ïîñëåäíèå íîâîñòè |
2023 |
2022 |
2021 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2017 |
2016 |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
2009 |
2008 |
2007 |
2006 |
2005 |
2004 |
2003 |
2002 |
Ustinovskaya, Yekaterina |
Óæå 22 ãîäà... |
24/10/24 13:38 more... |
author Àíîíèì |
Kurbatova, Christina |
Äåòêè Ìèëûå, õîðîøèå íàøè äåòêè!!! Òàê ïðîñòî íå äîëæíî áûòü, ýòî áîëüíî, ýòî íå÷åñòíî, ýòî óæàñíî. |
30/06/24 01:30 more... |
author Îëüãà |
Grishin, Alexey |
Ïàìÿòè Àëåêñåÿ Äìèòðèåâè÷à Ãðèøèíà Ñâåòëàÿ ïàìÿòü ïðåêðàñíîìó ÷åëîâåêó! Ìû ðàáîòàëè â ÃÌÏÑ, òîãäà îí áûë ìîëîäûì íà÷àëüíèêîì îòäåëà ìåòàëëîâ, ïîäàþùèì áîëü... |
14/11/23 18:27 more... |
author Áîíäàðåâà Þëèÿ |
Panteleev, Denis |
Âîò óæå è 21 ãîä , à áóäòî êàê â÷åðà !!!! |
26/10/23 12:11 more... |
author Èðèíà |
Ustinovskaya, Yekaterina |
Ïîìíèì. |
24/10/23 17:44 more... |
author Àíîíèì |
Memorandum |
Written by Karinna Moskalenko | ||||||||
Ïÿòíèöà, 08 Ôåâðàëü 2013 | ||||||||
Committee of Ministers
1. Introduction We turn to you with a request to take measures to urge the Russian Federation to follow its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Convention, ratified by the Russian Federation, creates an obligation for the state to fully implement ECtHR judgments (Art. 1 and Art.46). On December 20, 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) passed the judgment in the case "Finogenov and others v. Russia” (¹ 18299/03 and ¹ 27311/03). On June 4, 2012, the judgment became final. In the judgment, the Court stated a violation of the right to life of the hostages and their familiesby the State by way of inadequate planning and conduct of the operation to rescue the hostages, as well as by failing to conduct an effective investigation of the incident: “Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the inadequate planning and conduct of the rescue operation, Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the rescue operation”. The applicants submit that full implementation of the Court's judgment would require the initiation of criminal proceedings, which according to the judgment (§§ 273-282) were not conducted in accordance with the principles of an effective investigation. 2. Obligation to conduct an investigation Analyzing the results of the investigation, the Court stated that the investigation had not been properly carried out, and that it was not initiated on the fact of deaths as a result of the rescue operation. The Court applied the common criteria to define proper investigation: efficiency (timeliness, comprehensiveness, and completeness), independence, access to the investigation for the victims. With regard to establishing the cause of death of the hostages, the investigation did not meet any of the above criteria. Moreover, it was not carried out. In accordance with Court’s assessment (§§ 273-282), the applicants compiled a list of the minimally required investigative steps and issues to be examined. On 26 October 2012 the applicants submitted a motion including this list to the offices of the General Procurator and of the Chief Investigator (Attachment 1). The list contained the following items: - Determine the detailed and truthful circumstances of the planning and conduct of the rescue operation; The applicants have various other specific questions about the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones, which they intend to formulate after the initiation of criminal proceedings and the start of an investigation. Further, in accordance with the Court’s analysis of the causes of death of the hostages (§ 201), applicants in their submission to the General Procurator demanded that a re-examination of the causes of death of hostages is conducted. Only when the actual cause and the circumstances of death of each the hostages is established reliably will it be possible to evaluate measures taken to rescue the hostages, and to draw conclusions about the responsibility of officials for the loss of life and damage to the health of the surviving hostages. Finally, in accordance with the Court’s judgment which found a violation of the positive obligations of the government in Article 2 of the Convention (§ 282,) the applicants demanded that persons responsible for the deaths of people are held accountable and prosecuted, along with persons who have not fulfilled their obligation to institute criminal proceedings. These claims are joined by 35 new applicants, who are also victims of the The General Procurator’s replied on 26.11.2012 and on 24.12.2012 that the applicants’ submission has been forwarded to the Moscow Procurator’s Office (Attachments 4 and 5). On 12.12.2012 the Moscow Procurator’s Office replied that since the case has been dealt with by the various courts, the office can neither overturn thecourts’decisions nor appoint the resumption of investigations (Attachment 6). The letter also mentioned that a group of applicants in the Probably, this legally unfounded route was taken due to their unawareness of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of the Russian Federation (Article 413 and 415) makes the quashing of a final judgment the competence of the Supreme Court only: 413. 