Challenges In Pursuing Justice For Cases Assignment

• Type Assignment
• Downloads543
• Pages15
• Words3743

1.0 Introduction to Challenges In Pursuing Justice For Cases Assignment

The “European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)” is responsible for the protection of human rights across Europe, however it affords persons an opportunity to seek redress in cases where national mechanisms have denied them their rights. Set up under the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECtHR has offered its judgment in several cases to hold individuals responsible for human rights abuses and assist in building the Rule of law in member country. The judgments are authoritative and provided states must follow to resolve such violations satisfactorily.

Importantly, Russia has had extensive but confrontational practice with the ECtHR. Since Russia acceded to the ECHR in 1998, it had been under the jurisdiction of the court, and thus thousands of cases were initiated against it. They tend to address structural human rights problems that include rights abuse in prisons, extra-judicial murders, and oppression of freedom of speech. Nevertheless, Russia has been quite uncomfortable with the ECtHR since, apart from cooperation in some cases, it has criticized the ECtHR and often did not implement its judgments. After Russia was suspended from the Council of Europe in 2022 and withdrew in 2023, several concerns arise regarding the execution of the judgments of the ECtHR and, most importantly, the recognition of the rights of Russian victims. This analysis is also relevant for academic discussions supported through Online Assignment Help in UK.

As the last part of this essay shall find out, there are certain challenges that come accompanying the prosecution of cases against Russia at the ECtHR to show that there are “systemic, pragmatic, and geopolitical problems” with human rights protection[2]. It also assesses the remedy and the possibility of overcoming such barriers, based on Bill Bowring analysis on the method of delivery of judgement of ECtHR in Russian courts.

It refers to the challenges and opportunities of both Russia and the ECtHR before presenting notions, approaches, and solutions to the problem at the heart of the matter: human rights protection in Russia through the lens of the Strasbourg court.

2.0 Discussion

2.1 Background and Context

This part posited that Russia has been an active and unpredictable respondent to the ECtHR. After acceding to the ECHR in 1998, Russia also agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the ECtHR by which individuals may complain of violations of their rights whenever domestic remedies fail them. This became a major decisive step towards the adoption of human rights norms of the international level in the domestic legislation of Russia.

In the process, Russia adopted the image of one of the most frequently complained about countries at the ECtHR, with thousands of cases being launched against it. These cases mostly concerned structural human rights problems including torture, enforced disappearance and restriction of freedom of speech or unfair trials. Some of the cases like “Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia”, which accused Russia of being involved in the arrest of individuals in Transnistria. And, also the case “Mikheyev v. Russia”, which can be focus being on police torture[3]. They also pointed to human rights abuses and revealed the system nature of Russia’s failings as well as institutional ones.

Challenges In Pursuing Justice For Cases Assignment

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

Laura Green 9 Years | LLB

Judgment of ECtHR is essential to human rights since they help reach out justice for the victims of violations, as well as put pressure on the states to make required legal and institutional changes. Nonetheless, Russia has only recently fulfilled most of these judgments although it has in recent times begun to honor them. While some of the rulings actually prompted changes to legislation, others faced disobedience raw, due to political imperativeness and the absence of compliance measures.

Thus, the problems of putting the practice of the ECt shall into effect concerning Russian case law are explored by Bill Bowring. He further asserts that due to the domestic sovereignty focus of Russia’s constitution frequently pits the ECtHR against Russia. Bowring also lists more concrete concerns on relative effectiveness such as absence of the judiciary’s freedom, influence by politicians, and that there are insufficient means to ensure those will adhere to the standards[4].

These challenges have only grown now as Russia has become more distant from the “protection and promotion of human rights” by the ECtHR or any other organization since it left the Council of Europe in 2022.

2.2 Problems with Seeking Justice against Russia at the ECtHR

There are numerous obstacles to the effective enforcement of the ECtHR in cases against Russia: systematic obstacles, barriers related to practice as well as geopolitical and judicial ones. Such problems raise obstacles to human rights for Russian citizens and decrease the legitimacy of the ECtHR.

