Main page > News > About Sutyajnik Russian




Sergey Beliaev

2011 Annual Activity Report of the NGO Sutyajnik “Strategic Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Russian Courts”


NGO Sutyajnik appreciates translation of this report made by a devoted volunteer Galina Vikhrova.

Table of Content





The organization has more than 50 cases litigated in national courts involving the application of the Convention and ECHR decisions, and cases litigated in the ECHR that have the capacity to impact the practice of national courts.

Trials are being held for the following categories of cases: the protection of victims of murder, the protection of the right to freedom from torture, from inhuman and degrading treatment, the protection of the rights to liberty and security, the protection against forced labor (human trafficking), the right to access to justice, the right to property, the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to freedom of association, and to freedom from discrimination.

Homicides and inhuman treatment committed by government representatives

Cases for the recovery of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for wrongful death in the case of a policeman shooting at a minor with a machine gun.

On the night of 4 July 2010, in the settlement of Upper Nevyansk, a policeman opened fire at a minor causing him serious bodily injury. The policeman did not give the minor any assistance and fled the scene.

The court has ruled the police to pay 100, 000 rubles for the moral damages inflicted as a result of A.S. Delidova, an employee of police security force, shooting the minor in the stomach.

The victim is also seeking a criminal investigation into his injuries, including the police officer’s abuse of authority and leaving the victim helpless. On 11 January 2011 the court refused to initiate a criminal investigation:

Application of L.S. Bugrova to open a criminal case under article 125 of the Criminal Code (knowingly leaving without the aid of a person in a life-threatening condition) and Part 2 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code (negligence leading to manslaughter).

Burgova’s husband died inside the confinement of a police station – Oktyabr’skogo RUVD. The police, as a public body, was responsible for the victim's health and life, and was obliged to prevent any physical violence. The police failed in all these responsibilities.

Bugrova appealed to the prosecutor at the Oktyabr’skogo district in Ekaterinburg with a request to initiate a criminal investigation into the police department’s negligence in preventing the death of her husband. Bugrova representative insisted on the effective investigation of death, as required by Article 2 of the Convention and the relevant practice of the ECHR. To date, there have been no criminal proceedings against the police department employees who allowed the death of the prisoner.

However, in a civil case, the court recognized the police officers’ failure to act and avert grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of Burgrov.

At the moment, an investigation is under way on the ruling on the appeal of the denial of a criminal investigation into a death that occurred inside a law enforcement confinement. Case materials:

Protecting the right to liberty and security, protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment by the authorities

The case on challenging the norm which set up the standard space per person in cell for administrative detention; the case on recognition of the right for an indirect victim to appeal to the Court.

In recognizing the illegality of the police department's failure to act in preventing the death of Bugrova, the court found that paragraph 11 “Regulations on the Conditions of Detention for Persons Detained for Administrative Offenses and Rules of Supply and Medical Treatment of Such Persons” - approved by Government Resolution No. 627 on 15 November 2003 – outlines that the minimum allowed cell confinement should be no less than 2 square meters for each person.

The lack of personal space is causing the detainee suffering, and often entailing injury and even death. Insufficient cell space does not meet international standards. This must be corrected in order that Russia meets its international obligations in humane treatment of prisoners. The applicant's claims are entirely substantiated on the Convention.

In particular, the statement contains a reference to the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which are accepted on the basis of ECHR decisions, and set minimum cell standards to be an area of 7 square meters for each person.

The Supreme Court refused to consider the application, stating that the rights of the widow were not violated. Currently the application is pending before the Constitutional Court of Russia: An appeal is being prepared to the European Court of Human Rights. The case also raises the question of recognizing the rights of an indirect victim to address the court. Case materials:

Human rights activist Vladimir Shaklein appeals his illegal detention:

On 16 June 2009 the head of the Interregional Center for Human Rights Vladimir Shaklein was illegally arrested and forcefully taken to the police department of Kirov district in Yekaterinburg while he was visiting a post office. He was illegally detained for a half an hour and then released. Shaklein has filed a complaint in the Kirov district court of Yekaterinburg requesting that his arrest be declared illegal. In December the court refused to grant the request to declare the actions of the officers of the Kirov District Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Yekaterinburg illegal. Case materials have been directed to the ECHR:

Application of the ECHR judgment Zakharkin v. Russia in national courts.

