Ukraine's 2017 Human Rights Report discusses several issues, including:
1) Unlawful killings and disappearances related to the conflict in eastern Ukraine between government and Russian-led forces.
2) Torture by police and prison authorities, and reports of torture by both government and Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine.
3) Harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including overcrowding, lack of medical care, and physical abuse by guards.
Ukraine held free and fair elections in 2014 but faced significant human rights issues, including unlawful killings and disappearances related to the conflict in eastern Ukraine against Russian-led forces. The government generally failed to prosecute officials accused of human rights abuses, resulting in impunity. Prisons and detention centers had harsh conditions and reports of torture, and investigations into abuses by Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine were incomplete due to lack of control in those areas.
Human Rights Practices for 2015 UkraineАндрій Пізнюк
1) Separatists in eastern Ukraine committed widespread human rights abuses such as abductions, torture, unlawful detention and restricted humanitarian aid. The conflict has resulted in over 9,000 deaths and more than two million people have fled the region.
2) In Crimea, Russian occupation authorities committed human rights abuses targeting Crimean Tatars and others opposing the occupation. More than 20,000 Crimeans have been displaced.
3) Ukraine suffers from corruption, deficiencies in justice, and a climate of impunity as authorities generally fail to prosecute officials who commit abuses. Investigations into human rights crimes remain incomplete.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Maskhadova and Others v. Russia. The case concerned the death of Aslan Maskhadov, a leader of the Chechen separatist movement, who was killed during a special operation by Russian security forces in 2005. The applicants alleged that Russia was responsible for Maskhadov's death and failed to properly investigate. The Court declared the application partly admissible and considered arguments from both parties regarding Russia's compliance with the Convention.
A coroner is an officer appointed by the government to hold inquiries into deaths suspected as unnatural or suspicious. A coroner's court is a court of inquiry, not trial, where no accused is present but suspected persons can attend and call witnesses. The coroner's duties include holding inquiries for sudden or unnatural deaths, deaths involving suspected suicide or homicide, deaths by accident or poisoning, and deaths in custody or certified schools. The coroner can order post-mortem examinations and summon medical personnel to testify.
An exhumation is the examination of a dead body removed from its grave due to suspicion of death by poisoning or foul play. In Pakistan, exhumations require a court order from the District Magistrate, Coroner, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. After exhumation, an autopsy is performed and samples are taken from the body, coffin, and surrounding earth for chemical examination. These samples include hair, nails, teeth, bones, heart, stomach, intestines, liver, spleen and kidney. While there is no time limit for exhumations in Pakistan and England, limits exist in other countries ranging from 10 to 30 years. Practical problems in crime detection in Pakistan include delayed investigations, lack of
Grand chamber judgments springer and von hannover v. germany 07.02.12Lawyer cartagena
The document summarizes two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights regarding media coverage of celebrities' private lives.
In the first case, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, the Court found a violation of freedom of expression in Germany's prohibition on publishing articles about a well-known television actor's arrest and conviction for drug possession. The Court determined the articles discussed matters of legitimate public interest.
In the second case, Von Hannover (no. 2) v. Germany, the Court unanimously found no violation of the right to a private life regarding Germany's refusal to prohibit publication of photos of Princess Caroline and her husband on a ski holiday. The Court decided coverage of the health of Caroline's father, the Prince
This document provides an introduction and overview of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) into Robert Jan Verbelen and his relationship with the United States government. The OSI was tasked with investigating allegations that the US employed Verbelen, a convicted war criminal, after World War II. The investigation sought to determine what US agencies knew about Verbelen's wartime activities and identity, why he was dismissed and deemed suitable for re-employment, and whether the US assisted him in acquiring citizenship or avoiding justice. The OSI conducted extensive research and interviews to address these questions while protecting classified sources and methods.
Ukraine's 2017 Human Rights Report discusses several issues, including:
1) Unlawful killings and disappearances related to the conflict in eastern Ukraine between government and Russian-led forces.
2) Torture by police and prison authorities, and reports of torture by both government and Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine.
3) Harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including overcrowding, lack of medical care, and physical abuse by guards.
