Convention on Human Rights has become exclusively European

Today, September 16, Russia officially ceases to be a High Contracting Party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By this date, the Institute of Law and Public Policy (included in the register of foreign agents) prepared a report on the results of Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe. Its authors calculated that in 24 years the European Court of Human Rights has recognized Russia as a violator of the convention more than 3,000 times – and this is every eighth decision of the ECtHR throughout its existence. On the eve of the European Court immediately issued 50 rulings on the complaints of Russians.

The date of the final termination of the convention in relation to the Russians – September 16 – was determined by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE) back in March when discussing the consequences of the termination of Russia’s membership in the organization. Participation in the convention, which was ratified by Russia in 1998, allowed Russians to complain to the ECtHR. Now the court will cease to consider complaints filed against Russia for actions committed after September 16th. However, the Russian authorities have already passed a law refusing to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR, which entered into force after March 15, the day the Russian Federation’s membership in the Council of Europe ended.

The Institute of Law and Public Policy (IPPP) studied and analyzed the statistics of the annual reports of the ECtHR (the latter concerned the results of 2021). Since 1959, the European Court has delivered over 24,500 rulings. In 2002, the first ruling against Russia was issued: Anatoly Burdov, a veteran of the liquidation of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, received €3,000 in compensation for harm caused to health. By the end of 2021, the ECHR had issued a total of 3,116 rulings against Russia. Thus, in just 20 years, the country has become one of the leaders in the number of human rights violations recorded by the court: every eighth judgment during the entire existence of the ECHR was issued against the Russian Federation (about 13%). More ECtHR issued rulings only against Turkey – 3820. However, this country ratified the convention 48 years earlier than Russia.

According to statistics, most often Russia violated the articles of the convention guaranteeing the right to life (Article 2), the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3), the right to liberty and security of person (Article 5). Thus, 57.8% of the rulings, which recognized the violation of the right to life, were issued specifically against Russia. Since 2012, the ECtHR has awarded around €120 million to victims of Russian abuses, not counting a record €1.9 billion in favor of former Yukos shareholders. As Kommersant reported, Russia did not pay compensation for €74 million at the time of its withdrawal from the CE (also excluding Yukos).

The STI also analyzed the extent to which Russia has fulfilled the obligations assumed when joining the Council of Europe. The PACE Monitoring Committee regularly published reports and information notes on this topic. The last such note was adopted after Russia’s break with the organization on April 26, 2022. According to the committee, 12 out of 32 obligations have not been fulfilled. Among them, for example, strict observance of the norms of international humanitarian law, including cases of armed conflicts on the territory of Russia. The legislative reform to bring Russian legislation in line with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe also failed.

Ten commitments were “partially fulfilled”. Among them are the revision of legislation on the powers of the FSB, the issue of improving conditions of detention, as well as the adoption of a law on freedom of movement and choice of residence. Ten points were also “completely implemented” – for example, the introduction of legislative protection for lawyers and the transfer of powers to manage places of deprivation of liberty and the execution of sentences from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice.

“The years of membership in the Council of Europe have left a big mark on Russian legislation and judicial practice,” Svetlana Mironova, the co-author of the report, STI lawyer, told Kommersant. As examples, she cites the adoption of a law on alternative civil service, the creation of the position of a human rights ombudsman, and the development of new codes – Criminal, Criminal Procedure, Criminal Executive, Civil and Civil Procedure. “And, for example, thanks to participation in the work of the Venice Commission, Russia received high-quality expertise in relation to various laws and bills,” says Ms. Mironova.

Now, Russian procedural codes have already excluded the provisions that the ECtHR judgments are the basis for the annulment of national court decisions and for the resumption of criminal proceedings due to new or newly discovered circumstances. “We have come out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, and their decisions are of no interest to us,” State Duma Vice Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy (ER) stated in the summer.

However, the termination of the convention does not mean that it is no longer possible to file complaints against Russia with the ECHR, human rights activists say. They point out that the Committee of Ministers in March determined that it would consider all applications for violations committed before September 16, as well as continue to monitor the ECtHR judgments already issued. The head of the Agora international human rights group, Pavel Chikov, believes that the Russian law on refusal to comply with ECtHR judgments has no legal force, since it violates Russia’s obligations assumed in 1998. “This means that all the decisions made, including those involving the review of sentences, changes in legislation and the payment of compensation, will be executed sooner or later,” he is sure.

It still makes sense to complain to the ECHR, says Olga Sadovskaya, a lawyer for the Team Against Torture (created instead of the liquidated Committee against Torture, entered in the register of foreign agents). However, she also has questions about the actions of the European Court: “The way the ECHR now weeds out obviously acceptable complaints does not give any special hopes for it. It is possible that until September 16 they will approach complaints selectively, and everything that gets to court will then lie like a dead weight for years.” Sadovskaya predicts that lawyers will stop applying to the ECtHR almost immediately after September 16, and human rights activists “will still hold out for some time in the ‘do what you must, and come what may’ paradigm.”

Applicants from Russia still have the opportunity to file complaints with the relevant UN committees, reminds the lawyer of the Violence.net center (included in the register of foreign agents) Daryana Gryaznova: “What will be more beneficial for the applicant is to apply to the UN or to the ECtHR until September 16.— “b”) is hard to say. It all depends on the purpose pursued by the applicant. The opinions of UN committees are still binding in Russia, and this has been recognized by the highest courts. But they do not award specific compensation, leaving it up to the discretion of the authorities. It is also not clear how the committees will withstand the new workload.”

On September 15, the ECtHR published 50 judgments against Russia at once. Some of them concern violations of the rights of persons under investigation. For example, in the case “Sovetov and Others v. Russia” (13 applicants), the ECHR once again pointed out the inadmissibility of keeping the accused in “cages” in the courtroom. The victims were awarded compensation from €7,500 to almost €10,000. The ECtHR awarded six other applicants €1,000 each for unacceptable transportation conditions in paddy wagons – the European Court often pointed to this problem as a systemic one. Another €7.5 thousand was awarded by the ECHR to Vyacheslav Litvinov, a resident of the Murmansk region, in the case of illegal police wiretapping. Other decisions concerned cases of unjustified administrative detentions, excessively long detentions and round-the-clock video surveillance of detainees.

Marina Tsareva