“UNDUE INFLUENCE: an investigative report on foreign interference by the United Arab Emirates in the democratic processes of the European Union”
Based on hundreds of person/hours of meticulous research through public records, and interviews with dozens of current and former Members of Parliament; Diplomats and senior officials; academics, journalists and other “insiders”, the report exposes the strategy and scale of the UAE’s lobbying campaign across the EU institutions and wider “Brussels bubble”- channelled through policy centres, think tanks and consultancy firms with close ties to the UAE establishment. Without serious steps to address the undue influence and access by those who do not share our values; the EU’s democratic processes will remain extremely vulnerable, and its integrity on key principles such as human rights highly susceptible to the interests of human rights violators. The report’s authors conclude that the EU and its democratic processes remain vulnerable to foreign influence campaigns without real steps to tighten up regulations on the registration of organisations and lobbyists working in Brussels on behalf of foreign governments, proper training and support for EU officials, and extending checks and balances against foreign interference. The report contains specific recommendations for the key EU institutions to take needed steps to tighten up protections against foreign interference. In addition to traditional diplomacy, the UAE relies on soft power through the creation of circles of persuasive pressure and echo chambers for foreign agendas, aiming to persuade European policy makers within the European institutions, including the European Parliament, that they are advancing their own political interests, and promoting European “way of life” and values, all the while pushing a foreign agenda that runs contrary to EU human rights principles, foreign policy, and security interests. Human rights are in the DNA of the European Union, while the UAE’s human rights record is a clear demonstration of intolerance, repression, and the targeting of peaceful dissidents. Droit au Droit’s report untangles the web of influence spread across Europe and elsewhere, and looks at the impact of the UAE’s strategy on EU policy thinking. Key findings include: Targeted campaigns across the EU institutions, led by the UAE Embassy in Brussels and the EU-UAE Parliamentary Friendship Group, marshalling their extensive access to water down criticism and attempts to condemn their human rights record; a network of prominent consultancies hired to develop media campaigns which shine a positive light on the UAE and bring the EU narrative into closer alignment with UAE foreign policy. The numerous cases studied expose gaping loopholes in the EU’s Transparency Register and regulations on lobbying; detailing the wider network of Brussels-based think tanks, policy centres, discussion platforms and media outlets founded by Emirati citizens with clear links to the UAE establishment, and promoting a pro-UAE narrative; targeted media campaigns and events organised with money from Ali Hamad al-Shamsi, a Minister of State held responsible for a domestic campaign of torture, murder and enforced disappearances while heading the UAE state security apparatus; the wide range of former high-level European officials, including Baroness Ashton, and Bernardino Léon, former EU Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean, on the board of UAE-associated policy centres and think tanks, or taken up positions in the UAE after their term in Brussels came to an end. For additional information, please contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
OPSIDIANET - Offenders with Psycho-Social and Intellectual Disabilities: Identification, Assessment of Needs and Equal Treatment
Background EU criminal law provides suspects and accused with a set of procedural rights to ensure that their basic rights are protected sufficiently. In particular, the legislative measures provide suspects and accused with the right to access to a lawyer and to communicate upon arrest (Directive 2013/48/EU), the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself (Directive 2016/343/EU) and the right to legal aid (Directive 2016/1919/EU). Other legislative measures provide suspects and accused with the right to interpretation and translation (Directive 2010/64/EU) and the right to information (Directive 2012/13/EU). A key prerequisite to enable suspects and accused to effectively benefit from all these safeguards is the degree, to which these persons are aware of and adequately understand these rights and the procedure for their exercise. To benefit from the full scope of their rights, suspects and accused must be able to adequately understand them. This is particularly relevant for vulnerable groups of individuals, such as the persons with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities. To address their vulnerable situation in criminal proceedings, in 2013 the EC adopted a special Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. This document suggests measures, through which vulnerable suspects and accused could have full access to their procedural rights. This is also evident from the way the Recommendation defines its objective (‘The aim of this Recommendation is to encourage Member States to strengthen the procedural rights of all suspects or accused persons who are not able to understand and to effectively participate in criminal proceedings due to age, their mental or physical condition or disabilities.’) and scope (‘Vulnerable persons should be associated in accordance with their best interests to the exercise of procedural rights taking into account their ability to understand and effectively participate in the proceedings.’). In many EU Member States, the vulnerable situation of persons with psycho-social and intellectual disabilities is not properly assessed and taken into account when such persons are suspected or accused of committing a crime. This is often due to the lack of knowledge on the part of law enforcement and judicial authorities as to how to identify the vulnerabilities of such persons, what are the most appropriate ways to communicate with them and how to provide them with adequate