On 10 June 2010 the ECHR recognized the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (proceedings by illegally composed court), and Article 34 of the Convention (state restriction on the right to file an application with the ECHR in the form of the refusal to permit counsel – staff attorney of a non-government organization - access to pretrial detention facility to meet a client). Case materials:

As of date, the legal position of the ECHR in Zaharkin’s case regarding the regulations on the rights of the applicant to meet with his or her representative – not a lawyer - in jail or penal colony is used by the judges of district courts in other cases. See, for example, the case against Borisov v. Russia:

However, in another part of the judgment in the case of Zakharkin v. Russia, the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (proceedings by illegally composed court) was not executed by the Supreme Court of Russia - in the review of the case, the Supreme Court of Russia did not recognize the illegal participation of two people in the administration of justice as lay judges and accordingly did not review the conviction.

Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia

On 10 June 2010 the ECHR delivered a judgment on the violation Article 6 Part 3 of the Convention, relating to the impossibility of interrogating a witness. The Supreme Court of Russia ordered the criminal case to be reviewed at the court of original jurisdiction as it pertains to the applicant Mezentsev and the violations recognized by the ECHR. Thereby, the ECHR ruling was enforced through the use of individual measures: referral to a retrial as a result of the violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Case material:

Borisov v. Russia

Borisov was convicted by a district court for fraud and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He was detained pending trial. The Sverdlovsk Regional Court reviewed the appeal in the absence of the defendant: the defendant had not been delivered from the pretrial detention center to the court for trial. The prisoner was held in the pretrial detention center in improper conditions, and in violation of sanitary and other rules. Borisov claims his violation of the right to liberty from inhumane and degrading treatment (Article 3) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6). 4 December 2009 the ECHR assigned the case a priority status, and requested that the Russian government submit a memorandum on the case by 26 March 2010. 7 June 2010 in response to the government’s memorandum the applicant’s counsel submitted Borisov’s memorandum. On 10 January 2012 the ECHR adopted a pilot judgment in Ananiev and others v. Russia. According to this decision, Borisov v. Russia, as well as 250 other similar cases in violation of Article 3 (the right to adequate conditions of detention), must be settled out of court with compensation. For the rest of the application it is expected that a ruling be made on the merits of the case. Case materials:

Rozhin v. Russia.

The applicant claims violation of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with detention conditions in a pretrial detention facility and failure to provide medical care. In 2011, the ECHR decided to give notice of Rozhin’s complaint. The parties exchanged memorandums on the case. It is expected that the dispute will be settled out of court with the payment of compensation as outlined in the terms of conditions and the judgments of the ECHR in the lack of medical care.

Case materials:

Public Monitoring of Correctional Institutions

Sutyajnik’s lawyers regularly work with the members of the Public Oversight Commission for Control of Penitentiaries in Sverdlovsk Oblast. News of their activities, materials, and other documents on the results of public monitoring of penitentiaries are published here:

Radio Sutyajnik has introduced a new podcast series on the subject of public monitoring of correctional institutions.

Sergei Belyaev led an interview about the events surrounding correctional institution-52 at the beginning of January 2012 with Bashkov who is a member of the Public Oversight Commission of the Sverdlovsk regions, Golenduhin who is a lawyer of the Inter-regional Centre for Human Rights, and Tishchenko who heads GUFSIN press service of the Sverdlovsk region.

“Psychiatric facilities zealously hold prisoners”. Press Conference with the Inter-regional Centre for Human rights. The podcast can be found here:

Fighting Slave Labour and Human Trafficking

The execution of ECHR judgment Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia.

