Anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny filed a complaint to the ECHR

According to RIA Novosty, a Russian news agency, Alexey Navalny submitted an application to the ECHR claiming several violations of the Convention by Russian authorities in connection with his recent arrest during protests in Moscow against the results of the parliamentary elections in Russia. Below is the link to the full text of the article posted by RIA Novosti.

Top blogger Navalny challenges his arrest in European court

01:51 13/12/2011 Lawyers of anti-corruption activist and top blogger Alexei Navalny and opposition leader Ilya Yashin, detained during protests last week, lodged their complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)>>

Other news of the day

Gladysheva v. Russia: the ECHR protected the rights of a bona fide buyer

This week, on 6 December 2011, the ECHR delivered its judgment in the case of Gladysheva v. Russia concerning dispossession of the applicant’s title to the flat and the eviction order issued against her by Russian authorities.[1] The ECHR found Russia responsible for violating the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and Article 8 of the Convention (respect for home) and ordered the Russian Government to ensure “full restitution of the applicant’s title to the flat and the annulment of her eviction order” once the ECHR judgment becomes final. The applicant is also entitled to EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 11,245 in respect of costs and expenses.

Novaya Gazeta calls for your signatures to help Natalya Gulevich

Today Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper, urged everyone who cares about the fate of Natalya Gulevich and the rule of law in Russia to leave their signature on its site, thus requiring Russian courts to release Gulevich from police custody on parole or subject to payment of a reasonable bail.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud for an alleged failure to repay a loan to Nomos-Bank. She was arrested and has been held in police custody for almost a year, despite Russian law prohibiting the arrest of suspects charged with economic crimes. Due to the poor conditions of her detention, Gulevich has suffered several serious chronic illnesses, including neurogenic bladder. Notwithstanding her poor health conditions and order of the ECHR to release her immediately, the Russian domestic courts have continued to extend her detention in custody.

As a result, since March 2011, Gulevich has had to use a catheter. However, taking into account the unsanitary conditions of her detention, prolonged use of the catheter may result in an infection of the kidneys or their complete failure leading to death. Natalya Gulevich needs urgent medical treatment to restore her bladder function, which is impossible to do in police custody which lacks the necessary medication and expertise.

You can sign up for release of Natalya Gulevich from police custody by following this link http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquiries/2.html and filling in a form below an article.

For more information about Gulevich case see my previous posts of 2 November 2011 and 8 November 2011.

Russia lost three cases in the ECHR this week

On 8 November 2011 the ECHR delivered three judgments in cases against Russia: Filatov v. Russia, Sambiyeva v. Russia and Yakubov v. Russia.[1] In all three cases the ECHR found violations of the Convention and ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary damage (in case of Sambiyeva), non-pecuniary damage (in cases of Filatov and Sambiyeva), and costs and expenses (in cases of Sambiyeva and Yakubov) totaling to 86,615 Euros.

Natalya Gulevich could not pay a bond of 100 million rubles for her release

On 7 November 2011 the Moscow City Court ordered that the detention of Natalya Gulevich be extended until 2 December 2011, since she could not pay a bond of 100 million rubles (approximately 3,400,000 USD) by 7 November 2011, reports Izvestia.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud for alleged failure to pay back the loan to Nomos-Bank that she took acting as a director of her company. She was arrested and has been held in police custody for almost a year, though Russian law prohibits the arrest of suspects charged with economic crimes. Because of the poor conditions of her detention, Gulevich suffered several serious chronic illnesses that require urgent treatment in a specialized hospital. However, Russian courts keep extending Gulevich’s detention in custody. For more information about Gulevich case see my previous post.

After several unsuccessful domestic proceedings regarding her detention, Gulevich’s attorneys lodged an application with the ECHR, which ordered Russia to release Gulevich immediately due to her poor health conditions. As a result of the ECHR order, on 2 November 2011 the Moscow City Court decided to release Gulevich from police custody upon the payment of a bond of 100 million rubles by 7 November. Practically Gulevich had only one day to fulfill this condition, since November 4th was a public holiday and November 5th and 6th was a weekend. Since she could not gather and pay this amount, which was practically unrealistic to do within one working day, the domestic court cancelled its order on her release and extended her detention until 2 December 2011.

