[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress Printed for the use of the
1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
____________________________________________________________________
THE RULE OF LAW AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN AZERBAIJAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NOVEMBER 5, 2015
Briefing of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
_____________________________________________________________________
Washington: 2016
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
234 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-1901
[email protected]
http://www.csce.gov
@HelsinkiComm
Legislative Branch Commissioners
HOUSE SENATE
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ROGER WICKER, Mississippi,
Chairman Co-Chairman
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida TOM UDALL, New Mexico
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER,
New York
Executive Branch Commissioners
Department of State
Department of Defense
Department of Commerce
(ii)
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki
Final Act in Finland on August 1, 1975, by the leaders of 33 European
countries, the United States and Canada. As of January 1, 1995, the
Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). The membership of the OSCE has expanded to 56
participating States, reflecting the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings of the
participating States' permanent representatives are held. In addition,
specialized seminars and meetings are convened in various locations.
Periodic consultations are held among Senior Officials, Ministers and Heads
of State or Government.
Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the fields of
military security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human rights
and humanitarian concerns, the Organization is primarily focused on
initiatives designed to prevent, manage and resolve conflict within and
among the participating States. The Organization deploys numerous missions
and field activities located in Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the
Caucasus, and Central Asia. The website of the OSCE is: .
ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the
Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to monitor
and encourage compliance by the participating States with their OSCE
commitments, with a particular emphasis on human rights.
The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate, nine
members from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the
Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. The positions of Chair and Co-
Chair rotate between the Senate and House every two years, when a new
Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the Commissioners in their
work.
In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates relevant
information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening hearings,
issuing reports that reflect the views of Members of the Commission and/or
its staff, and providing details about the activities of the Helsinki
process and developments in OSCE participating States.
The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of U.S.
policy regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff participation
on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the Commission have
regular contact with parliamentarians, government officials,
representatives of non-governmental organizations, and private individuals
from participating States. The website of the Commission is:
.
(iii)
THE RULE OF LAW AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN AZERBAIJAN
____________
November 5, 2015
COMMISSIONER
Page
Hon. Robert B. Aderholt, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.... 6
PARTICIPANTS
Shelly Heald Han, Policy Advisor for Economics, Environment, Technology and
Trade, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe...................... 1
Ambassador Richard Morningstar, Founding Director of the Global Energy
Center, Atlantic Council..................................................... 2
Natalia Bourjaily, Vice President-Eurasia, International Center for Not-
For-Profit Law............................................................... 4
Dinara Yunus, Daughter of Imprisoned Azerbaijani Human Rights Defenders
Leyla and Arif Yunus......................................................... 6
(iv)
THE RULE OF LAW AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN AZERBAIJAN
____________
NOVEMBER 5, 2015
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The briefing was held at 2 p.m. in room 311, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC, Shelly Heald Han, Policy Adviser for Economics,
Environment, Technology and Trade, Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, moderating.
Commissioner present: Hon. Robert B. Aderholt, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
Panelists present: Shelly Heald Han, Policy Adviser for Economics,
Environment, Technology and Trade, Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe; Ambassador Richard Morningstar, Founding Director of the Global
Energy Center, Atlantic Council; Natalia Bourjaily, Vice President-Eurasia,
International Center for Not-For-Profit Law; and Dinara Yunus, Daughter of
Imprisoned Azerbaijani Human Rights Defenders Leyla and Arif Yunus.
Ms. Han. Good afternoon. On behalf of Chairman Smith I'd like to welcome
you all to this briefing on Azerbaijan, hosted by the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission.
This past Sunday Azerbaijan held a parliamentary election. Unfortunately,
the outcome was not a surprise because voting on Election Day had nothing
to do with the results of the election. The outcome was determined well
before Election Day when the majority of opposition candidates were not
allowed on the ballot, when there was no mechanism for debate on
television, when voters didn't feel free to sign petitions for candidates
that they supported, and when election monitors faced intimidation or, as
in the case of Anar Mammadli, sit in jail.
Azerbaijan has voluntarily committed itself through the OSCE and the
Council of Europe to abide by minimum standards of elections, but has
consistently failed to do so. So why, then, are we focused on these
elections? One phenomenon that we're seeing in Azerbaijan is rule by law
instead of rule of law. And a parliament that is handpicked by the
president is a huge impediment to moving from rule by law to rule of law.
Restrictive laws on NGOs or the media become fig leaves for authoritarian
governments.
Another key indicator is the media. Azerbaijan has a plethora of media
outlets, but there is a dearth of independent voices. They have been shut
down or the journalists, as in the case of Khadija Ismayilova, have been
imprisoned. Democracy is a journey, not a destination. The commitment to
democracy must be reaffirmed in every vote of parliament, in every
election, and in every decision by the courts. And if wrong decisions are
made--and there will be wrong decisions because democracies are run by
humans--there must be a system for correcting those mistakes.
In some cases, the media will expose a wrong or voters will elect new
leaders or judges will free a person who's been wrongly convicted. What
matters is that there are systems in place for course correction. Can
people read about the problems in the newspapers or hear about them on TV?
Can people hold their government accountable? What we have in Azerbaijan is
a situation where there is an abundance of elections and an abundance of
media, but actually no true mechanism for the practice of democracy.
To help us better understand the current situation in Azerbaijan, we have
three panelists from diverse backgrounds to talk about different aspects of
the issue. First, we have Ambassador Richard Morningstar, who from July
2012 to August 2014 was the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan. And then we have
Ms. Natalia Bourjaily, who is an expert on international law, and has
specific expertise in NGO law. And then finally, Ms. Dinara Yunus, who is
the daughter of Leyla Yunus and Arif Yunus, two prominent civil society
activists who are currently serving lengthy prison sentences in Azerbaijan.
