Because the historic judgement is made, the ECtHR should guarantee significant consideration of particular person functions related to Russia’s battle in opposition to Ukraine.
On July 9, 2025, the European Courtroom of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a historic judgment in 4 inter-state functions, holding Russia accountable for widespread and flagrant human rights violations within the context of the armed battle it has waged in opposition to Ukraine since 2014, together with the downing of flight MH17. For the reason that Courtroom additionally included case no. 11055/22, the judgment lined not solely occasions in japanese Ukraine, but in addition on the entire territory of the state for the reason that full-scale invasion in 2022.
Past these inter-state instances, hundreds of particular person functions had been adjourned attributable to their substantive overlap. These instances will now proceed, elevating questions in regards to the method the Courtroom will take going ahead, and the impression the extended suspension could have had on the candidates’ entry to justice.
At ULAG, strategic litigation and illustration of victims and survivors of grave crimes and human rights violations in home and worldwide jurisdictions, together with ECtHR, is among the foremost focuses of our work. Though the organisation was established in 2018, most of our attorneys have been engaged on such instances for the reason that outset of the armed battle in 2014. Presently we’re dealing with roughly 200 ECtHR instances awaiting communications or judgments, regarding violations in opposition to Ukrainian POWs, illegal detention, killing of civilians, enforced disappearances and many others. We’re additionally privileged to accomplice with organisations such because the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) to collaborate on a few of the ECtHR instances.
The impact of the pause on the standard of justice for particular person candidates.
In lots of instances – a minimum of primarily based on our expertise – consideration of the functions had been paused after acknowledgement of receipt or on the early phases of data change with none substantive progress.
This delay, notably for instances relationship again to 2014-2019, dangers the irreversible lack of proof and the diminishing engagement of candidates attributable to their demotivation and the time handed. Past that, Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe (CoE) on March 16, 2022 (and robotically – from the ECHR system, coming into impact as of September 16, 2022). Nevertheless, as confirmed by the CoE Commissioner’s for Human Rights ‘Memorandum on human rights parts for peace in Ukraine’, it stays certain by respective obligations of the ECHR vis-a-vis instances earlier than 16.09.2022. The inter-state judgement additionally reminds of an current obligation to help the Courtroom within the examination of instances. But, one would possibly say it’s now unreasonable to anticipate Russia to actively take part within the proceedings. Even when, prior to now, Russia’s responses had been restricted, unsubstantiated, or submitted in dangerous religion, their presence nonetheless contributed to the general course of as a completely fledged occasion to a case.
For candidates – victims and survivors of human rights violations – earlier engagement within the proceedings may have supplied a way of justice in motion: the chance to current their arguments and confront Russia in a course of the place each side a minimum of formally participated. It additionally may have helped safe extra proof and provide further context for the Courtroom, even when such supplies would have been assessed at a later stage. Lastly, the absence of risk for significant occasion engagement undermines the perceived legitimqacy of the judicial course of, and might be exploited by Russia to additional discredit the integrity of the proceedings.
Though the Courtroom’s option to pause the functions earlier than it reached the choice within the inter-state instances was comprehensible, and Russia’s expulsion from the ECHR system couldn’t have been foreseen, there have been already enough grounds in 2018 to permit a minimum of a point of communication to proceed when the choice was made to adjourn particular person functions.
The Courtroom ought to now mirror on the implications of that selection and be sure that the info and context offered in particular person functions are meaningfully thought of. In hindsight, this second additionally gives an necessary alternative to reassess whether or not the present follow of broadly adjourning overlapping instances needs to be maintained or revised – putting a greater steadiness between managing the Courtroom’s workload and safeguarding the integrity and viability of particular person claims.
Addressing numerous functions – what to anticipate
There are at the moment roughly 9,500 particular person functions pending in relation to Russia’s battle in opposition to Ukraine earlier than ECtHR. Such a caseload creates a considerable burden not just for the Courtroom, but in addition for candidates and their authorized representatives. So it’s comprehensible that the Courtroom could search methods to streamline its procedures, particularly in such a context and with restricted sources obtainable. But, in such conditions it is very important keep away from overly broad or imprecise options that may undermine the equity and effectiveness of the method.