Russian human rights activists are afraid that Natalya Gulevich may repeat the fate of Sergey Magnitsky and Vera Trifonova, that were also charged with economic crimes and eventually died in police custody due to serious illnesses and lack of medical assistance in detention. According to Izvestia, the human rights activists also insist that the court must release Gulevich without imposing any payment obligations on her.

A seminar on exercise of the right to freedom of assembly

On 19 November 2011, a Russian NGO, “Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms” is conducting a seminar “Exercise of the Right to Freedom of Assembly.” The seminar will be held in Moscow, Russia.

This event is open to anyone interested in this topic.

The seminar program:

- Application of Federal Law № 54-FZ "On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets";
- Strategy and mechanisms to protect the rights to freedom of assembly in Russia;
- The standards of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of assembly;
- Guidelines of OSCE on freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

Applications for participation in the seminar should be sent by November 7, 2011 to: jurix.event@gmail.com. Applications should contain the full name, company name (if you represent an organization), e-mail address, and telephone number (optional).

The exact time and location depend on the number of participants and will be announced to participants later (10 November).

Contact telephone: +7 (495) 981-13-18.

For more information about the NGO “Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms” please follow the link.

The ECHR judgments in the cases of Alexandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia and Vanfuli v. Russia

Today the ECHR delivered two judgments involving ill-treatment by Russian police, the cases of Alexandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia and Vanfuli v. Russia. In my previous post dated 1 November 2011 I discussed the likely results of these cases, stating that the ECHR would sustain most of the applicants’ claims. As can be seen from the holdings of these ECHR judgments this was, in fact, the case.

Case of Alexandra Dmitriyeva:

In this case the applicant alleged violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. [For more information about the facts of the case see my previous post of 1 November 2011].

The ECHR sustained all the claims of the applicant and held that there had been a violation of:

A gravely ill Russian business woman, Natalya Gulevich, has to pay 100 million rubles to be released from police custody

Today the Moscow City Court made a decision to release a gravely ill Russian business woman, Natalya Gulevich, from police custody provided that she pays a bond of 100,000,000 rubles (approximately 3,400,000 USD) before 7 November 2011, reports Radio Svoboda.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud. Allegedly, as the director of her company, she took a loan from Nomos-Bank and failed to pay it back. Her defense attorneys claim that Gulevich was a victim of “raider attacks.” Thus, allegedly the affiliates of Nomos-Bank seized the buildings owned by her company and located in the center of Moscow with a total market value about 120,000,000 USD. As a result she was arrested and has been held in police custody in Moscow for almost a year, regardless of the direct prohibition of the Russian law to hold suspects charged with economic crimes.

At the time of her detention, Gulevich suffered several serious chronic illnesses such as neurogenic bladder, which requires a catheter, spinal hernia, and high blood pressure which creates the risk of a stroke. Additionally, her uterus has been removed. Doctors claim she needs treatment in a specialized hospital. However, neither her serious illnesses nor the requirements of Russian law prohibiting the detention of suspects charged with economic crimes could stop Russian courts from extending Gulevich’s detention in custody several times.

In the beginning of October 2011 Gulevich’s attorneys lodged an application with the ECHR after which the ECHR urgently ordered Russia to implement an interim measure in this case, namely to release Gulevich immediately. The ECHR also asked Russia to explain why Gulevich was taken into custody after the entry into force of the Russian law prohibiting detention of suspects charged with economic crimes.

As a result of the ECHR order to apply urgent interim measures in the Gulevich case, the Moscow City Court delivered a decision today in which it held that Gulevich could be released from police custody upon the payment of a bond of 100 million rubles by 7 November. Taking into account that 4 November is a public holiday in Russia and that 5 and 6 November is the week-end, Gulevich would have to deposit this amount not later than 3 November in order to be released. Thus, the court gave her only one day to fulfill this condition, which is unrealistic, taking into account that her husband is a military retiree with a pension of 11 thousands rubles per month.

