Azerbaijan: Prosecutors seeking long sentences for Leyla and Arif Yunus

[smartslider2 slider=”35″]

Prosecutors in the case against Leyla Yunus and Arif Yunus have asked the court to sentence the couple to 11 and 9 years respectively, Radio Free Europe reported. It is the latest in a series of moves by the government of Azerbaijan to silence those who have been calling for more freedom and democracy in the country.

The couple face spurious charges of treason, fraud and forgery.

“The world must not turn a blind eye to the ongoing persecution of civil society activists and investigative journalists at the hands of President Ilham Aliyev’s government. The international community must pressure the government to end its attack on civil society and respect international human rights standards,” Melody Patry, senior advocacy officer at Index on Censorship said.


 

Azerbaijan: Silencing human rights

Ongoing coverage of the crackdown on civil society by the government of President Ilham Aliyev


In her role as director of the Peace and Democracy Institute, Leyla Yunus sought to build bridges with Armenian human rights organisation in an attempt to defuse tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Her husband Arif is a historian and researcher who focused on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia.

The Yunus’ trial began on 27 July 2015, nearly a year after they were taken into custody days apart from each other. The couple are set to return to court on 10 August. Today marks a year and a day since the arrest of Arif Yunus on 5 August 2014. Leyla Yunus was arrested on 30 July 2014.

Earlier this week, an appeals court confirmed the six year and three month sentence that was slapped on pro-democracy activist Rasul Jafarov in April 2015.

Investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who exposed corruption associated with the family of Ilham Aliyev, faces a continuation of her trial on 7 Aug. Journalists and observers were barred from the last court session on 24 July. Ismayilova won the US National Press Club‘s highest award on 29 July.

This article was posted on 6 August 2015 at indexoncensorship.org

Russia: Two years without justice for murdered journalist Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev

“Impunity is a great threat to press freedom in Russia,” said Melody Patry, Index on Censorship’s Senior Advocacy Officer. “Failing to use appropriate measures to investigate the murder of Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev is not only a denial of justice, it sends the tacit message that you can get away with killing journalists. When perpetrators are not held to account, it encourages further violence towards media professionals.”

Statement

On the 2nd anniversary of the murder of independent Russian journalist, Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev, we, the undersigned organisations, call for the investigation into his case to be urgently raised to the federal level.

Akhmednabiyev, deputy editor of independent newspaper Novoye Delo, and a reporter for online news portal Caucasian Knot, was shot dead on 9 July 2013 as he left for work in Makhachkala, Dagestan. He had actively reported on human rights violations against Muslims by the police and Russian army.

Two years after his killing, neither the perpetrators nor instigators have been brought to justice. The investigation, led by the local Dagestani Investigative Committee, has been repeatedly suspended for long periods over the last year and half, with little apparent progress being made.

Prior to his murder, Akhmednabiyev was subject to numerous death threats including an assassination attempt in January 2013, the circumstances of which mirrored his eventual murder. Dagestani police wrongly logged the assassination attempt as property damage, and only reclassified it after the journalist’s death, demonstrating a shameful failure to investigate the motive behind the attack and prevent further attacks, despite a request from Akhmednabiyev for protection.

Russia’s failure to address these threats is a breach of the state’s “positive obligation” to protect an individual’s freedom of expression against attacks, as defined by European Court of Human Rights case law (Dink v. Turkey). Furthermore, at a United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) session in September 2014, member States, including Russia, adopted a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.7) on safety of journalists and ending impunity. States are now required to take a number of measures aimed at ending impunity for violence against journalists, including “ensuring impartial, speedy, thorough, independent and effective investigations, which seek to bring to justice the masterminds behind attacks”.

Russia must act on its human rights commitments and address the lack of progress in Akhmednabiyev’s case by removing it from the hands of local investigators, and prioritising it at a federal level. More needs to be done in order to ensure impartial, independent and effective investigation.

On 2 November 2014, 31 non-governmental organisations from Russia, across Europe as well as international, wrote to Aleksandr Bastrykin calling upon him as the Head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, to raise Akhmednabiyev’s case from the regional level to the federal level, in order to ensure an impartial, independent and effective investigation. Specifically, the letter requested that he appoint the Office for the investigation of particularly important cases involving crimes against persons and public safety, under the Central Investigative Department of the Russian Federation’s Investigative Committee to continue the investigation.

To date, there has been no official response to this appeal. The Federal Investigative Committee’s public inactivity on this case contradicts a promise made by President Putin in October 2014, to draw investigators’ attention to the cases of murdered journalists in Dagestan.

As well as ensuring impunity for his murder, such inaction sets a terrible precedent for future investigations into attacks on journalists in Russia, and poses a serious threat to freedom of expression.

We urge the Federal Investigation Committee to remedy this situation by expediting Akhmednabiyev’s case to the Federal level as a matter of urgency. This would demonstrate a clear willingness, by the Russian authorities, to investigate this crime in a thorough, impartial and effective manner.

Supported by

ARTICLE 19
Albanian Media Institute
Analytical Center for Interethnic Cooperation and Consultations (Georgia)
Association of Independent Electronic Media (Serbia)
The Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House
Belorussian Helsinki Committee
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
Civil Society and Freedom of Speech Initiative Center for the Caucasus
Crude Accountability
Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor (Armenia)
Helsinki Committee of Armenia
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
The Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights Monitoring Institute
Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan”
Index on Censorship
International Partnership for Human Rights
International Press Institute
Kharkiv Regional Foundation -Public Alternative (Ukraine)
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law
Moscow Helsinki Group
Norwegian Helsinki Committee
PEN International
Promo LEX Moldova
Public Verdict (Russia)
Reporters without Borders

Заявление по-русски

Ten times the Azerbaijani president told us how much he loves press freedom

Demotix - PanARMENIAN Photo

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (Photo: Demotix)

Critical Azerbaijani journalists may have been jailed, beaten, killed, and forced into hiding and exile. Foreign journalists may have been banned from entering the country for the inaugural European Games in the capital Baku. But don’t worry: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sure loves press freedom — at least according to his tweets.