Ukraine held free and fair elections in 2014 but faced significant human rights issues, including unlawful killings and disappearances related to the conflict in eastern Ukraine against Russian-led forces. The government generally failed to prosecute officials accused of human rights abuses, resulting in impunity. Prisons and detention centers had harsh conditions and reports of torture, and investigations into abuses by Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine were incomplete due to lack of control in those areas.
Human Rights Practices for 2015 UkraineАндрій Пізнюк
1) Separatists in eastern Ukraine committed widespread human rights abuses such as abductions, torture, unlawful detention and restricted humanitarian aid. The conflict has resulted in over 9,000 deaths and more than two million people have fled the region.
2) In Crimea, Russian occupation authorities committed human rights abuses targeting Crimean Tatars and others opposing the occupation. More than 20,000 Crimeans have been displaced.
3) Ukraine suffers from corruption, deficiencies in justice, and a climate of impunity as authorities generally fail to prosecute officials who commit abuses. Investigations into human rights crimes remain incomplete.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Maskhadova and Others v. Russia. The case concerned the death of Aslan Maskhadov, a leader of the Chechen separatist movement, who was killed during a special operation by Russian security forces in 2005. The applicants alleged that Russia was responsible for Maskhadov's death and failed to properly investigate. The Court declared the application partly admissible and considered arguments from both parties regarding Russia's compliance with the Convention.
A coroner is an officer appointed by the government to hold inquiries into deaths suspected as unnatural or suspicious. A coroner's court is a court of inquiry, not trial, where no accused is present but suspected persons can attend and call witnesses. The coroner's duties include holding inquiries for sudden or unnatural deaths, deaths involving suspected suicide or homicide, deaths by accident or poisoning, and deaths in custody or certified schools. The coroner can order post-mortem examinations and summon medical personnel to testify.
An exhumation is the examination of a dead body removed from its grave due to suspicion of death by poisoning or foul play. In Pakistan, exhumations require a court order from the District Magistrate, Coroner, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. After exhumation, an autopsy is performed and samples are taken from the body, coffin, and surrounding earth for chemical examination. These samples include hair, nails, teeth, bones, heart, stomach, intestines, liver, spleen and kidney. While there is no time limit for exhumations in Pakistan and England, limits exist in other countries ranging from 10 to 30 years. Practical problems in crime detection in Pakistan include delayed investigations, lack of
Grand chamber judgments springer and von hannover v. germany 07.02.12Lawyer cartagena
The document summarizes two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights regarding media coverage of celebrities' private lives.
In the first case, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, the Court found a violation of freedom of expression in Germany's prohibition on publishing articles about a well-known television actor's arrest and conviction for drug possession. The Court determined the articles discussed matters of legitimate public interest.
In the second case, Von Hannover (no. 2) v. Germany, the Court unanimously found no violation of the right to a private life regarding Germany's refusal to prohibit publication of photos of Princess Caroline and her husband on a ski holiday. The Court decided coverage of the health of Caroline's father, the Prince
This document provides an introduction and overview of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) into Robert Jan Verbelen and his relationship with the United States government. The OSI was tasked with investigating allegations that the US employed Verbelen, a convicted war criminal, after World War II. The investigation sought to determine what US agencies knew about Verbelen's wartime activities and identity, why he was dismissed and deemed suitable for re-employment, and whether the US assisted him in acquiring citizenship or avoiding justice. The OSI conducted extensive research and interviews to address these questions while protecting classified sources and methods.
The document is the report of the Litvinenko Inquiry, which was established to investigate the death of Alexander Litvinenko. It is authored by Sir Robert Owen, who was appointed Chairman of the Inquiry. The report presents the findings of the Inquiry into how Mr. Litvinenko died in London in 2006 from polonium-210 poisoning, and seeks to establish who was responsible for his death.
The document is the report of the Litvinenko Inquiry, which was established to investigate the death of Alexander Litvinenko. It is authored by Sir Robert Owen, who was appointed Chairman of the Inquiry. The report presents the findings of the Inquiry into how Mr. Litvinenko died in London in 2006 from polonium-210 poisoning, and seeks to establish who was responsible for his death.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Finogenov and Others v. Russia. The case involved over 60 applicants who were relatives of victims killed during the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002 or were hostages themselves. The applicants alleged that Russian authorities used excessive force during the rescue operation, which resulted in many deaths. They also claimed authorities failed to properly plan and conduct the rescue in a way to minimize risks. The Court examined evidence from both sides and considered multiple issues related to the hostage situation, rescue operation, investigations, and compensation claims.