Full bios of the participants have been distributed, so I won't read those.
Ambassador Morningstar, can you get us started, please?
Amb. Morningstar. Thank you very much, Shelly. And thank you for the
opportunity to be able to discuss these issues here today.
I left my post as United States ambassador to Azerbaijan a year ago August,
and have had time to reflect on my experience in Baku and to reflect on the
state of U.S.-Azerbaijani relations. I speak as somebody who first visited
Azerbaijan 20 years ago, and somebody who has great respect and admiration
for the country, its people, its many accomplishments--and there have been
many accomplishments--and its majestic beauty. At the same time, I look at
our bilateral relationship today with great disappointment. It seems as if
we have become two trains passing in the night. Despite the fact that our
two countries have made common strategic interests, our relationship
remains problematic at best.
Two major factors, I think, have contributed to that deterioration. The
first has been continuing human rights issues, particularly since the
presidential election in October 2013, and the United States criticism of
the Azerbaijani Government. And second, the lack of progress towards a
settlement of the long-standing dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh and
surrounding occupied territories. Azerbaijan believes that the United
States should take stronger steps to bring about resolution of the
conflict, particularly to more directly recognize Azerbaijan's sovereignty
over the occupied territories and pressure Armenian withdrawal from them.
Together, these issues have created, I think, a perfect storm in the
relationship. And I think for some time that there has been a vicious
circle in our relationship--Azerbaijani rights violations, U.S. criticism,
over-the-top Azerbaijani reactions, and more issues, and more criticism. I
certainly empathize with the plights of several prisoners, including the
Yunuses. I know Leyla Yunus quite well. And for the life of me, I just
don't understand what she and her husband could have done to justify the
jailing of an elderly and infirm couple. And apart from the human side of
the issue, I can't understand it from a pragmatic cost-benefit standpoint.
I just don't understand what Azerbaijan--or, the government of Azerbaijan,
has gained by this.
But having said that, I would like to focus on the future and how, from a
pragmatic standpoint, our two governments can improve the situation. I
think it's in the interest of both countries to break out of the vicious
circle. The conundrum is how to do it. The result of the vicious circle,
from the standpoint of the U.S. administration, I think is understandable.
It has basically been a policy of, at the very senior levels, indifference
towards Azerbaijan, coupled with criticism of Azerbaijan when significant
rule of law issues have arisen, although we still cooperate on some issues,
such as energy, counterterrorism, and cooperation with respect to
Afghanistan--in fact, yesterday Azerbaijan announced that it's agreed to be
part of the new NATO support mission in Afghanistan.
With all that, I think indifference is a major driver of U.S. policy. And
that's fully understandable, given all of the foreign policy priorities
that are on our plate. To the extent, I think, that very senior officials
think of Azerbaijan, it seems to have become, well, if they're going to act
that way, why pay attention to them? The problem with that approach, again,
although understandable, is that is serves at best to perpetuate the status
quo, and at worst to exacerbate the situation and push Azerbaijan closer to
its northern neighbor. And in fact, we've not made any real progress on the
democracy and human rights front.
So how can we make progress? And it's going to be difficult. To make
progress, I think it's important that both countries take realistic stock
of the situation and determine their respective interests and have a
realistic dialogue as to how to bridge differences. From the U.S.
standpoint, Azerbaijan is important. Baku is a two and a half hour drive
from the Dagestan border and a little over three hours from the Iranian
border. Azerbaijan should be a critical security partner, particularly in
the area of counterterrorism. And as mentioned before, Azerbaijan has been
a hugely helpful partner in Afghanistan and has always been a strong energy
partner.
It's just as important the United States do everything it can to prevent
the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict from escalating into more of a major
conflict--it's been difficult in the past several months--and to do
everything it can to resolve the conflict. At the same time, it's important
that the United States makes clear that it fully respects Azerbaijan's
independence and sovereignty and our goal is not to change the government,
but that we do have values and that from a pragmatic standpoint Azerbaijan
will have more stability by breathing oxygen into civil society, and not to
take abusive actions that are wholly unnecessary and only serve to create
antagonism in the relationship.
Azerbaijan also should recognize that a good relationship with the United
States is in its interest. The United States has been hugely helpful in the
energy area. It's quite possible that neither the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline nor the southern gas corridor would have happened without United
States intervention at various points. Cooperation in the security and
counterterrorism area is just as important to Azerbaijan as it is to the
United States. Azerbaijan must have good relations with its neighbors. But
if it truly wants to be independent, it also needs to have a strong
relationship with the United States. Since its independence, no country has
spoken out more strongly for the sovereignty and independence of Azerbaijan
than the United States.
Both sides need to try to build that trust. Azerbaijan will have to be
convinced and believe that the United States is not seeking a change in
government. It will need to feel secure and self-confident enough to allow
civil society to develop without fear of instability. And it does not need
to take the wholly unnecessary steps that have created such problems with
the United States and much of Europe, and have hurt so many individuals in
Azerbaijan, such as the Yunuses. Concrete steps will be necessary to
reestablish a strong, vibrant relationship, such as the release of specific
prisoners and lightening control of civil society.
It's not helpful for the United States to preach at Azerbaijan. We must not
in terms of our values, but from a pragmatic standpoint. So let the
dialogue begin. It will be difficult, it may not work, but it's the only
possible way to break out of this vicious circle.
