum at the House of Commons on Thursday 20 April 2017 to discuss the impact of the recent Turkish referendum as part of the 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards.
The referendum held on 16 April 2017 saw President Recep Tayyip Erdogan secure 51.3% of the vote to obtain sweeping presidential powers.
Chaired by former PEN International director Sara Whyatt, the debate focused on Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies and what the outcome of the referendum now means for freedom of expression in the European nation. The panel included Guney Yildiz, special adviser to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Alp Toker, founder of internet shutdown monitoring organisation Turkey Blocks, winner of the 2017 Freedom of Expression Digital Activism Award, and Index on Censorship’s head of advocacy, Melody Patry.
In his presentation, Yildiz took a broad stance in his observations on the referendum outcome.
The special adviser opposed the view that Turkey’s referendum primarily concerned Erdogan and his drive for increased powers. He claimed that “the movement towards a presidential system was already underway even before the referendum”.
“Something even more important is going on in Turkey, it’s a massive restructuring of the state and it goes beyond Erdogan,” the select committee adviser said.
Yildiz also argued that it was wrong for Turkey to be described as a “polarised society”, or to deem President Erdogan a “polarising figure” following the referendum results. He described Turkey as a “multi-polar country” with a “fragmented opposition” who were already divided among themselves over a host of other issues, divisions which they were unlikely to overcome.
“The proposition that this referendum is the beginning of the end of President Erdogan, in my opinion, is mistaken,” Yildiz said.
Yildiz went on to discuss the impact of the referendum on the Kurdish population, foreign policy and the future of Turkey.
The special adviser concluded: “Winning the presidency is a huge step, but it doesn’t mean that Erdogan is in any lack of challenges. I would say that these challenges are coming mostly from regional tensions, the Turkish economy and other structural changes rather than the Turkish opposition.”
Index’s head of advocacy Melody Patry spoke on the implications of the Turkish referendum on freedom of expression.
Patry explained that before the coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey was “not quite what we’d call a safe haven for free speech”. However, the onset of the coup accelerated the pace and widened the scope of the crackdown on both media freedom and freedom of expression more generally, with the government resorting to methods of intimidation. “We are now talking about not just thousands, but tens of thousands of academics, journalists, students having lost their jobs or being fired or detained,” Patry expressed.
Index’s head of advocacy also highlighted that, since July of this year, 150 journalists have been jailed and 159 media outlets closed in Turkey. These are only the cases that have been recorded due to the difficulties surrounding the monitoring of attacks on the press. “Because it is difficult to monitor, it is also difficult to hold Turkish government to account.”
Before the coup attempt, many journalists were arrested for crimes relating to defamation and terrorism. “These kinds of charges are all the more concerning at a time when after the referendum, Erdogan is talking about reestablishing the death penalty,” said Patry. “We know that being associated with terror and terrorism could potentially put a target on the back or the forehead for the death penalty.”
In presenting his views on the referendum, Turkish-British technologist Alp Toker began by looking at the positives arising from the election. “A huge turnout means huge engagement; people are interested in voting, they are engaged with the political process,” he said.
In contrast to the stance adopted by Yildiz, Toker felt that Turkey had indeed become more polarised. However, the technologist made it clear that this was not a conclusion that should be reached through opinion, but through independent observation — something which Turkey currently lacked. “We’re missing out on something which you might call truth,” he said.
When turning to the work of his organisation Turkey Blocks, which was used to monitor the internet during the election weekend, Toker confirmed that no incidents of mass scale internet shutdowns were identified. This, however, did not equate to the “all clear” for media freedom and security in Turkey. “In fact, some could interpret it as the opposite,” the technologist said. “One of the opinions I heard is that they [Turkish government] don’t feel the need to control the internet because it has other means of controlling opinions.”