This document describes a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights regarding a case involving the applicant Sergey Petrovich Salov, a Ukrainian lawyer. The court proceedings concerned Salov's arrest and detention in Ukraine for disseminating allegedly false information about the health of a presidential candidate. The court examined Salov's complaints that his rights under Articles 5(3), 6(1), and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. The document provides background details on Salov's arrest, criminal investigation, and detention in Ukraine leading up to the case being brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
The document summarizes Amnesty International's concerns regarding procedural violations in the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev in Russia. It notes numerous issues with fairness, including breaches of equality of arms, harassment of defense lawyers and witnesses, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, and refusal to compel disclosure of relevant documents. Amnesty International is calling on the court to overturn the verdict and demonstrate commitment to the rule of law due to doubts cast on the integrity of the convictions and indications that political interference obstructed justice.
A Christian Perspective on the War in UkrainePeter Hammond
This document provides a Christian perspective on the war in Ukraine from Dr. Peter Hammond. It makes several key points in 3 or fewer sentences:
The war pits millions of Christians against each other and has caused much suffering. Ukraine has a history of oppression under communism, particularly Stalin's regime which caused millions of deaths. Attempts to expand NATO and draw Ukraine away from Russia's sphere of influence helped precipitate the conflict despite warnings from Russia.
The document summarizes the conflict in Ukraine between pro-Western and pro-Russian factions, and Russia's annexation of Crimea. Key points:
- Ukraine faced economic crisis and had to choose between an EU/IMF deal imposing austerity or a Russian deal with loans and gas concessions, further polarizing the country.
- Protests in Kiev led to the ousting of President Yanukovych, though some violence was carried out by neo-Nazi groups supporting the protesters. This instability spread to Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
- Russia claims it is protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine based on bilateral agreements allowing it troops in Crimea. It annexed Crimea after a referendum, though this violates international
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 November 2014DonbassFullAccess
This is the seventh report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 17 September to 31 October 2014.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict began in 2013 when Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign a trade deal with the European Union and instead accepted a Russian bailout, sparking mass protests. In 2014, Yanukovych was removed from office by parliament and fled to Russia. Russia then seized control of Crimea and backed separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. The US and EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia in response, and tensions escalated further after MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. Ukraine remains divided between pro-Russian eastern regions and the west which favors integration with the EU, while a resolution to the ongoing conflict remains elusive.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 June 2014DonbassFullAccess
The present report is based on findings of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) covering the period of 7 May – 7 June 2014. It follows two reports on the human rights situation in Ukraine released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 15 April and 16 May 2014.
Battle of Narratives: Kremlin Disinformation in the Vitaliy Markiv Case in ItalyUkraineCrisisMediaCenter
This document provides background on the case of Vitaliy Markiv, a Ukrainian soldier arrested in Italy in 2017 for the deaths of an Italian photographer and Russian interpreter killed in Ukraine in 2014. It discusses how Russian disinformation narratives about Ukraine may have influenced the initial guilty verdict against Markiv in Italy. The document outlines its structure, methodology, and added value in examining the role of Kremlin propaganda in the Markiv case through analysis of court documents and Italian media coverage.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2015DonbassFullAccess
This is the eleventh report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 16 May to 15 August 2015.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2015DonbassFullAccess
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 17 August 2014 DonbassFullAccess
Intense and sustained fighting, as a result of the continuing violence by the armed groups and the ongoing security operation being undertaken by the Ukrainian Government, took a heavy toll on the human rights and humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine during the past month, with at least 36 people being killed on average every day.
Rheinmetall has been awarded a contract by the German government to supply automated reconnaissance systems to Ukraine. The systems include mobile surveillance towers, mini-drones, and a command and control system. Rheinmetall is cooperating with Estonian company DefSecIntel on this project, which is worth a figure in the low double-digit million euro range. The systems will help Ukraine monitor terrain with few personnel and may also provide a 5G network.
