Image copyright RIA Novosti
Constitutional court declared the execution of the European court of human Rights rulings on possible part. In particular, it is impossible to found in the part which relates to changes in the Russian legal system and providing inmates the right to vote.
Earlier, the ECHR concluded that the Russian authorities have violated article 3 of the Protocol to the Convention №1 for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which guarantees the right to free elections. According to the court in Strasbourg, as enshrined in the Russian Constitution, the restriction of voting rights is absolute, automatic and undifferentiated character.
The COP in its decision indicates that real deprivation of freedom in the Russian sentence, basically, only those who have committed serious crimes, and it is not such a large percentage.
The rest have committed a minor offense, serve their sentence in a penal colony, and their federal legislator has the right to transfer to alternative punishments, which do not limit the electoral entail rights. Thus, the differentiation already exists (ie, in this part of the execution of the decision of the ECHR is possible).
At the beginning of February, the Ministry of Justice of Russia sent to the Constitutional Court of the country’s appeal for failure of the European Court rulings on Human Rights in the case “Anchugov and Gladkov against Russia. ” Anchugov Sergei and Vladimir Gladkov sent complaints to the ECHR in 2004 and 2005. Both complained that while in prison, had been denied the right to participate in elections.
According to the decision of the COP, and Anchugov Gladkov were once convicted of a particularly serious crime, and therefore known to be able to count on access to active suffrage -. including the ECHR according to criteria
The case of the possibility of human rights execution of judgments passed by the Constitutional Court on 31 March. In its request, the Justice Department asked the court to recognize the impossibility of execution of the ECHR judgment and the provision of voice convicted on the basis of the fact that it is contrary to Article 32 (part 3) of the Constitution.
The agreement with the ECtHR’s position, according to the Ministry of Justice violated to the position of the Constitution on its supreme legal force and priority over any other legislation.
This case was the first in which considering the possibility of default in Russia, the ECHR decisions.
a constitution – the views are different
The experts approached by the court came to the opposite conclusions. Thus, the “Institute of Law and Public Policy” by analyzing the Constitution, found that “the absolute prohibition on the participation in the elections for people who are in prison, is not the only option interpreting the provisions of Article 32 (part 3) of the Constitution” .
The organization also recommended that the COP agreed to apply the principle of interpretation, according to which “if there are several possible options for the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, elected that option, which is as much as possible to avoid violations of the Russian Federation of its international legal obligations “.
According to the organization, the European Court would be fulfill, or by setting statutory categories of persons deprived of their electoral rights (depending on the type, extent and severity of the crime committed) or by giving the courts authority restrict the right to vote of specific individuals as a form of punishment.
Meanwhile, the Moscow State University named after O. legal Kutafin (Moscow State Law Academy) came to the conclusion that amending the constitution is still required for the execution of the ECtHR decision. But in this case it is “not caused significant changes in the life of society and the state, by virtue of which will not be realized by the population as a necessary public”
“Russia as a sovereign state of exception -. When the rules, decisions of the Council of Institutions Europe in a particular case may serve to undermine the fundamental constitutional principles (of the constitutional order), public perceptions of social, social justice (the rule of just law) on the basis of prevailing in the Russian people’s spiritual and moral values - the right not to carry out the relevant rules or the decisions of the Council of Europe institutions “- said in the conclusion of Moscow State Law Academy
Saint Petersburg State University in its response appealed not only to the Constitution, but also to the statistics. Thus, the national poll, which held a university in March, showed that the question “How do you feel about the idea to make changes to the Russian Constitution (Part 3 of Art. 32), leaving the prisoners (or specific categories of prisoners), the right to vote at elections? ” more than 87% of respondents said they did not support the idea of making appropriate changes to the Russian Constitution.
Also recall St. Petersburg State University said that because of the presence in Russia of a large number of prisoners (according to the University, about 660 000 people in 2015 ), by granting them the right to vote “significantly increases the risk of serious influence of the criminal world interests on the decisions taken by public authorities”
suspected of University and purpose in the decision of the ECHR:. study authors assumed that if you allow prisoners to vote, against Russia has followed accusations over failure to free decision-making, and will, in prisons is difficult to do.
this will generate the charges that the election results in Russia are not democratic and fair. “The impression is that the ECHR insistence on the presentation of the definitive claim against the Russian Federation aims specifically to call into question the free and democratic nature of future elections in Russia”, – says the authors
next
According to experts, the same attitude is not always unambiguous in other European countries to the decisions of the ECHR: not all of them are executed. Another thing is that the decision can be quietly ignored – but never dealt with in court. In this sense, the recent decision of the Russian side (starting with the amendments on the activities of the COP, when he has the authority to accept unenforceable ECHR decision) some are regarded as demonstrative
It is interesting that on the same subject -. The existence of the right to vote prisoners – in a situation similar to the controversial hit UK: the ECHR in 2004 ruled in favor of John Hirst, who complained that serving a sentence for a murder he did not take part in the elections. This decision of the ECHR and the United Kingdom failed to comply.
The decision on the case of Sergei Anchugova and Vladimir Gladkov since the mid-1990s to serve time for their crimes, and deprived of the right to vote, was made of the ECHR even in 2013.
Increased attention to the current session of the Constitutional Court to St. Petersburg was focused on, among other things, due to the the fact that it was the first concerning the non-enforcement of the European Court.
In a short time, the COP may be considered a case of payments to shareholders of Yukos, which the Russian Federation, according to the decision of the European Court, to pay EUR 2 billion. Earlier the Russian Ministry of Justice admitted that submits an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The possible failure to Russia ECtHR judgments is a matter of concern of European policy makers. Last fall, in St. Petersburg hosted a conference dedicated to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, with the participation of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland and the head of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe Philippe Boillat.
No comments:
Post a Comment