A/HRC/43/CRP.7 Territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’ D. 86. As identified in previous OHCHR reports,74 both self-proclaimed ‘republics’ continued to process ‘criminal cases’ of individuals perceived to undermine security. In doing so, the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ are obliged to respect certain fair trial standards provided for in both international human rights law75 and international humanitarian law.76 At the same time, this obligation does not constitute recognition of the legitimacy of such ‘courts’ or ‘prosecutions’ conducted by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. 87. OHCHR interviews with individuals released from detention in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ on 29 December 2019 reveal systematic violations throughout 2018-2019 of the rights not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt, to a public trial, to an independent and impartial tribunal and to legal counsel. 88. OHCHR is particularly concerned that ‘courts’ widely relied on confessions obtained through torture and coercion. Individuals suspected of having committed conflict-related ‘crimes’ in territory controlled by both self-proclaimed ‘republics’ told OHCHR that they were systematically subjected to torture and other forms of coercion by members of the ‘ministry of state security’ and ‘police’ and would not dare to withdraw self-incriminating testimony during ‘court’ proceedings for fear of being tortured again. 77 89. Serious concerns were also raised regarding manifestly biased judges78 and the violation of the right to presumption of innocence. All those interviewed indicated their ‘trials’ had been in camera, in violation of the right to a public hearing,79 and creating conditions for judges to express their bias freely. 90. OHCHR documented violations of the right to legal counsel in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. While all those interviewed by OHCHR had access to ‘free legal aid’ lawyers from the beginning of the formal launch of ‘investigations’, they complained about the inaction of lawyers in defending them, and in some cases, about their lawyers’ collusion with the ‘prosecution’. In six cases, the ‘free legal aid’ lawyers assigned demanded remuneration from the detainees or their relatives. OHCHR also documented the systematic practice of assigning “witness” status to close relatives of detainees, thereby prevented them from assisting in the defence of detained relatives and from attending closed proceedings.80 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 24 OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 May to 15 August 2018. Non-State actors exercising government-like functions and control over a territory must respect human rights when their conduct affects the rights of individuals under their control. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, 1 November 2013, para. 16. See also United Nations Security Council resolution 2127 (2013), 5 December 2013, para. 17, strongly condemning “continued violations of international humanitarian law and the widespread human rights violations and abuses, perpetrated by armed groups” in the Central African Republic; Report of the International Commission of Inquiry to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, A/HRC/17/44, para. 72; and Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011, para. 188. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits all parties to a conflict from “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See Part V. above. Ten released detainees complained about the bias of judges against them. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, para. 29, 23 August 2007, CCPR/C/GC/32. Article 52.2 of the ‘criminal procedure code’ of ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ and article 44.2 of the ‘criminal procedure code’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ allow a close relative of the ‘defendant’ to be involved in a trial as a “defender”, providing support and assistance to the defence, such as by observing the trial. However, the ‘legislation’ of both self-proclaimed ‘republics’ does not allow a person to be assigned both the status of witness and defender. In two documented cases, the ‘investigators’ assigned witness status to relatives of ‘defendants’ despite being aware that they would