Azerbaijan: Problems of an Independent Institute of Advocacy

-Nijat-bey, let's start with the fact that on September 12 in Poland, within the framework of the annual OSCE conference on human rights and democracy, the position of the institution of the bar was discussed. Last week at the initiative of the Institute of Human Rights of the International Bar Association held in Warsaw, along with other issues, the position of the institute of advocacy in Azerbaijan was discussed. You also took part in this event. Could you tell us a bit more about this event? The opinions of the participants of the event in connection with the position of the Institute of Advocacy in Azerbaijan are also interesting.

-The event discussed the current situation of not only the institute of advocacy in Azerbaijan, but also pressure on lawyers and independent lawyers in Russia, Belarus, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Among the participants of the event were the heads of the permanent missions of Germany and France in the OSCE. As I noted in my speech, there I represented lawyers who in recent years carried out independent activities in Azerbaijan, for which they were subjected to pressure and discrimination. Noting that this institutional structure is not free, and the changes that have taken place over the past year are only cosmetic, I stressed that the liquidation of the institution of representation and the negative impact of this decision, as well as the discrimination of young colleagues at the oral examination stage in admission to members of the Bar Association. We will leave international standards, but even by the number of lawyers in the region we lag behind neighboring countries, I stressed in my speech. It was brought to the attention of the participants of the event that Yalchin Imanov was expelled from the Bar because he had been working on political affairs in recent years. The activities of lawyers such as Asabali Mustafayev, Neymyat Kerimli, Fakhraddin Mehdiyev were temporarily suspended, I told the participants about the injustice they faced. In the end, I spoke about the existence in the national code of ethical conduct of lawyers of certain provisions that limit the organization of an effective protection mechanism.

- Was the situation in other countries that took part in the event the same as in Azerbaijan? Or were they surprised by what is happening in Azerbaijan?

-Almost the same, may be a little different. There are also foreign colleagues who work in even more repressive conditions, against which criminal cases are brought against fictitious charges, they are arrested.

- By the way, an OSCE meeting on human rights was held in Warsaw on September 18. Speaking at the meeting, the head of the US delegation Michael Kozak criticized the situation in Azerbaijan. That is, in their opinion, there is nothing positive?

-If there were any positive developments in the existing legal and political plane, I think Michael Kozak would have noted this in his speech. After all, Mr. Kozak did not just start his speech in connection with the situation with human rights in Azerbaijan, the ongoing politically motivated arrests in the country and the fact that the independence of the judiciary is in question. If you look at the facts he has noted, you can see that the political pressure on Ilgar Mammadov, Intigam Aliyev, Khadija Ismaylova, after being convicted on falsified charges and going free, was forbidden to leave the country. In his second speech, Michael Kozak touched upon the issue of strangling free media, as well as the situation with journalist Afgan Mukhtarly, who was kidnapped from Georgia and taken to Azerbaijan, and then arrested.

Further, Kozak noted that in Azerbaijan persecuted journalists are subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. Referring also to the issue of an ineffective investigation of the case of blogger Mehman Huseynov, who faced injustice, Michael Kozak also stressed the names of Abbas Huseynov and Jabbar Jabbarov, who were imprisoned in tortures and inhuman treatment. All these facts were already known from the testimony of these people at the trial. In short, the speech was built on weighty facts reflecting the current situation with human rights in the country.

"Normally, the authorities of Azerbaijan do not accept this criticism. Against the backdrop of some attempts to gradually establish relations with the West, the following critical statements are mixed ambiguously. What do you think about this? Could it be that such criticism would complicate existing relations?

- A fair criticism in the context of human rights should not be the cause of the complication of relations. If criticism is based on weighty facts, they should be investigated and eliminated. In general, there should not be a reason for this type of criticism. It is necessary to avoid the actions inherent in apartheid. The country's leadership, which allows threats and harassment of political and public activists, journalists, civil society activists, their arrest on far-fetched charges, inhuman treatment of them, of course, will be criticized. At the same time, I do not think that a conclusion will be drawn from this criticism. Answering this question, I read the decision of the European Court in the case of Intigam Aliyev. The Strasbourg court found violations under four articles, one of which is Article 18 of the Convention. Let me remind you that according to the number of violations of Article 18 Azerbaijan is the record holder. In eight different cases, this violation was found. Not only in the decisions of the European Court of Justice or the position of the Council of Europe, but all international institutions, as well as organizations continue to assert that the human rights situation in recent years leaves much to be desired. Naturally, after a certain time, this not only creates tension in relations, but also creates a negative impact and the international image of the country, as, indeed, this is happening.

-The PACE legal commission calls on the countries of the Council of Europe to adopt an analog of the Magnitsky Act. In your opinion, is it necessary to adopt such a document on Azerbaijan? And will the adoption of such a document lead to positive changes in countries like Azerbaijan?

- First, I note that the discussion of this project will be made at the winter session of PACE next year. As early as 2016, 51 members of the five major parties represented in the European Parliament signed and sent to the European Commission an appeal, after which the issue of the implementation of the Magnitsky Act was again on the agenda. A year later, in 2017 a member of the European Parliament, chairman of the ALDE G. Verhofstag raised this issue before the Council of Europe, but so far, no specific decision on this project was accepted. As you know, the global "Act of Magnitsky" was first adopted in the United States. This act authorizes the freezing of assets in the United States and the denial of visas for entry to America to persons guilty of violating international human rights and supporting these acts, as well as foreign officials involved in corruption. It is too early to say whether or not a similar "Magnitsky Act" will or will not be adopted. However, for several years the theme does not lose its relevance. As for his application to Azerbaijani officials, if in the future such a draft is adopted by the EU, it is natural that it can be attributed to officials whose role in violation of human rights took place.