The document is the report of the Litvinenko Inquiry, which was established to investigate the death of Alexander Litvinenko. It is authored by Sir Robert Owen, who was appointed Chairman of the Inquiry. The report presents the findings of the Inquiry into how Mr. Litvinenko died in London in 2006 from polonium-210 poisoning, and seeks to establish who was responsible for his death.
The document is the report of the Litvinenko Inquiry, which was established to investigate the death of Alexander Litvinenko. It is authored by Sir Robert Owen, who was appointed Chairman of the Inquiry. The report presents the findings of the Inquiry into how Mr. Litvinenko died in London in 2006 from polonium-210 poisoning, and seeks to establish who was responsible for his death.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Finogenov and Others v. Russia. The case involved over 60 applicants who were relatives of victims killed during the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002 or were hostages themselves. The applicants alleged that Russian authorities used excessive force during the rescue operation, which resulted in many deaths. They also claimed authorities failed to properly plan and conduct the rescue in a way to minimize risks. The Court examined evidence from both sides and considered multiple issues related to the hostage situation, rescue operation, investigations, and compensation claims.
This document describes a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights regarding a case involving the applicant Sergey Petrovich Salov, a Ukrainian lawyer. The court proceedings concerned Salov's arrest and detention in Ukraine for disseminating allegedly false information about the health of a presidential candidate. The court examined Salov's complaints that his rights under Articles 5(3), 6(1), and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. The document provides background details on Salov's arrest, criminal investigation, and detention in Ukraine leading up to the case being brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
The document summarizes Amnesty International's concerns regarding procedural violations in the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev in Russia. It notes numerous issues with fairness, including breaches of equality of arms, harassment of defense lawyers and witnesses, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, and refusal to compel disclosure of relevant documents. Amnesty International is calling on the court to overturn the verdict and demonstrate commitment to the rule of law due to doubts cast on the integrity of the convictions and indications that political interference obstructed justice.
A Christian Perspective on the War in UkrainePeter Hammond
This document provides a Christian perspective on the war in Ukraine from Dr. Peter Hammond. It makes several key points in 3 or fewer sentences:
The war pits millions of Christians against each other and has caused much suffering. Ukraine has a history of oppression under communism, particularly Stalin's regime which caused millions of deaths. Attempts to expand NATO and draw Ukraine away from Russia's sphere of influence helped precipitate the conflict despite warnings from Russia.
The document summarizes the conflict in Ukraine between pro-Western and pro-Russian factions, and Russia's annexation of Crimea. Key points:
- Ukraine faced economic crisis and had to choose between an EU/IMF deal imposing austerity or a Russian deal with loans and gas concessions, further polarizing the country.
- Protests in Kiev led to the ousting of President Yanukovych, though some violence was carried out by neo-Nazi groups supporting the protesters. This instability spread to Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
- Russia claims it is protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine based on bilateral agreements allowing it troops in Crimea. It annexed Crimea after a referendum, though this violates international
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 November 2014DonbassFullAccess
This is the seventh report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 17 September to 31 October 2014.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict began in 2013 when Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign a trade deal with the European Union and instead accepted a Russian bailout, sparking mass protests. In 2014, Yanukovych was removed from office by parliament and fled to Russia. Russia then seized control of Crimea and backed separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. The US and EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia in response, and tensions escalated further after MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. Ukraine remains divided between pro-Russian eastern regions and the west which favors integration with the EU, while a resolution to the ongoing conflict remains elusive.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 June 2014DonbassFullAccess
The present report is based on findings of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) covering the period of 7 May – 7 June 2014. It follows two reports on the human rights situation in Ukraine released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 15 April and 16 May 2014.