Ms. Han. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Next, Ms. Bourjaily.
Ms. Bourjaily. Thank you very much for inviting me over. It's an honor to
be present here in this room and to share my limited experience in regards
to legislation affecting civil society organizations. I head up the
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. I have been assisting with
improving legislation affecting civil society organizations globally.
And I had the honor to travel to Azerbaijan on a number of occasions. The
last time I was there a few years ago at the invitation of Azerbaijani
Government to discuss the new adopted law on citizens' participation. I do
recall from my past and my work with Azerbaijani Government and
stakeholders that there were many positive developments in this country,
including in regards to legislation regarding civil society organizations
and citizens' participation.
Unfortunately, I witnessed a steady, from 2009 escalating, and in 2012
emerging deterioration of legislation affecting civil society
organizations. And I'll take just a few minutes of your time to very
briefly talk about status and development in a few areas the most relevant
to activities of civil society organizations--access to resources, status
of foreign NGOs interested in carrying out duties in Azerbaijan, sanctions
specifically designed against civil society organizations and, last but not
least, registration procedures, the ability to form new organizations in
Azerbaijan.
Talking about access to resources, this is the vital right directly
relating to ability of another human right of free association. And
unfortunately, a study from--and I also wanted to mention in regards to
this right, that my last conference where I was sharing was Azerbaijani
good experience, actually. It was 2007. It was the conference in Central
Asia. I was presenting Azerbaijan as an example because Azerbaijan had this
notification procedure in regards to grants which was not very time
consuming, which was not really very burdensome for civil society
organizations, unlike a few other countries in that region.
So as I said, in 2012, the situation started to change very, very
dramatically, especially in regards to legislation regarding access to
businesses. First, civil society organizations started to have a real hard
time to obtain approval through the government registration body in regards
to their grants. And the banks would not process the concessions related to
the funds from grants. Then there was the president's decree in 2014, which
basically terminated the existing procedure on registration for grants.
And for some time, till 2015--till a few months ago, there was basically a
little wind block where no no civil society organization was able to
legally obtain any grant either local or foreign. And I don't have really
that much information with regard to state grants, because there were some
opportunities for groups to obtain some, but in terms of grants from
foreign sources, the situation was really quite dramatic.
So then when a few months ago the new regulation on registration on foreign
grants was adopted, it appeared to be extremely burdensome. And what's even
worse, even its adoption does not allow civil society organizations to
receive grants from foreign sources legally. One of the documents which the
registration authority would require in order to approve a grant is a
document on prior approval of a foreign grantor. And presently, there's no
such procedure in Azerbaijan for foreign organizations to obtain prior
approval.
So still, Azerbaijani organizations are still in legal limbo and cannot
receive foreign funding. I keep talking about foreign funding because of
its importance for financial sustainability of the civil society sector in
Azerbaijan. I only have quite old data, it is from 2011, CSO Sustainability
Index Report on Azerbaijan. But out of $37 million as the revenue for the
entire sector, 34 million [dollars] come from foreign sources. So if
organizations are not able to access foreign funding, how many
organizations are without funding or have to find ways which perhaps are
not entirely legal to be able to continue their activities. The situation
is really quite dramatic.
So a few words in regards to foreign organizations who have been determined
to assist Azerbaijani citizens and civil society. Unfortunately, there were
a number of rules adopted over the years, starting from 2009, which first
made it extremely difficult for foreign organizations to get registered. In
order for a foreign organization to get registered, in addition to a list
of documents that is required to provide to Azerbaijani government, it has
to negotiate an agreement with the Ministry of Justice.
And the terms for negotiation of this agreement are extremely vague. The
applying foreign organization, for example, has to prove in its application
that its presence in Azerbaijan will benefit Azerbaijani people and that it
will respect national moral values of Azerbaijani people. Now, these terms
are very, very general. And they're entirely left for interpretation for
the Ministry of Justice, the authority--the other party to the agreement,
which does not have to justify a denial if it chooses not to sign an
agreement with a foreign organization.
The bottom line is that I don't know many foreign organizations which were
able to register in Azerbaijan since 2009. I know a few which wanted to,
but of the ones which I know no one had succeeded. And those who were in
the country, they were required to re-register. And some--quite a few had
to shut down their activities, again, because they had to re-register and
failed to do so. And most recently, 2014, there was additional change to
this regulation which in addition to the procedure or--yes, the very, very
vague procedure, it also stated that any registration granted to a foreign
organization has to have an expiration date. So after you go through 10
cycles or 15 cycles of bureaucracy and negotiations, then you might have to
do it again in a year or so.
So I also want to say a few words about the extraordinary sanctions that
are presently imposed on civil society organizations, managers,
participants of these organizations, and also those who fund their
activities. Frankly, I've not seen such sanctions in the code of any other
countries. All of them are in thousands of dollars. And I wanted to provide
you just a few examples of all these sanctions. For example, the failure to
register a grant agreement, which costs a civil society almost $9,000--up
to $9,000. And this is taking into consideration that the average budget
for a civil society organization on a good year is between $10,000 and
$50,000. I'm talking about the budget--the total revenue--$10,000 also for
the failure to register a grant agreement.
Or, for example, if some organizations fail to receive a grant without a
written contract, then such organization will have to pay penalty of up to
$20,000. Again, I'm not going to list all of those, all the penalties.
There're many, many articles, and code of administration offenses specify
civil society organizations, managers and participants are especially
subject to administrative offenses. Just wanted to note that in the same
code of administrative offenses, it's a very different treatment in regards
to regulating individuals and in regards to businesses.