Given the above, the Moscow City Court decided to take formalistic approach towards implementation of the ECHR’s interim measures by showing its readiness to release Gulevich and admitting that her detention is illegal, but at the same time setting such conditions for her release that are impossible to fulfill in practice.

Earlier the Court has ordered Russia to implement similar interim measures in the case of Aleksanyan v. Russia. However, Russia failed to comply promptly with the Court’s order which resulted later in the applicant’s death (for more information about this case see my post of 4 October 2011).

More ECHR judgments concerning ill-treatment by Russian policemen are forthcoming

This week on 3 November 2011, the ECHR will deliver 2 judgments in cases of Aleksandra Dmitrieva v. Russia (App. No. 9390/05) and Vanfuli v. Russia (App. No. 24885/05)[1]. Both applicants alleged, inter alia, violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention due to ill-treatment by the police and the lack of effective investigations of the incidents.

Aleksandra Dmitrieva is a Russian national from St. Petersburg. She is in her sixties and disabled. On 8 December 2001 she was allegedly beaten by policemen who had come to her flat to question her son when she tried to block the door to her son’s room. After that she was taken to the local police station where she spent about 20 hours without food, a bed, or any medical assistance. After she was released, she was not brought before a judge or otherwise interrogated. Besides ill-treatment by the police, the applicant complained about the conditions of the cell for the detainees referring to Article 3 of the Convention. She also alleged that her arrest and detention were in violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, and that the police entry into her flat violated her right to respect for private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant also claimed a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). 

The second applicant, Vladimir Vanfuli, is a Russian national born in 1974. He lives in the Zabaykalskiy Region. He was charged with some motorway robberies. The applicant claimed ill-treatment while in police custody, namely: that on 3 October 2002 policemen allegedly beat him in order to make him confess to committing the above mentioned crime. In August 2004 the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Besides the ill-treatment in police custody, the applicant claimed that there was a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention due to several shortcomings of the criminal proceedings against him.

In both cases the applicants referred to the events that took place in 2001-2004, a period when reform of the criminal procedure was in its initial stage and major reforms concerning police and detention conditions had not been adopted yet in Russia. In this connection I do not exclude that the ECHR may sustain the majority of the applicants claims. The findings of the ECHR in both cases will be published later this week on the site of the blog.

---

[1] According to the information published on the official site of the ECHR: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN

Excessive use of firearms by Russian railway guards against mentally ill man resulted in amputation of his leg

Today the ECHR delivered its judgment in the case of Naboyshchikov v. Russia related to the excessive use of force against a mentally ill man resulting in his partial disability and considerable psychological distress and to the lack of effective investigation into this matter by Russian authorities. The Court unanimously found Russia responsible for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and ordered Russia to pay the applicant 23,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Facts of the case

The applicant suffered from a manic mental disorder. Allegedly on 2 October 2003 he saw a road police inspector being bribed for permitting the number of cars to enter a restricted-access zone.  He also believed that the railway guards were aiding terrorists. On the same day he demanded the guards stop letting the cars through. However, no action followed after that. In this connection the applicant decided to investigate himself why certain cars were allowed to pass through the restricted zone.

At 2 a.m. on 3 October 2003 the applicant accessed the restricted territory of the guarded zone. He admitted that he might have tried to set fire to the car of one of the guards, who later apprehended the applicant. After that, the applicant was searched and taken to the guardroom, where he was allegedly brutally beaten. One of the guards also fired several shots hitting a fire extinguisher which discharged its foam. After the foam had settled down that guard returned to the guardroom and severely wounded the applicant by firing two rifle shots at his legs, as a result of which one of the applicant’s legs was amputated.

According to the Government’s submissions, the guard fired the shots at Mr. Naboyshchikov’s legs in self-defense since the latter threatened him with a knife after he re-entered the building. Meanwhile, the applicant alleged that the guard had planted a knife in the guards’ quarters to support his argument that the applicant had attacked him.