Systemic Barriers

From among these, the most serious one is the failure to enforce the judgments rendered by the ECtHR in Russia’s domestic courts. Nevertheless during the time when it was committed to the “European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)” Russia violated the large number of ECtHR judgments. For example, in “Alexeev v. Russia (2010)” the ECtHR determined that Russia had breached “Article 11” of the ECHR right to freedom of assembly[5]. Nevertheless, legislative practice demonstrated that Russia pursued a policy of perverting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community through legislation and administrative practices; it became evidence of the absence of the political willingness to uphold human rights.

This political resistance is however compounded by legal barriers, and a doctrine of constitutional primacy. The Russian Constitution amended in 2020 prohibited decisions by international courts to be contradictory to the Constitution of the Russian Federation[6]. This amendment, based on judgments such as “Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia (2013)” where the ECtHR condemned Russia for an absolute prohibition of prisoner enfranchisement that is despite Russia’s existing legal regime to supersede its human rights obligations under the ECHR, this trend of focusing on domestic sovereign right continues.

Practical Barriers

When the victims want justice, access to “the ECtHR” is a challenge. Applicants have to try all the domestic remedies before approaching Strasbourg which is not served well by discrimination and inefficiency of Russian courts. This is illustrated in “Tsezar and Others v. Russia (2021)” whose rights have been violated by unlawful detention have not had efficient domestic remedies to offer, and ECtHR is the only option left.

Another agonizing challenge is the fear of retaliation of applicants and their lawyers to anyone involved in the case. Human rights lawyers face threats, harassment, or legal persecution under ambiguous laws on extremism or foreign agent’s performances. This kind of environment leads people away from seeking justice further eroding on the safeguards accorded them by the ECtHR.

Regarding constraining factors some are High costs and procedural delays. Bearing cases at the ECtHR is time-consuming and relatively expensive; therefore, justice is unattainable for many victims[7]. This becomes a significant issue because there is no state-funded legal aid as a result, applicants who meet the economic means test are hampered.

Geopolitical Challenges

The current situation with the reference to the ECtHR is conditioned by the generally tense attitude of Russia towards the “Council of Europe”. The prize of Crimea in 2014 and the later occurrences of human rights violations in the latter resulted in several cases in ECtHR, like Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). In these cases the ECtHR found itself servicing a politically sensitive position, which often had Russia denying judgements as politically motivated.

It became even worse when in 2022 Russia left the “Council of Europe” and thus terminated its responsibilities under ECHR[8]. Although cases that have been lodged before September 2022 can be resolved through provision of transitional provisions, the long term consequences are harsh. To a certain extent, Russian citizens are now left without an ability to turn to an international forum for justice, and domestic courts become the only option (and, as practice shows, often ineffective).

Judicial Challenges

However, enforcement of recognize decisions by the ECtHR in Russia is rather limited due to no enforcement procedures. As mentioned above, the supervisory power belongs to the “Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe” not to the domestic courts as it is exercised over domestic courts. In Russia’s case, non-compliance is rather often, as it can be traced in the “Isayeva v. Russia (2005)”. In this case of Russia (2005) the ECtHR condemned Russian military actions in Chechnya but no real steps have been made to embarking the numbers also signify that human rights violations in that country continued without any serious attempts of their prevention being made by the Council of Europe.

Compounding this issue is the question of “sovereignty and jurisdiction” which is interpreted in different fashion. At the same time, Russia has insisted on the violation of its sovereignty by the decisions of the ECtHR, which was also reflected in the constitutional changes of July 2020[9]. Such tension weakens the authority of the ECtHR and it results in a legal stalemate denying victims adequate redress.

Thus, systemically, practical, geopolitical, and judicial factors heavily motivate for justice for cases against Russia at the ECtHR. The absence of compliance, legal limitations within the domestic legal culture, and Russia’s current position on the international level exclude international mechanisms to address human rights violations.

2.3 Measures and Procedures for Mitigating Impairments

Besides, solving the challenges of the fight for justice against Russia at the ECtHR is possible only with the help of an integrated approach using both the international and domestic and innovative approaches. These remedies are to improve the protection of “human rights” and ensure increased compliance with decisions of the ECtHR.

International Remedies

One of the best known of these is “strengthening enforcement mechanisms at the ECtHR”. The ECtHR like most international human rights courts lacks the prerogative of forced enforcement and it depends on the “Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe” to ensure compliance with its decision[10]. This supervisory role might be boosted if the current processes were made more transparent, have harsher time limitations for implementation, and penalties to the state for non-implementation. For example, in case of “Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (2004)” henceforth delayed in its compliance for years, even when the ECtHR had made its findings of responsibility very clear.

