European conventions and the Constitution of the Russian Federation

Two bills have been submitted for consideration by the State Duma: on Russia’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption and withdrawal from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In the first case, the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption should be immediately distinguished from the UN Convention against Corruption. The bill submitted to the State Duma is justified by the fact that the Council of Europe has terminated Russia’s full membership in the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), which monitors compliance with the agreement. Thus, Russia has lost the right to vote and cannot participate in the discussion of the reports. “Due to the unacceptability of such conditions for the Russian Federation, as well as in order to take measures aimed at preventing a discriminatory attitude <…> within the framework of the GRECO evaluation mechanisms, it is proposed to denounce the convention and terminate the participation of the Russian Federation in GRECO,” the Explanatory Note says (http://duma.gov.ru/news/56149/) to the bill.

At the same time, Russia remains a full member of the UN Convention against Corruption. The State Duma of the Russian Federation ratified it in March 2006. True, not all articles. Article 26 “Liability of legal entities”, article 54 “Mechanisms for the seizure of property through international cooperation in the matter of confiscation” and article 57 “Return of assets and disposal of them” have not been ratified.

Among other things, we refused to apply Article 20 – “Illegal enrichment”. It regulates the initiation of criminal cases if there is a “significant increase in the assets of a public official in excess of his legal income, which he cannot reasonably justify.”

Then, 17 years ago, the majority of State Duma deputies considered that this violated human rights, the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

But a significant part of the deputies representing the SZRP and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation insisted and still insists on the ratification of Article 20. So, in May last year, the chairman of the Just Russia – For Truth party, Sergei Mironov, said: “Our position remains unchanged: we demand the ratification of Article 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption.”

And recently, on January 11, he confirmed: “We demand to introduce punishment for illicit enrichment, confiscation of illegally acquired property of corrupt officials and members of their families, as well as to cancel parole for convicted embezzlers of public funds and the statute of limitations for acts of corruption.”

For now, reality remains as it was.

Another draft law submitted for consideration by the State Duma is on the termination of several international treaties of the Council of Europe with respect to Russia, including the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” It is somewhat formal, because on March 15 this year Russia officially announced its intention to withdraw from the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that it would comply with the decisions of the ECtHR only if they comply with the Russian Constitution. Now – without “only”, but in general and as a whole. In addition, the next day, March 16, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided that Russia ceased to be a member of the organization.

Until now, Russian citizens could apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). As soon as we signed (in 1998) the Convention, Russia immediately became a sad champion: 25% of all complaints to the ECtHR come from Russia, 15% from Turkey. The process of applying to the ECtHR in itself is not easy. Complaints are accepted for consideration only if it is documented that the plaintiff went through all the instances in his country and was refused everywhere. With such a total number of chances for success, there is little, the results will take a long time to wait. For 20 years, from 1998 to 2018, the ECtHR satisfied Russian lawsuits in 2365 cases.

In connection with the draft law on the termination of this Convention, there was talk in public and political circles that now it is necessary to adopt a separate Federal law on the protection of human rights and freedoms. Andrey Klishas, ​​head of the Federation Council committee on constitutional legislation and state building, answered them: “No, no separate law on human rights is needed. We have a Constitution and a Constitutional Court.”

Yes, the Constitution is a direct action law. And it contains all the provisions for the protection of our rights and freedoms. Only it is necessary to warn, including about responsibility, all employees of law enforcement and civil state structures, all policemen. And then, sometimes, some young man comes out, pale with a burning gaze on the square with a piece of paper on which a quote from the Constitution is given: “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought and speech. Censorship is prohibited,” or he begins to read the Constitution of the Russian Federation aloud to passers-by. And grab him – and in jail.

And the trial begins…

Sergei Baimukhametov.

Photo by Olga Davydova