Search results

1

Do the “Underlying Values” of the European Convention on Human Rights Begin in 1950?

100%

Schabas W.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2013

|

vol. 33

247-258

EN

Prior to its ruling in Janowiec and Others v. Russia, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had recognised a “humanitarian exception” to the general rule by which the procedural obligations imposed by articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention only arise if the substantive violation of the Convention occurs after the entry into force of the Convention for the respondent State. In Janowiec, the Court was invited to apply this “humanitarian exception” to one of the great unpunished atrocities perpetrated on European soil in the past century. The Court declined to do so, mechanistically imposing its own temporal limitation on the “humanitarian exception” by which the substantive violation of the right to life and the prohibition of ill treatment must take place after the adoption of the Convention on 4 November 1950. The essay concludes that this limitation is questionable, that the reasoning behind it is dubious, and that the result is a regrettable confirmation of a situation of impunity.

2

The Katyń Massacre before the European Court of Human Rights: A Personal Account

100%

Kamiński I.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2013

|

vol. 33

205-226

EN

The author of this article, the lead lawyer for the applicants in the case relating to the 1940 Katyń massacre (Janowiec and Others v. Russia), provides a personal account of the case that was heard twice by the European Court of Human Rights, first as a chamber of seven judges and then in its Grand Chamber formation. The case concerned the key question of whether the Strasbourg Court is competent to adjudicate on the effectiveness of a domestic investigation when the triggering act (killing) precedes the ratification date of the European Convention on Human Rights. For the first time in its entire history, the Strasbourg Court examined whether its competence could be based on the “need to ensure the respect for the Convention’s founding values”, one prong of the test elaborated in the Silih judgment in 2009. The critical assessment of the Grand Chamber’s Katyń judgment offered in this article is based on two considerations: what the Court omitted (the applicants’ arguments referring to the relevant international law practice) and what the Court finally elaborated as its understanding of the two tests establishing the Court’s competence ratione temporis (the “genuine connection” test and “Convention values” test).

3

Janowiec and Others v. Russia: A Long History of Justice Delayed Turned into a Permanent Case of Justice Denied

100%

Citroni G.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2013

|

vol. 33

279-294

EN

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on whether Russia is responsible for human rights violations in relation to the Katyń massacre. Two of the major issues that had to be dealt with were the Court’s competence ratione temporis to assess the violation of the procedural obligations related to the right to life, and whether the applicants could be considered victims of inhumane treatment because of the failure of Russian authorities to provide information on the fate and whereabouts of their relatives. If the first judgment issued by the Chamber on 16 April 2012 was criticized because of its restrictive approach, the one issued by the Grand Chamber on 21 October 2013 took an even more controversial turn. The reasoning of the Court does not seem to be particularly sound and the outcome is a denial of justice. The comparison with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in similar cases makes this all the more evident, suggesting that the application of different interpretative criteria would have been possible.

4

The Case of Janowiec and Others v. Russia: Relinquishment of Jurisdiction in Favour of the Court of History

100%

Kozheurov Y.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2013

|

vol. 33

227-246

EN

In the Janowiec and Others v. Russia case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), trying to find its way between the Scylla of humanitarian ideals and the Charybdis of State sovereignty, demonstrated its unwillingness to deal in detail with the black pages of Europe’s past, handing this right over to historians. The article first draws parallels between temporary jurisdiction of the Inter-American Courts of Human Rights and the ECtHR. Both of them found ways to overcome the non-retroactivity principle, but by using different techniques. Secondly the article analyzes how the presumption of death became the factor severing the link between the substantive and procedural limbs of violation of the right to life, turning the latter aspect into a detachable autonomous obligation. Finally, the author of the article expresses his regrets that the Court and the applicants missed the chance to develop the “right to the truth”, using, inter alia, the potential of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

5

How Could It Go So Wrong? Reformatio in Peius before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia (or Polish Collective Memory Deceived in Strasbourg)

100%

Sanz-Caballero S.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2013

|

vol. 33

259-278

EN

During Perestroika, Russian authorities admitted publicly that, during Stalinism, a single order led to the extrajudicial execution of 26,000 Polish nationals (in what became known as the “Katyń forest massacre”). In 1990 Russia commenced criminal investigations, but they were discontinued and results were classified as secret in 2004. Following years of silence under communism, families of the victims demanded information from the Russian authorities, without results. The ECHR entered into force in Russia in 1998. This article analyzes the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia, brought before the Strasbourg Court by the relatives of the victims of the Katyń massacre. The applicants maintained that Russia violated the ECHR by discontinuing the investigation and failing to account for the fate of prisoners. In their opinion, Article 2 (right to life), and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) had been violated. This article compares the reasoning of the Court in the Chamber (2012) and Grand Chamber (2013) rulings. The latter produced a reformatio in peius with respect to the applicants’ interests. Grand Chamber ruled it had no competence either over the atrocity or over the subsequent improper treatment by Russian authorities. With this verdict, it deprived the applicants of the only claim upon which the Chamber had earlier ruled in their favour.

Refine search results

5 Polish Yearbook of International Law

5 2014

1 Citroni G.

1 Kamiński I.

1 Kozheurov Y.

1 Sanz-Caballero S.

1 Schabas W.

Do the “Underlying Values” of the European Convention on Human Rights Begin in 1950?

The Katyń Massacre before the European Court of Human Rights: A Personal Account

Janowiec and Others v. Russia: A Long History of Justice Delayed Turned into a Permanent Case of Justice Denied

The Case of Janowiec and Others v. Russia: Relinquishment of Jurisdiction in Favour of the Court of History

How Could It Go So Wrong? Reformatio in Peius before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia (or Polish Collective Memory Deceived in Strasbourg)