Interestingly, the “Council of Europe”, which forms a focal point in Europe in making sure that individuals and countries stick to their obligations enshrined under ECtHR judgments. It could use political and economic influence in order to force states like Russia to adhere to its decrees. Although Russia ceased to be a member of the Council in 2022 it is still important to note that it has jurisdiction only in cases which were instituted before that date, however transitional provisions under which cases filed before the effective date of Russia’s withdrawal from the Council must be pursued must be zealously implemented. Another way of ensuring pressure on Russia to observe International human rights is the cooperation with other international organizations including the United Nations.

Domestic Remedies

Inside Russia, “legislative and judicial reforms”, thus, provide necessary adaptations to Russian legislation that meets commitments undertaken by Russia in the sphere of human rights. Opinion for changing the legislation that is a threat to the ECtHR authority, changing the laws of the Russian Federation in 2020, which determined the priority of domestic legislation over international law[11]. Moreover, the responsiveness of the judiciary to get independence necessary to curtail political influence in human rights cases are seen in case “Konstantin Markin v. Russia (2012)”, the Court found the violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 on account of gender discrimination in the military which was opposed at home strongly.

The other major remedy is therefore “Strengthening Civil Society and Human Rights Advocacy”. NGO such as Memorial and the Committee against Torture have, for many years, provided documentation of violations and otherwise assisted in applicant’s cases at the ECtHR[12]. These organizations still play crucial a role in that they make sure victims have legal assistance and are well informed about their rights despite being persecuted.

Also, public opinion and international pressure can be also effective working as a stimulus to demand compliance. Non-implementation of ECtHR judgments should be publicized and defiance must be followed by international condemnation because it raises the political price of defiance. For example, freedom of the press as in “Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia (2018)”, it established that international media reinforcement has increased reputational implications when not following the required standards in today’s world.

Innovative Strategies

Consequently, since Russia has left the Council of Europe, there are several AIHMMs that must be employed. Institution like the “United Nations Human Rights Committee(UNHRC)” and the “International Criminal Court(ICC)” provides for redress of human rights abuses[13]. For instance, the ICC has extended its jurisdiction in war crimes in Ukraine to use it in investigating the alleged abuses by Russian forces which would have otherwise been the preserve of the ECtHR were it not for its resourcing constraints.

Another way is to set up relationships between European countries. Joint measures like those, which were established by the “EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (Magnitsky Act)” can prevent human rights abuse. Also, the states could help NGOs and victim advocacy groups by providing them with more means so these organisations could continue with their work.

Last of all, ardon hopes of increasing digital advocacy and legal tech can help victims and activists. It is possible to submit cases in this environment, receive information, and gather support. These tools are especially useful in the contexts that are modeled by restricted physical access to the legal help.

Thus, the need to join international, domestic, and innovative approaches to eliminate barriers to justice against Russia at the ECtHR[14]. This paper has argued that it is possible to manage the challenges given the efforts aimed at enhancing the enforcement mechanisms, judicial reforms, civil society unpacking, and obtaining sufficient human rights forums. These efforts are exhausting yet what needs to be done to fight against injustice and violations of human rights daily.

2.4 Case Studies and Examples

Analyzing some of the individual cases taken against Russia to the ECtHR reveals not only the structural, but also the practical, and geopolitical challenges. These cases also present examples of when remedies have been somewhat successful and strategies that could help overcome challenges are discussed.

Such demonstrating cases might best be illustrated by “Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (2004)”, where it was established that Russia committed a violation of human rights in “Transnistria region”. Nevertheless, Russia has postponed the actions required for it for years, and the previous judgment shows political non-compliance and lack of sanctions[15]. Hence, therefore, Bill Bowring’s analysis points to the issue of compliance where Russia escalates the constitutional supremacy argument most of the time. The constitutional changes introduced in Russia in 2020 that place domestic legislation above international legislation have also deepened this problem.