A few days later, a criminal investigation was opened on account of the serious bodily harm suffered by the applicant. However, after a year and several months criminal proceedings were eventually terminated for lack of corpus delicti.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been tortured by the railway guards and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into this matter.

A member of the United Russia lost his suit against an anti-corruption blogger due to a domestic court’s reliance on ECHR case-law

On 11 October 2011, Lyublinsky district court in Moscow dismissed the lawsuit of Vladimir Svirid, a member of the ruling United Russia party, against Alexey Navalny, a Russian anti-corruption blogger, as reported by Vedomosti (the link is in Russian).  Judging from the court’s ruling, the extracts of which Navalny published today in his blog, the court substantiated its findings relying, inter alia, on Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) and ECHR case-law, namely: Grinberg v. Russia, and Bezymyanyy v. Russia. [The full text of the court’s ruling in Russian can be found here].

Facts of the case

On 2 February 2011 Alexey Navalny called the United Russia party “a party of corruption, swindlers and thieves” and spoke negatively of the party’s activity during his on-air interview to the radio station “Finam FM.” Vladimir Svirid, a member of the United Russia party, did not agree with Navalny’s opinion and claimed that such statements insulted him and discredited his honor and dignity. In his claim, Svirid asked Navalny, inter alia, to recant his statements about United Russia on the official internet site of “Finam FM” and to pay compensation in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles (approximately 33,000 USD) as restitution for non-pecuniary damages.

Findings of the court

The court did not find any violation of Svirid’s rights and dismissed his claims relying both on national legislation and the ECHR case-law. According to national legislation, the claimant had to prove, inter alia, that the relevant statements about United Russia contained information specifically about him, which he failed to do. Thus, the court agreed with Navalny, that his statements at issue did not contain any accusation towards Svirid specifically or anybody else, rather they concerned the United Russia party and its activities as a whole.

The court also supported its findings with the relevant ECHR case-law, referring to it as the part of the national legal system according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. First, having considered Navalny’s statements as value judgments, the court cited paragraph 30 of the ECHR judgment in the case of Grinberg v. Russia, according to which “while the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfill and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10.”

Second, as the final chord sustaining its findings the court cited paragraph 35 of the ECHR judgment in the case of Bezymyannyy v. Russia:

“According to the Court's well-established case-law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for individual self-fulfillment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”.”

Conclusion

The ruling of the Lyublinsky district court deserves applause. The judge did not limit its analysis of the legal norms to the national law only, but competently applied the Convention provisions and the relevant case-law of the ECHR to the facts of the case, which rarely happens in the courts of lower instances.

It is also a perfect example of how EHCR rulings can contribute to the promotion of the rule of law via domestic courts in Russia. The ECHR alone can do little without support of the domestic authorities, especially courts that are one of the main guarantors of the rule of law. Applying the Convention provisions and ECHR case-law, the courts convey a message to the participants of the trial and all other persons that they are aware of Russia’s obligations under the Convention and are willing to respect human rights and international law.

Moreover, given the high reputation of the ECHR, the more frequent the domestic courts competently sustain their findings with ECHR case-law and the Convention, the more trust and respect they will gain among the Russian citizens.

New judgments about old problems

On 18 October 2011 the ECHR delivered four judgments in the cases of Shuvalov v. Russia, Buldashev v. Russia, Cherkasov v. Russia and G.O. v. Russia.[1] In all four cases the ECHR found that Russia had violated, inter alia, Article 3 of the Convention due to either the condition of the applicants’ detention, their ill-treatment in custody, or both, and ordered the Russian Government to pay compensation to the applicants as restitution for non-pecuniary damages.

Overcrowded cells in police custody

Applicants Buldashev and G.O. (who decided not to disclose his name) were arrested, charged, and later convicted of serious crimes.[2] Pending investigation and trial they were detained in remand prisons in Russia. Both applicants complained, inter alia, that the conditions of their detention in the remand prisons were inhumane and degrading. The ECHR upheld their claims due to the following reasons:

1. The ECHR confirmed once again that guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention are provided to everyone, “irrespective of the circumstances or the victim’s behavior”. The Court also noted that Article 3 requires the State to ensure “that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.”

