By: Alessa Rodriguez

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

RUSSIA – The European Court for Human Rights recently found that those who wanted to sue in their court for a discriminatory ban on holding LGBT public assemblies against Russia would have no redress for the alleged violation and ultimately their applications are denied. Article 11 of the Convention finds that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and that no restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights. The only restrictions would be under the realm of national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms for others.

Even more recently, Russian lawmakers have approved a bill that expands restrictions on activities seen as promoting gay rights. There was previously a ban of “gay propaganda” against minors, this now expands it to those that reach the age of majority. The bill outlaws ads, media and online resources, films, and theater productions that contain the “propaganda”. Violations are punishable by fines and can lead to expulsion from Russia. This bill will move into the upper chamber, expected to approve it, and then to Putin who is also expected to approve this.

The previous restrictions from 2013 were seen as a way to redeem Putin’s image as a conservative and to distract from his persona. This time Putin is using the debate towards on LGBT issues to distract from his attacks on Ukraine. Deflecting the world issues at hand with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he is fearmongering and weaponizing religion as why the “gay propaganda” should be restricted. This political strategy is effectively ruining his public image globally as he is pushing to invade another country and take away queer people’s rights and freedoms. However, Putin’s accomplishments are being celebrated by citizens as 50% of the nation expresses support for “mobilization”, another term for his invasion of Ukraine.

The European Court of Human Rights should evaluate the expansion of Russia’s previous “anti-gay” laws as it effectively leaves queer Russians or queer people entering Russia with troubling consequences, as there may be proper redress for this issue.

For further information please see: 

AP News – Russian Duma gives LGBTQ “propaganda” bill final approval – 24 Nov. 2022

ECHR – Recent Decisions – Aleksandrov and others v. Russia – 20 Oct. 2022

The Washington Post – Europe – Russia advances bill to criminalize “promoting” LGBTQ relationships – 24 Nov. 2022

Wilson Center – The Russia File – To Avoid Answering Hard Questions at Home, Putin Will Keep Fighting in Ukraine – 14 Nov. 2022

By: D’Andre Gordon

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

Venice, Italy — On January 18, 2017, Mr. Ousainou Darboe filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). His complaint alleged Italy violated his procedural and substantive rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect privacy and family life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Darboe recounted overcrowded conditions at an adult migrant facility he was placed in, Italian authorities’ failure to presume he was minor under domestic and international law, and having no effective remedies for his complaints.

Darboe arrived at Italian shores in a makeshift vessel where he declared he was a minor seeking international protection. Since Darboe declared he was a minor, Italian authorities were bound to follow specific procedural safeguards under domestic and international law. Italian authorities did not follow established protocols and placed Darboe in a facility for unaccompanied minors. Three months into his stay, the authorities transferred Darboe to an adult migrant facility, where he remained for over four months. At the adult migrant center, a local doctor performed a medical exam that involved taking X-Rays of Darboe’s left wrist and hand to determine his age. Based on the results, the doctor determined Darboe’s bone structure was consistent with that of an 18-year-old male.

Because Darboe initially declared he was minor, Italian authorities were compelled to treat him as such within the confines of established procedural safeguards. Darboe was entitled to receive information about his rights as an asylum seeker in a language and form he could understand. Italian authorities were also supposed to give Darboe the benefit of the doubt and refrain from conducting an age assessment using bone analysis due to its inaccuracies.

In the adult facility, attorneys met with Darboe and helped him file a Rule 39 request with the local court. His request was based on him being subjected to a medical exam without his consent and not receiving a copy of the findings from his medical exam. Further, no one let him know of any administrative or judicial findings on his age. As an interim measure, his attorneys asked the court to transfer Darboe to a facility for unaccompanied minors. The court granted Darboe’s request, and he was transferred to a facility for unaccompanied minors on February 18, 2017. On November 7, 2018, the court lifted the interim measure, and Darboe’s complaint to the European Court of Human Rights followed.