In drawing to a close, Toker argued that a better understanding of what kind of freedom was expected in Turkey needed to be established before progress could be made. The technologist said that this was “not a problem to be fixed from the outside” and that a “multi-pronged approach” would need to be adopted in order to solve it. “It’s not going to help if we continue this post-election polarisation,” he concluded. [/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obmYZsDBu6s”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
21 Apr 2017 | Asia and Pacific, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, Event Reports, Maldives, News and features, Serbia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Maldives Independent’s former editor Zaheena Rasheed and KRIK editor-in-chief Stevan Dojcinovic. (Photo: KRIK)
Thousands of miles separate the Maldives from Serbia, but Zaheena Rasheed, the Index award-winning journalist and former editor of Maldives Independent, and Stevan Dojcinovic, editor-in-chief of the Serbian investigative website KRIK, but both described similar attacks on press freedom at a panel discussion at the Corinthia Hotel in London.
Rasheed lives in exile, having been forced to flee the Indian Ocean archipelago after working on an Al Jazeera documentary critical of the Maldivian government. She said she escaped just in time – a man who left a day later “barely made it out of the airport”.
Rasheed spoke of the intimidation tactics that independent news media had been subject to in the country. “Some newsrooms had gangs going inside of the newsroom and saying specifically we are not leaving until certain articles were taken down,” she said.
The Maldivian government claims that these gangs are criminals beyond their control.
As violence does not deter outlets like Maldives Independent from their investigative work, president Abdulla Yameen’s regime resorted to legal means, including imposing a draconian defamation law.
Rasheed said: “The definition of defamation is so broad that I could be sued for something I think, it doesn’t have to even be expressed. It could be a gesture. If it’s a gang or criminals after you, you can hide and avoid it, but when it’s the government you just can’t.”
On Serbia, Dojcinovic said that most in the West do not realise the extent of the country’s problems. “There’s not a real, clear picture of Serbia in the EU regarding how wild corruption and crime are,” he said.
Both journalists have seen hard-won democratic freedoms erode quickly. In Serbia this slide began in 2012 when Aleksandar Vučić was elected prime minister (this month, Vučić was also elected as the country’s president). Dojcinovic said: “The government has managed to destroy and undermine all of the democratic institutions built over 12 years within two years. We no longer have an independent judicial system and it’s the same with the media.”
In the Maldives, 2012 also left its mark. “Since the coup, a lot of democratic gains have been lost. What we saw in the first couple of years after the coup were physical assaults against journalists,” Rasheed said. “There were murder attempts, death threats and one TV station was even torched.”
She said that police turned a blind eye to these attacks. “All of the CCTV cameras were turned away from the building. The police just weren’t there.”
Whilst the threats are different in Serbia, Dojcinovic described a choked media landscape: “It’s not possible to see criticism of the government in the mainstream media. Not on any newsstand or on any TV frequency. They have destroyed all of these institutions.”
Dojcinovic said that the Serbian government is falling into the same patterns as Slobodan Milosevic’s regime: “It’s the arrests of journalists by the same group of people who were behind the murder of journalists back in the 1990s. They can’t cross this line now because it would ruin their reputation with the EU, so they find a way to make your life a nightmare without leaving fingerprints.”
Reprisals for his work have included three smear campaigns: he has been tagged as a criminal for his links to organised crime, branded a foreign agent, and had his personal life put on display.
“You cannot fight this much either because you can only publish on the internet,” Dojcinovic said. “That’s nothing compared to the newspapers which present us in this way.”
In the Maldives, however, there appears to be no such line. Rasheed said: “A member of our team was disappeared in 2014. Then a well-known gangster, who we think was involved in our colleague’s disappearance, vandalised the security cameras [at our office] and left a machete at our door. And then I got a text message saying: ‘You’re next.’”
Rasheed thinks that her colleague Ahmed Rilwan was targeted because he was seen to be in favour of secularism, and negative stories about Islamic radicalisation raise the government’s ire. “What really bothers them are these stories of growing radicalisation in the Maldives because that is what puts tourists off,” she said.
Rasheed also spoke about the difficulties of constantly fighting such repression. She told the audience that she had, to some extent, been traumatised by her experiences. However: “As a journalist, the most important thing to do is to live to tell the story.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1492769899588-d49a7ccf-cd47-5″ taxonomies=”8148, 9028, 8734″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
21 Apr 2017 | Index in the Press
В пятницу стало известно о том, что оппозиционный активист Ильдар Дадин обратился в Железнодорожный городской суд Московской области с иском, в котором требует взыскать с России компенсацию в 5 млн рублей за незаконное уголовное преследование. Read the full article
