Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of T.V. and Others v. Russia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Russia in a set of cases concerning ineffective investigations into allegations of domestic violence. The Court found that Russia failed to adequately investigate claims of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, specifically repeated acts of domestic violence. This failure was deemed a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court also highlighted Russia’s shortcomings in establishing a legal framework that effectively punishes all forms of domestic violence and provides sufficient safeguards for victims, referencing its previous findings in similar cases. The ECHR emphasized that domestic violence is a widespread problem requiring active state involvement and that Russia’s legal system fell short of these requirements. The applicants were awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications against Russia related to similar issues.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by private individuals, specifically domestic violence.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention (September 16, 2022).
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court focused on the ineffective investigation of domestic violence allegations, citing the state’s obligation to protect individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment, even when inflicted by private individuals. It reiterated that investigations must be effective, capable of establishing facts, identifying, and punishing those responsible.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints under the Convention, referencing its established case-law. It highlighted the absence of a specific offense for domestic violence in Russian law and the lack of a comprehensive legal framework to protect victims.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for damages and dismissed the remaining claims.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously held that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention due to the ineffective investigations and other related violations based on established case-law.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Obligation:** The decision reinforces the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals, particularly in cases of domestic violence.
* **Effectiveness of Investigations:** The judgment emphasizes that investigations must be prompt, thorough, and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
* **Legal Framework for Domestic Violence:** The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive legal framework that defines domestic violence, punishes all its forms, and provides sufficient safeguards for victims.
* **Referenced Case-Law:** The decision refers to previous cases, such as Volodina v. Russia and Tyagunova v. Russia, which further elaborate on the state’s obligations in addressing domestic violence and ensuring gender equality.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded compensation to the applicants, setting a precedent for similar cases involving ineffective investigations into domestic violence allegations.
**** This decision may be relevant to cases involving Ukrainian victims of domestic violence, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict and its impact on the effectiveness of investigations and the availability of legal remedies.