It is expected for Russia to promptly and fully pay the compensation to the applicant of the proceeding before the ECHR. However, it turned out that only partial compensation reached the applicant as a result of bank fees. The applicant is investigating. Further details:

It will be recalled that the complainant’s daughter Oksana Rantseva arrived in Cyprus on 5 March 2001. She received a work permit for employment as a translator until 8 June 2001, but was forced to work as an ”artist” in a striptease club. Oksana lived with other girls until 18 March 2001. She left the apartment with her belongings, having left a note that she was tired and wanted to return to Russia. The striptease club owner found Oksana at a nightclub in Limassol at about 4:00 AM on 28 March 2001. Having found her he took her to directly to the Limassol central police department requesting that she be deported. Since Oksana was legally in the country, the police could not deport her and instead called the striptease club owner to pick her up from the police station. Soon afterward the police returned Oksana to the striptease club owner. One and a half hours later Oksana was found dead on the street under the balcony of the house of a striptease club employee. 7 January 2009 the ECHR ruled that Cyprus had violated the right to life (there had been no investigation into the circumstances of the death), freedom from torture (there had been no investigation into the fact of cruel treatment), and the right to liberty. Further, both Cyprus and Russia had failed to provide protection against human trafficking and exploitation. 15 September 2010 a meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was held on the issue of enforcing the ECHR resolution. Sutyajnik conducted a roundtable discussion at which participants decided to submit a petition to the President of Russia and the Russian State Duma on the necessity of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Case materials:

The Adoption of Russian Citizen Children by Foreign Citizens Based on Forged Documents Establishing the Absence of Relatives.

The ECHR refused to consider the case of illegal adoption “in the interest of the child”. However, because of the case, the grandmother and brother of the adopted child are now able to communicate with the child. Recall, seven years ago an English family adopted Igor Galayev and took him abroad. Guardianship department employees had forged statements by the boy’s grandmother and father renouncing the child. The Sverdlovsk Oblast court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused an appeal by the adoptee’s father, grandmother, and brother to reconsider the decision of the Sverdlovsk Oblast court based on newly discovered circumstances, viz. the forged documents. The aforementioned courts likewise refused to reconsider the court’s decision as an appeal of cassation. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refused to consider the complaint seeking that the article of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits interested parties who had been absent at trial to appeal a court’s decision to be declared unconstitutional. Sutyajnik’s lawyers, representing the victims, indicated in their complaints and submissions to national courts that the refusal to reconsider the case violates the complainants’ rights to a fair trial (Article 6), to an effective legal remedy (Article 13), and to family life (Article 8). After exhausting all available legal remedies in Russia, case materials of Galayeva et al. v. Russia were directed to the ECHR. The ECHR judge ruled the complaint inadmissible. Analysis of the practice of the ECHR showed that the decision was made in the interest of the child. What is important is not as much the ECHR decision, but rather the restoration of communication between the child and his grandmother and brother due to the case proceedings. Case materials:

The Right of Access to Justice

The Constitutional Court of Russia is moving away in its responsibilities to the ECHR by late notice of decision adopted.

The Constitutional Court has found a way to out of docking the provisions of the Russian legislation and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. In accordance with the Convention, an application can be made to the ECHR within six months from the date of the final decision on the case. In some cases, the Constitutional Court can identify such cases as unconstitutional. Such identifications consist of a majority in the practice of the Constitutional Court. Further, their quality is not consistent with the Convention. The Constitutional Court sends these identifications 2-5 months after the date of their admission. Therefore, there is hardly any time left to prepare an appeal to the ECHR. A standard complaint has been prepared for the Chairman of the Constitutional Court in regards to the red tape of the secretariat, which leads to the late notification of the determination of the application and prevents a timely appeal to the ECHR. Case:

Complaint seeking damages for violation of the right to a timely trial.