2. In both cases the applicants were afforded no more than 1.5 to 3 sq.m of personal space, while according to the Russian statutory requirements each inmate shall be provided with no less than 4 sq. m. In this respect the Court reiterated, that such lack of personal space was “so extreme as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.” The Court supported this finding by its well-established case law with regard to Russia.[3]

3. Moreover, the applicants were confined to their overcrowded cells “day and night,” apart from an hour’s outdoor daily exercise.

4. In the case of G.O. the Court also noted that “the fact that for approximately three years and one month the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.”

Balancing Public Hearing with Interests of National Security and Justice

On 11 October 2011 the ECHR delivered judgments in the cases of three Russian females, Ms. Nevskaya, Ms. Raks and Ms. Romanova, all of whom had been convicted of possession of explosives and terrorism. The Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for violation of their rights guaranteed by the Convention.

The applicants were arrested in 2000 on suspicion of their involvement in explosions in 1998 and 1999: the explosion that destroyed the monument to Tsar Nicolas II in Podolsk, Moscow Region, and explosions in Moscow that damaged the façade of the Federal Security Service (FSB). In May 2003 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicants of possession of explosives and terrorism. Each of the applicants was sentenced to several years of imprisonment. [The facts of the case are described in more detail in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Nevskaya, Raks and Romanova]

All three applied to the ECHR and claimed, inter alia,[1] that Russia violated their right to a fair trial since the court proceedings against them had not been conducted in public. The Court sustained this claim in all three cases, since the Russian Government failed to convincingly show that the national security concerns and justice interests justified the exclusion of the public from the trial in the domestic court. The Court ordered Russia to pay 4,800 euros to both Nevskaya and Raks, and 20,000 euros to Romanova (since in her case Russia also violated Article 5 of the Convention (her detention did not meet the requirements of lawfulness)).

The ECHR’s reasoning:

According to the case file, the domestic court ordered to exclude the public from the criminal proceedings due to: (a) the need to ensure the security of the trial participants, (b) the nature of the charges of the applicants, and (c) the “secret” status of the case file. The ECHR disagreed with such reasoning based on the following grounds:

(a) Safety of the trial participants: The ECHR noted that the domestic court failed to explain why it was concerned about the safety of the certain persons, and why these safety concerns “outweighed the importance of ensuring the public nature of the trial.”

(b) Gravity of the charges: According to the Court, the gravity of the charges by itself cannot evidence existence of a danger the defendants may present to other parties to a trial, and therefore cannot justify closure of the entire trial to the public. The presence of such danger and necessity to hold the trial in camera can be confirmed only by assessment of the gravity of the charges together with other relevant factors. The ECHR found that the domestic court failed to make such assessment and to give reasons why it considered “the risk to the safety of the ‘participants’ to be decisive.”

(c) “Secret” information in the case-file: The ECHR stated that “the mere presence of such information in a case file” cannot automatically imply “a need to close a trial to the public, without balancing openness with national security concerns.” Thus, the domestic court failed to take “any measures to counterbalance the detrimental effect that the decision to hold the trial in camera must have had on public confidence in the proper administration of justice for the sake of protecting the State’s interest in keeping its secrets.” In the ECHR’s view, instead of closing the entire trial to the public the domestic court could have ordered a single or a number of non-public sessions to deal with “secret” documents, which it failed to do.

Thus, judging from the ECHR findings, the main flaw of the Moscow City Court decision on closing the trial to public was the lack of relevant explanations and justifications. Had the domestic court delivered a more reasoned and well-founded decision, the ECHR would likely not have found a violation of the right to a fair trial in the applicants’ cases.

---

[1] The applicants also presented other complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13 and 18 of the Convention. However, the Court either found their complaints inadmissible or found no violation, except in the case of Romanova v. Russia, where the Court also found a violation of article 5 of the Convention.

The CIS Human Rights Court: a possible alternative to the ECHR?