1) HUNDREDS, you hear!

2) For those who can get in for the European Games, anyway.

3) All of the freedoms are available.

4) No, seriously, ALL OF THEM.

5) I really can’t stress this enough.

6) Free media = democracy. Azerbaijan definitely has both of those things. Definitely.

7) And the best way to forge active relationships is by banning them from entering the country. Obviously.

8) Again, activity is key.

9) Strengthening, targeting. Potato, potato.

10) …to jail.

This article was posted on 11 June, 2015 at indexoncensorship.org

Padraig Reidy: James Rhodes and the visceral need to be heard

James Rhodes, classical pianist, performed at the 2009 Classical Brits Nominations Launch at the Mayfair Hotel in London, UK (Photo by Ghmp - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

James Rhodes, classical pianist, performed at the 2009 Classical Brits Nominations Launch at the Mayfair Hotel in London, UK (Photo by Ghmp – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

In the dark times, will there also be singing?
Yes, there will be singing.
About the dark times.

– Bertolt Brecht

In an address to the first conference convened by the International Writers Center, held in St Louis in 1996, American poet Carolyn Forché described the ordeal of Hungarian poet Miklós Radnóti, who was forced into slave labour during World War II.

Radnoti managed to secure a small notebook in which he recorded his experiences in 10 poems written before he was executed.

A coroner’s report written when his body was exhumed after the war recorded:

“A visiting card with the name Dr. Miklós Radnóti printed on it. An ID card stating the mother’s name as Ilona Grosz. Father’s name illegible. Born in Budapest, May 5, 1909. Cause of death: shot in the nape. In the back pocket of the trousers a small notebook was found soaked in the fluids of the body and blackened by wet earth. This was cleaned and dried in the sun.”

Forché noted that the story of Radnoti did not end in a mass grave. Rather, his work, like that of others survived as “evidence of the dark times in which they lived”. This is what Forché calls “the poetry of witness”, work forged in instances and circumstances when the “personal” and “political” cannot be kept separate.

I was reminded of Forché and her concept of witness when I read the reactions to the court decision that would finally allow pianist James Rhodes to publish his memoir, Instrumental.

Rhodes’s candid book detailed his sexual abuse at the hands of a teacher. He had been raped, leaving him with spinal damage. An extract from the book published on the Guardian website describes the horror and the aftermath:

“I went, literally overnight, from a dancing, spinning, gigglingly alive kid who was enjoying the safety and adventure of a new school, to a walled-off, cement-shoed, lights-out automaton. It was immediate and shocking, like happily walking down a sunny path and suddenly having a trapdoor open and dump you into a freezing cold lake.

“You want to know how to rip the child out of a child? Fuck him. Fuck him repeatedly. Hit him. Hold him down and shove things inside him. Tell him things about himself that can only be true in the youngest of minds before logic and reason are fully formed and they will take hold of him and become an integral, unquestioned part of his being.”

The book fell victim to an injunction preventing publication after Rhodes’s ex-wife insisted that the account of his father’s abuse would be emotionally damaging to their son.

In overturning the injunction, presiding judge Lord Toulson noted: “There is every justification for the publication. A person who has suffered in the way the appellant has suffered, and has struggled to cope with the consequences of his suffering in the way that he has struggled, has the right to tell the world about it. And there is the corresponding public interest in others being able to listen to his life story in all its searing detail.”

The reaction to the news was overwhelmingly one of relief: both for the author but seemingly others too. Stephen Fry tweeted that he was “stupidly teary” about the judgment, which he saw as a vindication for Rhodes.

Vindication seems an odd concept to summon, as no-one seemed to be questioning the veracity of Rhodes’s story. But I think I understand what Fry means.

Rhodes’s case goes beyond the usual reasons we give for reporting child abuse: that it may help others to come forward, or that it may help snare past and future perpretators. While these are valid reasons, they are not the thing in itself. As the judge pointed out, Rhodes has a right to tell his own story and the denial of that right is a further abuse of a man who has already suffered. To deny the story is to inflict further harm.

In the Ten Stages of Genocide, developed by Gregrory Stanton of Genocide Watch (and explored in a new play, No Feedback, opening this week in London), denial is listed not as the aftermath of genocide, but as an intrinsic part of it.

“Denial is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes…”

Thus insult goes hand in hand with injury. This is far beyond the idea of free speech, of the ability to bear witness, as a utilitarian idea: the right to speak is essential, like the right to eat. Denied communication of our experience, we, creatures who rely on social interaction, are starved (Forché describes “the social”, the place where one bears witness, as “a place of resistance and struggle, where books are published, poems read, and protest disseminated. It is the sphere in which claims against the political order are made in the name of justice.”)

The effect of denial imposed on individuals and societies can be seen everywhere from Rhodes continued anguish to Armenia’s entry in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, it’s title Don’t Deny a pointed reminder on the centenary of that nation’s still-disputed trauma.

Sometimes, in free expression arguments, people will argue not that there is a right to speak, but no right to be listened to: this may be true, but there is a visceral need to be heard, to have our stories acknowledged. For it is our stories that make us. In that sense, the publication of James Rhodes’s memoir, after the attempts to deny him his chance to tell his tale, marks his vindication not as a pianist or a writer, but as a human being.

This column was posted on 21 May 2015 at indexoncensorship.org

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK