On February 2, Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Kingdom of the Netherlands met with Ladislav Hamran, the President of Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation.
During the meeting, both parties exchanged views on cooperation with the organization and discussed several other mutual interests. They also emphasized the importance of collaboration in legal assistance for criminal cases.
Strasbourg, 30 January 2024 – The President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism), Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, concluded today a two-day mission to Strasbourg. During her mission, she met with high-level officials of the Council of Europe, including the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Judge Síofra O’Leary, the Registrar of the ECHR, Dr. Marialena Tsirli, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Ms. Marija Pejčinović Burić, the Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Dunja Mijatović, and the Head of Division at the Secretariat of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Mr. Hugh Chetwynd.
During these meetings, President Gatti Santana had the opportunity to brief her interlocutors on the current focus of the Mechanism following the completion of core crimes cases, and the complex challenges the Mechanism shares with the Council of Europe in relation to strengthening the rule of law, promoting transitional justice, fighting hate speech, and securing State cooperation in a range of matters such as the enforcement of sentences and the arrests of persons accused in contempt cases. She also emphasised the importance of developing strong counter-narratives to combat the rise of genocide denial and revisionism during this phase of the Mechanism’s lifespan, and explained the Mechanism’s efforts to reach out to youth in the affected areas through teaching and learning opportunities.
The President further pointed to the fact that the Mechanism, being the international criminal tribunal with the highest number of convicted persons under its supervision, faces a shortage of States willing to accept convicted persons primarily due to limitations imposed by the legislation of many States on their enforcement capability beyond a certain number of years, which is in line with ECHR jurisprudence. She also expressed her gratitude for the support of the Council of Europe’s CPT to the Mechanism through inspections of prisons in certain enforcement States, and stressed the importance of collaborating closely.
Finally, President Gatti Santana and the Council of Europe officials exchanged views and best practices on securing State cooperation in the context of judicial activities, ensuring that international standards are upheld in the context of the execution of sentences, including in view of the specific needs of older prisoners, guaranteeing judicial independence and impartiality, managing large judicial records, and preserving the legacy as a way to bolster reconciliation prospects for future generations.
In a somber announcement that has reverberated across the nation, Namibia bids farewell to one of its most esteemed leaders, His Excellency Dr. Hage G. Geingob, President of the Republic of Namibia. Dr. Geingob’s passing on Sunday, the 4th of February 2024, has left the country in mourning, as he transitioned at approximately 00:04 while under the care of his medical team at Lady Pohamba Hospital. Beside him were his devoted wife, Madame Monica Geingos, and his children, sharing in the final moments of a remarkable life.
President Geingob’s departure marks the end of an era. Throughout his tenure, President Geingob stood as a beacon of hope and progress, embodying the spirit of Namibia’s liberation struggle and spearheading the nation’s journey toward prosperity and unity.
H.E. Dr. Nangolo Mbumba, Acting President of the Republic of Namibia, calls upon all Namibians to remain composed and united during this time of grief. The government is diligently attending to all necessary state arrangements, preparations, and protocols, with further announcements expected in due course.
The IGC New Year’s Champions Breakfast Meeting, held on 18 January at the Swiss Residence, inaugurated a series of four annual events convened by the Hague Steering Committee. Comprising the Embassies of Switzerland, Canada, and Colombia, alongside the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, the newly formed Steering Committee introduced themselves to The Hague Champions on this significant occasion. The event aimed to foster dialogue and collaboration among leaders committed to dismantling gender barriers and advancing gender equality in their respective spheres of influence.
The breakfast served as a platform for the Champions to delve into the nuanced topic of Gender and International Criminal Law. Drawing insights from the recent two-day Conference on Gender and International Criminal Law, orchestrated by Women’s Initiatives and collaborators, the co-editors of the seminal book, Gender and International Criminal Law, Indira Rosenthal and Susana SáCouto, delivered a thematic address. Their scholarly input laid the groundwork for stimulating discussions among the Champions, exploring the complexities of this pertinent issue.
Present were, among others the host, H.E. Ms. Corinne Ciceron Buhler, Ambassador of Switzerland, H.E. Ms. Shefali Razdan Duggal, Ambassador of USA, H.E. Mr. François Alabrune, Ambassador of France, H.E. Ms Elizabeth Ward Neiman, Ambassador of Panama, H.E. Dr. Jose Eduardo Malaya, Ambassador of the Philippines, H.E. Dr. Carolina Olarte Bacares, Ambassador of Colombia, H.E. Mr Greg French, Ambassador of Australia, International Criminal Court’s Registrar, Dr. Osvaldo Zavala.
The International Gender Champions (IGC) is a global leadership network that unites decision-makers dedicated to eliminating gender barriers and turning gender equality into a tangible reality within their domains. More information about the IGC and its mission can be found on their website: https://genderchampions.com/.
The New Year’s Breakfast Meeting served as a platform for meaningful discussions, networking, and the exchange of ideas on advancing gender equality. As the International Gender Champions initiative continues to gain momentum, events like these play a crucial role in mobilizing leaders and catalyzing positive change on the path toward a more inclusive and equitable world.
Rotterdam, a city renowned for its modernity and creativity, played host once again to the annual Rotterdam Photo Fair.
From 1 to 4 February being part of the Rotterdam Art Week, the event attracted approximately 10.000 visitors, among whom art lovers, collectors, gallerists, diplomats and international art press professionals from various parts of the globe. The Keilewerf located in the center of Rotterdam was transformed into a street-wise photography village and hub for photography fans, populated by 60+ shipping containers repurposed into exhibition spaces.
With a profusion of exhibitions, organized talks, workshops, and a fringe program with music and digital installations throughout the city; jazz music, street vendors, cafes, and restaurants on the festival’s location, it was easy to spent a day there.
From a broad range of submissions, the commission selected 69 photographers project exhibition photographers and 51 single image exhibition photographers to exhibit their work, based on the theme IMAGINE.
Photographers and artists questioned and transformed our world’s perception with their imagination, innovation and critical thinking. They explored diverse angles such as surrealism, portrait and landscape photography, and the romanticization of the everyday, manipulating theirs cameras, playing with light, using AI.
Among the selected artists Dan Hallman stood out, captivating audiences with his unique approach to photography. Hallman, a graduate of the prestigious Parsons School of Design in New York, currently resides in The Hague, Netherlands, alongside his spouse, who serves as the Ambassador of Argentina.
“My life long attraction to visual arts and photography began in the years leading up to pursuing my BFA from Parsons NY, followed by an extensive freelance photography career with a specialty in editorial, commercial and celebrity portraits.” he stated. In that time Hallman have always been creating abstract, conceptual work for himself and he is now solely focused on these bodies of work. “Some have categorised my large scale photos as “Abstract Expressionism in Photography” or “Kinetic” at times.” If you zoom in, it looks like brush strokes and they are more vibrant and energetic in person. It is the mood and “abstract expressionism in photography” that I am looking to present at times within this broader project.”
“The photographs presented are a representation of continuing bodies of work I consider paintings or drawings manifested in photographic form.” He expressed. “While shot digitally on my Leica or Canon, the images are all produced in a camera with no Photoshop retouching. I manipulate reality through long exposures, “painting” with the camera, using found forms and/or physically creating shapes of light with the camera to create the image.
Often using mundane moments of the day and presenting them in a way the viewer may never have seen or considered to be beautiful. I am making the simple visual, making the simple energetic, making the simple peaceful, making the simple bold, making the simple calm, making the simple important – making the simple complicated.”
“I create photos, paintings and drawings which invite the viewer to engage and participate completing the piece. You feel compelled to look closer to see what it is. They are done in a way where the subject matter is not important and it is left entirely up to the observer to visually feel the piece and complete its meaning. Once again, the viewer completes the piece with their own interpretation of my words.”
Hallman’s works is held in private collections all over the world. While Hallman is known for his captivating portraits of emblematic figures from politics, science, arts, music, and Hollywood stars; from Meg Ryan to Dalay Lama, his extensive portfolio, which includes numerous publications of his portraits in Vanity Fair, The Hollywood Reporter, Glamour, Vogue, alongside his artistic works exhibited in renowned institutions like the Museum of The City of New York and Centro Cultural Borges in Buenos Aires, reflects his versatile talent and impact on the world of photography.
By Anton Lutter
When one walks down Aguirre Avenue in Paranaque City (Manila) a simple facade hides one of the best restaurants in the Philippines. Once inside, one imagines oneself in a French bistro; the menus are accordingly.
I was the guest of chef and owner Tina Legarda there. Besides Tina – who mainly rules the kitchen – I found myself in select company including her father former oil company executive Chito Legarda and mother Bettina Kahn-Legarda, whose sister is married to former senator Ramon Magsaysay junior (son of the former president Ramon Magsaysay), Monsignor Achilles Dakay of Cebu archdiocese accompanied by Cebu business lady Leslie Cokaliong and PCGA Rear Admiral Ramon Moreno. As a non-Filippino I hugely enjoyed the conversation about Philippines’ old world life and history. Of course, the Monsignor chipped in about religious life in The Philippines, with the Catholic Church being the foremost religion.
The energetic Mrs. Tina Legarda is a highly appraised chef, who recently teamed up with Philippine Airlines to enhance their menus for international flights. She started cooking at the age of eight and loved it so much that she’s made a profession of it, having been multiple awarded by Tatler Dining. But she couldn’t have done without her mother whose old world recipes are closely guarded family possessions.
The restaurant has a homey country style, which makes you instantaneously comfortable. This is reflected in Tina’s creative cooking which is neither snooty nor expensive, yet wouldn’t be out of place in Europe’s leading cities eateries. For starters we enjoyed the Patatas Fritas (which sounds like the Dutch Patat Frites, but is completely different), which is fried potatoes with Chorizo, ham, beef topped with a poached egg. This was followed by the Bistro Street Salad, consisting of lettuce, tomatoes, grilled tenderloin, blue cheese and walnuts and the artichoke Crostini, with cottage cheese, almond, pesto and a dash of balsamic. Main course Crispy Lapu Lapu (fish) served with chorizo rice and garlic oil. Ending it all with the lovely Strawberry Schaumtorte desert, which consists of strawberries, almond meringue, whipped cream and toasted almonds.
As Tina Legarda exclaimed “my aim is to bring the tradition of Filipino, Asian and Spanish flavors in a modern manner, simply presented in comfortable surroundings”. In this La bamba Bistro not only succeeded with flying colours but represented the best what culinary Philippines has to offer.
In principle, the enforcement of foreign judgments is a national matter. But what if a dispute has already been dealt with by a foreign court? Can such a foreign judgment be enforced in the Netherlands or not?
By Reinier Russell and Jan Dop
A Dutch company and a US company have a dispute. This dispute was litigated in the United States. The US court ordered the Dutch company to pay damages and, on top, ‘punitive damages’. However, the Dutch company has all its assets in the Netherlands. So the US company has to collect money in the Netherlands. Can a US company simply enforce the judgment in the Netherlands?
The enforcement of judgments is a national matter. This means that, in principle, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced in the Netherlands. However, there are exceptions to this rule, namely:
In practice, the main basis for the recognition of foreign judgments is not a treaty but the Brussels I bis Regulation that applies to all countries within the European Union. The Regulation provides that European judgments can be enforced throughout the European Union. The recognition and enforcement of judgments from another member state does not require a recognition procedure in the Netherlands. Thus, such judgments can be directly enforced in the Netherlands. Although Great Britain has left the European Union, British judgments can be recognized in the Netherlands based on a treaty Great Britain has concluded with the Netherlands.
Recognition of judgments may also be based on an international treaty, which provides that the treaty states recognize and enforce each other’s judgments without proceedings. The parties need not first apply to a Dutch court to request recognition. Only a few countries outside the EU have joined such a treaty. Treaties include, for example, the Lugano Convention (2007), to which Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, among others, are parties, and the Hague Recognition Convention (2019) signed by Russia and the United States, among others. However, these countries have not yet ratified the Convention.
In our example, treaty-based recognition is not possible. Although the US has signed the Hague Recognition Convention, it is not yet valid because it has not been ratified yet. So the US company has to use the other option, i.e. the recognition procedure.
If a foreign judgment cannot be recognized on the basis of a treaty, the party seeking to enforce the judgment must apply to a Dutch court for recognition. The main rule for these proceedings is that a Dutch court conducts a full and independent assessment of the dispute. This means, in effect, the proceedings must be repeated. However, the Dutch court may decide to adopt the foreign judgment.
However, there are requirements for adopting foreign judgments, namely:
If all four conditions are met, the Dutch court can adopt the foreign decision.
For our example, this means that the US proceedings must meet the above requirements. The first requirement can be met simply if the contract contains a choice of forum clause. If it states that a US court has jurisdiction, the first requirement is met. Also, the safeguards in the proceedings will usually not be a problem in cases from the United States.
In our example, the Dutch company had been ordered by the US court to pay ‘punitive damages’. This is contrary to Dutch public policy because Dutch courts may only reward a compensation for actual damages. As a result, the US judgment is not eligible for recognition and enforcement and, in principle, the proceedings must be repeated in full. However, the court may pragmatically decide to take a foreign judgment as a starting point for its own judgement, except for punitive damages, as the Den Bosch Court of Appeal and the Oost-Brabant District Court did recently.
It is therefore wise, if it is foreseeable that you will have to enforce your judgment in the Netherlands, to seek advice of a Dutch lawyer prior to the proceedings. Even if you are not litigating in the Netherlands. This reduces the chance that you will have to conduct two lawsuits about the same claim. Or that you might go to great lengths to have punitive damages awarded for nothing, while it later turns out that you cannot collect them. It is also good to know that in the Netherlands full lawyer’s fees will only be awarded in exceptional cases.
It is also important to include a choice of forum in your contracts so that it is immediately clear which court is competent. In doing so, it is convenient to declare the law of that country applicable to the contract. Otherwise, a situation may arise where, for example, you have appointed a Dutch court that has to adjudicate the case under US law. Dutch courts are not familiar with this law and will therefore often have to call in an expert in this field. This can lead to considerably longer proceedings and higher costs.
Another possibility is litigation at the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) and by means of arbitration. The NCC is a special division of the Amsterdam District Court for international commercial matters, where proceedings can be conducted in English. Enforcement of a judgement in the NCC is still subject to the above rules. As regards arbitration, it is easier to enforce an arbitral award. Many more countries are party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards than to the conventions for the enforcement of court rulings.
About the authors:
Jan Dop is a Managing Partner at Russell Advocaten. Jan is a specialist in employment law and corporate law / jan.dop@russell.nl. +31 20 301 55 55
By Richard T. Griffiths
At the end of 2023, the Silk Road Virtual Museum opened a new museum site devoted to ‘Silk along the Silk Road, 500-1500CE’. It was the largest museum we have ever opened, and we had to double the floor space to accommodate all the exhibits.
It includes silk robes and motifs covering almost one thousand years of silk production in China, Central Asia, and Europe. Many of the artifacts are not even on display in the museums where they are housed. This short essay introduces you to the collection.
Sometime, over eight thousand years ago, people living in the territory of what is now China learned how to spin and weave silk. About two thousand years ago, they began to trade silk with their neighbours to the West. But fifteen hundred years ago, they lost that monopoly as the secrets, and the means of production, were lost to the peoples of Central Asia.
In both these origin stories, the humble silk worm plays a central role. The tale is told of how, those several millennia past, the young Empress Leizu was drinking tree in her garden when a silk worm fell into her cup. Upon trying to retrieve it, she noticed a thin silk thread unravelling from the cocoon. Having a wild imagination and a flair for innovation, the young fourteen-year-old gathered more cocoons and started to weave the silk into cloth.
In the sixth century CE, it has been suggested that two diplomats/hangers-on smuggled silk worms out of China by hiding them in their walking canes, thereby establishing the industry in Central Asia. This, however, is only part of the story. Silk worms only eat mulberry leaves. A silk worm, weighing two grams, would consume one hundred kilogrammes of mulberry leaves over the two weeks of its gestation, or around twenty-thousand mulberry leaves – and that is for only one single worm.
There is a second complication. In the warm wet climate of China white mulberry bushes flourish, but they cannot survive in the harsh, dry climates of Central Asia. This need not be a problem, since the leaves of the black mulberry bush appeal equally to silk worm’s appetite. However, they take twenty years to reach full maturity and start producing sufficient leaves. Either the citizens of these dry climes were already addicted to mulberries, or else the establishment of the industry must have taken considerable capital and risk.
Although China no longer had a monopoly on silk production, the actual production of silk was influenced by foreign designs and foreign methods. The silk road was not only a vehicle for the transmission of religions and cultures, consumers could experience, and buy, different designs.
Sassanian portrayals of winged animals, floral patterns, and intricate geometric designs found an echo in Tang silk production. Some Tang dynasty textiles even featured foreign scripts and characters from Persian and Sogdian languages. In the other direction, Chinese dragon motifs and flowers such as lotus and peonies influenced output in Central Asia. Central Asia and Islamic designs also exerted their influence on the later European industry.
One thing that struck me when researching for the museum was the sheer advanced state of technology. In Lancashire, at least, school child learned that in 1733 a weaver called John Key invented the ‘flying shuttle’ and that this initiated the industrial revolution in cotton. It weaves cotton thread at twice the earlier speeds. Here it is (above) all 1.65 metres tall.
I was in awe when I first learnt about it so many years ago and, as a professor in economic history, it featured in all my first-year lectures. However, nothing prepared me for my first confrontation with a brocade loom on my visit to Nanjing last year – the Brocade Museum had a dozen, and yes, there is someone sitting half way up. It, or more accurately its forerunner, was responsible for most of the complex designs in costumes on view in the Virtual Museum.
Apart from its size and complexity, what is more amazing is that it was already operational at least five hundred years before John Key changed the humble hand-loom in use in the cottage industry throughout Europe.
The origins of the draw-loom, but the earliest record of their existence lies in China and dates originally from the twelfth century CE when Lou Shu wrote ‘Pictures of Tilling and Weaving’.
In it he illustrates the processes in both, accompanied by short poems. The hand-scroll copy in the National Museum of Asian Art (Washington DC) and used in our virtual museum dates from the 13th century. The image of the draw-loom bears a striking resemblance to the ones on display in Nanjing.
A perhaps more surprising feature of the scroll is that of the twenty-four images, half of the images describe the keen attention paid to harvesting, feeding, and caring for the cocoons, and only half on the processes of spinning, waving and folding the cloth.
This makes the origin story of the spread of silk production into Central Asia, from a few silk worms hidden in walking canes even less credible. But the knowledge did spread and the resulting display of colours and patterns is breathtaking.
The robes and motifs come from forty-four museums, spread across over nineteen countries. In addition, the exhibition draws from works held in private collections.
The ‘Silk along the Silk Road’ exhibition is open 24/7. There is no need to travel and it is completely free. You can visit the museum here:
https://silkalongthesilkroad500-1500ce.v21artspace.com/
Enjoy your visit.
By Willy Fautré, Human Rights Without Frontiers
HRWF (24.01.2024) – On Thursday 18 January, the UK proscribed the British branch of the Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) under the national Terrorism Act.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly who was the initiator of the parliamentary move then tweeted “I have made the decision to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK. Their promotion and encouragement of the abhorrent attacks perpetrated by Hamas goes against everything our country stands for. Belonging to and inviting support for this group will be a criminal offence.”
Noteworthy is that previous attempts to ban the movement under Tony Blair and David Cameron had been unsuccessful because the charges could not be legally and convincingly substantiated on the basis of their literature. Only Hizb ut-Tahrir’s public support of Hamas’ attack in Israel on 7 October last tipped the balance in the opposite direction as Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist organization in the UK and is under EU sanctions.
It is however not uninteresting to have a closer look at some complaints concerning Hizb ut-Tahrir filed with the European Court of Human Rights, the arguments developed by the conflicting parties and the decisions taken by the Court.
Nafik Ashirov and International Memorial v. Russia (application no. 25246/07)
On 14 February 2003, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared 15 organizations, including Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Qaeda, to be terrorist organizations. Their activities were prohibited on the whole territory of Russia.
