Disinfo: ECHR demand that Russia release Navalny is politically motivated

Summary

The European judiciary continues to dirty itself with politically motivated rulings.

The European Court of Human Rights has demanded that Russia release activist Alexei Navalny, who is due to serve a prison term for embezzlement, without reference to either European or Russian legislation.

This constitutes blatant interference in Russia’s judicial system. Navalny was sentenced by a Russian court, under Russian laws. The European Court has no right to overrule this judgment, nor has it the power to issue a decision on the merits in Navalny’s case. This sort of meddling only serves to confirm that the EU is sticking up for its agent, and is prepared to do so without citing a single legal argument.

Disproof

The story is part of an ongoing pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign targeting Russian activistAlexei Navalny.

The news segment distorts the content and meaning of the ECHR's appeal in several key ways.

In the first place, it cites only a small excerpt of the ECHRcommunique calling for the release of Alexei Navalny, while conveniently omitting that section of the document which grounds the Court's decision both in judicial precedent and with reference to the European Convention of Human Rights. The omitted portion states that failure on Russia's part to comply with the request "may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention," a provisiongranting any individual, group, or non-governmental entity based in a signatory state the right to lodge proceedings with the Court "claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention," and requiring the signatory state "not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right." Moreover, the communique makes reference to the 2005 ECHR judgment inMamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, arguing that the operative part of the judgment applies to the Russian state's treatment of Navalny [see paras. 128-9 and point 5 of the operative part beginning with "For these reasons, the court..."].

Second, the ECHR statement is not so much a "demand" as a reminder of Russia's obligation to observe the provisions of the Convention, which it voluntarily assumed upon joining the Council of Europe in 1996. Resolution 1301, passed by the Council's Parliamentary Assembly in 1994,requires all member states to "respect their obligations under the Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other conventions to which they are parties."

Third, contrary to what the news segment is implying, the ECHR is not seeking a reversal of Navalny's conviction but merely imploring Russia to respect his rights under the Convention. The above-mentioned communique reads:

The Court had regard to the nature and extent of risk to the applicant’s life, demonstrated prima facie for the purposes of applying the interim measure, and seen in the light of the overall circumstances of the applicant’s current detention. This measure has been granted without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the merits of the present case and the competence of the Committee of Ministers.

Fourth, the notion that the ECHR's appeal concerning Navalny is somehow a function of EU policy toward Russia grossly misrepresents the structure of, and the relationship between, European institutions. The ECHR is a judicial body whose task is to interpret the European Convention of Human Rights and to establish, in each set of proceedings brought before it, whether the conduct of a signatory state constitutes a violation of the claimant’s Convention rights. The Court was formed in 1959 by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, an institution predating and separate from the European Union which is not to be confused with the EU’s European Council. See this explainer addressing the confusion.

Lastly, there is no evidence supporting the allegation that Alexei Navalny is an “agent” of the EU or any other Western structure. See here for our debunking of this claim.

Go to search

publication/media

Rossia 24 (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 232
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21/02/2021
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: EU, Russia
  • Keywords: ECHR, Human rights, Anti-Russian, Alexei Navalny, Sovereignty, Dmitry Kiselyov, International Law
see more

Disinfo: Crimea became a part of Russia after a 2014 referendum

The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement about the alleged “annexation” of Crimea. However, Crimea became a Russian region after a 2014 referendum, in which over 95 % of voters (from both Crimea and Sevastopol) voted in favour of its reunification with the Russian Federation. The referendum took place after a coup in Ukraine in February 2014.

The citizens of Crimea made this decision in a free referendum which was organised in order with the UN Charter and took place with the supervision of a big number of foreign observers. The Crimean question is solved.

Feb 20, 2021
Disproof

Crimea is not a part of the Russian Federation. This is a recurring pro-Kremlin narrative claiming the illegal annexation of Crimea was a 'result of a legal referendum'.

Crimea is a part of Ukraine and the Russian Federation has recognised this fact in several actions incl. by signing the 1997 Friendship Treaty with Ukraine.

Disinfo: The ECHR states that there were no political motivations in the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Alexei Navalny

According to the European Court of Human Rights there were no political motivations in the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Alexei Navalny.

Feb 20, 2021
Disproof

Recurrent pro-Kremlin narrative stating that the Kremlin's political opponents are criminals and should be arrested in Russia or abroad. The article is part of the ongoing disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting the Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny. One of the messages spread by this campaign, is that the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Navalny was fully legitimate and did not pursue any pro-Kremlin political objectives. This case clearly misrepresents the ECHR's judgement.

In February 2014, Alexei Navalny was placed under house arrest while being investigated, along with his brother, for alleged fraud and money laundering in relation to two companies, Multidisciplinary Processing Ltd (MPK) and Yves Rocher Vostok Ltd. (a subsidiary of the French cosmetics company). Prior to the sentencing the YvesRocher company admitted it has suffered “no damage”

Disinfo: The establishment of a external control by the West was the real goal of the 2014 revolution in Ukraine

External control over Ukraine is an obvious fact. The establishment of external control was the real goal of the 2014 revolution. Today’s Ukraine can only exist under the external control of the West.

External control over Ukraine is an obvious fact and cannot be hidden by closing TV channels and sanctions against Medvedchuk and his wife, which looks particularly low – in line with those who rule in Kyiv today. First, the establishment of external control was the real goal of the 2014 revolution. Second, Poroshenko put Biden at the head of the table and recognised him as the true ruler of Ukraine. Third, Zelenskyi can only manage his own comedy district, but here he cannot manage without external control. Moreover, Ukraine can only exist under external control of the West. They call it “independence”.

Feb 20, 2021
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives. No evidence is given to back up the claim that Ukraine is under external control. Several previous disinformation cases on Ukraine being under foreign control can be found in our database.

Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state with a democratically-elected president and parliament. Ukraine is not controlled by any foreign government or organisation. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected by almost the whole world, including the EU.