Today Alexander Torshin, a Russian Senator, came forward with an initiative to set up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Human Rights Court, reported Interfax and Gazeta.ru.

According to Torshin the CIS court should be analogues to the ECHR. The Senator named the following advantages of the CIS Human Rights Court over the ECHR: (a) the applicants to the CIS court will not need translator’s assistance, since the majority of them have a good command of the Russian language; (b) the CIS court will be of a better quality than the ECHR, since during its set-up all the “bottlenecks and problems” of the ECHR will be taken into account; and (c) the CIS court will help relieve the ECHR which is currently overloaded with applications.

According to Torshin, the CIS Court will not replace the ECHR, but rather will be an alternative: the applicants will be able to choose between the two of them.

Russia’s failure to comply with ECHR interim measures resulted in the applicant’s death

Yesterday, the former vice president of YUKOS, Vasily Aleksanyan, died of several health complications worsened by inhuman and degrading treatment during his detention in a Russian jail, reported Reuters.

Aleksanyan first worked as the head of the legal department of YUKOS. In March 2006 the shareholders of YUKOS appointed him as executive vice-president of the company. On 6 April 2006 Aleksanyan was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of alleged participation in YUKOS criminal activities as the legal advisor to YUKOS executives. His detention had since been repeatedly extended.

Over the course of his detention, his health progressively deteriorated. His eyesight worsened to the extent that he became blind. In addition, in September 2006 Aleksanyan was found to be HIV-positive. As a result, from 2006–2008 he developed a number of opportunistic infections and lymph cancer. For more than a year he was denied treatment in a specialized hospital and received medical care in the medical facility of the detention center, which was insufficient considering seriousness of his illnesses. [See the full description of the facts related to the detention of Aleksanyan]

On 16 November 2006, following his arrest and subsequent detention, Aleksanyan lodged a complaint with the ECHR. He alleged, inter alia, that the Russian authorities violated Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of medical treatment in the detention center. He also claimed that his state of health had been incompatible with his detention. In addition, Aleksanyan requested the Court to apply urgent interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.

His request for application of the interim measures was sustained by the Court. Thus, the ECHR ordered the Russian Government to implement two interim measures, on 27 November 2007 and 21 December 2007 respectfully. According to the first interim measure, the Russian Government was ordered to transfer Aleksanyan immediately to a specialized hospital. However, it took the Russian authorities more than two months to implement this measure. In the Court’s view, such delay put the health and life of Aleksanyan in danger.

The Russian Government also refused to comply with the second interim measure of the Court, namely to form a mixed medical commission to be composed on the parity basis, to diagnose the health problems of Aleksanyan and suggest treatment. However, the Russian Government replied to the Court that the medical facility of the detention centre could provide proper medical treatment to Aleksanyan, and that his examination by a mixed medical commission was against the Russian law.

On 22 December 2008 the ECHR delivered the judgment in Aleksanyan case and ordered the Russian Government, inter alia, to discontinue his detention on remand, in view of the gravity of his illnesses. He was released only in January 2009 after a bond of 50 million rubles was paid (approximately 1,700,000 USD).

As the Moscow Times reports, human rights activists believe that Aleksanyan could have lived longer if the Russian authorities had not kept him in custody for nearly three years.

Beksultanova v. Russia: a detailed analysis of the ECHR judgment

On 27 September 2011 the ECHR delivered another judgment relating to the actions of the security forces in Chechnya, namely the case of Beksultanova v. Russia. As many other cases involving Chechnya, this one concerns a forced disappearance, unacknowledged detention and inadequate investigation conducted by the Russian authorities. [See my previous post for a brief description of the facts of the case]

This ECHR judgment did not bring anything new to the Court’s case-law. In its findings the Court applied the same approach as in other cases concerning Chechnya, as well as in cases against the UK and Turkey related to human rights violations committed by the security forces during their fight against terrorism and illegal armed groups.

As in its previous judgments relating to Chechnya, the Court did not challenge the lawfulness of the Russia’s fight against illegal armed groups, but rather, implied that Russia’s authorities must respect human rights granted by the Convention even during the fight against terrorism.

