By: Firdevs Okatan

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On November 7, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) reached a decision in the case of Durham and Others v Albania, addressing the adequacy of the investigation into a devastating explosion at the Gërdec weapon decommissioning facility in Albania.

On March 15, 2008, a massive explosion occurred at the Gërdec facility, resulting in 26 fatalities and around 300 injuries. Some of the applicants to the court had family members injured or killed in the explosion, while others were themselves severely injured as they were working at the facility. Investigations revealed numerous safety violations, including the absence of required licenses, inadequate training, and violations of military regulations.

Indictments were filed against 29 individuals, including a former Minister of Defence, but the prosecution against the former minister was discontinued due to parliamentary immunity. Civil claims were lodged by some applicants against the accused, which were separated from the criminal proceedings. The applicants argued that this separation deprived them of participation in the criminal trial, violating the principle of adversarial proceedings.

Ultimately, 24 of the accused were found guilty of various criminal offenses related to the Gërdec incident. However, some sentences were reduced, and the applicants were left without a final conclusion regarding the responsibility of the former Minister of Defence.

The ECHR concluded that the investigation was generally adequate in establishing the circumstances and identifying those responsible for the incident. However, it found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, as the applicants were denied effective participation in the criminal proceedings.

Regarding the substantive aspect of Article 2, the Court found that applicants who had accepted compensation had renounced further use of national remedies, while those who had not pursued civil claims had not exhausted all available legal avenues.

The Court ordered Albania to pay compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

For further information, please see:

Albania Daily News – Gërdec case, Strasbourg Court decides in favour of the affected families – 7 Nov. 2023

ECHR – Durdaj and Others v. Albania – 7 Nov.  2023

ECHR – Judgment concerning Albania – 7 Nov. 2023

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

LawEuro – Case Of Durdaj And Others v. Albania – 63543/09 and 3 others. The application concerns the explosion at the Gërdec facility for dismantling decommissioned and obsolete weapons – 7 Nov. 2023

 

 

 

By: Johannah Brown

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NAPLES, Italy – In the case Locascia and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the applicants. The case, initially filed in 2010 by nineteen residents from the Caserta and Naples provinces, revolves around a state of emergency declared in 1994 over the mismanagement of the waste cycle that lasted for more than a decade. The ruling found that Italy’s handling of the 15-year-long garbage crisis violated the human rights of the residents. The Court determined that Italian authorities had contravened Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to respect for private life and home. The violations stemmed from their failure to ensure proper waste collection, treatment, and disposal and neglecting to take the necessary precautions to protect the applicants’ human rights.

In 1994, Italian authorities appointed a special commissioner to take control of the waste cycle, which had previously been under the unofficial control of organized crime (the Camorra). The Camorra had been profiting from controlling dumps in the region and engaging in the illegal business of transporting waste from the northern industrial areas and dumping it in local sites. Over time, both legal and illegal dumps filled, interrupting service and accumulating garbage in the streets and neighborhoods. The crisis disrupted daily life, impacting mobility, prompting school closures, and affecting local markets, forming the basis for the Article 8 complaints.

The court’s ruling also addressed the environmental effects of a dumping site outside Naples called Lo Uttaro. Three decades of illegal dumping and burning of trash led to severe groundwater contamination, resulting in multiple bans on the use of groundwater in the area and air pollution affecting residents’ health. Despite the site being closed in 2001 and the awareness of environmental hazards, authorities reopened the site in 2007. During this period, several environmental studies, including one by the World Health Organization (WHO), revealed significantly higher cancer mortality rates in the provinces of Naples and Caserta compared to the rest of the Campania region, as well as more frequent signs of congenital malformations. According to the court, Italy has still not fully implemented plans to secure and clean up the site, and there was no clear timeframe to do so.

The recent ruling by the ECHR was based on these studies, as well as various judicial and administrative decisions, including judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). While the court did not pinpoint responsibility for the crisis, it ruled—concerning the inadequate handling of waste collection, treatment, and disposal—that the Italian authorities had violated the applicant’s right to private life and home. Regarding the complaint about the clean-up of Lo Uttaro, the Court ruled that authorities failed to take the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ rights, therefore violating Article 8 of the Convention.

The judgment is a Chamber Judgment and is not final. If the ruling is upheld, Italy must submit a plan outlining the actions they intend to take in response to the ruling.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Court judgment finds violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights – 19 Oct. 2023

ECHR – Communicated Case – 19 Residents of Italy claiming a violation of Article 2 and Article 8 based on the Campania Garbage Crisis from 1994-2009 – 05 Mar. 2013

EU Law Live – ECtHR finds violation of human rights in Campania Waste Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

ABC News – European Court finds Italy violated human rights over Naples Garbage Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

Reuters – Mafia involvement in Naples Garbage Crisis – 9 Jan. 2008

 

 

By: Garrison Funk

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On November 6, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted the referral of Semenya v. Switzerland, a case challenging the decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s refusal to overturn regulations issued by World Athletics restricting eligibility for women’s athletic competitions.

