Here’s a breakdown of the Bekirov and Others v. Russia decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated the rights of Crimean residents who participated in peaceful assemblies between 2014 and 2017. These residents, mostly of Crimean Tatar origin, were protesting the Russian occupation of Crimea or expressing support for Ukraine. The Court found that Russia’s actions, including administrative proceedings and detentions, breached Articles 5, 6, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court emphasized that Russian law, as applied in Crimea, cannot be considered “law” under the Convention because it was implemented in contravention of international humanitarian law. The decision underscores Russia’s administrative practice of suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiment and intimidating the Crimean Tatar community. The Court awarded compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns administrative proceedings against Crimean residents for participating in peaceful assemblies after Russia’s occupation in 2014.
* **Preliminary Issues:** The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter and affirmed its jurisdiction over the case, as the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. It also reiterated that Russia exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea from February 27, 2014.
* **Government’s Failure to Participate:** The Court noted the Russian Government’s lack of participation but proceeded with the examination.
* **Six-Month Time Limit:** Complaints in applications nos. 39983/18 and 41321/18 regarding unlawful arrest were rejected for being lodged outside the six-month time limit.
* **Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, based on Russian law, were not “prescribed by law” under Article 11, leading to a violation of freedom of peaceful assembly.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed complaints under Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention) and Article 6 § 1 (fair trial), finding violations based on its established case-law and the illegitimacy of “courts” operating under Russian law in Crimea.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Additional complaints under Articles 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, were deemed unnecessary to examine.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded pecuniary damages for administrative fines paid and non-pecuniary damages for the violations suffered. It also awarded costs and expenses to some applicants.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Extraterritorial Jurisdiction:** The reaffirmation of Russia’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in Crimea is crucial for future cases concerning human rights violations in the region.
* **Illegitimacy of Russian Law:** The ruling that Russian law in Crimea is not “law” under the Convention sets a precedent for challenging the legality of Russian actions in the occupied territory.
* **Administrative Practice:** The acknowledgment of an administrative practice aimed at suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiments and intimidating Crimean Tatars highlights the systematic nature of human rights abuses.
* **Compensation:** The awarding of compensation provides a tangible remedy for victims of rights violations and may serve as a basis for similar claims in the future.
* **Violation of Article 6:** The finding that tribunals operating in Crimea under Russian legislation are not “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it addresses human rights violations in Crimea following its occupation by Russia and supports the rights of Ukrainian citizens and Crimean Tatars living under occupation.
