UN Human Rights Committe - how to appeal?

Contacts: +447781168585 (UK), +37060877507 (LT), stanislovas.tomas@gmail.com  #UN #humanrights #unitednations #internationallaw #unhumanrightscommittee #unhrc #appeal #law #professor #profesorius #advocate #advokatas #phd #appeal 

Certain aspects of case Zhovtis v Kazakhstan, 2021/2010

The European Parliament and the European Commission declared Mr Evgeny Zhovtis a victim of political persecution by Kazakhstan. He is a well-known human rights activist who was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for killing a pedestrian in a traffic accident. The European Union considered that this sentence was a punishment for defense of human rights. Mr. Zhovtis lodged a communication with the UN Human Rights Committee.

The case has three interesting aspects.

1) The internal criminal case started after the ratification of the Covenant of Political and Civil Rights by Kazakhstan, however the Optional Protocol providing the right of individual petition was ratified on 30/09/2009 in the middle of the internal criminal case. What shall we do with the possible breaches of the Covenant before the latter date? The Committee applied a strict interpretation, and rejected everything the author had written (§ 7.4).

It is interesting that Article 40 of the Covenant provides the Committee the right to require a report of a State on a particular question. I have no example of how it works, but it could be a remedy to many authors similar to those in Kazakhstan before 30/09/2009.

2) Mr. Zhovtis claimed that the internal appeal court had to call independent experts who could possibly explain that it had been a fault of the pedestrian (§ 2.7). The Committee answered that he “failed to demonstrate that the alleged “bias” or “lack of equality of arms” reached the threshold for arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence, or amounted to a denial of justice” (§ 7.5). Could extensive examples of Kazakh case law help? This question is open.

3) Finally, Mr Zhovtis claimed that the fact that he was not present personally but just represented at internal appeal proceedings breached the right to appeal (§ 2.9). The point of view of the UN body is that this does not lead automatically to the breach of the right of appeal within the meaning of Article 14(5), and needs more substantial argumentation (§ 7.6).  

Thus, there might be differences between appraisal by the European Parliament and the European Commission on one hand, and by the UN judicial bodies on the other hand.

UN HRC bans compulsory military service worldwide, Abdullayev v Turkmenistan, 2218/2012

Mr. Abdullayev converted into a version of Christianity that considers military service as a sin (§ 4). He was sentenced for trying to avoid the service, and claimed a breach of his religious freedom before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Article 18(1) of the Covenant).

The Turkmenistan Government argued that the military service is an obligation of a national to defend the State (i.e. "we're not using the arms for bad", § 4). However the UN HRC answered that “no derogation may be made” to the freedom of religion or consciousness.

The most interesting is that § 7.7 goes much further: “no derogation may be made, even in time of public emergency”. This is an absolutely amazing revolutionary development.

LIETUVIŠKAI

Byloje Abdullayev prieš Turkmenistaną, Nr. 2218/2012, § 7.7, Jungtinės Tautos priėmė sprendimą uždrausti privalomąją karinę tarnybą visame pasaulyje, kadangi tai prieštarauja religijos, sąžinės ir minties laisvei. Pvz., Jėzaus Kristaus mokymas gali būti suprastas kaip draudžiantis imti ginklą į rankas.

Įdomiausia yra tai, kad JTO uždraudė šaukti žmones į kariuomenę net karo metu.
Daugiau informacijos lietuviškai čia.

CATALÀ

Les Nacions Unides van prohibir el servei militar obligatori a tot el món, afer Abdullayev contra Turkmenistan, no. 2218/2012.

Sr. Abdullayev va convertir-se a una versió del cristianisme que considera el servei militar com un pecat (§ 4). Va ser condemnat per intentar evitar el servei, i després va reclamar una violació de la seva llibertat religiosa davant el Comitè dels Drets Humans de les Nacions Unides (article 18 (1) del Pacte).

El Govern de Turkmenistan va sostenir que el servei militar és una obligació d'un ciutadà per defensar l'Estat (és a dir “no utilitzem les armes per fer mal”, § 4). No obstant això, el Comitè de Drets Humans de l'ONU va respondre que "no poden ser establides excepcions " a la llibertat de religió o de consciència.

El més interessant és que el § 7.7 va molt més enllà: "no poden ser establides excepcions, fins i tot en períodes d’emergència pública" com, per exemple, una guerra. Això és un desenvolupament revolucionari i absolutament increïble.

European whistle-blowers policy, Andreasen v 27 EU Member States, 28827/11

The Catalan language is lower

No doubt, Marta ANDREASEN is the most famous whistle-blower in Europe. On 01/01/2002 she became the first EU Chief Accountant with a diploma of an accountant. When she started her functions, very soon she noticed that there was a risk of fraud possibly amounting to € 5 billion. She refused to sign EU financial documents, and in fact for this reason she was fired.

