Russia Files Its First Ever Complaint With The ECHR Against Kiev

Support SouthFront

Russia Files Its First Ever Complaint With The ECHR Against Kiev

Click to see full-size image

Russia filed its first ever interstate complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In it, Moscow accuses Kiev of violating the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The document touches upon the events that followed “the violent change of power in Ukraine in February 2014,” the Prosecutor General’s Office said in a statement.

The appeal is intended to draw the attention of the European Court and the entire world community to gross and systematic violations of the Ukrainian administration.

In the claim, Russia accuses Ukraine of the following:

  • the death of civilians, illegal imprisonment and cruel treatment of people, including on the Maidan, in Odessa and Donbass;
  • the death of people, harm to health and the destruction of property during shelling of adjacent Russian territory;
  • suppression of freedom of speech and persecution of dissidents, including politicians and journalists;
  • discrimination against the Russian-speaking population and the displacement of the Russian language;
  • discrimination against Russian companies and entrepreneurs;
  • depriving residents of southeastern Ukraine of the opportunity to participate in elections;
  • the water blockade of Crimea;
  • attacks on Russian diplomatic, consular and other missions;
  • the crash of MH17 due to the fact that Ukraine did not close the airspace over the war zone.

As a result of these accusations, Moscow demands from Kiev the following:

  • immediately end the water blockade of Crimea;
  • immediately stop limiting the rights of national and linguistic minorities, including free access to general and higher education in their native language;
  • immediately lift the ban on the broadcasting of Russian-language channels and the restriction of access to Internet platforms and printed publications in Russian.

Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office published a justification of its requests to the EHCR:

“The violent seizure of power in Kiev escalated into nationalist terror and a war in the southeast with thousands of dead civilians, the authorities encouraged and covered nationalists for more than 7 years, without conducting an independent and effective investigation of crimes – violation of Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture)

  • In Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a civil war has been going on for 7 years, hidden under the name of “anti-terrorist operation” – violation of Articles 2, 3, 8 (the right to respect for private and family life, home) and 1 Protocol No. 1 (the right to the unhindered use of one’s property)

  • the abduction and torture of Donbass residents have become a mass practice of the SBU and the Ukrainian army – violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 (the right to liberty and security of person) and 13 (the right to an effective remedy)

  • the Ukrainian authorities are responsible for the forced displacement of refugees from Donbass – violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

  • Many Russians became victims of shelling from the territory of Ukraine in the border areas – violation of Articles 2, 3, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

  • Ukraine is fully responsible for the death of people on board the Malaysian Boeing, due to the fact that it did not close the airspace over the war zone – violation of Articles 2 and 3

  • the authorities are physically eliminating opposition politicians and journalists – violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 (freedom of speech) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination)

  • the rights of Russian speakers to use the Russian language are infringed – violation of Articles 8, 10, 14, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (the right to education) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination)

  • since 2014, the “water blockade” of Crimea continues, the damage from which has already amounted to more than 1.4 trillion. rubles – violation of Articles 3, 8, 14, 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Protocol No. 12

  • with the support of the authorities, the extremist site “Peacemaker” was created, where illegally collected data of Ukrainians, Russians and other foreigners, including European politicians and Western journalists, is published – violation of Articles 2, 3, 8, 10, 14, 18, 33 and 34

  • the life and health of Russian diplomats is constantly in danger, there are cases of threats, beatings, and other violence, Russia has sent 33 requests for legal assistance in such cases to Kiev over 5 years, none of which has been properly executed – violation of Articles 2, 3, 8, 14, 18 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

  • Donbass residents are deprived of the opportunity to participate in the presidential elections in Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada – violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (the right to free elections)

  • politically motivated sanctions are introduced against Russian companies – violation of Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12″


Support SouthFront

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Waste of time, complaining to EUnuchs and their kangaroo courts. Russia should leave that court asap, stop recognizing its jurisdiction completely.


Childish tit-for-tat, trolling the ECHR. But this point is most interesting:

“the crash of MH17 due to the fact that Ukraine did not close the airspace over the war zone.”

In the first place, from a legal point of view, Russia is not a party and most definitely not the injured party. There were no Russian citizens among the victims, the airline was not Russian, the airliner was not Russian, the airliner has not come down in Russia and it has not caused direct damage in Russia or to Russians, or to Russian interests. So I doubt this complaint will be admissible.

Second, “did not close” is not true, or at least not the complete truth. It is a known fact that Ukraine had closed its airspace over the war zone, be it “only” up to 9800 meters (32,000 ft). Until the 17th of July no Ukrainian war planes had been hit by separatists’ fire above 6500 meters and there were no indications that the separatists had weapons that could hit targets at higher altitudes. 9800 meters seemed safe with a big margin. So what the Russian complaint should say here is that Ukraine should have closed its airspace above 32,000 ft. The question is whether the Ukrainian air traffic authorities could have been aware of the threat of more powerful weapon systems, able to hit targets at higher altitudes and could have taken measures in time(!), if it is true that the first system appeared in the area just hours before the shoot-down.

A third point is that this boomerangs back into Russia’s face. The air space over eastern Ukraine does not stop just at (above) the border with the adjacent south-western region of Russia and vice versa. Fact is that flights from East to West were not diverted by Russian air traffic control to go around the war zone . Apparently they ignored possible dangers over eastern Ukraine and even over the adjacent Russian territory. The latter allegedly shelled by the Ukrainian army (according to one of the other accusations in the same filed interstate complaint). Early in the morning of July 17th, flight MH16 (Kuala Lumpur to Amsterdam) followed MH17’s route in the opposite direction. Russian air traffic control directed it over the same dangerous area. Even, at the same time as flight MH17 was approaching the Russian border, an Air India airliner, destination UK, was directed over the danger zone and passed the point where MH17 perished. So, not only Ukraine should have closed the airspace, Russia should have done that too. The question is who was informed best about the threat.