International Association of Prosecutors urged to promote adherence to their own standards

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The Hague, 5 September 2017

Dear members of the International Association of Prosecutors members, executive committee and senate,

In the run-up to the annual conference and general meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) in Beijing, China, the undersigned civil society organisations urge the IAP to live up to its vision and bolster its efforts to preserve the integrity of the profession.

Increasingly, in many regions of the world, in clear breach of professional integrity and fair trial standards, public prosecutors use their powers to suppress critical voices.

In China, over the last two years, dozens of prominent lawyers, labour rights advocates and activists have been targeted by the prosecution service. Many remain behind bars, convicted or in prolonged detention for legal and peaceful activities protected by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Azerbaijan is in the midst of a major crackdown on civil rights defenders, bloggers and journalists, imposing hefty sentences on fabricated charges in trials that make a mockery of justice. In Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey many prosecutors play an active role in the repression of human rights defenders, and in committing, covering up or condoning other grave human rights abuses.

Patterns of abusive practices by prosecutors in these and other countries ought to be of grave concern to the professional associations they belong to, such as the IAP. Upholding the rule of law and human rights is a key aspect of the profession of a prosecutor, as is certified by the IAP’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, that explicitly refer to the importance of observing and protecting the right to a fair trial and other human rights at all stages of work.

Maintaining the credibility of the profession should be a key concern for the IAP. This requires explicit steps by the IAP to introduce a meaningful human rights policy. Such steps will help to counter devaluation of ethical standards in the profession, revamp public trust in justice professionals and protect the organisation and its members from damaging reputational impact and allegations of whitewashing or complicity in human rights abuses.

For the second year in a row, civil society appeals to the IAP to honour its human rights responsibilities by introducing a tangible human rights policy. In particular:

We urge the IAP Executive Committee and the Senate to:

  • introduce human rights due diligence and compliance procedures for new and current members, including scope for complaint mechanisms with respect to institutional and individual members, making information public about its institutional members and creating openings for stakeholder engagement from the side of civil society and victims of human rights abuses.

We call on individual members of the IAP to:

  • raise the problem of a lack of human rights compliance mechanisms at the IAP and thoroughly discuss the human rights implications before making decisions about hosting IAP meetings;
  • identify relevant human rights concerns before travelling to IAP conferences and meetings and raise these issues with their counterparts from countries where politically-motivated prosecution and human rights abuses by prosecution authorities are reported by intergovernmental organisations and internationally renowned human rights groups.

Supporting organisations:

Amnesty International

Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice, Benin

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa, Kwekwe

Article 19, London

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Asia Justice and Rights, Jakarta

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Chiang Mai

Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong SAR

Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong SAR

Association for Legal Intervention, Warsaw

Association Humanrights.ch, Bern

Association Malienne des Droits de l’Homme, Bamako

Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement, Kyiv

Associazione Antigone, Rome

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Minsk

Bir-Duino Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia

Canadian Human Rights International Organisation, Toronto

Center for Civil Liberties, Kyiv

Centre for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Tirana

Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Moscow

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Hong Kong SAR

Civil Rights Defenders, Stockholm

Civil Society Institute, Yerevan

Citizen Watch, St. Petersburg

Collective Human Rights Defenders “Laura Acosta” International Organization COHURIDELA, Toronto

Comunidad de Derechos Humanos, La Paz

Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Lima

Destination Justice, Phnom Penh

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Kampala

Equality Myanmar, Yangon

Faculty of Law – University of Indonesia, Depok

Fair Trials, London

Federation of Equal Journalists, Almaty

Former Vietnamese Prisoners of Conscience, Hanoi

Free Press Unlimited, Amsterdam

Front Line Defenders, Dublin

Foundation ADRA Poland, Wroclaw

German-Russian Exchange, Berlin

Gram Bharati Samiti, Jaipur

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, Yerevan

Helsinki Association of Armenia, Yerevan

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw

Human Rights Center Azerbaijan, Baku

Human Rights Center Georgia, Tbilisi

Human Rights Club, Baku

Human Rights Embassy, Chisinau

Human Rights House Foundation, Oslo

Human Rights Information Center, Kyiv

Human Rights Matter, Berlin

Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Vilnius

Human Rights Now, Tokyo

Human Rights Without Frontiers International, Brussels

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Budapest

IDP Women Association “Consent”, Tbilisi

IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, Jakarta

Index on Censorship, London

Indonesian Legal Roundtable, Jakarta

Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Jakarta

Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Tirana

Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Tbilisi

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Partnership for Human Rights, Brussels

