The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine notes that all attempts to explain refusal to implement “uncomfortable” for the Russian Federation ECHR decisions are a clear proof that the regime that rules this country is well aware of the systematic character of violation of human rights by the Russian Federation. This applies both to Russia’s own people and occupied territories’ citizens, captives and hostages.
At the same time, it is apparent that Russian authorities are trying to simulate “contradictions” between international and internal legislation using Article 65, part 1, Chapter 3 “Federal structure” of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in which the so-called “law” of march 21, 2014 №6-ФКЗ mentions the illegally annexed aggressor state’s “Crimean prey” – “Republic of Crimea” and “Sevastopol – city of federal significance”.
Such actions have only one real goal – preventing Russia from being brought to responsibility. After all, today this country is not only an aggressor, but also an ordered system of violence that constantly, rudely and defiantly violates international law and human rights.
As of today 500 lawsuits have been admitted by the ECHR from Ukrainian residents concerning violation of their rights during Russia’s aggression. Now, evidence collection is in place, regarding interstate appeals from Ukraine to the ECHR.
Another conscious, audacious deviation from the recognition of fundamental law principles suggests further divergence between this state and civilized nations of the world.
It is important to note that such approach of the Russian Constitutional Court directly violates commitments, undertaken by the Russian Federation, by ratifying the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the 1969 Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties.
According this document every international treaty is mandatory for sides, included in the treaty. In this case, none of the sides of the treaty can invoke the provisions of its internal law as an excuse for nonexecution of an agreement.
The European Human Rights Convention does not provide involvement of national authorities to resolve disagreements in implementation of ECHR decisions.
In case there is a problem with interpreting the decision, only Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of enforcement of ECHR judgments can address the Court in order to provide appropriate explanation.
Yet only the ECHR can make legally significant conclusion whether the state complies with obligation to enforce court decisions and to impose appropriate sanctions on the violator.
Therefore, on the international law basis, Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s decision doesn’t affect the obligation to implement ECHR’s decision and won’t give Russian the possibility to avoid responsibility for nonexecution of such judgments.