Another substantial example is “Konstantin Markin v. Russia (2012)”, “Employment & Labour Relations Ahead: Gender discrimination and Military Parental Leave.” In the meantime, the ECtHR granted the applicant’s application, but Russian officials did not want to apply that decision based on the principles of sovereignty and “traditional values[16].” Bowring gives such examples of Russian practice to support her argument about the ways in which domestic political concerns as well as the Russian cultural perceptions of human rights affect Russia’s receipt of international human rights norms.

On the other hand, partial relief measures have been effective in “Milkeyev v. Russia (2006)”. The country report was “Russian Federation: Assessment report of the implementation of recommendations of the “Committee against Torture (CAT)” in Year 2006[17].” This case has ultimately helped bring about some domestic reforms: public interest in law enforcement, especially in systemic issues, has undeniably grown. Bowring wishes to show that such successes, though few, are indeed suggestive of the possibilities of state-over breadth blackmail through strategic litigation.

Furthermore, “Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia (2013)”, that is why the decision of the European court concerning voting rights for prisoners, exemplifies the phenomenon of the loss of authority by the ECtHR. Russia even formally disregard this judgment on the ground of constitutional incompatibility, thereby supporting what Bowring said that it is the political will and compatibility of the domestic laws that define the effectiveness of such ruling.

These cases demonstrate how appraisal of justice remains a mirage despite the changes that occurring in these countries, at the same time highlighting how progressive change occurs step-by-step and how it is motivated by ongoing international pressure and local organizations’ activism for human rights.

3.0 Conclusion

There are serious challenges thus in the battle to seek justice against Russia at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Some of the obstacles are systemic: some judgments are not implemented, politicians hinder refugees, legislation is a problem, whereas others are practical: refugees do not have systemic access to justice, risk being fired from their jobs after filing a case or paying high fees for it. Political motivations, especially in the current world order and following the Russia’s decision to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in January 2022, also limit the chance of the ECtHR to protect the victims. Peculiarities of judicial systems, work of international courts and human rights protection, including the absence of enforcement measures and certain uncertainty related to the concept of sovereignty contribute to these problems, as failed, for instance, “Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia” and Anchugov and “Gladkov v. Russia”.

Measures such as outside pressure, internal changes, Civil Society institution consolidation produced some results but are not enough for constant resistance. The conclusion made by Bill Bowring point at structural and political barriers to enforcement of those ECtHR judgments, meaning that it is necessary to promote rather disruptive approach such as the idea of deploying other human rights instrument and fostering cooperation among states in Europe.

As for the future of human rights protection with regard to Russia, it will greatly depend on the further steeping up of the international actors on the improvement in the fulfilment of the enforcement measures on providing sufficient support to those Russian actors who still try to work for justice. The process is arduous in every respect but chosen gradualism through more litigation, continued pressure on states, and sustained cooperation among international actors is still the key to protecting human rights and enforcing and forcing accountability.

Reference List

Journals

• Longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ (no date) Human Rights Documents online [Preprint]. doi:10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-5555-2014002.
• ‘Navigating cruelty: Examining echr practice in defining a minimum threshold for torture facilitated by state agents’ (2024) Law and World, 10(1), pp. 114–127. doi:10.36475/10.1.9.
• Andrea, T. (2021) ‘Referral of case to the Grand Chamber: European Court of Human Rights (ecthr)’, Max Planck Encylopedia of International Procedural Law [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/law-mpeipro/e2745.013.2745.
• Breuer, M. (2021) ‘Principled resistance to the European Court of Human Rights and its case law: A comparative assessment’, The European Court of Human Rights, pp. 43–70. doi:10.4337/9781839108341.00010.
• Eleni, F. (2020) ‘European Union’s special procedural rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ecthr)’, Max Planck Encylopedia of International Procedural Law [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3465.013.3465.
• Hidayah, S. (2023) ‘State responsibility in protecting human rights: An international legal perspective’, International Law Discourse in Southeast Asia, 2(2). doi:10.15294/ildisea.v2i2.77145.
• Istace, T. (2024) ‘Establishing neurorights: New rights versus derived rights’, Journal of Human Rights Practice [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huae042.
• Koula, A.-C. (2024) ‘Human rights violations committed against human rights defenders through the use of legal system: A trend in Europe and beyond’, Human Rights Review, 25(1), pp. 99–122. doi:10.1007/s12142-024-00717-8.
• Lemmens, P. (2022j) ‘The European Court of Human Rights—can there be too much success?’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), pp. 169–190. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huac019.
• Orlova, O.O. et al. (2023) ‘Euthanasia: National and international experience (based on the European Court of Human Rights Practice Materials)’, Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 9(1), pp. 33–37. doi:10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_99_21.
• Saccucci, A. (2020) ‘Interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights: Current Practice and future challenges’, Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals, pp. 215–252. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-411-2_11.
• Schmahl, S. (2022) ‘The European Court of Human Rights—can there be too much success? A comment’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), pp. 191–203. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huac024.
• Wyrozumska, A. (2022) ‘Can human rights overcome state immunity? National Courts at the Crossroads’, Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, pp. 211–245. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_9.
• Zysset, A. (2022) ‘Calibrating the response to populism at the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(3), pp. 976–1005. doi:10.1093/icon/moac056.

