Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Markin and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated the rights of numerous applicants, all Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were prosecuted for extremism for practicing their religion. The Court found that these prosecutions, based on the activities of liquidated local religious organizations, infringed upon their freedom of religion and association under Article 9 of the Convention. The ECHR referenced a previous similar case, *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, where it had already established a violation of Article 9 in comparable circumstances. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, unreasonable pre-trial detention, and unlawful searches, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Court emphasized that the Russian Federation had jurisdiction over Crimea since March 18, 2014, and that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, thus falling within the Court’s competence.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine all applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction, noting Russia’s control over Crimea since March 2014 and the timing of the events before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 9 Violation:** The core finding was a violation of Article 9, citing the *Taganrog LRO* case as a precedent. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous conclusions regarding the impermissibly broad application of extremism legislation.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations related to Article 5 (unlawful detention, lack of sufficient reasons for detention) and Article 8 (unlawful search), based on its established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints were deemed inadmissible or not requiring separate examination.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded specific sums to the applicants for damages, referencing the *Taganrog LRO* case for guidance.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Confirmation of Article 9 Violation:** The decision reinforces the ECHR’s stance against the prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia for peacefully practicing their religion, solidifying the precedent set in *Taganrog LRO*.
* **Jurisdictional Clarity:** The ruling clarifies the ECHR’s jurisdiction over cases originating from Crimea after March 2014 and before Russia’s exit from the Convention in September 2022.
* **Compensation Standards:** The decision provides insight into the amounts awarded for damages in similar cases, offering a benchmark for future claims.
* **Unlawful detention and searches:** The decision confirms the ECHR’s stance against unlawful detention and searches.
**** This decision has implications for Ukrainians in Crimea who have faced similar persecution for practicing their religion as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
