European Rights Watch

Decision to Return Child to Father in USA Did Not Violate Mother’s Rights

By: Sallie Moppert 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) handed down a decision on February 21, 2023 that determined no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had occurred in the case of G.K. v Cyprus regarding the right to respect privacy and family life. The ECHR found that the district courts in Cyprus had properly considered the arguments of all the involved parties and ruled out any harm to the child before ordering his return to his father in the United States.

The District Court in Paphos, Cyprus
Photo Courtesy of In-Cyprus.

G.K., a native of Cyprus, married a US citizen (“Father”) in 2016 and the couple had a son born that same year. One year later in October 2017, G.K. filed a domestic violence complaint against the Father and subsequently sought an order of protection before moving to a safe house. She eventually took her son, now one-year-old, from the US back to Cyprus with the assistance of the Cypriot authorities. The son was granted Cypriot nationality and a passport during this time.

The Father hired private detectives to locate G.K. and their son, eventually tracking them down in Cyprus. In 2018, he requested the US authorities to apply to the Cyprus authorities under the Hague Convention for the son’s return to the US. The Cypriot authorities filed an application and affidavit in the Family Court in Paphos, Cyprus requesting the son’s return to the US. G.K. objected, claiming that the son would be in danger due to the Father’s prior record of violence. The Father refuted these allegations and provided an affidavit that he had a stable job and could successfully provide for his child.

After an adjournment and postponement due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court eventually ruled that the son should be returned to the US. The Father was determined to be a credible witness with consistent and persuasive testimony and evidence, while G.K.’s version of events was general, vague and contradictory. The Court found that she failed to provide evidence to demonstrate why the son should not be returned to the US. G.K. appealed, and the Family Court of Second instance affirmed.

G.K. argued that her right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the Court’s decision to return her son to the US without adequately assessing the situation and risks involved. The Court disagreed, stating that the return of the son to the US was not an immediate decision, instead only being made after G.K. had the opportunity to cross-examine the Father, and the domestic courts had considered all the arguments of the parties before making a decision that was in the best interest of the child. The Court also determined that G.K. had not suffered a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.

 

For further information, please see:

‘ICC’ Issues Warrants for Putin’s Arrest Regarding His Role in Russia’s War in Ukraine

By: Beatrice Nkansah

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAUGE, Netherlands – The tensions between Ukraine and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, have been brewing for the past 8-9 years. Almost two centuries ago, the Soviet Union gifted Crimea to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia violated General Principles of International Law by unlawfully annexing Crimea – forcing those living in Crimea to flee from Russian force and persecution. As a result of the unlawful annexation of ethnic and religious Crimea and Ukraine individuals are facing widespread discrimination and destruction. As tension between the two sovereign countries began to build, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 making significant advances until Ukrainian defending forces were able to launch counterattacks.

As a result of the growing tension and actions of Russia for the past decade, on March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a warrant for the arrest of Russia’s president – Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Russia.

Vladimir Putin and Presidential Commissioner of Children’s Rights in Russia, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova . Photo Courtesy of Sky News.

The basis for the arrest warrant is alleged violations of the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute gives the ICC the power to investigate and prosecute international crimes relating to the following: Genocide, Crimes of Aggresion, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. The ICC is using the basis of Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute to assert their jurisdiction in issuing an arrest warrant for Putin on the basis of his individual responsibility and by holding him accountable for being a commanding superior to carry out the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children as part of their war strategies. The ICC alleges that Putin violated two clauses of Article 8 of the Rome Statute pertaining to what constitutes a war crime including unlawful deportation, unlawful confinement, and taking of hostages.

There was great debate within the ICC as to keeping the warrants a secret or not, but they decided to ultimately go public, hoping that doing so would reduce and prevent further crimes. The ICC also chose to go public with the warrants as a signal that all who violate international law in Ukraine will be held responsible regardless of their political power or status. The expectation following this warrant is that if Putin or the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s rights in Russia leave Russia, they shall be arrested and brought forth to the ICC. It is currently uncertain if the ICC will pursue additional allegations as a multitude of crimes against humanity has been made since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, justice will soon be brought to Ukraine.

 

For further information, please see:

Amnesty – Russia: ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin a step towards justice for victims of war crimes in Ukraine – 17 Mar. 2023

Council on Foreign Relations – Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia – 14 Feb. 2023

ICC – Rome Statute – 17 July 1998

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova – 17 Mar. 2023

The Guardian – ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes – 17 Mar. 2023

UK Government – Speech on Seventh anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea: UK statement – 4 Mar. 2021

Sentence and Conviction of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Signals Bealrus’ Efforts to Deter Human Rights Activists

By: Nathanael Linton

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

            On March 3, 2023, Ales Bialiatski, among other human rights activists, was sentenced by the Lieninski District Court of Minsk, under presiding Judge Maryna Zapasnik, to serve long-term prison terms. Mr. Bialiatski won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022 for his “courageous work and dedication to promoting human rights and democracy in Belarus.” He founded the organization Viasna to “provide support to incarcerated demonstrators and their families” who opposed Belarus’ constitutional amendments made in 2016 to keep then-and-current President Alexander Lukashenko in power.