For example, if a civil society organization would fail to include some
information on their application and registration of grants, it has to pay
up to $10,000 penalty. And at the same time, if an individual, a business,
fails to submit tax report, individual has to pay approximately 80 manat--
80 manat, it's hard for me to exactly compare it, perhaps $90? And a legal
entity would have to pay 300 manat, perhaps $350. So you can see the
difference in treatment and very, very disturbing approach in regards to
civil society organizations--$10,000 versus $350 for offense which is
perhaps less harsh.
And so just a few words with regards to registration. There were very few
changes in regards to legislation relating to the registering procedure in
the past years. I can't say that it deteriorated much. I have mentioned the
situation with the registration for the new organizations in Azerbaijan has
been problematic for quite a while. And this was noticed in the decision of
the European Court of Human Rights and other international organizations.
So unfortunately, this situation has not improved much. But at the very
least, there were no specific dramatic changes in regards to the
registration procedure.
The only change I can recall right now related to participation of
foreigners and people without citizenship in NGOs and civil society
organizations. Basically, at this time only those which have permanent
residency in Azerbaijan are permitted to be founders and managers of local
organizations. Basically, this excludes--or this denies the right of
freedom of association of all of the foreigners who are legally present--or
the majority of foreigners who are legally present right now in Azerbaijan.
In order to be a permanent resident, someone has to be--prior to obtaining
permanent residency, someone has to have a temporary residence, which
requires legal presence in Azerbaijan for at least two years. And then, of
course, obtaining this permanent residency is also of length and
complexity. So the majority of foreigners who are legally present in
Azerbaijan, they don't have the right, basically, to participate in
associations in civil society organizations. So that's it.
Ms. Han. Thank you very much. We've been joined by Congressman Aderholt.
Would you like to make some comments?
Mr. Aderholt. Oh, yes, just want to thank you. The schedule's been a little
bit unwieldy today with votes right in the middle of the day. But I wanted
to come by this hearing, having had a chance to have visited Azerbaijan on
a couple of occasions. Just trying to understand this issue a little more.
So just look forward to hearing your testimony.
Ms. Han. Thanks. We appreciate your participation. All right, and now
Dinara Yunus, would you care to make your statement? Thank you.
Ms. Yunus. Thank you for inviting and organizing this meeting.
What I have to start with today is hard. I was reading the news today about
my parents, and I read that my mom has bruises on her neck and I don't know
why she has them. My mom has several times been attacked behind the bars by
criminal inmates and by the major of the prison. She was the only one who
was receiving reprimands and incarcerated when she was asking for the help.
And those bruises would be instigated again, and I am very scared.
Basically, my mom and dad were today at the court hugging each other and
they weren't speaking. It's very hard. And my dad had two strokes before
his arrest, and he was never fully recovered. And he was locked behind bars
on trumped up, bogus charges, when he was delivering food and medicine to
my mom. My mom is diabetic and she has hepatitis C, gallstones that needs
to be operated. She has hypertension and it's very painful for her to walk
now after the beatings on her head by the major of the prison, and because
she lost so much weight, and she is now seeing very poorly with that eye.
She has crystal implants on both of her eyes that was caused because of
diabetes, and she underwent two medical surgeries on her eye. And during
our last meeting, actually, I was with my mom during her operation. It was
a very hard operation, without even anesthesia, and she was in pain. But
after the operation she finally started seeing well, and now the eyes are
deteriorating again. My mom's becoming a disabled person.
And as for my dad--some of you perhaps heard, some of you witnessed the
court in the summer, when my dad was basically lying on the bench and the
court just proceeded. The doctors were called only for making him sit up
during the trial, not because he needs the treatment. He was never
hospitalized back then. He was taken back to Ministry of National Security
Prison, which is not a part of Ministry of Justice and is well-known for
torture. And when he was taken back to Ministry of National Security
Prison, he had to undergo some certain procedures before he gets to his
cell. So we hope he managed to lay down. After he fainted so many times, he
had to stand for a couple of hours there as well.
Lately I heard the news that he was hospitalized, and now I'm very scared.
They didn't hospitalize him when he was fainting at the court three times.
They prevented an ambulance to take my dad to the ER during the April 2014
events, when they were illegally detained at Baku Airport. So what's going
on with him now? Is he dying? I don't know. Myself, I live in exile, so I
have to follow the news first and then I get information from Baku. But
it's very hard to wake up every morning and read this news. And today was
one of those mornings when you're basically just reading that your mom
probably--most likely was beaten up because she has bruises. So bruises
don't come just--she used to have a lot of bruises in the beginning of her
arrest, and now it's being repeated.
My parents are being exposed and subjected to both psychological and
physical torture. And my dad has been in solitary confinement, so if he has
a stroke he won't be able to call for help. And he has been there for--
since August 7th, 2014, alone in a cell. I say that he was buried alive.
And I haven't heard anything from him. The last time I spoke to him was
before his arrest on August 4. He told me he will deliver food to my mom
and medicine and then he will call me, but he never did. And then I read
the news that he was arrested.
My mom and dad, they need urgent medical treatment and they are not
receiving it. In fact, there is a German doctor that's visiting my mom, but
Azeri doctors have not been following any of his prescriptions. Now my mom
has a lot of problems with side effects. She has problems in the digestive
system; it deteriorated dramatically. She had problems in [inaudible]. And
she has so much pain in her stomach that she can barely move. And we gave
her the cane, and the authorities removed the cane from her.