International Service for Human Rights, Geneva

International Youth Human Rights Movement

Jerusalem Institute of Justice, Jerusalem

Jordan Transparency Center, Amman

Justiça Global, Rio de Janeiro

Justice and Peace Netherlands, The Hague

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Almaty

Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative, Kharkiv

Kosovo Center for Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption – KUND 16, Prishtina

Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims, Prishtina

Lawyers for Lawyers, Amsterdam

Lawyers for Liberty, Kuala Lumpur

League of Human Rights, Brno

Macedonian Helsinki Committee, Skopje

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (Mappi FH-UI), Depok

Moscow Helsinki Group, Moscow

National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, Kampala

Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Hague

Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, Utrecht

NGO “Aru ana”, Aktobe

Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Oslo

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO), Bahawalpur

Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS), Bogotá

Pen International, London

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Seoul

Philippine Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Manila

Promo-LEX Association, Chisinau

Protection International, Brussels

Protection Desk Colombia, alianza (OPI-PAS), Bogotá

Protection of Rights Without Borders, Yerevan

Public Association Dignity, Astana

Public Association “Our Right”, Kokshetau

Public Fund “Ar.Ruh.Hak”, Almaty

Public Fund “Ulagatty Zhanaya”, Almaty

Public Verdict Foundation, Moscow

Regional Center for Strategic Studies, Baku/ Tbilisi

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Lagos

Stefan Batory Foundation, Warsaw

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Petaling Jaya

Swiss Helsinki Association, Lenzburg

Transparency International Anti-corruption Center, Yerevan

Transparency International Austrian chapter, Vienna

Transparency International Česká republika, Prague

Transparency International Deutschland, Berlin

Transparency International EU Office, Brussels

Transparency International France, Paris

Transparency International Greece, Athens

Transparency International Greenland, Nuuk

Transparency International Hungary, Budapest

Transparency International Ireland, Dublin

Transparency International Italia, Milan

Transparency International Moldova, Chisinau

Transparency International Nederland, Amsterdam

Transparency International Norway, Oslo

Transparency International Portugal, Lisbon

Transparency International Romania, Bucharest

Transparency International Secretariat, Berlin

Transparency International Slovenia, Ljubljana

Transparency International España, Madrid

Transparency International Sweden, Stockholm

Transparency International Switzerland, Bern

Transparency International UK, London

UNITED for Intercultural Action the European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants, refugees and minorities, Budapest

United Nations Convention against Corruption Civil Society Coalition

Villa Decius Association, Krakow

Vietnam’s Defend the Defenders, Hanoi

Vietnamese Women for Human Rights, Saigon

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Harare[/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:1504604895654-8e1a8132-5a81-8″ taxonomies=”8883″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Azerbaijan: Time for justice for Ilgar Mammadov

Azerbaijan political prisoner Ilgar Mammadov

Ilgar Mammadov

Today three years have passed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment on the case of political prisoner Ilgar Mammadov, concluding that the Azerbaijani authorities had detained him to punish him for his criticism of the government. In spite of this ruling, and repeated calls for his release by Council of Europe bodies in follow-up to the ruling, the Azerbaijani authorities have persistently refused to execute the decision of the Court and free Ilgar Mammadov. In view of this, we, members of the Civic Solidarity Platform and the Sports for Rights Coalition, call on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to refer the case back to the ECtHR on the grounds of non-execution of the judgment. This is crucial to ensure justice for this wrongly imprisoned government critic, who has already spent more than four years behind bars, as well as to safeguard the legitimacy of the Council of Europe as the guardian of human rights and the rule of law in the region.

Ilgar Mammadov, chair of the political opposition REAL party, was a well-known opponent of the regime when he was arbitrarily detained in February 2013. He attempted to stand in the 2013 presidential elections, gathering the required 40 000 signatures in support of his candidacy, which the Central Election Commission ruled as invalid.[i] He was also outspoken in his criticism of the policies of the authorities on his blog and in the media. Ilgar Mammadov was detained after monitoring and reporting on street protests in the town of Ismayilli in January 2013, which resulted in clashes with the police. He did not participate in these protests, but travelled to the region after they took place to observe developments and revealed the role of individuals with ties to the authorities in initiating the clashes. In spite of the lack of evidence llgar Mammadov was accused of instigating the Ismayilli clashes and on 17 March 2014, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on trumped-up charges of “organizing mass riots” and using “violence against police officers”. His sentence was upheld on appeal.

