Human Rights
Experts
Lawyers who work in Human Rights practice are attorneys of highest qualification whose professionalism and expertise in the field of defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms are recognised internationally. Lawyers of this practice have vast experience of litigation in Russian courts, including the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, in the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN human rights bodies. Our lawyers represent nationals of Russia and other States, as well as Russian State institutions.
Expertise in human rights protection
- Preparation of complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, and UN human rights bodies, representation of clients before those courts and institutions.
- Litigation in Russian courts with the use of case-law of international human rights adjudicatory bodies.
- Drafting of expert opinions on human rights issues.
Projects
Preparation of amicus curiae submissions on international human rights standards for the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights.
Drafting of legislative suggestions on amending the Russian Code on Administrative Offences in order to ensure its compliance with international standards flowing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Analysis of case-law of Russian federal migration service and courts on granting temporary asylum and refugee status in the Russian Federation, upon the request of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Office in Moscow.
Preparation of an expert opinion for the English court on the question of conditions of detention in Russia in case of possible extradition of an individual by the authorities of the United Kingdom upon the request of the Office of Prosecutor-General of Russia.
Access to medical documentation of the detained client has been obtained by the means of an order of the district court in St. Petersburg.
Access to medical documentation of the detained client has been obtained by an order of the district court.
The St. Petersburg City Court has quashed an order of the district court on the client's administrative removal due to his right of respect to his family life in Russia.
The St. Petersburg City Court has decided to quash an order on administrative removal of the client from Russia due to the district court's failure to take into account his right of respect to his family life enjoyed in Russia.
Refusal to extradite the client to a Central Asian country due to a real risk of inhuman treatment in the country of destination.
Extradition to a Central Asian country has been refused by the St. Petersburg City Court (as upheld by the Russian Supreme Court) due to a real risk of inhuman treatment in the country of destination.
Extradition of several individuals from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan has been declared to violate international law.
Extradition of several individuals from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan has been declared to violate norms of international law.
*Decision of the Committee against Torture of 1 June 2012 in case no. 444/2010 «Abdussamatov and Others v. Kazakhstan»
The expulsion of an individual from Russia has been halted and then discontinued due to a risk of inhuman treatment in the country of his nationality.
The expulsion of an Afghan national from Russia has been suspended and ultimately stopped due to a risk of inhuman treatment in the country of the applicant's nationality.
*Views of the Human Rights Committee of 17 October 2014 in case no. 2126/2011 «Kesmatulla Khakdar v. Russia»
Failure to ensure adequate medical assistance in the pre-trial detention centre has been declared inhuman treatment.
Failure to ensure adequate medical assistance to a detainee in the pre-trial detention centre in St. Petersburg has been declared inhuman treatment. The applicant was eventually released.
*Judgment of 5 February 2015 in case no. 46404/13 «Khloyev v. Russia»
The Court ordered the Russian Government to take general measures aimed at improving conditions of detention in foreigners' temporary detention centres.
Conditions of detention in a foreigners' detention centre in Krasnoye Selo in St. Petersburg pending expulsion, absence of judicial control and lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities constitute violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Russian Government were ordered to take general measures to ensure that the situation of the deportees complies with the guarantees under the Convention. That pronouncement led to the structural changes in the modus operandi of the foreigners' detention centre.
<br/><em>*Judgment of 17 July 2014 in case no. 44260/13 «Kim v. Russia»</em>
The Court has found that ineffective investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives in St. Petersburg constitutes violation of the right to life.
Ineffective investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives in downtown St. Petersburg has been found to constitute violation of the right to life. The Court ordered investigation to be resumed, and payment of compensation to the applicants.
*Judgment of 19 December 2013 in case no. 18407/10 «Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia»
The Court has decided that ineffective investigation into the death of the applicants' wife and mother constitutes violation of the right to life.
Ineffective investigation into the death of the applicants' wife and mother in the police station in Pskov has been found to violate Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life). The Court ordered investigation to be resumed, as well as payment of compensation to the applicants.
*Judgment of 3 May 2012 in case no. 40657/04 «Kleyn and Aleksandrovich v. Russia»
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights prevented the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan.
Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Russian courts decided not to extradite an individual to Uzbekistan as his extradition would violate international law. Subsequently the applicant was resettled to a safe European country.
* Judgment of 20 December 2011 in case no. 12106/09 «Ergashev v. Russia»
The Court has declared that the applicant's detention for three days after the decision on his release violated his right to liberty and personal security.
Impossibility to lodge a complaint with court against detention with a view of extradition, and the applicant's detention for three days after the rendering of a decision on his release have been found to violate his rights to liberty and personal security pursuant to Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
*Judgment of 26 February 2009 in case no. 42443/02 «Eminbeyli v. Russia»
The Court has recognised that by spreading information about the applicant's guilt before the court's verdict officials violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to fair trial).
* Judgment of 17 June 2010 in case no. 26876/08 «Kolesnik v. Russia»
The Court has suspended and subsequently prohibited extradition to Turkmenistan, and also found conditions of detention in the pre-trial detention centre and in the police station in St. Petersburg to be in contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Extradition of the applicant to Turkmenistan has been suspended and ultimately prohibited. His detention in absence of periodic judicial review has also been declared unlawful. Conditions of detention in the pre-trial detention centre and in the police station in St. Petersburg have been found to contravene Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (prohibition of inhuman treatment).
* Judgment of 19 June 2008 in case no. 8320/04 «Ryabikin v. Russia»
Some provisions of the Law on Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation concerning prosecutorial check-ups of non-commercial organisations have been found to be unconstitutional.
Provisions of the Federal Law on the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation concerning regulation of prosecutorial check-ups of non-commercial organisations have been found to be not in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The impugned provisions did not limit the duration of prosecutorial check-ups. Hence, pursuant to the Constitutional Court's judgment the legislation should be amended.
*Judgment of 17 February 2015 no. 2-P
Some provisions of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation have been interpreted upon the request of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg.
Our lawyers represented the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court which led to the constitutional interpretation of some provisions of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation.
*Ruling of 7 February 2013 no. 127-O
Provisions of the Code on Administrative Offences and Russian Civil Code concerning administrative detention and compensation for wrongful detention have been interpreted.
Some provisions of the Code on Administrative Offences and Russian Civil Code concerning application of such measure of restraint as administrative detention and payment of compensation for wrongful detention have been constitutionally interpreted.
*Judgment of 15 June 2009 no. 9-P