In May of 1996, Moscow border control detachment officers refused to let B. leave Russia. The border control officers’ actions have become the subject of a lawsuit. The court has yet to make a decision on the case. In connection with the court’s failure to resolve the case over a fourteen-year period, B. submitted a complaint seeking damages for violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe on the basis of Federal Law “On Compensation for Violations of Judicial Deadlines and Execution of Judgments.” The law had first become effective 4 May 2010. Its purpose was to create a national legal remedy for violations of judicial deadlines and to reduce the number of complaints submitted to the ECHR over the violation of Convention Article 6. The courts dismissed the complaint. Case materials: Summary case documents will be submitted to the ECHR to be joined with already docketed case No. 13898/06, which involves violation of Part 1 Articles 6, 13, and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 2, Clause 2 of Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Case materials:

The Russian govenment's voluntary satisfaction of te complaint in Gorskaya v. Russia.

N.M. Gorskaya submitted a complaint to the ECHR for a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention in connection with the non-execution of a domestic court judgment. The government unilaterally submitted a proposal to the ECHR on payment of fair compensation and requested to strike out the case from the list of cases. On 13 January 2011 a decision was made by the Committee of European Ministers to remove the Gorskaya's complaint from the list of cases on the basis of the proposal by the government to resolve the dispute at the domestic level in accordance with the pilot judgment Burdov v. Russia. 13 January 2011 decision: Case material:

Lawsuit seeking compensation for a violation of the deadline for execution of a judicial act

In May of 1996, the property belonging to the concerned organization (a television, a refrigerator, and a copy machine) was seized as part of an interim measure for a lawsuit by the Yekaterinburg city administration. In a court hearing to remove the attachment from the property, the organization proved that the seizure had been illegal. The property has yet to be returned per court decision. The organization submitted a complaint seeking damages for nonperformance of a judicial act in a timely manner in accordance with Federal Law “On Compensation for Violations of Judicial Deadlines and Execution of Judgments” of 30 April 2010. The courts dismissed the case, arguing that the law does not apply to the actions of court bailiffs. Case materials ( will be directed to the European Court for Human Rights to be joined to an already docketed case:

V. N. Mikhaylova v. Russia for violation of Convention Articles 6 and 13 (right to free legal assistance in a civil case)

The applicant litigated a case against a corporation without legal counsel. On the other hand, five people, including three lawyers and two managers of the organization, represented the interests of the organization. The applicant claims that the balance between the parties was violated. In 2010 the applicant passed the supervisory judicial instance (nadzor) having exhausted all national remedies. Respective materials were directed to the ECHR to confirm that domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. Case materials:

Kiva v. Russia

In 2009 the applicant was issued a favorable court decision on the recognition of unlawful termination and damages from the employer «Region-Contact». The employer was to pay the applicant 167 000 rubles for the applicant's absence from work and compensation for moral damages. In the two years following the court's decision the employer has not paid the applicant even though the completion time has been exhausted. Due to the violation of the right to execute the court decision, the applicant appealed to the ECHR. Case material:

The right to access of information

Litigation of criminal proceedings against the President of the Supreme Court of Russia on the fact of the seizure of judicial power.

On 18 June 2010, the Chairman of the Russian Supreme Court approved the “The Procedure of Organization Access to Information About the Activities of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation” (the Procedure). According to paragraph 5.5. of the Procedure: only texts of judicial decisions on matters considered by the Supreme Court on the merits of the case are published on the Supreme Court’s web-site.

This provision is contrary to the legislation and violates the right of citizens to access to information on the activities of the Supreme Court of Russia in the review of court rulings of procedural nature. According to Article 15 of the Federal Law Number 262-FZ from 22 December 2008 “On Providing Access to Information About the Activities of the Courts in the Russian Federation,” it is mandatory for courts to publish all court rulings (whether adopted on its merits or on procedural issues) on the web-site of the court.

Materials of the criminal investigation into the abuse of judicial powers and seizure of legislative functions can be found here: Any person may complete an application form and send it to the investigating authorities An application is being prepared to challenge the Order of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional Court of Russia.

