Russia and the European Court of Human Rights

The Russian Federation ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in May 1998. The first judgment against Russia came in 2002 and since then the Court has passed ten judgments against the Russian Federation. The Court has found a violation of the right to a fair trial (art. 6 § 1 of the ECHR) in nine of the ten cases. Other violations that the Court has found are violation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 3), violation of the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 5), violation of the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (art. 8), and violation of the right to effective remedy (art. 13). 

In a significant ruling in July 2002 in the case Kalashnikov v. Russia, the Court held that the detention and trial of Valeriy Yermilovich Kalashnikov had violated the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 3), the right to stand trial within a reasonable time (art. 5 § 3), and the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (art. 6 § 1). During his more than four years in detention in Magadan detention center, Kalashnikov got scabies, allergic dermatitis, and fungal infections because of the conditions in the detention center. The Court awarded Kalashnikov for non-pecuniary damage and compensation for cost and expenses. More facts about the case can be found in the Court’s press release and in the judgment.

In January 2003, the European Court admitted the first six applications concerning human rights violations committed in Chechnya. The applicants allege that the Russian military violated their rights during the course of military operations in Chechnya in 1999-2000. The Court declared the applicants’ complaints admissible under Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property). For more information, see the Court’s press release. The Court held hearings on these six cases on 14 October 2004 and delivered it's jugment on 24 February 2005 and they became final on 6 July 2005.

Since then, forty four of the cases represented by the Chechnya Justice Project have been communicated to the Russian authorities, nine were declared admissible and judgment in the first case concerning disappearence in Chechnya is to be delivered on 27 July 2006.

With 5,996 new applications in 2003, Russia was the country against which the largest number of applications was lodged. With 170 cases communicated to the Russian authorities in 2003, only Turkey received more communications than Russia.

Why bring cases from Chechnya to the Court?

Exhaustion of domestic remedies
In order for the European Court of Human Rights to admit a case for review, it must find that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, meaning that the applicant's attempts to seek justice within the domestic system can go no further. The situation in Chechnya--unstable security conditions and threat of violent retribution, lack of access to information on domestic and/or international remedies, lack of qualified lawyers in the region, general poverty, and lack of basic infrastructure such as telecommunications services--places almost insurmountable obstacles before those individuals who wish to pursue their cases before local judicial organs. Despite these obstacles, Chechnya Justice Project clients--usually immediate family members of the victims--have shown persistence and determination in appealing to local, regional, and federal authorities.

In the majority of cases, local public prosecutors open criminal investigations into civilians' complaints of serious abuses, such investigations are routinely suspended for alleged lack of material evidence and witnesses. At the same time, investigators regularly fail to take such basic steps as visiting the scene of the crime and collecting physical evidence. As a result, criminal prosecutions are extremely rare, even in straightforward cases.

Potential impact
While a European Court finding in favor of an applicant cannot restore a loved one's life, a judgment that finds a substantive violation of one of the fundamental Convention rights serves to vindicate the applicants, who domestically sought, but never received, recognition that their rights or those of their relatives were violated. When the European Court makes a judgment in favor of the applicant, it may order the respondent government to pay the applicant's legal costs as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Furthermore, the Chechnya Justice Project believes that bringing cases to Strasbourg will result in significant political pressure upon the Russian government to improve its record on investigating and prosecuting serious human rights violations in Chechnya, and undertaking necessary judicial and law enforcement reforms.

The experience of the Kurdish Human Rights Project, which has a decade-long European Court litigation project on behalf of Kurdish victims of abuse during the conflict in southeast Turkey, demonstrates that the Chechnya Justice Project’s long-term goals can indeed be realized. Court proceedings on KHRP cases have resulted in dozens of decisions on behalf of applicants, crucial case-law establishing state obligations in cases of serious human rights violations, Council of Europe scrutiny requiring Turkey to report on measures it has taken to more adequately protect human rights, and reforms in Turkish law and law enforcement.