Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:07:59.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Janowiec and Others v. Russia

European Court of Human Rights.  21 October 2013 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Treaties — Application — Principle of non-retroactivity — Article 28 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Russian Federation ratifying European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 on 5 May 1998 — Polish prisoners of war killed on instructions of Soviet authorities in 1940 — Relatives of those killed complaining that Convention rights breached by Russian Federation — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Clarification of principles in Šilih — Procedural acts and omissions in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether genuine connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether two criteria satisfied — Whether lapse of time reasonably short — Whether major part of investigation taking place or ought to have taken place in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether connection which was not genuine sufficient in extraordinary situations — Convention values test — Whether need to ensure real and effective protection of guarantees and underlying values of Convention — Whether Court upholding respondent Government’s objection ratione temporis

Human rights — Right to life — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International criminal law — Treaties — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Serious crimes under international law — War crimes — Katyn massacre — Whether killings negating foundations of Convention — Whether creating necessary connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention coming into effect — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention

Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Convention coming into existence on 4 November 1950 — Serious crimes under international law in 1940 — Whether Convention values clause applying to events occurring prior to adoption of Convention — Whether condition met for procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention to take effect — Whether Russian Federation obliged to carry out effective investigation

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Prolonged denial of historical fact — Withholding of information from victims’ relatives — Whether suffering of victims’ relatives having dimension and character distinct from inevitable distress stemming from violation itself — Whether applicants uncertain about fate of their relatives — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for Court’s investigation — Failure to provide Court with requested document — Relevance of domestic top secret classification — Whether Court considering document necessary to establish facts in case — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Whether obligation could be enforced irrespective of outcome of proceedings — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment by Court of admissibility, relevance and probative value of evidence — Contracting States having obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to Court — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Proper and effective examination of applications — Respondent Government failing to provide document — Relevance of top secret classification at domestic level — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Internal law and observance of treaties — Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Top secret classification of document in domestic law — Respondent Government using domestic legal impediment as justification for not furnishing requested evidence — Whether permissible — International responsibility of Russian Federation — Whether Governments answerable under European Convention for acts of any State agency — Relevance of national security concerns — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

War and armed conflict — Prisoners of war — Murder by forces of detaining State — Katyn massacre of Polish prisoners of war by Soviet forces — Whether engaging obligations of Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)