A/HRC/45/CRP.9 liaising with terrorist organisations, which has deterred Ukrainian defence lawyers from practicing in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’.156 Many of those practicing law before the armed conflict have ceased their professional activities and left territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’. For these reasons, many individuals ‘prosecuted’ in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ complained to OHCHR of their inability to contract skilled and independent lawyers from a sufficiently large pool. 121. OHCHR further documented a widespread practice of impeding individuals’ access to their lawyers, violating the right to legal assistance. In nine cases, individuals complained that they were forced by the ‘ministries of state security’ to either waive the right to a lawyer or to waive the right to a particular lawyer and accept representation by a free legal aid lawyer suggested by ‘investigators’.157 In 34 documented cases, lawyers were prevented from seeing their clients in detention for up to six months following arrest or the number of their meetings was limited.158 Given that international human rights standards require that all detained persons shall be provided with prompt access to a lawyer and adequate time to consult with them, these practices amount to a violation of the right to communicate with one’s counsel.159 122. OHCHR is also concerned about the quality of legal assistance provided by defence lawyers, regardless of how they were contracted and whether they were paid. In 53 documented cases, individuals complained to OHCHR that their defence lawyers had neglected their duty to defend them or had not behaved in their best interest. In particular, they complained that their lawyers had interrogated them together with ‘investigators’, were absent during ‘inquests’ or ‘court hearings’, signed protocols of investigative processes despite not having participated in them, visibly neglected to defend them during ‘court’ hearings or even supported motions by the ‘prosecution’. 160 At least 14 defendants told OHCHR they believed that lawyers could not provide adequate protection in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’ because of the flaws and excesses of the ‘criminal system’ in which they had to operate. Eleven individuals complained that their lawyers had not provided adequate representation because they had been intimidated or they were afraid to challenge the ‘prosecution’.161 123. In 18 cases documented by OHCHR, ‘state-appointed’ defence lawyers demanded money from clients or their relatives to provide legal assistance or merely to inform relatives about the status of the ‘criminal proceedings’.162 OHCHR is concerned that this situation may be caused by the absence of remuneration for lawyers providing free legal assistance.163 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Lawyers and accomplices of L/DPR are in Register of attorneys of Ukraine, available at lexinform.com.ua/podii/advokaty-i-prysluzhnyky-l-dnr-v-reyestri-advokativ-ukrayiny/. See also Report of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union - Defense Lawyers in Occupation, p. 38, available at helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1_Advocates_occupation_2018.pdf. OHCHR notes that names of lawyers who acquired the status of attorneys in territory controlled by the ‘republics’ were published on Myrotvorets webpage. For more information about Myrotvorets webpage see OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2018, para. 78, available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/ReportUkraineFevMay2018_EN.pdf. In some cases, ‘investigators’ intimidated victims and forced them to sign documents without being able to read them. Later the victims discovered that these documents had been waivers of legal counsel. In one case, documented by OHCHR in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, the defence lawyer was allowed to see his clients only once a month. See e.g. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, para. 8. In relation to negligence of lawyers during hearings, victims complained to OHCHR that their lawyers had played games on mobile phones, read files from other cases or had not followed statements of ‘prosecutors’ or ‘judges’. Victims also said to OHCHR that ‘investigators’ threatened them with violence and other negative consequences for them and their families in order to force the victims to instruct their lawyers not to act proactively in their cases. OHCHR interviews, 12 and 16 January 2018, 20 December 2018, 31 January 2019, 5 and 14 January 2020. Although the ‘laws’ of the ‘republics’ envisage remuneration for lawyers providing free legal assistance, there is no procedure how this should be done. On 9 April 2015, the temporary statute on 27