Grouping of functions. As a common follow, the ECtHR could be a part of a number of functions that come up from comparable circumstances – equivalent to the identical geographic space, timeframe, or kind of alleged violation. An excellent instance of that is the case of Ponomarenko and Others v. Russia and Ukraine, the place the grouping was coherent and justified. All the candidates had been Ukrainian volunteer battalions members, who had been concerned within the exit from Illovaysk cauldron. The vast majority of candidates had been held captive in a single premise and subjected to comparable sorts of violations.
Nevertheless, in ULAG’s expertise and statement, there have been quite a few instances the place functions had been joined with out ample justification – for instance, combining civilians and navy candidates, or grouping incidents from totally different areas or time intervals in japanese Ukraine. For instance, in a case Ruban v. Ukraine and Russia and three different functions, candidates didn’t have that a lot in widespread. Some troopers in query went lacking, one other one was held captive; they fought in numerous areas (Donetsk Airport; Illovaysk, Mnogopille, Snyzhne), and with totally different time intervals in query (August 2014, January 2015) – all constituting various contexts of the occasions. There are occasional similarities, however it’s genuinely unclear how such a grouping would have ensured a significant consideration of functions. In Sinkevych v. Ukraine and Russia and 14 different functions, whereas nearly all of candidates had been the navy, one – Leonid Mazanko – was a civilian. Along with that, though kinds of violations had been comparable, the incidents befell in numerous places and time intervals.
Such practices make it unnecessarily more durable for attorneys (who typically deal with dozens of functions) to construct instances, who’ve to point out connections between (generally superficially) totally different contexts and conditions, in order that their candidates should not sidelined, as an alternative of specializing in extra thorough evaluation of the instances they’re representatives in. Which additionally results in the duplication of efforts, since as an alternative of streamlining the work by constructing instances of really comparable contexts, they should make circles to suit the grouping their utility ended up in, or battle for a correct examination of peculiarities of instances.
Finally, unsubstantiated groupings make it arduous for the events to the method to carry out their duties and create further threat of distorting and overlooking the factual and authorized context of particular person functions.
Moreover, with the Courtroom having established administrative practices of human rights violations within the inter-state judgement, we’re but to see whether or not imperfect grouping of functions could hinder the prospect for the ECtHR to make use of this method in such instances.
Simplified process. Instances that the Courtroom considers repetitive or regarding well-established case-law, might be addressed in a simplified method. With a possible resumption of a big variety of instances, the Courtroom can also reserve this instrument. But, with out correct evaluation or in case of a procedural inaccuracy due, sure functions that may require extra of a radical examination, would possibly find yourself being under-examined and particular options of the applying – neglected.
Simplified procedures had been utilized in instances in opposition to Russia as soon as it was not a celebration to the ECtHR, and there may be a minimum of one occasion we’re conscious of that illustrates the problem outlined earlier. The case of Mykola Karpyuk, who was subjected to torture dedicated within the context of the armed battle, ended up being thought of within the judgement Maslova and Others v. Russia. But his case was processed beneath the simplified process alongside unrelated functions regarding Russian residents detention and ill-treatment with no hyperlink to the battle or any a part of the context related to Mr. Karpyuk’s allegations.
Each devices are professional mechanisms to optimize the Courtroom’s work. But, it’s essential to use them with rigour, warning, and clear justification to make sure they improve the standard of justice slightly than undermine it.
Cut-off dates for communications. As soon as the Courtroom resumes the communication with the Respondent state/s and candidates, the events could have 3 months to answer with their observations. This may pose a big problem for attorneys who typically symbolize a number of candidates in numerous instances – in addition to the Authorities of Ukraine, which has round 4000 instances pending in opposition to them (in accordance with the latest judgement).