The ECHR unanimously found that Russia violated Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Below is the detailed analysis of the ECHR’s findings.

The ECHR ordered Russia to pay 63,000 euros in the case concerning forced disappearance in Chechnya

Today the ECHR delivered its judgment in case of Beksultanova v. Russia and ordered Russia to pay 63,000 euros for numerous violations of the Convention.

The case concerned the alleged forced disappearance of the applicant’s son by Russian state agents. The applicant claimed that her son had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities in October 2004 and had since disappeared. She also alleged that her son had been abducted and killed by Russian state agents during an unacknowledged security operation in Chechnya and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of her son.

Analysis of the ECHR judgment in the YUKOS case

On 20 September 2011 the ECHR delivered its judgment with respect to the YUKOS case. Overall, the judgment gives an impression that the majority of the ECHR judges tried to make it balanced,[1] so that either party could be satisfied with the results of the hearings. Considering the parties’ response to the judgment, the judges have succeeded in their efforts.

Nominally, the judgment may be divided into two parts: YUKOS’ “victory” and the Russian Government’s “victory.” Below is my detailed analysis of both parts.

The ECHR judgment in the case of YUKOS

Today the ECHR delivered its Chamber judgment in the YUKOS case. The Court held that the proceedings against YUKOS were not politically motivated and that YUKOS was not treated differently from other companies, however, it found that the Russian government had violated YUKOS’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Court held:

1. By six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention as regards the 2000 Tax Assessment proceedings on account of the insufficient time available to the applicant company for preparation of the case at first instance and on appeal;

2. By four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the 2000-2001 Tax Assessments in the part relating to the imposition and calculation of penalties;

3. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the rest of the 2000-2003 Tax Assessments;

4. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning whether YUKOS has been treated differently from other companies;

5. By five votes to two that there has been a violation of YUKOS’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the enforcement proceedings against it in that the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of these proceedings and the measures employed;

6. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restriction on rights), taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy YUKOS and seize its assets;

7. Unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) is not ready for decision and reserves the said question in whole.

Awaiting the ending of YUKOS saga in the ECHR

Tomorrow the ECHR will publish its judgment with regard to the YUKOS case. YUKOS alleged that Russia violated Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 1, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, and Article 7 of the Convention. YUKOS claimed for damages amounting to over USD 98 billion. In anticipation of tomorrow’s judgment I would like to recap the key facts of this case and the results of the Court’s admissibility decision.[1]

The YUKOS case was originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court on 23 April 2004 shortly after YUKOS was targeted by the Russian authorities with tax and enforcement proceedings, which eventually led to its liquidation. The application was declared by the Court partly admissible on 29 January 2009. The Court held hearings on the merits on 4 March 2010 at 2:30 pm.

Independent Monitoring of Court Proceedings in Russia

According to a post published yesterday at www.hro.org, on 13 September 2011 the Center of International Protection, a Russian non-governmental organisation, came forward with an initiative to conduct independent monitoring of court proceedings in Russia. Karinna Moskalenko, the head of the Center, points out that:

Everybody is constantly complaining about Russian courts and violation of the right to a fair trial.[1] In this regard, we are talking about monitoring as a possible form and method of revealing systemic problems of Russian justice. It is useful for the judges to look at themselves from the outside. And not only for judges, but also for attorneys. With the help of this monitoring trial participants will be able to see themselves as in a mirror. And this is indeed interesting. [Translation from Russian into English is made by me. See this quote in Russian at]

To conduct the monitoring of court trials observers will visit various Russian courts during one week and report the results of their observations. After having been processed, the results of the monitoring will be published by the Center.

Russia’s compliance with ECHR judgments

Execution of ECHR judgments, especially those that require a state to prevent similar violations in the future, is of high importance for establishing the rule of law in a respondent state. In this post I would like to discuss Russia’s compliance with the Court’s judgments. Below is a brief analysis on this subject. [Please note that most links on this post are in Russian.]