What threatens Russia exit from the European Convention on Human Rights
Dmitry Kurkin
Russia may withdraw from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms - this was reported by the media, citing sources in Russian specialized agencies.
This is an international treaty, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): this treaty allows a citizen of the Council of Europe (which includes Russia, which ratified almost all protocols of the convention in 1998) to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights , aka Strasbourg Court) in the event that his rights were violated. The convention sets out basic rights and freedoms, including the right to life, protection from torture and forced labor, privacy, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
On the basis of the convention, the ECtHR cannot revoke the decisions of decisions issued by Russian courts, but it can establish the fact of human rights violations and oblige the Russian authorities to pay compensation for the damage caused. By the number of complaints filed with the Strasbourg Court, Russia traditionally ranks first.
In 2015, the Constitutional Court of Russia has already allowed the authorities, by way of exception, not to execute the decisions of the ECHR if they contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Denunciation of the convention will mean both Russia's withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the withdrawal from the Council of Europe. But what will this change for Russian citizens in practice? We asked the experts to comment on the situation.
Petr Popov
lawyer Pepeliaev Group
Withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights will be terrible news for two categories of people in the country. First of all, these are the defendants, arrested before the trial, whose living conditions, unfortunately, are not of much interest to the general public out of fear, detachment or indifference. In the opinion of the Strasbourg Court (another name for the European Court of Human Rights. - Approx. ed.), these conditions are close to torture.
In the opinion of Russian lawyers who make decisions about the fate of these people, everything is fine: the Supreme Court recently ruled that the need to justify the natural needs in the presence of cellmates is a common story, once a person is suspected of a crime and he, for example, has been previously tried, . The cells in the courtrooms evoke an equally different reaction from Strasbourg and the Russian “legal authorities”. Recognition of the "historical truth" of Russian officials, if it takes place, is undoubtedly sad news.
The second category is the Russian legal community. After all, few people in the "legal authority" of Russia, except for the Strasbourg court, seem creepy and unacceptable under any circumstances, some judicial procedures. As, for example, the situation when the challenge, declared by the judge on the grounds of doubts about his impartiality (participants in the legal process have the right to demand that a judge be replaced if he may in any way be interested in making a decision. - Approx. ed.), considered by the disqualified judge. Now the Supreme Court has just proposed to return this old order, which, keeping in mind first of all the Strasbourg court, was canceled in the early 2000s.
Finally, Russia's participation in the Convention is one of the last tools that does not allow us to forget that according to the Russian Constitution, the highest value here is a person, his rights and freedoms, and not strength, submission to the authorities and the subservient attitude of foreigners to the leaders of the country. So far the question of the abolition of the necessary article of the Constitution is not serious, and in words the officials are likely to promise that they will do everything for the sake of man. But how it will actually have reason to worry.
Olga Gnezdilova
Lawyer of the project "Legal Initiative"
I consider all this to be an election statement only and I don’t think it should be taken seriously. Apparently, the authorities believe that the anti-European rhetoric is responding to the majority of voters.
In my practice there were numerous cases when the Convention helped ordinary citizens not only to get justice "in Strasbourg", but also to curb the arbitrariness of local authorities or courts even before or even instead of applying to the European Court. The ECHR is much more effective than any UN treaty body, and our citizens are very lucky that there is this international protection.
In recent years, we have seen a very selective, but still positive influence of European standards on Russian legislation. Of course, without the Convention, we will roll back backwards. I think this will never happen, because our officials still want to talk with the civilized world on an equal footing.
Cover:kara_evgen - stock.adobe.com