Protecting the rights of prisoners to vote

Prisoners for the right to vote

In the Russian Federation there are 800,000 citizens who are in places of confinement under the sentencing of court (hereby prisoners). This means that nearly one million people cannot express their political views because according to Article 32 (3) of the Russian Constitution prisoners are denied the right to vote. More then twenty applicants appealed to the ECHR claiming violation of the Convention in respect to their right to vote.

It is argued that Article 32 (3) of the Russian Constitution violates Article 3 Protocol 1 of the Convention because a) the absolute deprivation of the right to vote limits the electoral law to such an extent that it violates the very essence of this fundamental right, b) this absolute deprivation cannot be objectively and reasonably justified even considering the discretion of the applicable law of the state.

Protecting the right to the freedom of movement

In a law suit recognizing the rights of a minor to travel outside of the Russian Federation the court is reviewing the location of the border detachment.

On 20 August 2010 members of the boarder control «Yekaterinburg – Airport» did not allow Nicolai to fly alongside his mother to Turkey. The family was going on vacation for rest and recovery. The police did not give an explanation to why they were not allowing Nicolai to leave Russia. In connection with the actions of the border guards, N. filed a claim for compensation for moral damages and pecuniary damages in the amount of the unused ticket for her son.

The plaintiff alleges the violation of Paragraph 2 Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the Convention (right to leave one's country) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention (right to property). The District Court refuses to hear the case. The case for compensation for material damage and moral damage was transferred to the Central District Court of Chelyabinsk – the location of the border control detachment. Case materials

Protection from discrimination

Civil complaints for the defense of a disabled individual’s right to unimpeded access to social infrastructure facilities

The wheelchair-bound Sychev filed eight complaints in court, and two complaints in the public prosecutor’s office over the absence of wheelchair access ramps at the entrances to the courts, public prosecutors’ offices, and law enforcement offices in Yekaterinburg. In his complaints relating to the entrances to the courts in Yekaterinburg, the plaintiff claimed violation of Article 6, Part 1 of the Convention as it concerns the lack of physical means of access for him to the courts. The plaintiff also cited Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination). The courts granted the complainant’s demands. Cases materials:

Also, underway, is an informational campaign on the implementation of the judicial decisions. Listen to Radio Sutyajnik, where people with disabilities demand what they were promised. Interview with Lyudmila Konoplin, vice president of the International Parliament of Associations of Disabled Persons:

Appealing a 30% tax levied on the non-resident citizens of the Russian Federation (instead of the generally established 13% tax)

A citizen of Russia went abroad to study for a period of longer than 6 months. During his period of study, the student returned to Russia to give a lecture at an institute. A 30% tax (as opposed to the standard 13% tax) was deducted from his salary since he had been recognized as a non-resident. It is claimed that there was discrimination based on the place of residence (principle residence of the citizen was Russia), as well as, the refusal of the Constitutional Court to consider these violations to the compliance of the European Convention of Human Rights. Sutyajnik's lawyers in partnership with University of Quebec at Montreal law clinic students are preparing an appeal to the ECHR:

Protecting the right to association

A Tuapse union dockworker, is filing a case against Russia for the violation of the right to organize, the right to conduct mass actions (Article 11 of the Convention), and the right to protection from discrimination (Article 14 of the Convention), as well as other rights.

Tuapse union dockworkers went on strike. The authorities initiated a lawsuit to recognize the strike as illegal and to declare the union as an illegitimate. Tuapse union dockworkers complained to the ECHR for Russia's violation of the right to organize, conduct mass actions (Article 11), the right to protection from discrimination (Article 14), and other rights recognized in the Convention. Case materials:


Sutyajnik's events:

1. From 14-18 of June 2011, Sutyajnik in partnership with the Danish Institute of Human Rights, and with the support of the Sverdlovsk region Ombudsman, in pro-bono support of the LLC «Rational», hosted a «Week of Human Right in the Urals», which included a series of seminars of the application of safeguards of the Convention of the protection of human rights in the Russian legal system. Representatives of state and municipal authorities, lawyers, and NGO activists attended the event. Materials of the Human Rights week

2. In 2011 Radio Sutyajnik recorded a series of podcasts (, which covered topics including, prisoners' rights, the activities of the Public Oversight Commission of the Sverdlovsk region in places of detention, and the rights of disabled persons.