In a judgment issued on 22 May 2014, the ECtHR found that Ilgar Mammadov’s arrest and detention violated numerous provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 5.1, 5.4 and 6.2 on the right to liberty and security, the right to judicial review of one’s detention and the principle of presumption of innocence, as well as article 18 that limits the applicability of restrictions on rights. The Court concluded that Ilgar Mammadov had been detained without any evidence to reasonably suspect him of having committed a crime and that the actual purpose of his detention was to silence and punish him for criticizing the government and publishing information it was trying to hide.[ii]

In its follow-up to the ECtHR’s ruling, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe — the body responsible for supervising the execution of ECtHR judgements — has repeatedly called on the Azerbaijani authorities to release Ilgar Mammadov. The Committee has examined this case as a matter of priority in its review of the execution of ECtHR judgments by Council of Europe member states and adopted a number of decisions and interim resolutions on it.[iii]

Other Council of Europe bodies, including the organization’s Secretary General, its Human Rights Commissioner and the President of its Parliamentary Assembly have also repeatedly called for Ilgar Mammadov to be released. However, the Azerbaijani authorities have flagrantly ignored these calls and refused to implement the ECtHR’s judgment and release Mammadov.

In view of the continued failure of the Azerbaijani authorities to implement the ECtHR’s decision on Ilgar Mammadov’s case, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland launched an official inquiry into Azerbaijan’s implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights in December 2015.[iv]Under Article 52 of the Convention, the Secretary General may initiate an inquiry into how the domestic law of member states ensures the effective implementation of the Convention. This was the first time that Secretary General Jagland had taken such a measure and his initiative was welcome and important.

However, in November 2016, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court nevertheless rejected an appeal submitted by Ilgar Mammadov on the basis of the ECtHR ruling and upheld his seven-year prison sentence. Thus, Ilgar Mammadov remains behind bars for no other reason than speaking out critically about those in power. This continued defiance by the Azerbaijani authorities leads us to conclude that further action is urgently required.

Therefore, we call on the Committee of Ministers to refer the case back to the ECtHR under Article 46.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which obliges the parties to the Convention to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. The Convention authorizes the Committee to take action to this end. Article 46.4 states: “If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph 1.”

Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan has become a test case of the legitimacy of the Council of Europe. When commenting on the Supreme Court’s failure to uphold Azerbaijan’s obligation to execute the ECtHR judgment last year, Secretary General Jagland stated: “Azerbaijan’s flagrant disrespect of the European Convention on Human Rights undermines the entire scope of our cooperation” [and] “affects the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe who have a collective responsibility for the implementation of the Convention”.[v]

By resorting to the ultimate mechanism for addressing non-compliance of judgments set out by the European Convention on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers can take resolute action to safeguard the Council of Europe’s integrity and ensure that the Azerbaijani authorities finally abide by their obligations under the Convention, implement the ECtHR ruling and free Ilgar Mammadov.

Signed by the following members of the Civic Solidarity Platform and the Sport for Rights Coalition:

1. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement (UMDPL, Ukraine)
2. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House
3. Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan
4. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
5. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
6. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
7. Center for Regional Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan)
8. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
9. Civil Rights Defenders (Sweden)
10. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
11. Crude Accountability (USA)
12. Fair Trials (UK)
13. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH, France)
14. Freedom Files (Poland)
15. Freedom House (USA)
16. Freedom Now (USA)
17. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
18. Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
19. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
20. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
21. Humanrights.ch (Switzerland)
22. IDP Women Association “Consent” (Georgia)
23. Index on Censorship (UK)
24. Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (Azerbaijan)
25. Institute Respublica (Ukraine)
26. International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR, Belgium)
27. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law
28. Kosova Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims
29. Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany)
30. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
31. Netherlands Helsinki Committee
32. Norwegian Helsinki Committee
33. Notabene (Tajikistan)
34. PEN America (USA)
35. PEN International
36. Promo LEX Association (Moldova)
37. Public Alternative (Ukraine)
38. Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
39. Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
40. Swedish OSCE Network: signed in personal capacity by Olof Kleberg and Anki Wetterhall
41. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
42. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
43. Women of the Don (Russia)
44. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) (Switzerland)

[i] In several rulings against Azerbaijan, the ECtHR has found that the practices of the Central Election Commission with respect to the validation of signatures violate Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to free elections.