On October 20, when my mom came to the court with my dad, they basically--
the authorities isolated both of them. They put them in the glass cage.
They isolated the sound system. They turned off the microphone. They
surrounded the glass cage with 25 guards so nobody can see them from
inside. So no one can witness their true health condition.
In August, when I saw my mom's picture, I saw my grandmother. It wasn't my
mom. Her health deteriorated so badly that she lost 20 years, I believe.
And I see my dad in handcuffs.
And my parents are being punished for their human rights work. They've been
in human rights for 30 years. They started during Soviet times. They worked
in some [inaudible] back then, and the main work was a compiling of a list
of political prisoners. And now they became a part of their horrifying list
that keeps adding people.
I am very scared for their lives because, as I said, they are not receiving
medical treatments at all. They have no safety. They have no security
behind the bars. They've been charged to death sentence this summer on
trumped-up bogus charges. My mom is sixty-eight and a half years and dad's
seventy years. But with their health conditions, they won't survive another
year behind bars. So something should be done to get them out right now
because I don't want to be here next time and saying that my mom died or my
dad died, and please help my other parent. My mom is Knight of French
Legion of Honor. My mom is the holder of international Theodore Hacker
Award for her human rights work. My mom is the laureate of Sergio Vieira de
Mello Award. My mom is one of the finalists of European Parliament Sakharov
Prize, 2014. And several days--I mean, last week my mom received here the
Battle of Crete Award for her human rights work.
Thank you.
And I also want to say one thing. There is no safety and security for my
parents. When my dad was laying like that, the only human rights
organization against the tortures, they didn't even make a statement that
my dad is being tortured like that. And it was in front of the eyes of
representatives of the international community, and what they can do to
them behind the bars. And the ombudsman, she also doesn't make a statement
that my parents are in bad health condition when it's just obvious. And the
visits of doctors have also proved that the health condition is very bad
and they're just not receiving medical help in Azerbaijan.
Ms. Han. Thank you very much, Dinara. It's difficult to hear, particularly
the news this morning about potentially worsening health. Mr. Aderholt,
would you like to start with some questions, or ... ?
Mr. Aderholt. Let me just say, what are your parents actually charged with?
Ms. Yunus. They are charged with now is economical--trumped-up economical
charges, like illegal entrepreneurship front, illegal business. And there
is also a treason charge that is sent to another court. We still don't know
what's going to happen with the treason charge because they were initially
arrested by treason, and then the economical charges were added to.
Mr. Aderholt. So the charges that they're actually charged with, you're
saying they're really just fake charges, trumped-up charges?
Ms. Yunus. Yes, for their human rights work.
Mr. Aderholt. And tell me a little bit more about some of the human rights
work that is problematic for the government to cause them to retaliate.
Ms. Yunus. Well, when the authorities were saying that there are no
political prisoners, my parents were presenting the list of political
prisoners, and their list was well-recognized. Also, my parents, during the
Eurovision song contest, my mom reported about illegal demolishing of the
houses of Baku citizens. Seventy thousand citizens lost their houses
illegally because of the Eurovision song contest. And when my mom's
interview was published in Washington Post, the Institute for Peace and
Democracy building was demolished illegally as well. It's my mom's
organization.
And they were also--my mom was protecting the basic rights, the rights of
assembly. She was helping people. The latest work of my parents also
included the unique website which brought together the members of civil
societies of Azerbaijan and Armenia so they could negotiate for future
stability in the region. So this was their peacebuilding work. And then
they got accused in a trumped-up treason charge.
Mr. Aderholt. I see. OK. Thank you. That's it. Thank you.
Ms. Yunus. Thank you.
Ms. Han. Thank you. I want to ask a specific question, Ambassador
Morningstar. You laid out a couple of things that need to happen in terms
of trying to recognize the importance of the U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship.
And part of the problem that we hear a lot is that Azerbaijan doesn't like
to be criticized. I mean, I guess most countries don't like to be
criticized. But it's something that we specialize in. We criticize
ourselves. We criticize everyone else. It's something that we're quite
comfortable with.
And we also feel that, I think because we're friends with Azerbaijan, we
also want to see them succeed. And part of that success is having a strong
society and a strong foundation. And I'm just wondering, though, how given
the impasse that we seem to be at right now with Azerbaijan and the
crackdown that we've seen on civil society, and given the things that you
enumerated in terms of U.S. support for Azerbaijan's energy independence,
U.S. support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and also U.S.
support for Azerbaijani independence over the years--why do you think that
we continue to be sort of portrayed as the enemy of Azerbaijan just for
criticizing the jailing of independent voices?
Amb. Morningstar. Well, I wish I knew. I can certainly speculate.
Azerbaijan is a post-Soviet country, which I think still has an effect. I
think there are cultural differences that can be in play. The excuse that
comes from Azerbaijan is that they have to do these things in order to
maintain stability. The problem with that argument is that at the end of
the day, stability taken to its end result can justify almost anything. I
think that Azerbaijan is a stable country. And as I said in my opening
statement, that the actions that they've taken, in my view, are from in
fact a values standpoint unacceptable.
They just don't make sense. I mean, why is it necessary? You know, why are
the Yunuses in jail? What is the Azerbaijani Government gaining from the
Yunuses being in jail, other than creating difficulties in their
relationships with the United States and with other Western countries? I
mean, to me it seems counterproductive. I do think that among some in the
Azerbaijani Government there really is a belief that we are trying to
overthrow them. I think they get a stream of propaganda from their friends
from the north, which help to poison the relationship. And they think that
our support for NGOs is an attempt to overthrow their government. And, I
mean, my response to that is, for the limited amount of support that we
have given the nongovernmental organizations in Azerbaijan, if that really
creates this threat, that some, I think, really do believe, then there must
be a lot of insecurity.
