All 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
  Jan Jan Feb Sep Apr Mar Feb Feb Jan Jan Jan Feb
  May Feb Mar Dec Jun Apr Mar Mar Feb Mar Feb Jun
    Mar Jul   Aug May Jun Apr Mar May Apr Jul
    May Aug   Oct Jun Sep May Apr Jun May Oct
    Jun Sep     Dec Nov Jun May Jul Aug Nov
    Jul Oct       Dec Jul Jun Sep Oct  
    Aug Nov         Sep Jul Oct Nov  
    Sep Dec         Oct Sep Nov    
    Oct           Dec Oct Dec    
    Nov             Nov      
    Dec                    
                         

24 November 2016

The ECHR ruled partially in favour on the case of Saypudinov v. Russia and ordered the Russian authorities to pay compensation to the applicant

During their work on the case, Russian Justice Initiative’s lawyers noted numerous violations committed in drawing up the interrogation reports and the conduct of the various investigation procedures. An application on the case was sent to the ECHR in 2011. The application affirmed that Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were violated with regard to Supaydinov.

22 November 2016

The ECHR ordered 1,129,000 euros in compensation paid to the relatives of individuals who disappeared during special operations in Mesker-Yurt

The special operation began in the village of Mesker Yurt on May 21, 2002. Troops arrived by helicopter and were later joined by units that had conducted a special operation in the village of Avtury. From this date, all residents of Mesker Yurt were unable to leave the village and were blockaded there until June 11, 2002.  Human rights activists and journalists who were in the village say that more than 30 people were killed or disappeared. Human rights activists’ information shows that at least 12 Mesker Yurt residents had been killed by the start of June. The Court ordered 1,129,000 euros to be paid as compensation in 16 cases of abducted Chechnya residents (169,000 euros for material damages and 960,000 euros for moral damages).

11 November 2016

Moscow’s Perovo District Court returns custody rights to the mother of five children

“In November 2015, the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in its comments on a report by the Russian Federation, noted that the idea in the North Caucasus that children ‘belong’ to the father means in practice that after divorce, women often lose all contact with their children”, said lawyer with Russian Justice Initiative Bike Gyulmagomedova. “Iman Khadzhimuradova’s case is thus not an exception but is a result of trends that Russia is supposed to combat. As yet, the situation has not changed, and after her divorce, Iman Khadzhimuradova was prevented from having any involvement in bringing up her children. This lack of contact with the children was the grounds the applicant then used to attempt to have Iman deprived of her parental rights. The Perovo District Court rejected the applicant’s demand”.

1 November 2016

Response to Russian Government memorandum on the case of Leyla Muruzheva sent to the ECHR

We received the Government’s commentaries, which included among the attached documents, among others, the explanations of the children’s father, who took them from Muruzheva”, said lawyer with Russian Justice Initiative Bike Gyulmagomedova. “His explanations state that the children are at a health resort with their grandmother and ‘new mother’. Let me recall that in June 2014, the Izmailovsky District Court ruled that the children should live with their mother, but they have not been returned to her. The bailiffs say that the children’s emotional state prevents the court decision from being executed. The children’s reaction is understandable, given their age (four and eight), the length of time they have been separated from their mother (more than two-and-a-half years now), and the hostile attitude their father and his parents, who are effectively raising the children now, take towards their mother. We think that in this case, the Russian authorities did not take all the timely action that we would have expected of them to ensure the court decision’s enforcement, and in this way, they violated the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, guaranteed in Article 8”.