The Supreme Court then described the Islamic Liberation Party (“Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami”) as “an organization aiming to eliminate non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic rule on a global scale by re-establishing the ‘World Islamic Caliphate’, initially in regions with a predominantly Muslim population, including Russia and the CIS countries.
Main forms of activity: militant Islamist propaganda, combined with intolerance to other religions; active recruitment of supporters, purposeful work to split society (primarily propaganda with powerful financial reinforcement).”
About the context of the ban
This witch-hunt taking place less than a year and a half after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States was then understandable to identify potential threats, prevent any terrorist attack as well as guarantee the public security of the Russian citizens and institutions.
Moreover, in the context of the two wars (the Chechen Wars) led by Russia against separatist movements in Chechnya, the 15 Islamic organizations were suspected of wanting to overthrow the existing constitutional system and create an “Islamic State” in the North Caucasus. To support its ban, the Russian Supreme Court even referred to a list of foreign terrorist organizations of the U.S. Department of State at that time, approved by the Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks of Al-Qaeda in the United States.
The plaintiffs
On 8 June 2007, a complaint was filed with the European Court of Human Rights by two plaintiffs.
Nafik Ashirov, the first applicant, was born in 1954 and was living in Moscow. He was an imam but he was not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. As the chairman of the Religious Board of Muslims of the Asian part of Russia, he prepared a report on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s literature. This was a request of a non-governmental organisation representing several members of Hizb ut-Tahrir in criminal proceedings which wanted to know whether the movement’s literature advocated an extremist version of Islam. The report stated that “the prosecution of Russian citizens on the sole basis of some statements about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s brochures and teachings was wrong and breached the right of Muslims to freedom of expression of religious beliefs. It was also wrong to characterise the religious beliefs of the followers of [Hizb ut-Tahrir] as extremist, let alone terrorist”.
The second applicant was the famous human rights organization “International Memorial,” which endorsed the report and published it on its website.
Memorial was founded during the fall of the Soviet Union to investigate the human rights violations and other crimes committed under Joseph Stalin’s rule. As of December 2021, Memorial encompassed over 50 organizations in Russia. After the Russian “Foreign Agent Law” was passed in July 2012, Memorial came under increasing government pressure. On 21 July 2014, the Memorial Human Rights Centre was declared a “foreign agent” by the Ministry of Justice. On 29 December 2021, the Moscow City Court liquidated the Memorial Human Rights Centre, referring to a decision of the Supreme Court of Russia on the previous day.
On the same day, the European Court of Human Rights applied an interim measure to halt the forced dissolution of Memorial. Despite this warning, the dissolution was confirmed by the Russian Court of Appeal on 5 April 2022.
In 2022, Memorial was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Belarusian human rights activist Ales Bialiatski and the Ukrainian human rights organization Centre for Civil Liberties.
It is important to recall what is Memorial, as this prestigious organization took sides with Hizb ut-Tahrir.
The accusations
On 20 February 2006 a deputy Moscow City prosecutor issued a warning to Mr Ashirov, considering that his report “promoted the ideas of Hizb ut-Tahrir and provided a justification for its terrorist activities”.
On 26 February 2006 a similar warning was addressed to the executive director of International Memorial for publishing the materials of a banned terrorist organization on its website, thereby aiding and abetting its terrorist activities. He ordered the executive director of International Memorial to remove Mr Ashirov’s report from the website within three days. International Memorial did that immediately.
On appeal, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow found that the warnings had been lawful and justified.
The assessment of the European Court
The Court recognized that Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology was clearly contrary to the values of the European Convention of Human Rights but Mr Ashirov’s report was “not laudatory of Hizb ut-Tahrir” and “did not contain any direct or indirect calls for violence or a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, let alone any calls to commit a terrorist offence, vindication or justification of terrorism.”
The Court noted that “the Supreme Court’s decision banning Hizb ut-Tahrir was taken in the absence of the public or representatives of the organisation, and the decision banning Hizb ut‑Tahrir was never officially published.”
The Court also considered that “by publishing Mr Ashirov’s report on its website and thereby drawing attention to a matter of public interest, International Memorial exercised its role of a public watchdog.”