Ales Bialiatski in cage enclosure during trial. Photo courtesy of Viasna

Mr. Bialiatski is currently serving ten years for being found guilty of “smuggling by an organized group” under Part 4 Article 228 of the Criminal Code, and for “financing of group actions grossly violating the public order” under Part 2 of Article 342 of the Criminal Code. However, this is not his first time being sentenced by the Belarusian government. In 2011, he was sentenced to three years for alleged tax invasion, and again in 2021 for protesting current President Lukashenko’s administration for human rights violations committed by the Belarus government. To date, Mr. Bialiatski has been in Belarusian custody since July 14, 2021.

Human rights activists and opponents of the current Belarusian government have stated that the imprisonment of human rights activists is “politically motivated.” In his defense, Mr. Bialiatski argues that “the activities of Viasna has been completely legal and comply with all international obligations of the Republic of Belarus.” However, Judge Zapasnik has found the allegations against Bailiatski, as well as the other high-level leaders of Viasna organization, to be “fully proven.” During their detainment, Mr. Staradubets, a spokesperson for Viasna, states that the conditions in which Mr. Bialiatski and others are being kept should be considered “torture.” According to Staradubets, ‘We call [it] torture because

they’re being held for several months in a 19th-century building, poorly lit cells with no fresh air, no sunlight, poor food, [and] little to no healthcare.” However, when confronted with allegedly imprisoning activists as a form of oppression, Mr. Lukashenko simply argues that all government opponents, including Mr. Bialiatski, were incarcerated for breaking the law. The recent decision now sends him to a medium-security penal colony.

            The incarceration of Mr. Bialiatski though is not the first time Belarus makes headlines for its troubling human rights issues. According to the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of Europe, Belarus made headlines after their 2020 presidential elections in which “various peaceful protestors were arrested, and other individuals reported missing.” The right to life is being troubled by Belarus’ numerous deprivations of liberty. These individuals’ sacrifices should not be in vain, especially those of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. In a country such as Belarus, whose actions have been condemned by various international bodies, work should be done to prosecute Belarus for its egregious and hostile actions toward workers of human rights. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Bialiatski, his family, and all other human rights activists who still fight for justice despite their current conditions.

 

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Ales Bialiatski: Nobel Prize-winning activist sentenced to 10 years in jail – 3 Mar. 2023

Council of Europe, Commissioner of Human Rights – Press Statement: Belarus: today’s conviction of Nobel Laureate Bialiatski and other human rights defenders is a blatant attack against justice – 3 Mar. 2023

Council of Europe, Commissioner of Human Rights – Press Statement: Human rights violations in Belarus must stop immediately – 21 Sept. 2020

PBS News – Belarusian court sentences Nobel laureate Bialiatski to 10 years in prison – 3 Mar. 2023.

U.N. Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights – Press Statement: Sentencing of Human Rights defenders in Belarus – 3 Mar. 2023

Viasna – Viasna leadership receives from 7 to 10 years in jail – 3 Mar. 2023

Wall Street Journal – Nobel Laureate and Activist Ales Bialiatski Sentenced to 10 Years in Belarusian Prison – 3 Mar. 2023

ECHR Finds Plaintiff’s Husband’s Right to Life Violated While he was Held in an Armenian Detention Facility

By: Marie LeRoy 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) reverses a District Court judgment and finds that Armenia failed to protect Slavik Voskanyan’s right to life through its negligent provision of medical services.

 
Picture of hallway of an Armenian prison. Photo curtesy of: AZERNEWS

On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff’s husband, Slavik Voskanyan, was arrested under suspicion of murder and armed assault. Voskanyan was placed in an Armenian detention facility while he awaited trial. Eleven days later, Voskanyan began complaining of pain in his left shin. One of the detention facilities’ doctors immediately began treating Voskanyan for his injury. On October 19, the doctor noted that “crepitation was observed upon palpation” of Voskanyan’s shin and that “brown pus with an unpleasant smell” was found within the injury.

On October 21, a different detention doctor went to check Voskanyan’s injury and reported to the chief detention facility doctor that Voskanyan’s injury was getting worse. The doctor noted that they believed that the “infected area may possibly spread” and that Voskanyan was experiencing severe pain. Three days later, Voskanyan was finally transferred to the local hospital with the intention that he undergo surgery on his shin. Voskanyan, however, succumbed to the infection and died the same day in the hospital.