Battle of Narratives: Kremlin Disinformation in the Vitaliy Markiv Case in ItalyUkraineCrisisMediaCenter
This document provides background on the case of Vitaliy Markiv, a Ukrainian soldier arrested in Italy in 2017 for the deaths of an Italian photographer and Russian interpreter killed in Ukraine in 2014. It discusses how Russian disinformation narratives about Ukraine may have influenced the initial guilty verdict against Markiv in Italy. The document outlines its structure, methodology, and added value in examining the role of Kremlin propaganda in the Markiv case through analysis of court documents and Italian media coverage.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2015DonbassFullAccess
This is the eleventh report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 16 May to 15 August 2015.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2015DonbassFullAccess
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 17 August 2014 DonbassFullAccess
Intense and sustained fighting, as a result of the continuing violence by the armed groups and the ongoing security operation being undertaken by the Ukrainian Government, took a heavy toll on the human rights and humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine during the past month, with at least 36 people being killed on average every day.
Rheinmetall has been awarded a contract by the German government to supply automated reconnaissance systems to Ukraine. The systems include mobile surveillance towers, mini-drones, and a command and control system. Rheinmetall is cooperating with Estonian company DefSecIntel on this project, which is worth a figure in the low double-digit million euro range. The systems will help Ukraine monitor terrain with few personnel and may also provide a 5G network.
Верховна Рада ухвалила у першому читанні законопроєкт №8011 — він пропонує на державному рівні закріпити право на забір статевих клітин та подальше їх використання військовими, якщо вони через поранення втратили репродуктивну функцію.
Через пошкодження об'єктів енергетичної інфраструктури у Києві та Київській області сформувався дефіцит енергопотужності певний дефіцит потужності. Для того аби збалансувати енергосистему та запобігти масштабним відключенням, державна енергокомпанія НЕК Укренерго з 11:20 запровадила графіки аварійного відключення електропостачання. В нього потрапили частина промислових та побутових клієнтів Київської області
- A missile strike hit the Kramatorsk train station in Ukraine on April 8, 2022, killing 59 civilians and injuring over 100 who were waiting to evacuate the war zone.
- Open source evidence points to the missiles being launched from near Shakhtne, Ukraine, approximately 10km east of Kramatorsk. Videos uploaded on social media show missile launches from this area at around the same time.
- Satellite imagery from after the incident shows burn marks and smoke plumes from grass fires at the launch site, confirming it was used to fire the missiles that hit the Kramatorsk train station.
Меру Чернігова Владиславу Атрошенку вручили антикорупційний протокол через «к...ssuser3957bc1
Національне агентство з питань запобігання корупції вручило меру Чернігова Владиславу Атрошенку протокол через «конфлікт інтересів»: його водій під час війни на його машині з офіційним дозволом перетнув державний кордон і повернувся — про це Атрошенко мав повідомити до НАЗК, адже водій виїжджав не через роботу.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
Judgment carter v. russia russia was responsible for assassination of aleksandr litvinenko in the uk
1. issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 278 (2021)
21.09.2021
Russia was responsible for assassination of Aleksandr Litvinenko in the UK
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Carter v. Russia (application no. 20914/07) the
European Court of Human Rights held that there had been:
unanimously, a failure by the Government to comply with their obligations under Article 38
(obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of a case) of the European
Convention on Human Rights,
by 6 votes to 1, a violation of Article 2 (right to life) in its substantive and procedural aspects.
The case concerned the poisoning and death of the applicant’s husband, Aleksandr Litvinenko, in the
United Kingdom, and the investigations into his death. Mr Litvinenko had worked for the Russian
security services before defecting to the United Kingdom where he was granted asylum. In 2006 he
was poisoned with polonium 210 (a radioactive substance) in London and died. A public inquiry in
the UK found that the assassination had been carried out by a certain Mr Lugovoy and a Mr Kovtun,
who had been acting on behalf of someone else.
The Court found in particular that there was a strong prima facie case that, in poisoning Mr
Litvinenko, Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun had been acting as agents of the Russian State. It noted that
the Government had failed to provide any other satisfactory and convincing explanation of the
events or counter the findings of the UK inquiry.
The Court also found that the Russian authorities had not carried out an effective domestic
investigation capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the
identification and punishment of those responsible for the murder.
Principal facts
Background
The applicant, Maria Anna Carter aka Marina Litvinenko, is a British and Russian national who was
born in 1962 and lives in London. She is the widow of Aleksandr Litvinenko, a Russian and British
national who was born in 1962.
Mr Litvinenko had worked for the Soviet and Russian security services (the KGB and later the FSB). In
November 1998 he went public with allegations that he had been asked to examine the possibility of
assassinating a wealthy businessman. He was fired from the security service and fled from Russia.