The theoretic problem for EU States was that the national law of all those 27 countries forbade dismissing whistleblowers. However the European law did not. Thus she was dismissed in a manner that was impossible under national law of those 27 States.

It was impossible to sue the European Union, so she sued 27 individual States before the European Court of Human Rights, and I represented her. We lost the case in Strasbourg.

The European Court of Human Rights states that we failed to prove that the EU General Court had not been an equivalent human rights defense mechanism to national human rights mechanisms (§ 70).

This is abuse of deduction. In fact, under national law it is possible to attack dismissal as such, to go in-depth of the facts grounding the dismissal. The situation is absolutely different before the EU General Court. First, there is no such thing as a prohibition on dismissal of whistle-blowers. Second, the EU Courts in Luxembourg do not review the facts grounding the dismissal, and their competence is limited to procedural issues.

Thus, there is no efficient whistleblowers defense mechanism in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human rights refused to look at the problem closer.

After such a response from the Strasbourg Court, there is a possibility of appeal to United Nations.

-----

CATALÀ

Sens dubte, Marta Andreasen és la delatora més famosa d’Europa. L’1 de gener del 2002 es va convertir en la primera Cap de Comptabilitat de la UE amb el diploma de comptable. Quan va començar les seves funcions, molt aviat va adonar-se que hi havia un gran risc de frau, possiblement fins a 5 bilions d’euros. Ella va negar-se a signar els documents financers de la UE i per aquesta raó va ser acomiadada.

El problema teòric que tenien els Estats de la UE és que la legislació nacional de tots els 27 països prohibia el acomiadaments dels delators. Per contra, la legislació europea no ho feia. D’aquesta manera, sota la legislació nacional dels 27 Estats, si hi hagués un delator, seria impossible d’acomiadar-lo. Aquesta és una norma que ve de les Nacions Unides.

Era impossible atacar la Unió Europea davant el Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans. Per la qual cosa va atacar els 27 Estats individuals de la UE davant el Tribunal d’Estrasburg, i jo la representava. Hem perdut el cas.

El Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans va declarar fa 5 dies que no vam demostrar que el Tribunal General de la UE no era un mecanisme de defensa dels drets humans equivalent als mecanismes nacionals dels drets humans (§ 70).

Aquest és l'abús de la deducció. De fet, segons el dret nacional és possible atacar l'acomiadament com a tal, per anar al fons dels fets i dels motius de l'acomiadament. La situació és absolutament diferent davant del Tribunal General de la UE. En primer lloc, no hi ha tal cosa com la prohibició d'acomiadament dels delator. En segon lloc, els tribunals de la UE a Luxemburg no revisen els fets i els motius de l'acomiadament, i la seva competència es limita a qüestions de procediment.

Per tant, no existeix un mecanisme eficient de defensa dels delators a Luxemburg, i el Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans va negar-se a mirar el problema de prop.

Després d'aquesta resposta del Tribunal d'Estrasburg, hi ha la possibilitat d'apel·lar davant les Nacions Unides.

“Death words” of the plaintiff killing his tax case, Cañada Mora v Spain, 2070/2011

Spanish wine producer José Antonio Cañada Mora was attacked by tax authorities imposing on him a tax debt of € 481 154 for periods from 1992 to 1996 (§ 2.1). There were chances to avoid loosing the money, since the debts for 1992 and 1993 had expired pursuant to the legal statute of limitations, and a substantial part of evidence, i.e. copies not supported by originals, filed by tax authorities had been declared inadmissible (§ 2.2).

On 14/03/2005 Cañada Mora filed an application for amparo (legal protection) before the Spanish Constitutional Court, however his case was still pending before the lower Supreme Court. On 01/04/2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation, since its value taken separately for each quarter was less than € 150 258 (§ 2.8).

On 25/04/2005 Cañada Mora second time applied for amparo before the Constitutional Court, and the application contained the words that he “reiterate[d] the application for amparo that was lodged on 14/03/2005” (§ 2.9).

These words became death words. The Constitutional Court merged the second application with the first one, took into consideration the date of 14/03/2005, and on that ground declared it inadmissible (proceedings still pending before a lower court, § 2.10).

The European Court of Human Rights supported the Spanish judges (§ 2.11), and Cañada Mora appealed before the UN Human Rights Committee.

The UN Committee answered that it does not follow from the death words that the purpose of Cañada Mora was to submit a second request for amparo separate from 14/03/2005 (§ 4.3).

Happy New Year! 2015 - my blog is back.