opportunities to exercise their rights. The failure to identify, at the very beginning of the proceedings, the specific vulnerabilities of persons with psycho-social and intellectual disabilities, and to communicate to them, in an understandable way, the information about the safeguards they can benefit from, might seriously harm their rights. This is particularly relevant for the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, provided for in Directive 2016/343/EU. As explicitly stated in the Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, such persons may not be able to ‘understand the criminal proceedings’, which also means that, unless properly informed in an understandable way, they may not be able to adequately perceive the relevance and consequences of what they say before the competent authorities and thus easily incriminate themselves. The right of access to a layer, provided for in Directive 2013/48/EU, has specific implications when the suspect or accused is a person with psycho-social and intellectual disabilities. Thus, for example, the Directive, in its Article 4, requires Member States to ‘endeavour to make general information available to facilitate the obtaining of a lawyer by suspects or accused persons’. However, a person with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities may not be able to correctly perceive the meaning of such ‘general information’, unless it is communicated in an understandable way following a proper assessment of that person’s vulnerable condition. One example of such an understandable way would be the provision of written information using an easy-to read version instead of a standard version. Another important implication of the right of access to a lawyer, as specifically pointed out in the Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, is that, if a vulnerable person is unable to understand and follow the proceedings, the right to access to a lawyer in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU should not be waived. Last but not least, the right to legal aid of suspects and accused, provided for in Directive 2016/1919/EU, also has specific implications when the person has a psycho-social or intellectual disability. Although the Directive does not regulate that matter in detail, it still states, in its Article 9, that ‘Member States shall ensure that the particular needs of vulnerable suspects, accused persons and requested persons are taken into account’. The rights of suspects and accused with psycho-social and intellectual disabilities is becoming particularly relevant with the advancement of the EU-wide process of de-institutionalisation and transition to community care. Research even claims that people with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities are overrepresented among individuals processed by the criminal justice system and that estimated prevalence of offending in such people ranges from 2 % to 10 % (Fogden et al. 2016). It can be assumed that with the increase of persons with disabilities moving from institutions to the community, the number of criminal cases involving such persons will increase further. Studies to examine the patterns of offending among persons with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities are consistently carried out (Holland et al. 2002, McBrien et al. 2003, Lindsay et al. 2004, Herrington 2009), while less attention is paid to the capacity of criminal justice systems to handle such cases. First-line practitioners from criminal justice authorities need to have at their disposal adequate tools to identify such persons, be aware of their special needs and have the capacity to implement the appropriate measures to ensure they can exercise the full scope of their procedural rights without being discriminated.
OPSIDIANET Project Against this background, a consortium of research institutes experienced in the field of prison reform and inmates’ rights from four Member States (Center for the Study of Democracy – Bulgaria; The Center for European Constitutional Law - Greece; Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII - Italy; and Droit au Droit (DAD) – Belgium) have launched this project, with the aim to contribute to the effective and coherent application of EU criminal law in the area of the rights of suspects and accused with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities.
Specific objectives of the project will consist in: - identifying gaps in national legislations and practices that prevent suspects and accused with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities to effectively benefit from the full scope of their rights. - developing tools to enable judicial and law enforcement authorities properly identify and safeguard the rights such persons. - delivering a series of trainings to facilitate and promote the use of these tools in criminal proceedings.
The immediate target group of the project are the first-line practitioners from criminal justice and law enforcement authorities (judges, prosecutors, investigators, police officers, etc.) involved in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. Direct beneficiaries of the project are also other professionals, like criminal lawyers or human rights activists, whose work is related to criminal proceedings. Indirectly, the project will benefit the vulnerable suspects and accused whose procedural rights will be more effectively safeguarded. The project assumes that, in order to ensure that suspects and accused with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities are able to benefit from the full scope of their procedural rights provided for by these legal measures, criminal justice and law enforcement authorities must be able to timely identify and assess the vulnerability of such persons and have at their disposal appropriate tools and techniques to communicate with them and inform them about their rights in an understandable way. The project will also contribute the coherent implementation of EU criminal law by enhancing the capacity of national judicial and law enforcement authorities to implement the three legislative measures in line with other relevant EU instruments such as the Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings.
With financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. DAD marks Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion
Assessing the Risk of Isolation of Suspects and Accused
Around nine million people are the subject of criminal justice proceedings every year in the EU. At the same time, a significant share of those suspected or accused of criminal offences are not found guilty and are never convicted. Due to the differences between the national criminal justice systems, statistics do not allow for a comparative analysis, nevertheless the available data clearly show that many accused persons exit the criminal justice system without being convicted. All these persons, including those who are convicted, are presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right, a key principle of criminal justice and a universally recognised human rights standard. It has been interpreted in a number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as in many academic works. At EU level, the presumption of innocence is explicitly proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 48) and further elaborated upon in Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. Despite the obligation of criminal justice authorities to strictly observe the presumption of innocence, suspects and accused are always subject to certain restrictions during the criminal proceedings, most of which affect their personal and social sphere. All of these restrictions have their legitimate purposes. Some of them are aimed to facilitate the investigation of the crime (seizure of objects to serve as evidence), some should prevent absconding or re-offending (detention and noncustodial remand measures, ban to leave the country), some are justified by the need to protect the victims of the crime (ban to visit certain places or to contact the victims). In addition, information about the criminal proceedings is often publicly released or shared with the media, which further affects the lives of suspects and accused. During criminal proceedings, suspects and accused, although presumed innocent, are practically placed in an unequal position compared to other members of society. As a result, their social status can be affected in a number of ways: temporary or permanent unemployment, loss of income, increased expenses, loss of social benefits, worsened relations with family members, etc. At the same time, the impact of criminal proceedings on the suspects and accused is often neglected by the criminal justice authorities, which are often focused on ensuring the effective progress and outcome of the case rather than reducing the damage on suspects and accused. ARISA Project Against this background, a consortium of research institutes experienced in the field of prison reform and inmates’ rights from four Member States (Center for the Study of Democracy – Bulgaria; The Center for European Constitutional Law - Greece; Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII - Italy; and Droit au Droit (DAD) – Belgium) have launched this project, with the aim to enhance the observance of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings according to the provisions laid down in Directive (EU) 2016/343. Specific objectives of the project will consist in:
With financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. Prison Conditions Monitoring Index: Methodology and Pilot Results
International organisations, national governments and human rights NGOs exercise various types of monitoring of the penitentiary systems. In order to quantify their results, there are some generally accepted indicators (such as the number of inmates per 100.000 citizens), but in many specific areas like healthcare, employment, security and safety, such indicators have never been applied. Therefore, those monitoring efforts will substantially benefit from an instrument capable of supplying comparable and easy-to-use data on the situation in prisons. To address this need, the Center for the Study of Democracy, in cooperation with its partners, developed a Prison Conditions Monitoring Index (PCMI) – a system of indicators translating into comparable figures the situation in different prisons. In the end of 2014, the PCMI was piloted in several prisons in Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania and Spain to test its operability and analyse the potential use of the results it generates. The present report elaborates on the methodology underlying the PCMI and offers a summary of the results of its pilot implementation. It is intended for a broad audience of readers including policy makers, prison staff, lawyers, social workers, academics and NGOs interested in the topic of prison monitoring. This study is a part of the "Re‐Socialisation of Offenders in the European Union: Enhancing the Role of the Civil Society" project, implemented with the support of the European Commission, Directorate‐General Justice. It aims at improving the situation in prisons and the re-socialization of offenders by exploring three aspects – promoting the broader use of alternatives to imprisonment; improving the situation of specific groups of vulnerable inmates; and designing an instrument for regular prison monitoring.
Authors:
Introduction and editing:
This study would not have been possible without the valuable contribution of:
The publication can be retrieved in full text here:
This publication is also available in French and Lithuanian
|
“UNDUE INFLUENCE: an investigative report on foreign interference by the United Arab Emirates in the democratic processes of the European Union” is an extensive report detailing the scale and intensity of the UAE’s lobbying efforts to influence European policy.
Droit au Droit (DAD) marks International Day of Action for the Decriminalization of Abortion by appealing to all States to enact and enforce legislation granting access to safe and legal abortion and calling on the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a 
In January 2015, the 