And, you know, again, I want to go back to the positive. I don't think at
this point we should give up on Azerbaijan, but I think that at a high
level we have to have a very serious dialogue as to what our common
interests are, what we require on both sides for us to have a strong and
vibrant relationship.
And again, the Government has to believe that we're not out to get them,
but on the other hand that if we're going to have that relationship, that
there needs to be some progress, particularly with respect to the kinds of
cases that we've been hearing about, the Yunuses and others, and progress
with respect to NGOs, and in fact, that, at the end of the day, might give
more stability to the government rather than less.
Ms. Han. Thank you.
I'm going to ask a question of Ms. Bourjaily. And then, unless Mr. Aderholt
has questions, we'll open it up to the floor for questions. So you can
start thinking if you have questions to ask. I'll start calling on people.
Ms. Bourjaily, this phenomenon of NGO legislation is not new and it's not
unique to Azerbaijan. We've seen it in Russia. We've seen it in China.
We've seen it across Central Asia, and other places. But it seems to me
that the extremes to which Azerbaijan has gone is not necessarily
replicated elsewhere. For example, I believe that the donor registration
requirements are not seen anywhere else, as far as I know. Is that
according to your experience as well?
Ms. Bourjaily. Actually, both the donor grant approval and also the
approval of grants is not to be seen anywhere in Western and Central Europe
or the United States. So if we talk about Eurasia, some countries in
Eurasia, there are a few examples in the Eurasian region, for example in
Belarus, Turkmenistan, in Uzbekistan, where pre-approval of grants from
foreign sources is required. But even in this region and even in these
particular countries, nowhere--there are basically three levels of
procedure, three stages of procedure in order for civil society
organizations basically not to receive grants from foreign sources.
Azerbaijan is the only one which would require foreign organizations to
formally register their offices in Azerbaijan--and I touched very briefly
how difficult it is to do in Azerbaijan--in order to give grants. So first
to register offices. Second, to get government's approval, government's
registration as grantors in addition to registered offices before they
start giving out grants. And as I mentioned, such a procedure doesn't exist
in Azerbaijan. And third, all recipients have to register, with the
Ministry of Justice, every single grant and every single subgrant and every
single change within the grant agreement with the Ministry of Justice. Such
a three-stage system is nonexistent anywhere.
And, again, to give a very simple and straightforward answer to your first
question, there is no requirement for pre-approval for foreign
organizations to give out foreign aid in any country.
Ms. Han. Thank you very much. Mr. Aderholt, anything before we----
Mr. Aderholt. I don't have anything. You can go ahead with the questions.
Thank you.
Ms. Han. OK, so we're going to open the floor for questions. What we're
going to do is this first mic on the end is going to be the question mic.
If you could wait for me to call on you, I'll call on you and you can come
up and ask your question, because if we have some people lined up there, it
will be in front of the camera. So if there's anyone who has questions you
can raise your hand and let me know.
Yes? And if you can please identify yourself and then ask your question,
thank you. And sorry it's not very convenient. You have to lean down, but I
think it will work.
Question. I'm Matthew Howlett [ph] from Freedom House. Two basic questions
I wanted to ask. Are individuals and entities guaranteed a fair trial in
Azerbaijan? We keep hearing about major steps it is taking to intervene,
for example disbarred lawyers and et cetera. And the second, I just want to
hear about the record of Azerbaijan in regards to rulings by the European
Court of Human Rights, and if there have been any reprisal against those
that participate in giving testimony and bringing cases in front of the
European Court of Human Rights. Thank you very much.
Ms. Han. All right. Dinara, do you want to talk about free trials? I think
you gave us a little bit of a flavor of what some of the difficulties have
been for your parents, but I think one of the key points is that, you know,
for example, Matthew mentioned the disbarring of lawyers and the difficulty
that lawyers have in representing prisoners, political prisoners, and the
strain and the stress that they come under. So maybe you could talk about
your parents' lawyers and what problems they've been experiencing.
Ms. Yunus. Well, there is a constant pressure on the lawyers of my parents.
Two of them were removed from the court last year. One was brought to the
case as a witness but he has not been yet called on the court.
The third lawyer--one of the lawyers was disbarred from the bar
association, so he can't protect, anymore, my parents or anybody else. The
third lawyer was sentenced to 240 hours of community service. And he was
sentenced because he was the first one who spoke about the beatings and
attacks and humiliations my mom was exposed to behind bars. And the case
against him was brought by my mom's inmate, who was constantly attacking my
mom, and she won the case. And he received 240 hours of community service.
And recently he was also disbarred.
And the court itself, well, there is no fair court. Otherwise my parents
would be free now, or at least it will be open for the public. Economical
charges means that the court will be public, so everybody can go and watch
the court. But in my parents' case the court was actually a closed-door
court. There were a lot of people inside the court that were coming from
the back door while everybody was waiting at the front door to get in. Some
of those unknown people are saying that they are our relatives, but when
they were asked the names of my grandparents they didn't know.
Sometimes the representatives of the international community could get in,
but without translators, and some of them didn't speak any Azeri or Russian
so they didn't understand. They put my parents behind the glass cage, while
in the normal societies--civil societies in Western countries they should
have sat near their lawyers. And there were never the cases that a
political prisoner could actually walk free from that court.