A forensic investigation was immediately commenced, and a panel of experts were consulted. The experts concluded that the detention facility doctor did not diagnosis Voskanyan correctly. The experts indicated that the October 19 examination should have alerted the doctor to the seriousness of the injury and the presence of an infection diagnosis like “gangrene.” They noted that the doctor should have recognized Voskanyan’s injury deterioration and reacted accordingly by changing the treatment method. The panel further concluded that the doctor, when noting the “crepitation” and “unpleasant smell,” was “obliged” to send Voskanyan to the hospital for treatment. The panel of experts finally concluded that it might have been possible, if the doctor employed the correct treatment and response, to prevent Voskanyan’s death.

Despite these findings, multiple Courts have dismissed Voskanyan’s wife’s claims for medical negligence because it is unclear whether Voskanyan’s shin injury originated and was made worse through methods of self-harm.

However, the ECHR found for Voskanyan’s wife, deciding that the domestic authorities did not do everything that was “reasonably possible, in good faith and in a timely manner” to save Voskanyan’s life. The ECHR stated that the dentition facility had a duty, because Voskanyan was “under their control”, to protect his life and that Voskanyan’s own actions were irrelevant to that duty. Therefore, the ECHR reversed the prior decisions finding for the Armenian government and held that the Armenian government must pay Voskanyan’s wife twenty thousand euros worth of damages.

 

For further information, please see:

Voskanyan v. Armenia – ECHR—24 Jan. 2023

Voskanyan v. Armenia –ECHR Communicated Case — 1 Sept. 2015

ECHR to Hear Case Regarding Allegations Against Russia of Human Rights Violations Pertaining to MH-17 Aircraft Crash

By: Kaylee Searcy

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

 AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – On January 25, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced that a complaint filed by the Netherlands and Ukraine regarding the downing of a Malaysian Airlines flight in 2014 would be “partially admissible.” The complaint met sufficient criteria and presented enough evidence to support many of the allegations and claims against Russia. Proceedings over the next two years will determine the case merits. Only then will the court issue a final ruling.

The verdict session for the case against Russia regarding the downing of flight MH-17. Photo courtesy of The New York Times.

On July 17, 2014, a Malaysian Airlines flight (MH17) was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. With 283 passengers and 15 crew members, the passenger jet was transiting from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. All 298 individuals perished in eastern Ukraine when the plane was hit. At the time, it was the largest loss of civilian life in the intensifying Russia/Ukraine conflict. 196 people on the plane were Dutch, the remaining 102 were from various countries including Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

Over eight years after the incident, in November 2022, a Netherlands court convicted three men for the crime and sentenced them to life in prison. All three individuals were found to have significant connections to Russian security forces and had obtained the Russian-made missile from the military. With a desire to hold the orchestrators of the attack accountable, the Netherlands filed a complaint in 2020 with the ECHR arguing Russia’s responsibility for the catastrophic loss of life on MH17. The complaint alleged Russia was involved in the downing of MH17 and failed to investigate or even cooperate with an ongoing investigation resulting in breaching numerous articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The specific articles include violating Article 2, providing a right to life; violating Article 3, prohibiting torture and inhumane treatment; and violating Article 13, providing the right to an effective remedy. The court acknowledged the amount of time that had passed since the plane crashed and noted that it was in the interest of justice to allow time for “clarity” and “sufficiently credible and specific evidence” to be obtained by the Netherlands before filing.

The ECHR’s willingness to hear the case and imply that Russia may be held accountable has been well received. Anticipated ramifications of the case are largely figurative and political. As of September 2022, Russia is no longer a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, since the incident in question occurred prior to the date Russia removed itself as a signatory, the court retains the right to investigate claims against the state. Russia continues to deny any involvement in the incident.

Further confirming the significance of this case are the 7,000 individual cases of Russian aggression in Ukraine pending before the court, hoping to be heard. In an effort to demonstrate that Russia cannot “escape the long arm of international law,” this is one monumental step in the direction of justice and culpability for the MH17.

 

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms  

ECHR- Press Release: Eastern Ukraine and flight MH17 case declared partly admissible – 25 Jan. 2023

ECHR – Press Release: New inter-State application brought by Netherlands against Russia concerning downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 – 15 July 2020  

Government of the Netherlands – Flight MH17: European Court to hand down decision on admissibility of the Netherlands’ inter-state application against Russia – 23 Jan. 2023

NYT – Dutch Court Convicts 3 of Murder for 2014 Downing of Airliner in Ukraine – November 17, 2022

NYT – The Netherlands Brings Russia to Court Over the Downing of MH17 – 23 Sept. 2020

NZ Herald – Russia-Ukraine war, Flight MH17: European court rules cases admissible, downed Malaysia Airlines plane included – 25 Jan. 2023

Reuters – European rights court rules Ukraine, MH-17 cases against Russia are admissible – 25 Jan. 2023

Simple Flying – Simple Flying, European Court of Human Rights Says Yes to Dutch Case Against Russia over MH17 – 25 Jan. 2023