New old ombudsman

***

-The Milli Majlis appointed a new Ombudsman. Do you think this appointment is a success?

- Appointment is not successful. Firstly, it is not known whether the newly appointed Ombudsman has experience in human rights activities, and what contribution she made to this activity. According to the requirement of the law on the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman), the candidate for the position of Commissioner must have experience in the field of protecting human rights. What we know about Sabina Aliyeva, is that she is a lawyer by profession, worked at one time as the deputy head of the apparatus of the Constitutional Court, and is a doctor of philosophy in the field of law. Although it is not clear in which area of law, she specialized. This is a question related to personal qualities. The most important issue is the attitude of the political authorities towards human rights. The ruling line is built on the unequivocal denial of any violations of fundamental human rights. On the other hand, most violations of human rights are systematic; the origin of these violations is directly related to the current political power. In such an atmosphere, the person appointed to the post of Ombudsman does not play a special role and does not determine success.

-What will this appointment change in the activities of the Ombudsman?

- There can be no talk of any special, fundamental changes. Perhaps there will be some minor, technical changes. Suppose tomorrow the Ombudsman’s office or regional centers will be better equipped, repaired, they can move to large bright, repaired buildings, the social and material situation of employees and other support can increase. However, in the main activity of the Commissioner, be it the suppression of human rights violations by state bodies and officials or the restoration of violated rights, I do not expect any important changes, and this is possible. Where in the hierarchy of unimportant, smallest problems they deal with issues that are in last place, it means that there is no right to deal with the main problem, "entry is prohibited."

- How do you evaluate the activities of the previous Ombudsman Elmira Suleymanova?

-I cannot evaluate the activities of Elmira Suleymanova. There is not any activity to evaluate. Initially, her appointment was erroneous. The appointment of an elderly person who is not related to human rights to a position that requires promptness, courage, sensitivity, demonstrates   the attitude of authorities to human rights. If you pay attention to her annual reports, you can see clear evidence of this. In these reports, it is impossible to find serious information about torture that undermines and threatens the country's judicial system. However, especially in recent years, both those under arrest and their relatives, as well as their lawyers, have complained of constant brutal torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in police custody centers, pre-trial detention centers and prisons. The names, surnames, positions, types of torture, etc. are indicated in the complaints. Elmira Suleymanova did not made any periodic statements or significant articles on this topic, and did not make any specialized reports. Her general and thematic statements relate mainly to the Karabakh conflict (Khojaly genocide, anniversaries of the occupation of Shusha, etc.). All the rest are purely theoretical, without causing any irritation to the topic (for example, children's rights). Her articles published in periodicals are simply a tragedy. For example, this year on the National Human Rights Day on July 18, Elmira Suleymanova published a voluminous article in the “Respublika” newspaper entitled “Human Rights Reforms Successfully Continue.” No need for additional comment. Seventeen years, and maybe a little more,   passed in vain.

- Previously, the Ombudsman’s Office has at least responded to inquiries. When addressing, they resolved issues of torture, a meeting with a lawyer. However, there is an opinion that the situation will become more complicated because the newly appointed Ombudsman is the wife of the deputy executive secretary of the ruling party, MP Siyavush Novruzov. The spouse of the NAP functionary will not oppose her husband and will try to hide the human rights situation. How reasonable can this be?

- Such statements are not groundless. According to the requirement of the law, the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) must be politically impartial, non-party. Purely formal point of view, Sabina Aliyeva, the spouse of one of the main figures of the YAP, Siyavush Novruzov, cannot meet these requirements.

However, the political image of her  husband and her family ties, as well as the negative reactionary attitude to human rights in the country, raise questions and cast doubt on the political neutrality, independence and impartiality of the new commissioner. In this sense, Sabina Aliyeva has a difficult legacy. She will face the need to at least periodically demonstrate her independence, and show that she is not influenced by the political camp she represents.

- Who, in your opinion, deserves the position of Ombudsman in Azerbaijan?

- There are some people, but my main candidate is human rights activist Oktay Gyulaliyev. I think that over the past 3-4 years, Oktay Gyulaliyev has been the only working human rights defender. He is far from the main disease of human rights defenders - travels. He did not run from one event to another, did not fly from one country to another. This is a human rights defender, standing firmly on the ground. However, he was not a human rights activist as a homebody. He spent days in courts, met people, looked for the grave of a blogger who had committed suicide in prison, prepared lengthy reports on each offense, presented them, and carried out measures related to torture. His most distinctive feature is that he did not make a difference between the victims; he came in direct contact with them. Many so-called human rights defenders make the difference between victims on a political, religious, social basis, show obvious discrimination, intolerance, and decide on support based on their attitude to a particular person or group. Although the basis of human rights activities is the attitude “not towards a person, but towards a violation”. Gyulalyev work is based on this last principle. Because of the work of this selfless person, in recent years the Azerbaijani public learned about the total lawlessness that took place in important criminal cases, about unimaginable violations of human rights. These are cases under the code name "Nardaran case", "Ganja case", "Terter case". The work of the Ombudsman is a version of the work of a human rights defender, but broader and with greater coverage. Therefore, I believe that Gyulalyev  could perform this  activity with dignity. I really hope that Oktay will recover and continue his glorious activities.

- In your opinion, what is the need for the normal and clear functioning of the ombudsman apparatus?

-I believe that the relevant law does not provide fully independent activity of the Ombudsman’s apparatus. This is especially true of the nomination by the President of the Ombudsman. According to the current law, the Milli Majlis chooses one of the three candidates presented by the president. We assume that the authority to nominate candidates for the post of Ombudsman will be taken from the president and transferred to civil society structures. Extensive public debate on the suitability of candidates for this activity is also needed. The rule on the early termination of the powers of the Ombudsman based on the president’s proposal should also be removed from the law. That is, the fact of the Ombudsman’s dependence on the president should be removed from the law.

Another issue that I would like to say is clarification of the mechanism for the delivery to the Ombudsman of complaints of persons under arrest and control (institutions for serving sentences, remand centers, places of temporary detention). According to the existing law, these complaints must be delivered to the Ombudsman within 24 hours without censorship. However, in reality, I will say as a competent person, this norm does not work. I believe that the law should reflect a mechanism for direct communication of applicants held in closed institutions with the Office of the Ombudsman. In this sense, the extension of the rights of the National Preventive Group is necessary. In addition, the time limits for handling complaints should be reduced and brought into a more effective form. In the current law, this period is 30 days. If subsequently there is a need for additional verification, then the period for consideration of the appeal may again be extended. The uncertainty in the time limit for considering a complaint in reality becomes a cause of red tape and abuse. In general, the effective operation of the ombudsman’s apparatus requires the change of the nature of the current political system.