The case, filed by two-time Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya, challenges the 2018 regulations instituted by World Athletics which limit hormone levels in female athletes for certain athletic events.

Born with differences of sexual development (DSD), Semenya has naturally elevated levels of testosterone. Under the World Athletics regulations, Semenya and all other female athletes with DSD would be required to submit to hormone-suppressing treatment for six months in order to compete in female track events between 400m and the mile.

This is not World Athletics’ first attempt to institute hormonal restrictions on women’s athletics. World Athletics (formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations) first introduced “hyperandrogenism” regulations in 2011, which instituted a ban on any female athlete who’s androgen levels fell within the male range.

These regulations were challenged by Dutee Chand in 2014 after World Athletics deemed her ineligible to compete. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) partially upheld Chand’s appeal and subsequently suspended the World Athletics regulations.

Following this decision, World Athletics withdrew the regulations. In 2018, it instituted the “Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development” regulations at issue which require any female athlete with DSD to reduce her blood testosterone to below five nmol/L for six months prior to competition and maintain these levels in order to compete.

In compliance with her arbitration clause, Semenya originally filed her case with CAS on June 18, 2018. The CAS found the World Athletics regulations to be discriminatory but held that such discrimination was a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate means of upholding the integrity of female athletics. Semenya’s subsequent appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) was dismissed.

Following dismissal by the SFT, Semenya filed the present case against Switzerland in the ECHR, alleging violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 for failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural protections against discrimination and Article 13 for breaching her right to an effective remedy.

The ECHR ruled in Semenya’s favor on July 11, 2023, and the Swiss government subsequently requested the matter be referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration. The grant of referral was approved on November 6, 2023.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Caster Semenya: Double Olympic Champion ‘not ashamed of being different’ – 7 Nov. 2023

CAS – Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics Federations – 30 Apr. 2019

CNN – Caster Semenya says she went through ‘hell’ due to testosterone limits imposed on female athletes – 6 Nov. 2023

ECHR – Referral to the Grand Chamber – 6 Nov. 2023

Strasbourg Observers – Caster Semenya v. Switzerland: Eligibility of Intersex Female Athlete in Female Athletic Events – 27 Sept. 2023

World Athletics – IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification – 26 Apr. 2018

World Athletics – IAAF to introduce eligibility rules for females with hyperandrogenism – 12 Apr. 2011

By: Patrick Farrell,

Senior Associate Member, Journal of Global Rights and Organizations

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights issued a release on September 12, 2023, announcing its Chamber judgement in the case of Romanov and Others v. Russia (application no. 58358/14). The case concerns Russia’s failure to protect the case applicants (complainants), all members of the LGBTQ+ community from homophobic attacks at a public demonstration.  In addition, the case evaluated Russia’s failure to conduct an appropriate investigation into the incidents. 

The Court held that Russian authorities failed to take effective measures to prevent and respond to the hate-motivated attacks, which caused physical injury to the complainants.  Also, the Court held that Russian authorities failed to take the proper course of action to address the applicants’ complaints in Russian courts and to Russian authorities.  Importantly, the Court noted that this appeared to be common, albeit unfortunate, practice for addressing hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ+ community in Russia. 

The applicants were a group of eleven Russian nationals, all members of the LGBTQ+ community.  Between May 2012 and June 2013, seven of the applicants were attacked by counterdemonstrators while taking part in a specifically authorized LGBTQ+ demonstration in St. Petersburg. The police did not intervene. As a result, many of the applicants suffered serious injuries, including chemical burns, damage to their eyes, and physical assaults with weapons, as well as harassment and verbal abuse.  Russian authorities largely dismissed complaints about the incidents without the attackers being identified. Further, Russian authorities, without conducting a determinative investigation, denied that homophobia motivated the violence.   

Ultimately, the Court determined unanimously that Russian authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights on numerous different accounts. Such violations include: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, read in the light of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); a violation of Article 3 (effective investigation) read in the light of Article 14; a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) taken alone and read in the light of Article 14; a violation of Article 5 §1 (right to liberty and security); and a violation of Article 11.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Judgement Concerning Russian Federation – 23 Sep. 2023

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

ECHR – Judgement Romanov and Others v. Russia – 23 Sep. 2023