Over the past year, representatives of the organization participated in 21 events, including national and international conferences, round table discussions, trainings and seminars, and press conferences. Below is a list of some of these activities:

1. On 31 January 2011, Sutyajnik's lawyers attended the national program regional forum «Civil Society – The Modernization of Russia,» which was hosted at the Urals Federal University, Yekaterinburg. The Forum discussed the role of civil society in Russia's modernization. Further details:

2. On 3 February 2011, Sutyajnik members presented «Bring Human Rights Home: Applying the European Convention in the Russian Courts» at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, USA. The video of the presentation can be found here:

3. On 9 February 2011 a presentation was given at the Kennan Institute Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, in Washington DC, USA. The presentation covered the work of non-government organizations, such as Sutyajnik's and other similar organizations, in conducting public interest cases in the courts of the Russian Federation. Further details:

4. From 24-25 of March 2011 Berlin hosted a conference to discuss the models of integration and disintegration of the political, economic, and social order in Europe 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sutyajnik lawyers presented at the conference a report titled «Russian Constitutional Court's Approach to International Law: 1992-2011». Further details:

5. On 3 May 2011, Sutyajnik's representative gave a report on the Russian experience of applying the European Court of Human Rights and European Standards in national courts at a conference titled «Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: Implications for U.S. Policy» at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Washington DC, USA.

6. On 12-14 May 2011 a representative from Sutyajnik gave a presentation on «How Judges and Lawyers Use the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights» at a «How Do Judges Make Decisions: The Russian Judicial System in the Context of International research on the Sociology of Law» conference at the Institute of Law Enforcement at the European University in St.Petersburg. Further details:

7. On 11 November 2011 a representative from Sutyajnik participated as an expert at a conference titled the “11th Eurasian Meeting on Human Rights: National and Regional Mechanisms for the Protection of Human Rights”, and the shared experience of European instruments for the protection of human rights in Russia. Further details:

Each event is accompanied by the free distribution of literature on the Convention and the ECHR, which is prepared by the NGO, Sutyajnik:

The proceedings of the activities are available on the website:


Thirty-five articles were published in various law journals and on the website, including the following:

1. A.S. Kiva. “Forum with the incorrectly formulated theme”. Notes from the regional forum of the national program titled “Civil Society – Russia's Modernization”, which was held on 31 January 2011 in Yekateriburg. Among those present, included the Chair of the Presidential Council for the Promotion of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights, the Governor of the Sverdlovsk region, the Ombudsman of the Sverdlovsk region.

2. “Tired of Being Treated Like Cattle” – A Dangerous Phrase” published 22 March 2011. Sociologist Sergei Belanovsky talks about how the mood of protests in Russia correlate with the growth of civil society: “But again, I would like to mention Yekaterinburg's human rights society, Sutyajnik. Firstly, it should be noted that they are not threatened, they are not persecuted. The organization operates legally. Law students willingly go there to practice, and after large firms eagerly take these student on the job because of their recognized qualifications. But Sutyajnik is a single public organization…”

3. A.R. Sultanov's “Legal Position on the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the ECHR Judgements and Their Relevance to Civil Proceedings,” published in the «Law Economics» ¹ 4, 2011. Several works, including experts in the field of legal theory, devout their study on the legal nature of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation decisions and the ECHR decisions. A number of such publication are devoted to analyzing the place of such acts in the system of sources of law, but we are foremost interested on the impact of these acts on civil proceedings. Since the civil process is a continuous chain of proceedings – basic procedural legal facts interacting with many other circumstances of a legal nature – the decisions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are examined in terms of procedural legal facts

4. V.A. Sahklein's “The Adventures of the Public Observers in Colon and the Middle of Urals Prisons,” published 12 July 2011. One of the volunteers examined the activities of the commission of the Sverdlovsk region and its members. It would not hurt for the Public Chamber of Russia to do the same in order to assess the effectiveness of its activities (appoint those who plan on not doing anything).