415. In this way, ironically, the Moscow Procurator’s Office correctly assessed that it is not authorized to take any action at a point where the previous decisions of the courts entered into force and were not quashed by the Supreme Court of Russia. 3. Further steps of the victims This was also the reason why our initial submission to the General Procurator’s Office of 26 October2012 was addressed only to the supreme prosecutorial and investigative authorities, which are the only competent organs to take appropriate action based on a judgment of the ECtHR. Since the provisions of the CPC state that only the Supreme Court may quash a judgment, reopen a case and order a review, it is clear that the only legal way to achieve the implementation of the ECtHR judgment is to achieve that prosecutorial action is taken with the highest prosecutorial and investigative authorities. Therefore, the submissions of some applicants and their lawyers which are directed to the lower courts as mentioned by the investigator will have to turn out as absolutely futile. Unfortunately, these actions can not result in the restoration of rights of the applicants, since all decisions of the courts on the refusal to prosecute have been made, were challenged by our group of applicants, and entered into force. Without the quashing of these decisions it is impossible under Russian law for these issues to be re-considered. In addition, the quashing of those decisions as well as of decisions of the Prosecutor’s Regional office can be carried out only through a decision of the supreme prosecutorial and investigative authorities. But these authorities persist in their refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, thus completely ignoring the Court’s judgment in general as well as the obligatory nature of the judgment and of the Russian Constitution. Moreover, these authorities simply dismissed the submission of the applicant Finogenov and others supported by dozens of other potential victims. For this last group of victims the implementation of the Court’s judgment in the The fact that the General Prosecutor’s Office simply dismissed our appeal by forwarding it to an authority which is unauthorized to take action on the matter shows that while the Office is the only authority entitled to initiate implementation of ECtHR judgments, the mechanisms behind the implementation are uncertain and the procedure is not regulated. This demonstrates that not only is the decision of the ECtHR presently not being implemented but that there is no intent on the part of the Russian government to proceed with the implementation. Moreover, the actions of the General Prosecutor’s Office directly preclude the implementation of the European Court’s judgment on the case "Finogenov and others v. Russia” (¹ 18299/03 and ¹ 27311/03). 4. Compensation Some of the applicants have not received compensation in full and timely. Some of them – after more than 5 months- have not received any compensation at all. It is stated in the judgment that “…from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points…” Therefore, the government must be obliged to pay the awarded compensation to all the applicants. Further, the government must be obliged to pay the compensation in accordance with the awarded amounts including interest since the 5. Request to the Committee of Ministers Therefore, we kindly ask the Committee of Ministers to consider the following issues raising our concern: I. The government of the Russian Federation does not take measures to implement the judgment in the II. There is no procedure in place, which regulates the implementation of ECtHR judgments. This unfortunate fact influences not only the implementation of the present judgment, but has the same detrimental effect on the implementation of many other judgments, i.e. Chechen cases (on which the Centre de la Protection Internationale currently prepares further memoranda); III. It is necessary to oblige the government of the Russian Federation to provide an action plan in accordance with the requirements of the standard supervision procedure: We hope for your consideration of the above points. Respectfully, KarinnaMoskalenko Views: 5878 |
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
Next > |
---|