Here’s a breakdown of the Leonov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This judgment addresses multiple applications concerning the degrading treatment of applicants in Russian courts due to their confinement in metal cages or glass cabins during criminal proceedings. The Court consolidated these cases, asserting its jurisdiction despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before its departure. The Court found that such confinement, along with other violations related to detention conditions, length of pre-trial detention, restrictions on participation in public assemblies, and absence from civil proceedings, constituted breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court awarded sums to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the initiation of the case and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Lists the applicants and provides relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Explains the decision to examine the applications jointly.
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s authority to hear the cases based on the timing of the events.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Focuses on the complaints regarding confinement in metal cages or glass cabins, referencing previous case law establishing that such practices can constitute degrading treatment.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Addresses additional complaints related to the speediness of review of pre-trial detention, solitary confinement, unjustified pre-trial detention, prisoners’ right to vote, disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies, and absence from civil proceedings.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Addresses and dismisses other complaints raised by some applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** Determines the just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants.
* **Decision:** Formally declares the Court’s rulings, including the admissibility of certain complaints, findings of violations, and orders for payment of compensation.
* **Appendix:** Provides a list of applications, details of the applicants, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Degrading Treatment:** The reaffirmation that confining defendants in metal cages or glass cabins in courtrooms can, in itself, constitute degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention.
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Other Convention Violations:** The judgment highlights several other potential violations related to detention conditions, pre-trial detention, and restrictions on fundamental rights, referencing relevant case law for each.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded to the applicants provide a benchmark for similar cases.
**** This decision is related to Russia, but it may have implications to Ukraine and Ukrainians, because it concerns human rights violations during criminal proceedings, specifically regarding degrading treatment and fairness of judicial processes.