After a year brеак and being amused that my blog reached several thousand visitors per day, I restart posting. Among the most wonderful things of 2014 I'd mention:

1. I won the case of impeached President of Rolandas PAKSAS of Lithuania before the United Nations on 25/03/2014.
2. I got the title of full professor of law for life in Moscow and in Almaty.
3. I learned that there are three kinds of responses from the UN Human Rights Committee during the first stage of litigation:

• your complaint is dismissed and please forget own address;
• your complaint is dismissed and these are reasons (take a chance to explain it once again if you believe you are right);
• please provide additional information (and then wait for at least 6 months);
• we communicate your case to the respondent Government.

Oh, year - my blog will be in three languages: English, Lithuanian and Russian - discovering new markets, guys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIETUVIŠKAI
Po metų pertraukos, grįžtu prie blogo ir pradedu jį daryti su vertimu į lietuvių kalbą tam, kad Lietuvoje tam tikriems žmonėms būtų blogiau. Tarp žymiausių pasiekimų pernai išskirčiau:

1. Laimėjau Prezidento R. Pakso bylą Jungtinių Tautų Žmogaus teisių komitete. Tą dalį, kurią atmetė Strasbūras – priėmė JTO.
2. Iki gyvos galvos tris kartus gavau teisės profesoriaus vardą Maskvoje ir Almatoje.
3. Atradau, kad būna keturi JTO atsakymai per pirmą bylos etapą:

• Jūsų skundas atmetamas ir pamirškite mūsų adresą;
• Jūsų skundas atmetamas ir štai kodėl (jeigu mes padarėme akivaizdžią klaidą – paaiškink, bet labai trumpai ir aiškiai);
• pateikite papildomą informaciją (o po to laukite mažiausia 6 mėnesius);
• persiunčiame Jūsų skundą Lietuvos Vyriausybei.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ПО-РУССКИ
После годового перерыва возобновляю блог. Так как появились русскоязычные клиенты, буду делать посты и по-русски. Среди достижений 2014 я бы выделил:

1. Выиграл дело отстраненного в результате импичмента Президента Литвы Роландаса ПАКСАСА против Литвы в ООН.
2. До конца жизни трижды получил звание профессора права в Москве и Алматы.
3. Узнал и сразу проклассифицировал, что бывают следующие варианты ответа из ООН на вашу жалобу:

• ваша жалоба отклонена и забудьте наш адрес;
• ваша жалоба отклонена и, вот, причины (попробуй еще, если мы сделали очевидную ошибку, но коротко и ясно);
• пришлите дополнительную информацию;
• шлем вашу жалобу вашему правительству.

В Комитет по правам человека ООН мы можем обжаловать решения Верховных Судов России, Литвы, Казахстана, Киргизии, Белорусии и других стран.

ECHR bans advertising of UFO contactors, MRS, 16354/06

On 13/07/2012 by a majority of 9 votes to 8 the European Court of Human Rights supported the decision of Swiss authorities to ban a poster campaign of the Swiss Raelian Movement (Mouvement raëlien suisse) promoting contacts with extra-terrestials. Mr. Claude Vorilhon (Raël) who allegedly entered into a direct contact with extra-terrestrials (Elohim) from an Unidentified Flying Object in 1973 founded the Movement in 1975. It unites UFO contactors, as well as people interested in inter-galactic relations.

The prohibited 97 cm by 69 cm poster was showing extra-terrestrials’ faces, a pyramid and a flying saucer, had slogans “The Message from the Extra-Terrestrials” and “Science at last replaces religion”, as well as a reference to the website http://www.rael.org (§ 14).

The Strasbourg judicial majority supported the ban on the UFO contactors’ poster in 2 steps:

1. The Court declared that the nature of the poster is not political but rather commercial, which means that the State’s margin of appreciation is broader (§ 62). The minority of 8 judges counter-argued that the Movement did not try to sell anything but rather to spread its world vision, which means that the poster is non-commercial or philosophical. The Movement position is that this interpretation allows the State to justify a systematic refusal and oppose expression of non-majority ideas in public on a permanent basis (§ 34).
2. The ECtRH declared that such reasons as support of human cloning, geniocracy (society governed by intellectual elite), and the fact that certain members of the Movement had been accused of paedophilia, "taken together" may “reasonably entitle” the national authorities to ban the poster. Although, he majority of judges admitted that “taken separately” these 3 facts “might not be capable of justifying” the ban (§ 72). The UFO contactors argued that they had not been participating in any human cloning but simply expressing their favourable opinion about it, and that geniocracy was not a real political project but a mere utopia (§ 36). The minority of 8 judges pointed that no cases of paedophilia had been proven, and that otherwise the Movement as such would already be banned.

The Movement expressed its intent to continue the litigation before the UN HRC.