[ii]  The judgment is available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-144124

[iii]  The most recent decision on this case adopted by the Committee of Ministers is available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806c4554

[iv] See press release at: http://bit.ly/2q8CRNI

[v] His statement is available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/azerbaijan-statement-by-secretary-general-jagland-on-the-decision-of-the-supreme-court-today-rejecting-the-appeal-by-ilgar-mammadov

Mapping Media Freedom: Turkish editor arrested on terror propaganda charges

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Mapping Media Freedom

Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are five recent reports that give us cause for concern.

Turkey: Cumhuriyet online editor arrested on terror propaganda charges

15 May 2017 – The editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet’s website, Oğuz Güven, was arrested on charges of spreading propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organisation.

The journalist was detained on 12 May when a headline used in the online version of the newspaper about a prosecutor who died in a car crash upset government supporters.

Cumhuriyet reported that Güven was taken to the İstanbul Police Department located on Vatan Street after his detention.

Also read: Turkey: International coalition slams Cumhuriyet arrests and media closures

Ukraine: Authorities ban Russian media outlets and journalists

15 May 2017 – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a National Security and Defence Council decree that bans a number of Russian media and social media sites, including VKontakte and Odnoklassniki, along with search engine Yandex and email service Mail.ru.

The sanctions also apply to antivirus providers Kaspersky Lab and DrWeb. Ukrainian internet service providers will be forced to block access to these sites for three years.

According to Radio Liberty, economic sanctions have also been imposed against major Russian television stations TV Center, RBC, RTR, NTV-Plus, Zvezda, TNT, REN and OTR.

Sanctions have also been imposed against 1,228 individuals how are both citizens of Ukraine, Russia and other countries. According to Detector media, the sanction list includes 13 foreign journalists who are now prohibited from entering the territory of Ukraine for one year.

The list includes five journalists who are citizens of European countries: Magdalena Tasheva (Bulgaria), Novorossia News, Agency blogger David Berezitskyy (Poland), NTV television reporter Maxim Byerozin (Germany), Novorossia News Agency journalist and blogger David Hudzhets (Poland), head of Unified Information and Analytical Center Eurasia inform Vladimir Bukarskyy (citizen of Moldova).

Also the sanction list includes seven: Russian citizens: news agency Ruptly journalist Daniel Anisimov, First Channel CEO of the international network Alexey Efimov, Red Star media holding president Alex Pimanov, Izvestia newspaper editor-in-chief Alexander Potapov, Expert magazine editor-in-chief Valery Fadeev, Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper editor-in-chief Vladislav Fronin, Vzhlyad.ru online news outlet editor-in-chief Alex Sharavskyy.

Ukrainian citizen Olena Berezovska, who lives in Moscow and manages the Internet news outlet Ukraina.ru created by RT, is also on the sanction list. The ban is a continuation of government policies to block the activities of Russian companies in Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s military support of separatist groups in the Donbass region.

Sweden: Crime reporter assaulted in own home

15 May, 2017 – Investigative crime reporter Håkan Slagbrand was assaulted in his home by an unknown man in the early morning. The assailant, who wore overalls, claimed to be a painter and spoke in English.

“I think this could be connected to some of my work from a while back on financial crime,” Slagbrand said.

He sustained injuries to his face during the assault. By the time police arrived, the assailant had vanished. Slagbrand had previously had a firebomb thrown at his car.

Kosovo: Former journalist hospitalised after assault

13 May, 2017- Prominent journalist Arbana Xharra has been assaulted by unknown individuals in a parking lot close to her apartment in the capital Pristina.

Xharra was beaten severely and brought to the hospital where she’s in stable condition, according to the police.

A few days before the attack, Xharra had announced that she was resigning from her work in journalism and joining the largest political party in the country, the PDK. She was the editor-in-chief of Zeri, the biggest newspaper in Kosovo. She is well-known for her investigative reporting on corruption and religious extremism.

 

Russia: Police in Chechnya claims it will sue Novaya Gazeta

12 May, 2017 – Chechen interior minister Ruslan Alkhanov told Interfax that the ministry will sue Novaya Gazeta after police checks the newspaper’s allegations on the detainment of gay people in the republic.

Akhanov said the allegation by Novaya Gazeta that more than 160 men were detained, 50 of which were killed (Novaya Gazeta only reported on three killings), “does not have any grounds and is fictitious”. He said no complaints of harassment were submitted to the police and hotline.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Mapping Media Freedom


Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/[/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:1495188040093-d2601eaf-7081-4″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Investigate corruption allegations linking PACE and Azerbaijan

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)