In 2001 he and his family were granted asylum in the United Kingdom; they acquired British
citizenship in 2006. They changed their names. Mr Litvinenko became involved in exposing
corruption and links to organised crime in the Russian intelligence services. It is alleged that Mr
Litvinenko also worked with the British, Spanish and Italian authorities, advising on Russian
organised crime and KGB operations in Europe.
Mr Litvinenko’s death
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2. 2
In October 2006 Andrey Lugovoy, a long-standing acquaintance of Mr Litvinenko, visited London
three times, each time in the company of Dmitriy Kovtun.
During the first visit on 16 October 2006, a meeting took place between Mr Lugovoy, Mr Kovtun and
Mr Litvinenko and others and they went together to dinner. Mr Litvinenko vomited later that night
and remained ill for two days. The following day Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun checked out of their
hotel one day early. The room was later found to contain significant polonium contamination, with
signs pointing to the substance having been poured down the sink plughole. Further evidence of
polonium contamination was found in areas that the pair had visited in London, including the room
where the meeting had taken place and the restaurant in which they had dined.
From 25 to 28 October 2006 Mr Lugovoy visited London for a second time, apparently meeting with
Mr Litvinenko, among other things. A pattern of polonium contamination consistent with accidental
spillage was detected in his hotel room.
On 31 October 2006 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun returned to London for a third time. The following
day they met with Mr Litvinenko, drinking tea in their hotel bar. Extensive traces of polonium were
found, including in the teapot and the men’s toilets, which had been used by the former two but not
by Mr Litvinenko. On 3 November 2006 they returned to Moscow. Polonium contamination was
found in the aeroplane and in their seats in the Emirates Stadium in London, where they had
watched a football match.
On 2 November 2006 Mr Litvinenko was taken ill, with vomiting, abdominal pain and bloody
diarrhoea. The next day he was admitted to hospital. Following a transfer to University College
Hospital, it was suspected that he had been poisoned using chemotherapeutic agents or
radioisotopes. Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006. The cause of death was established to be
acute radiation syndrome caused by very high levels of polonium 210, which had entered the body
as a soluble compound via ingestion.
Proceedings following Mr Litvinenko’s death
A police investigation was opened in the UK before Mr Litvinenko’s death. On 22 May 2007 the
Crown Prosecution Service determined that there was sufficient evidence against Mr Lugovoy to
charge him with Mr Litvinenko’s murder. The authorities attempted to have him extradited to the
UK for trial. That was refused by the Russian authorities because of the constitutional protection
against extradition of Russian nationals. In 2011 Mr Kovtun was also charged with the murder and an
arrest warrant against him was sought. On 2 December 2007 Mr Lugovoy became a member of the
Russian Parliament and thus acquired parliamentary immunity. Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun both
remain wanted for the murder.
On 7 December 2006 the Russian Prosecutor General launched a domestic criminal investigation, of
which the Court has little information.
In the UK, an inquest and a public inquiry were carried out. In January 2016 the inquiry found it
established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Litvinenko had been poisoned using polonium and
that the poison had been administered by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. It excluded accidental or
deliberate self-poisoning. It also rejected the suggestion that Mr Lugovoy had been set up by British
intelligence.
The inquiry noted the motives that entities within the Russian State may have had for wishing Mr
Litvinenko dead, and the evidence of links between Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun and the Russian
State. On the strength of both open and closed evidence, it found that Mr Lugovoy had been acting
under FSB direction and Mr Kovtun had also been acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly
through Mr Lugovoy but probably with his knowledge.
3. 3
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the
applicant complained that her husband, Mr Litvinenko, had been murdered in a particularly painful
manner by Mr Lugovoy (with others) while acting as an agent for, or in connivance with, or with the
knowledge and support of, the Russian authorities, and that the Russian authorities had failed to
conduct an effective investigation into the murder.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 May 2007. The
proceedings before the Court were suspended from 16 December 2014 until 8 March 2016 pending
the outcome of the public inquiry in the United Kingdom.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Paul Lemmens (Belgium), President,
Georgios Serghides (Cyprus),
Dmitry Dedov (Russia),
Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg),
Darian Pavli (Albania),
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),
Peeter Roosma (Estonia),
and also Milan Blasko, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Preliminary issues
The Court firstly ruled that Russia had failed to provide, without justification, the requested material
(documents from the investigation file, including Mr Lugovoy’s statements and copies of legal
assistance requests addressed to the United Kingdom authorities) necessary for the Court’s
investigation into the case, in violation of Article 38 of the Convention.