In its ruling, the Court declared the complaint about the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of both applicants. Il also held that Russia was to pay 2500 EUR to each applicant, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, and EUR 4,785 in respect of costs and expenses for the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre.
Last but not least, what is also shocking in this case is that, after the filing of the complaint in Strasbourg in 2007, the European Court of Human Rights took 16 years to come to a decision (!) It is only on 17 January 2023, in the context of Russia’s War on Ukraine and far away from the global geopolitical situation in the early 2000 years, that justice was finally but only theoretically done. This very delayed ruling is indeed equivalent to a denial of justice as a year ago it totally remained unnoticed and is unenforceable.
Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (application no. 31098/08)
In January 2003, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior issued a decision prohibiting Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activities in Germany, relying on the provisions of the Law on Associations. It also ordered Hizb ut-Tahrir’s assets to be confiscated. The Ministry considered that Hizb Ut-Tahrir was a foreign private association operating on an international scale and that there existed no sub-organization in Germany.
Germany’s arguments
According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir were directed against the principle of peaceful settlement of international conflicts and the movement advocated the use of violence as a means to achieve its political goals.
Basing its decision on a number of their printed publications and leaflets as well as on their website, the Ministry concluded that it denied the State of Israel the right to exist and called for its destruction as well as for the killing of Jews.
In the Ministry’s view, Hizb ut-Tahrir was not to be considered a religious or philosophical community because it pursued political objectives, advocating an “active Jihad” targeting Islamic States and calling for the overthrow of their governments.
About the application
The application against Germany’s ruling was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 June 2008.
The first applicant, Hizb ut-Tahrir, was an unincorporated association which did not inform the Court of any registered address. The second applicant, Mr Shaker Hussein Assem, was an Austrian national living in Germany and the third to seventeenth applicants were members or supporters of the first applicant residing in Germany and Romania.
All 17 applicants complained about the ban imposed on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activities and about the confiscation of its assets. They relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.
The assessment of the European Court
In its ruling on 12 June 2012, the European Court observed that the German Federal Administrative Court had carefully analysed a substantial number of written public statements made by Hizb ut-Tahrir and its representative in the proceedings before the Court.
It found that Hizb ut-Tahrir called for the violent destruction of the State of Israel and for the banishment and killing of its inhabitants. In particular, its representative, Mr Assem, had repeatedly justified suicide attacks in which civilians were killed in Israel, and neither he nor Hizb ut-Tahrir had distanced themselves from that position during the proceedings before the Court.
In view of those statements, the Court considered that Hizb ut-Tahrir attempted to deflect the right to freedom of assembly and association under Article 11 from its real purpose by employing that right for ends which were clearly contrary to the values of the European Convention, notably the commitment to the peaceful settlement of international conflicts and to the sanctity of human life.
In conclusion, the Court held in particular that under Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it was impossible to derive from the Convention a right to engage in an activity aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Hizb ut-Tahrir could therefore not rely on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) to complain about the ban on its activities.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority declared the application inadmissible.
Some concluding reflections
Hizb ut-Tahrir defends a political agenda that is incompatible with the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. In the light of its literature, it is perceived as a potential threat by governments of Muslim-majority countries as well as democratic states although up to now it has not used violence to come to power anywhere but nobody knows how it could change in the future.
Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom have banned or proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir on security concerns at the specific time of their respective decisions.
Russia in the aftermath of the large-scale 9/11 terrorist attacks starting in the United States and against the background of its wars against separatist forces in the Muslim majority territories of Northern Caucasus.
Germany because of the indelible memory of the Nazi Holocaust, the anti-Israel agenda and the perceived anti-Jewish genocidal intentions of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which might one day awaken the demons of its past.
The United Kingdom because of the rising tide of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish feelings which suddenly emerged in the massive demonstrations in favour of Hamas, as an alleged defender of the Palestinian cause despite its terrorist attack in Israel, against the backdrop of the war in Gaza Strip.
These three countries highlight the fact that nowadays Hizb ut-Tahrir groups do not pursue the same political purposes everywhere. In Russia, notorious human rights organizations like ‘Memorial’, Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, and others find them harmless in Russia and take sides with them when they are persecuted by Putin’s regime.
