Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of F.D. and Others v. Russia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, including instances of domestic violence. The Court emphasized that states have an obligation to conduct effective investigations into such allegations, even when the ill-treatment is inflicted by private individuals. The Court found that Russia’s legal framework fell short of providing sufficient safeguards for victims of domestic violence and failed to establish an effective system for punishing all forms of such violence. The Court also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. As a result, the Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia concerning ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment.
* **Facts:** The facts section refers to the appended table, which lists the applicants and details of their applications.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to examine the applications because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** The Court focused on the applicants’ complaints regarding ineffective investigations into ill-treatment, particularly domestic violence. It reiterated that states must conduct effective investigations into such allegations, even when the perpetrators are private individuals.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints raised by some applicants, finding violations based on its well-established case-law, particularly concerning the lack of a proper legal framework to combat domestic violence in Russia.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table as compensation for damages.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant information, factual background, specific grievances, other complaints, and the amount awarded to each applicant.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Obligation to Investigate:** The decision reinforces the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when committed by private individuals.
* **Domestic Violence:** The judgment highlights the issue of domestic violence as a general problem affecting all member states and emphasizes the need for active state involvement in protecting victims.
* **Criteria for Effective Investigation:** The Court reiterates that an effective investigation should be capable of establishing the facts of the case, identifying, and punishing those responsible.
* **Russia’s Legal Framework:** The decision criticizes Russia’s legal framework for not defining domestic violence as a separate offense or an aggravating element of other offenses and for establishing a minimum threshold of gravity of injuries required for launching public prosecution.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded compensation to the applicants, recognizing the damages they suffered due to the ineffective investigations and the lack of adequate legal protection.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have suffered from domestic violence or other forms of ill-treatment in Russia, as it highlights the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations and provide adequate legal protection to victims.