Ms. Han. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And then on the European Court of Human Rights question, Natalia, do you
have something to say? And if you have a comment, you can chime in as well.
Amb. Morningstar. My only comment is I think, given the work that Freedom
House does, I think the questioner knows the answers to those questions
that he's asked. And so it's a little bit like in an American courtroom
case the lawyer is asking the question where he knows the answers. And I
think it is a statement of fact that--as far as the European Court of Human
Rights, that the decisions have not been followed. I state that just as a
matter of fact.
Ms. Han. Thank you for that.
Ms. Bourjaily. [Inaudible]--of European court cases in regards to
legislation relating to civil society organizations, that there were a
number of rulings where Azerbaijani was. Two of the most, let's say, famous
cases, for example Ramaznova, and obviously against Azerbaijan, and
Israfilov, obviously against Azerbaijan, both related to the issue with
establishment of new civil society organizations with a registration
procedure. These cases are quite old but the same problems remain today.
Even though there's 40 days--the registration authority, the Ministry of
Justice, has 40 days to process the registration application. It usually
doesn't meet this 40 days requirement. The registration procedure takes
much longer, if registration ever takes place. And as with these two cases
where Azerbaijan lost, the reasons for denial of registration are very
technical and do not meet the standards for the test whether those are
acceptable limitations on the freedom of association.
Ms. Han. Great. I learned just this week that in the case of Ilgar
Mammadov, who is still in prison despite the European Court of Human
Rights' ruling earlier this year that the charges against him were
politically motivated, his case is still being bounced back and forth
between courts in Azerbaijan. And the Council of Ministers, every--I think
it's every three months, has been voting--or issuing statements asking
Azerbaijan to abide by the decisions on that ruling, and that has not
happened yet. So I think, it's pretty clear to see right now the European
Court of Human Rights is not a viable option for citizens of Azerbaijan to
seek redress.
Are there any other questions? Yes? Could you come up to the mic? Thanks.
Questioner. I'm from Congresswoman Slaughter's office. And what can you
tell us about regional variations in Azerbaijan? Is the situation kind of
the same across the whole country? Is it worse in the exclaves? Is the
situation about the same in the countryside?
Amb. Morningstar. I really don't consider myself expert enough on the
specific cases to compare regions in Azerbaijan. I know there are
difficulties in virtually--different kinds at different times--in virtually
all of the regions.
I would want to make one other point, though. And I thought that you were
going to ask, how would you compare Azerbaijan to other countries in the
region, particularly, for example, the Central Asian countries, many of
which have significant problems. And one of the criticisms of the United
States comes from Azerbaijan. This relates back to the European Court of
Human Rights.
One of the criticisms leveled at the United States and the West by the
Azerbaijani Government is that there are double standards, and that we
criticize Azerbaijan more harshly than we do other countries in the region,
maybe in other parts of the world. And I think it's fair to say--and there
are certainly other--many other--several other countries that have abuses,
but I think the difference that militates against the double standard
argument is that the government--Azerbaijan is a member of the Council of
Europe. They are a member of OSCE. So they have obligated themselves to
comply with various standards.
And I wrote a piece three or four months ago not just about Azerbaijan but
basically saying that countries that have signed on to these organizations
should be held to a higher standard. And Azerbaijan does talk in terms of
itself as being a democracy, constantly. And again, there have been a lot
of accomplishments in Azerbaijan. You know, we have to be fair and
balanced. But because of their agreeing to become members of these
organizations, I think they need to be held to a higher standard and need
to comply with what they've agreed to.
Ms. Bourjaily. I'm also not an expert in terms of the implementation,
especially in the regions, but the information that I receive from our
local partners from Azerbaijan--according to this information,
unfortunately the restrictive legislation is being implemented quite
consistently throughout the country because of its centralized manner. For
example, no NGO, whether it is based in Baku, anywhere in the region can't
receive a grant from a foreign source. The registration procedure is same
and implementation is quite consistent.
In 2014, my colleagues celebrated the decentralization of the registration
of civil society organizations, and finally which now branches of the
Ministry of Justice were authorized to register new organizations, which
would have saved--and is supposed to save--time and money for local groups
who don't have to travel from regions to Baku on numerous occasions in
order to try to register their organization. Unfortunately--again, this is
only according to information from our partners because official
statistics, official information, is not available--unfortunately it is
still very difficult to register new civil society organizations throughout
the country.
At the same time, in regards to what we consider progressive legislation,
for example the citizens' participation legislation, the new law on citizen
participation, here we see implementation which very much varies from one
region to another. Some--[inaudible]--the local governments are much more
interested in citizens' participation and do use consultations with
citizens and civil society organizations than others. So we do see
consistency throughout the country in regards to the restrictive
legislation, but unfortunately it's not as consistent in regards to the
better legislation.
Ms. Han. Any other questions from the audience? Yes.
Questioner. Thank you. My name is Hayk Nahapetyan. I am correspondent for
the Armenian Public Television. My question is for Mr. Morningstar.
During the period when you were ambassador to Baku there were reports that
you attempted to visit the Jugha Armenian cemetery, which is in Nakhchivan,
and that the government of Azerbaijan did not allow this to happen. I was
wondering if you could provide some details on this.
Number one, what was the reason for the government to stop your visiting
this site? And the second question, even though they prevented this visit
from happening, do you have your source of information about what really
did happen in the historic Armenian cemetery in Nakhchivan? Thank you.
Amb. Morningstar. This is an issue that came up very, very shortly after I
arrived in Azerbaijan. It was also a matter of testimony in my confirmation
hearings, and this was something that Senator Menendez felt very strongly
about.
