MENU
Documenting
war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Similar articles

‘One brother perished, the second was barely saved’ — the story of a resident of ZahaltsiUN records 32 summary executions by Russia of Ukrainian prisoners of war since December Ukrainian POW sentenced to life for defending Mariupol in brutal Russian replay of fake occupation court ‘trial’ Russia sentences poet Aleksandr Byvshev to 7 years for writing of its war crimes in Ukraine Renowned Crimean Solidarity journalist convicted of 'abusing' freedom of mass information in Russian-occupied Crimea Russia moves to ‘revoke’ Soviet decree recognizing Crimea as part of Ukraine New textbook for occupied territory tells children that Ukraine burns all Russian books and serves ‘Blood of a russky’ cocktails Russia registers double the possible number of ‘voters for Putin’ in occupied Ukraine, while intensifying pressure at gunpoint Russia’s supreme court rejects proof of innocence in favour of tortured-out ‘confession’ from Ukrainian human rights defender and POW‘It was impossible to endure here,’ — a resident of BorodiankaAbsence of law and international control‘When I was evacuated, I only had a pair of trousers, shoes, a jacket and my documents’ICC issues arrest warrants over Russia’s bombing of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure as war crimes and a crime against humanityCrimean Solidarity journalist and activists arrested, their families terrorized, in new Russian offensive against Crimean Tatars Reshat Ametov and 10 years of Russia’s systematic torture, abductions and killings of civilians for supporting Ukraine Declaration of ethical principles of Kharkiv Human Rights Protection GroupRussia's youngest Ukrainian political prisoner convicted of ‘justifying terrorism’ in social media posts written by Russia’s FSB 18-year-old Russian imprisoned for Shevchenko poem on anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of UkraineRussia’s killings of Ukrainian prisoners of war are likely state-approved war crimes Oleg Orlov, renowned human rights defender and Memorial Co-Chair, sentenced to 2.5 years for condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine

Ukraine will not appeal Strasbourg’s Ruling in the case “Myroslava Gongadze v. Ukraine"

14.11.2005   
Yevhen Zakharov

The Ministry of Justice does not intend to appeal the ruling passed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Myroslava Gongadze v. Ukraine”.  This was announced by the Minister of Justice, Serhiy Holovaty. The Minister emphasised that his policy would differ from that which had been previously followed by the National Bureau on issues relating to the observance of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  LIGABusinessinform was told in the press service of the Ministry of Justice, that Mr Holovaty had already discussed this with the Ombudsperson on issues relating to the observance of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Baleriya Lutkovska.

 

“The Bureau is given the task of protecting human rights and ensuring the observance of the Convention and not, as was the case previously, lodging an appeal to the higher chamber after every case won by a Ukrainian citizen. Such a policy took time and it was unclear whose interests were being defended – whether that of State funds, or of State bureaucrat officials, or of the judge in Ukraine who had issued an unfair ruling”, Mr Holovaty stressed.

 

“The policy and actions of the Ombudsperson of the National Bureau must be different: a person managed to get to the truth, achieved just satisfaction, achieved reinstatement in the law – the State, the Ministry of Justice must be on the side of the individual”, the Minister believes.

http://liga.net/news/167076.html

 

Commentary of “Prava Ludyny”:

In our view, Holovaty is only correct in part. Certainly in cases like that of the Gongadze case or similar, one should probably not lodge an appeal with the Higher Chamber.  But after all it does happen that the claimant makes an unreasonable demand for compensation for damages as in the case of Sovtransavto v. Ukraine.  The Ombudsperson lodged an appeal to the Higher Chamber and the latter significantly reduced the sum which had to be paid.

 

There are two parties to a court case – the claimant and the State. The agent of the State should after all defend the interests of the State, and not of the procedural opponent, and it would, in our opinion, be incorrect to deny the right to an appeal. Another question is how we should understand “the interests of the State”. Indeed, in many cases the interests of the State would be best served by acknowledging that the violation of the Convention took place. Incidentally, the National Bureau in this instance is actually behaving sensibly as can be seen by the case of Afanasyev.

Yevhen Zakharov

 Share this