If Hizb ut-Tahrir activists or groups break the rule of law in Germany, the UK or any other EU country, they can be prosecuted and sentenced in fair trials for their illegal activities.
Is banning, proscribing or prohibiting Hizb ut-Tahrir enforceable and sufficiently efficient? Isn’t it counter-productive? Shouldn’t vigilance, prevention and prosecution, in accordance with the proportionality principle, be a more efficient way to move forward nowadays? Of course, tomorrow might not be the same as nowadays if a Hizb ut-Tahrir group somewhere is instrumentalized and financed by other forces…
By Willy Fautré, Human Rights Without Frontiers
HRWF (23.01.2024) – On Thursday 18 January, the UK proscribed the Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party), which the European Court of Human Rights had in previous decisions identified as a political organization and not a (new) religious movement in Islam, as some organizations sometimes did when defending their members arbitrarily or not arrested and imprisoned.
On 15 January, British Home Secretary James Cleverly had submitted an order to parliament to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir under the UK’s Terrorism Act. The secretary called the group “an antisemitic organization that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks.”
The accusations of anti-Semitism and terrorism are rejected by the British Centre of Hizb ut-Tahrir and are not endorsed by all observers of and researchers about Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, the 80th movement proscribed as an international terrorist organization by the UK
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:
The official text of the UK’s decision says:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international Sunni Islamist political organisation which was founded in Jerusalem in 1953 by Sheikh Taquiddin an-Nabhani. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a footprint in at least 32 countries, with its headquarters and Central Media Office (CMO) based in Beirut, Lebanon. The CMO runs Hizb ut-Tahrir’s central propaganda website hizb-ut-tahrir.info.
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s stated long-term goal is to unify Muslims worldwide and establish a Caliphate ruled under Islamic (Shari’a) law. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain is the official branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK and was established in the UK in the 1980s. The UK government assess that Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain is a component branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir but is afforded autonomy to interpret and approach Hizb ut-Tahrir’s global strategy according to its local environment.
The UK government assess that Hizb ut-Tahrir, including its national branches, is currently concerned in terrorism, and meets the ‘promotes and encourages’ limb of the statutory test. A number of articles were posted online on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s central media website (and third party websites), attributed to several of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s branches, which celebrated and praised the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas and associated events. The content of these articles, many of which refer to Hamas as ‘heroes’ and encourage further terrorist activity, constitute the promotion and encouragement of terrorism.”
For the last two decades, Hizb ut-Tahrir had faced the prospect of being labelled and proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK.
Tony Blair and David Cameron threatened to proscribe it when they were in power. But Home Secretary James Cleverly did what many before him in government had failed to do – with support from all parties and no opposition from MPs or members of the House of Lords during the parliamentary session confirming the ban. Statements and actions of the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir about Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel on 7 October offered the Home Secretary an ideal opportunity to get a political consensus.
From midnight on Friday 19 January, the group was classified as a terrorist group and banned from organising in the UK. Belonging to or promoting Hizb ut-Tahrir is now punishable by up to 14 years in prison, according to the official statement.
In the last twenty years, several countries have banned Hizb ut-Tahrir for its ideology, its statements and its positions: Germany, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, several Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, with many members arrested for alleged attempts to instigate coups in Muslim-majority countries.
However, the group is known to be active in Australia, Canada and the United States as well as in dozens of other countries, including Kuwait, Tunisia, Lebanon, India and Kenya.
Some considerations
Concerning the ban of the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a question arises “Do the ban and possible sentences respect the proportionality principle with regard to the charges related to terrorism?
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 when Israel was still a young state and has a history of not using or promoting violence but times change and so does the geopolitical environment.
We, at Human Rights Without Frontiers, consider that Hizb ut-Tahrir activists are not eligible for the status of victims of violations of religious freedom when carrying out political activities because it is identified by the ECtHR as a Muslim political movement, not a religious community. In our Database of FORB Prisoners in Russia and other countries, we do not include their members. While we contend they cannot be considered FORB prisoners (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights), we consider they can be prisoners of conscience or political prisoners if they are arbitrarily arrested and sentenced to prison terms despite non-violent activities and no incitement to violence.