5. A.L. Burkov's “Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the Russian Federation as Administrative Acts,” published in the «Russian Law» ¹ 1, 2011. P. 85-110. The Russian legal system has a unique tool that is not the legislation per se, and it is not a judicial act that performs standard-setting functions and is used for the uniform application of national law. This tool is the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Vindicated is the position according to which Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court have all the necessary properties for the uniform application of the Russian law and are effective in carrying out this function in practice. For such a reason, this mechanism can and should be used for complete and uniform applications of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by national courts.

6. A. Sokolov's “Soul's Cry From the Cells of Life: The Beginning of the 21st Century,” published 17 September 2011. In this article, Alexei Sokolov briefly describes the misadventures of his recent years and gives gratitude to all those who supported him and keep on supporting him.

7. A.L. Burkov's “Legal Assistance in Civil and Administrative Cases in Accordance with the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” published 21 October 2011 in the Free Legal Aid and Access to Justice in Russia, Institute for Law and Public Policy. LLC “ Consulting and Communication,” 2010, p. 214. Series on «Access to Justice,» pp. 135-147. The report addresses the problems concerning the realization of the right to provide free legal assistance in civil matters in accordance with the practice of the ECHR.

8. S.Y. Popov's “The Protection of Citizen's Rights to Access of Justice in the View of New or Newly Discovered Facts in the Criminal Process,” published 15 November 2011. This publication is an informational and methodolgical tool designed to help attorneys, lawyers, and human rights activists to realize the protection of citizens' rights to access to justice in view of new or newly discovered fact in criminal cases. The author, who has devoted this study over 3 years, presents his recommendations in the report with the support of gathered decisions of the Constitutional and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, positions of experts on the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, and an analyses with concrete examples of prosecutors and judicial practices of the criminal proceedings in view of the new or newly discovered facts in the Primorsk Krai:

You can find other publications on the website:

Sutyajnik’s website also contains a selection of news articles and other materials on the subject of the project “Applying the European Convention on Human Rights in the Courts.” This selection of documents collects materials containing descriptions of cases of application or refusal to apply the Convention and ECHR case law in the decisions of Russian courts.

The website also includes audio, and video on the materials of the project.

The website provides a platform for consulting over 200 citizens a year. All the consultations are published on the website under the section “Consultations.”

29 February 2012.

President of Sutyajnik

S.I. Beliaev.





News of site

Human Rights Groups Urge the UN to Condemn Russia’s “Presumed Consent” Organ Donation Scheme
Add: 13.10.2017

Who Is Mr. Bowring?
Add: 09.02.2017

Add: 31.01.2017

On 22-25 September 2016 Urals International Human Rights School opens its doors for the eights time to students on private and family life
Add: 19.09.2016

'Gutted Like A Pig': Grieving Mother Takes On Russia's Organ Donation System
Add: 21.03.2016

Moscow City Court's judgment on Burkov v. Google on the case of protection of privacy of email correspondance.
Add: 25.11.2015

Nonavailability of free legal assistance in proceedings for administrative offences (ECHR's official press-release on the Mikhaylova v. Russia judgment announcment)
Add: 11.11.2015

Russia Declares Group A “Foreign Agent” After Its Director Spoke At Harvard
Add: 24.07.2015

Add: 17.03.2015

Brussells conference on the future of the ECHR: declaration of (41) NGOs active in the judicial defence of prisoners´ rights
Add: 09.02.2015