Website

• (08.01.2025) Human Rights Committee | OHCHR. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr (Accessed: 08 January 2025).
• Texts adopted - EU global human rights sanctions regime (EU magnitsky act) - Thursday, 8 July 2021 (no date) europarl.europa.eu. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0349_EN.html (Accessed: 08 January 2025).
• (08.01.2025) Committee against torture | ohchr. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cat (Accessed: 08 January 2025).
• [1] ‘Longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ (no date) Human Rights Documents online [Preprint]. Doi: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-5555-2014002.
• [2] ‘Navigating cruelty: Examining echr practice in defining a minimum threshold for torture facilitated by state agents’ (2024) Law and World, 10(1), pp. 114–127. doi:10.36475/10.1.9.
• [3] Andrea, T. (2021) ‘Referral of case to the Grand Chamber: European Court of Human Rights (ecthr)’, Max Planck Encylopedia of International Procedural Law [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/law-mpeipro/e2745.013.2745.
• [4] Breuer, M. (2021) ‘Principled resistance to the European Court of Human Rights and its case law: A comparative assessment’, The European Court of Human Rights, pp. 43–70. doi:10.4337/9781839108341.00010.
• [5] Eleni, F. (2020) ‘European Union’s special procedural rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ecthr)’, Max Planck Encylopedia of International Procedural Law [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3465.013.3465.
• [6] Hidayah, S. (2023) ‘State responsibility in protecting human rights: An international legal perspective’, International Law Discourse in Southeast Asia, 2(2). doi:10.15294/ildisea.v2i2.77145.
• [7] Istace, T. (2024) ‘Establishing neurorights: New rights versus derived rights’, Journal of Human Rights Practice [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huae042.
• [8] Koula, A.-C. (2024) ‘Human rights violations committed against human rights defenders through the use of legal system: A trend in Europe and beyond’, Human Rights Review, 25(1), pp. 99–122. doi:10.1007/s12142-024-00717-8.
• [9] Lemmens, P. (2022j) ‘The European Court of Human Rights—can there be too much success?’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), pp. 169–190. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huac019.
• [10] Orlova, O.O. et al. (2023) ‘Euthanasia: National and international experience (based on the European Court of Human Rights Practice Materials)’, Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 9(1), pp. 33–37. doi:10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_99_21.
• [11] Saccucci, A. (2020) ‘Interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights: Current Practice and future challenges’, Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals, pp. 215–252. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-411-2_11.
• [12] Schmahl, S. (2022) ‘The European Court of Human Rights—can there be too much success? A comment’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), pp. 191–203. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huac024.
• [13] Wyrozumska, A. (2022) ‘Can human rights overcome state immunity? National Courts at the Crossroads’, Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, pp. 211–245. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_9.
• [14] Zysset, A. (2022) ‘Calibrating the response to populism at the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(3), pp. 976–1005. doi:10.1093/icon/moac056.
• [15] (08.01.2025) Committee against torture | ohchr. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cat (Accessed: 08 January 2025).
• [16] (08.01.2025) Human Rights Committee | OHCHR. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr (Accessed: 08 January 2025).
• [17] Texts adopted - EU global human rights sanctions regime (EU magnitsky act) - Thursday, 8 July 2021 (no date) europarl.europa.eu. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0349_EN.html (Accessed: 08 January 2025).