CEDU: DETENZIONE-TRATTAMENTO INUMANO-OBBLIGO STATI MEMBRI DI ADEGUATE VERIFICHE dirittopenaleeuropeo.eu In the case of Janowiec and Others v. Russia, the Court found that it was not competent to examine the adequacy of an investigation into the events that had occurred before the adoption of the Convention in 1950. The Court also underlined that Member States were obliged to comply with its requests for evidence and found that Russia, in refusing to submit a key procedural decision which remained classified, had failed to comply with that obligation. The case concerned complaints by relatives of victims of the 1940 Katyń massacre – the killing of several thousands of Polish prisoners of war by the Soviet secret police (NKVD) – that the Russian authorities’ investigation into the massacre had been inadequate. CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE GYULUMYAN Although I do share the opinion of the majority on all points in this case, I nevertheless have certain reservations of a more general character about the Court’s approach concerning the “humanitarian clause” and “genuine connection” requirements. In substantiating its position the Court referred to the time factor, having regard to the period of time between the death of the applicants’ relatives and the entry into force of the Convention. I do not find this reasoning persuasive. The State’s obligation to carry out a thorough investigation is engaged when gross human rights violations (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) are at stake. The mere fact that the crimes in question took place before the Convention came into existence is not decisive. If the investigation is carried out before the ratification of the Convention by the respondent State, it is the complaints as to the quality of the investigation which might fall outside of the Court’s competence ratione temporis. I do believe that human rights violations of this kind can be prevented and redressed in the future only by the respondent State’s willingness and readiness to confront its past and not to bury its history under layers. In this respect I attach particular importance to the fact that an investigation was carried out and that a significant number of actions were undertaken by the Soviet and subsequently the Russian authorities to acknowledge responsibility for the Katyn massacre and to pay tribute to the victims (see paragraphs 38, 41 and 73). If the above-mentioned actions had not been undertaken and no investigation had been carried out, that is to say, if there had been an absolute denial of the crime, I would have chosen instead to join in the dissenting opinion of Judges Ziemele, De Gaetano, Laffranque and Keller. CORTE EUROPEA DEI DIRITTI DELLUOMO, GRAND CHAMBER,SENTENZA DEL 21.10.2013 . CASE OF JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Posted on: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 19:25:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015