We don’t but understand how shortly communications will proceed, however it’s essential that the ECtHR permits for the opportunity of extending deadlines to make sure that all events have enough time to organize their submissions and interact absolutely with the instances.
Checking for the blind spots
Though the inter-state judgement lined a good portion of the context and violations that befell in Russia’s battle in opposition to Ukraine, there are nonetheless features that require separate consideration of the ECtHR.
Functions in opposition to Ukraine. All through the years of the battle, many functions had been lodged, not solely in opposition to Russia, however in opposition to Ukraine as effectively (both together with or individually). In our expertise, these primarily contain articles 2, 3, and 13, largely specializing in procedural features, particularly with reference to ineffective investigation of violations on the home degree. To ensure that the Courtroom to not overlook this half in instances v. Russia and Ukraine, it would nonetheless have to undergo such functions totally with out primarily counting on the inter-state judgement. Past the willingness of the state to manage justice domestically, the Courtroom would additionally want to look at the institutional and conflict-related context that affected the capability of the justice system. The outset of the armed battle in 2014; the prosecutorial reform with the institution of the “Battle crimes” division on the Workplace of the Prosecutor Normal in 2019; the full-scale invasion in 2022 – challenges and circumstances have been altering all through the years, and should be examined by the Courtroom totally.
Article 10 Violations in opposition to Ukrainian POWs. There have been a number of situations of Ukrainian prisoners of battle being compelled to present fictional interviews and press-conferences, the place they needed to decry the Ukrainian aspect, ask Russian residents for forgiveness, which may represent violations of their freedom of speech. These sorts of violations weren’t thought of and dominated on within the interstate judgement, and subsequently would wish a separate examination and consideration by the Courtroom.
Proper to a good trial. Though there’s a point out of violations of proper to a good trial within the inter-state judgement, the Courtroom has not dominated on it as an administrative follow. Such violations are undoubtedly part of Russia’s battle in opposition to Ukraine each with reference to civilians and POWs. So that is one other class that may require a definite consideration for correct consideration.
Ukrainian prisons in occupied territories. A big variety of amenities and inmates ended up beneath Russian occupation, particularly after the full-scale invasion. Such prisoners had been additionally subjected to human rights violations that may very well be thought of by the ECtHR, and have been barely lined within the inter-state judgement. This consists of violations dedicated by Russia, associated to situations of their confinement, deportation, non-repatriation and many others. There are additionally violations that Ukraine might be thought of accountable of, notably vis-a-vis non-evacuation, in addition to with regard to their standing and restoration of rights upon return to Ukraine.
Context of particular incidents and occasions. Whereas there’s a room for generalisation when it comes to the context of the armed battle and violations that befell, the Courtroom case-law is a crucial avenue for additional establishing and cementing the info about explicit occasions or intervals of the battle, that may have a long-term occasion for the notion of the battle, accountability and truth-seeking.
For instance, in Ponomarenko and Others v. Russia and Ukraine, the place ULAG and EHRAC, symbolize 25 Ukrainian volunteer battalions fighters, we supplied info stating that when surrendering when exiting Illovaysk Ukrainian troopers had been first taken by Russian navy forces, who then handed the POWs on to the so-called “DPR” fighters. We hope that this reality can be taken into consideration as a sign of Russian management over and connections with the so-called “DPR” at that time period, which may additional facilitate the right evaluation of the character of the armed battle.
In that case with the assistance of Forensic Structure the “Platform” – a digital instrument that mapped Russian navy presence in Ukraine primarily based on open supply info – was developed and additional used within the litigation course of by ULAG and EHRAC. This was thought of an modern method for human rights case follow, and was later used within the inter-state proceedings as proof. This reveals that particular person functions can present further worth for the evaluation of the battle, consideration of instances and facilitate the event of the ECtHR case regulation and requirements.
The inter-state judgment has not solely established Russia’s accountability for flagrant human rights violations but in addition opened the door for hundreds of particular person candidates to proceed their pursuit of justice. To a big extent, it’s now as much as the Courtroom to make sure that this pursuit is each significant and real.