I went to Nakhchivan within months after getting to Baku and asked for
permission to go to Jugha. I was not specifically denied permission but
basically was told that the government, in particular the government of
Nakhchivan, made it impossible for me to go. You know, I would have
basically had to have gone on my own with no security, transportation that
probably--that didn't exist. So they clearly--you know, the government
clearly didn't want me to go. The reasons they said was security, because
it was just over the river from Iran, and they made the argument that they
couldn't control what Iranian border guards might do, or whatever.
So at the time, the effort that we made--that I made and we at the embassy
made, was we issued a statement--if you go back, you'll find it--saying
that, yes, it was impossible to go. And what I did do immediately
thereafter was to visit what had been the Armenian church in Baku where the
Azerbaijanis were maintaining many of the records from pre-war. We made an
effort to try and develop cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia to
protect religious sites in both countries. And so we tried to take a
balanced approach.
And that's what happened. I can't really say much more about it. This is
now three years ago. That's what happened.
Question. I was just wondering if you have information whether the Armenian
monuments still exist in Nakhchivan in Jugha Cemetery, or if they have been
abolished, as the reports--evidence suggests. Thank you.
Ms. Han. Yes.
Amb. Morningstar. Yes, I'm not really in a position to talk about it. There
are photographs taken. I can't tell you exactly what they mean. There's
conflicting evidence on both sides and I'm really not in the position to
make a judgment.
Ms. Han. Any other questions from the floor? I wanted to ask Ambassador
Morningstar a question.
You know, one of the things that we're getting increasing reports about,
not only the persecution of these civil society activists by using the
judicial system to persecute these civil society activists, but also, now
that they're in jail and on trial, their families are also being
persecuted.
We're getting increasing reports about the relatives of these people who
are losing their jobs--a large number of people, and some parents are being
asked to denounce their own children. And it seems like this is a throwback
to perhaps the Stalin era, and certainly not a development that we would
want to see in a democratic country.
And I'm wondering--the question is really that--we look at this as a legal
issue. These are trials that are being conducted. But perhaps this is
better geared to the political lens, that this is more of a political
issue. And then if it is a political issue, how do we solve this
litigation?
Amb. Morningstar. I've heard--certainly at different times have heard the
same reports that you've heard. I really can't say anything more than that,
other than having heard in the reports what you heard. But I think you're
right that, at the end of the day, the solution to these problems, at least
at this point, will not be through legal means but will be through
political means. And that's why I come back to the point that I harped on
during my opening statement, that we have to look at these issues.
As difficult as these issues are, we have to look at it pragmatically. We
have to look at it and argue it from the standpoint of what's in
Azerbaijan's interests, and really, at a high level, conduct a dialogue
talking about what's in each country's interests and how resolution of
these issues politically really is necessary--or is necessary to have a
very strong, vibrant relationship, which I think is important to both
countries. It's just as important, I think, to Azerbaijan as it is to the
United States.
And, you know, I think we have to try. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
You know, we have done our best to--I think the policy has been to
compartmentalize issues for the democracy and human cases, not spill over
into energy and counterterrorism and the like. And in order to maintain
that, I think there has to be a re-evaluation of the relationship on both
sides and some real progress on the democracy and human rights.
Ms. Han. Great. Thank you. Yes?
Question. Hello. My name is Araf Hildobonzaid [ph] and [inaudible]. My
question is to Ambassador Morningstar. Sir, have you ever tried to visit
cemeteries, or vandalized cemeteries, in Nagorno-Karabakh of Azerbaijanis?
There are many, many cemeteries of many villages, Azerbaijani villages,
that were vandalized. Have you tried to do this? Do you have any statements
about this? And also one more. There's also many cemeteries that--
Azerbaijani cemeteries in the current Armenian Republic. Do you have any
views? Have you had any statements about that? Thank you very much.
Amb. Morningstar. The answer is, have I tried to visit the cemeteries? No,
but what I can say is this--and I said it at the time, that I did not visit
Jugha. What I said was that there is clear evidence that there have been
problems on both sides with respect to cemeteries, and that what was
important was that Azerbaijan and Armenia agree that the religious sites
are off limits as far as abusive actions.
So I think there probably is enough blame to go around--but the answer to
your direct question is, no, I have not tried to visit any other
cemeteries.
Ms. Han. OK, I'm going to wrap up with the last question, for Dinara.
Obviously the responsibility for your parents' well-being and their safety
in the prison, and also the responsibility for their trial, rests in the
hands of the Azerbaijani Government, but what would you like to see the
U.S. and the EU agree to, to help their situation? How can we be helpful?
Ms. Yunus. My parents are very ill. They need hospitalization and medical
treatments. The treatment behind bars is a joke. Azeri doctors are not
helping my parents. I think the international community should be more
vocal in calling for their releases. There should be a common call, be more
vocal--thank you.
Ms. Han. Great. Thank you very much. And thanks, everyone, for attending. I
thank Ms. Bourjaily and Ambassador Morningstar, Dinara and Mr. Aderholt.
Thank you for coming. And our briefing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 3:11 p.m., the briefing ended.]
This is an official publication of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
* * *
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
* * *
All Commission publications may be freely reproduced,
in any form, with appropriate credit. The Commission
encourages the widest possible dissemination of its
publications.
* * *
http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides access
to the latest press releases and reports,
as well as hearings and briefings. Using the
Commission's electronic subscription service, readers are
able to receive press releases, articles, and other
materials by topic or countries of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.