The Court also dismissed the Russian Government’s objection to the use of the UK public inquiry
report as evidence. It found that, as the inquiry had met the requirements of independence, fairness
and transparency, it could not disregard its findings solely because the Russian authorities had
abstained from exercising their right to participate in those proceedings.
Article 2 (procedural aspect)
The Court considered that a procedural jurisdictional link between Russia and the death of Mr
Litvinenko in the UK had been established by reason of Russia’s having launched a domestic
investigation into the matter. In addition, the fact that Russia retained exclusive jurisdiction over an
individual (Mr Lugovoy) who was accused of a serious human-rights violation constituted a “special
feature” of the case, establishing Russia’s jurisdiction in respect of the alleged procedural violation
of Article 2.
Although the Government had provided the Court with an outline of the investigative steps taken,
the Court pointed out that no documentary evidence had been submitted to corroborate their
claims. The Court had asked the Government to submit documentary evidence with their
observations, which the Government had declined to do.
Owing to this, the Government had failed to demonstrate that the Russian authorities had carried
out an effective investigation capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where
appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible for the murder.
The Court furthermore noted that parliamentary immunity which Mr Lugovoy had held since 2007
was not an absolute bar to his being investigated or even prosecuted; the relevant legal provisions
4. 4
and their application indicated he could have been deprived of his immunity with the consent of the
lower chamber of Parliament of which he was a member.
The Court considered that there had been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 on account
of the Russian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr
Litvinenko.
Article 2 (substantive aspect)
Mr Litvinenko had been in the UK when poisoned, and therefore not in an area where Russia
exercised effective control. To decide whether Russia had jurisdiction by virtue of its agents
operating outside its territory (“personal concept of jurisdiction”), the Court considered two
interrelated questions: (i) whether the assassination of Mr Litvinenko had amounted to the exercise
of physical power and control over his life in a situation of proximate targeting, and (ii) whether it
had been carried out by individuals acting as State agents.
The Court found it established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the assassination had been carried
out by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. The planned and complex operation involving the procurement
of a rare deadly poison, the travel arrangements for the pair, and repeated and sustained attempts
to administer the poison indicated that Mr Litvinenko had been the target of the operation and that
he had been under the physical control of Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun, who had wielded power over
his life.
As to whether Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun had acted as agents of the respondent State, the Court
found that there was no evidence that either man had had any personal reason to kill Mr Litvinenko
and that, if acting on their own behalf, they would not have had access to the rare radioactive
isotope used to poison him. The UK inquiry had discarded several theories as to why the
assassination had been carried out, leaving State involvement as the only remaining plausible
explanation. The Court held that the identification of the perpetrators of the killing and the
indication of their connection with the Russian authorities had established a strong prima facie case
that, in killing Mr Litvinenko, Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun had been acting on the direction or control
of the Russian authorities.
Had the pair been involved in a “rogue operation”, the information to prove that theory would lie
entirely in the Russian authorities’ hands. However, the Government had made no serious attempt
to provide such information or to counter the findings of the UK authorities.
The Court thus drew conclusions from the Russian Government’s refusal to provide the documents
from the domestic investigation file and its failure to rebut the prima facie case of State
involvement. It found that Mr Litvinenko’s assassination was imputable to Russia.
As the Government had not sought to argue that the killing of Mr Litvinenko could be justified by the
exceptions in the second paragraph of Article 2, the Court found that there had been a violation of
that Article in its substantive aspect.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 22,500 in respect of costs and expenses. It also rejected the applicant’s claim for
“punitive” damages.
Separate opinions
Judge Dedov expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.
The judgment is available only in English.
5. 5
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Neil Connolly
Tracey Turner-Tretz
Denis Lambert
Inci Ertekin
Jane Swift
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.