On July 21, 2022, the ECHR unanimously ruled Italian authorities violated Darboe’s rights under all three articles of the Convention. As such, the ECHR ordered Italy to pay monetary compensation to Darboe under Article 41. In the Court’s decision, the Court emphasized the importance of signatories to the Convention upholding their legal obligations under Article 3. Despite the unprecedented flow of asylum seekers and migrants into European States forming the external borders of the European Union, signatories to the Convention are not relieved of their responsibilities under Article 3. Moreover, states must do what is in the best interests of a child regardless of their immigration status. In Darboe’s case, he was denied the protections he was entitled to because of the amount of time he spent in an adult facility. Moreover, Darboe was not given a trained guardian who could support him through the asylum process. 

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Case of Darboe and Camara v. Italy – Application no. 5797/17 – 21 July 2022

ECHR – Judgment Darboe and Camara v. Italy – Italian authorities breached rights of asylum-seeker to be presumed and treated as a minor – 21 July 2022

ECHR – Rules of Court – 03 Oct. 2022

InfoMigrant – Human rights court: Italy guilty of violating rights of minor – 25 July 2022

Open Migration – The long wait of young unaccompanied migrants in Italy – 08 Feb. 2017

By: Penelope Morrison Boettiger

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

FRANCE – On December 1, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declined to support a stay of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court directed at the French Government to withdraw life-support treatment being provided to Mr. A. Medmoune. In the case of Medmoune v. France, the family of Mr. Medmoune sought the stay of execution of physicians looking to withdraw life-support treatment against the wishes he had expressed in writing in his Advanced Directive which clearly stated he would like to be kept alive should he be in an irreversible coma. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court may determine interim measures for urgent issues to any State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

In France, Advanced Directives came quite late, established by law for the first time in 2005 through law n° 2005-370. To this day they are little known and not widely used, and as such this court request by applicants is one which has not been extensively litigated in France. Advanced Directives in France allow patients to request specific end of life care, including the wishes of patients concerning withdrawing life support. However, unlike in the United States, physicians in France are not required to follow a patient’s Advanced Directives. It is up to the physician to determine whether to respect an advanced directive and whether to discontinue care which results in a very weak position of self-determination.

In the present case, Mr. Medmoune is a 44-year-old man who had a serious accident and has been on life support in an irreversible coma since May 2022. In July 2022 the medical decision to remove Mr. Medmoune was made by a team of his physicians reviewing his case and prognosis. Applicants are his wife and sister, who argue his Advanced Directive to continue receiving life support treatment is clear and should be followed. Specifically, they argued life support removal would breach his right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) as well as his right to respect for private life in determining how his life should end (Article 8 of the Convention), and to his right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 9 of the Convention).

The French court first put forth a question to the Constitutional Council regarding the constitutionality of Article L. 1111-11 of the Public Health Code, which states where “’the advance directives are manifestly inappropriate or incompatible with the medical situation’ the medical team may, subject to certain conditions, override those directives in the patient’s interest.” On November 10, 2022, the Constitutional Council rule the law in place was not antithetical to human dignity or personal freedom. Shortly thereafter, on November 30, 2022, applicants applied to the ECHR under Rule 39 to stay the withdrawal of life support while the merits of the case were in review. On December 1, 2022, the ECHR decided not to stay the French Court’s decision authorizing the withdrawal of life support treatment clearing the way for Mr. Medmoune’s life support to be imminently removed.

The forthcoming decisions on the merits have serious implications for the future of self-determination in Advanced Directives not only in France, but also in other countries around the world with similar laws. At the same time, the Court’s decision not to stay the withdrawal of life support under Rule 39 appears to close the door on those in France who would rely on this stay in order to stay alive while the merits of Advanced Directive cases continue.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Medmoune v. France – Feb. 12, 2022

Journal of Palliative Care & Medicine – Advance Directives in Palliative Care: The French Case – Nov. 12, 2014

National Library of Medicine – Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives – 2007

Health Care Analysis – Advance Directives in English and French Law: Different Concepts, Different Values, Different Societies – March 2014

By: Holly Popple

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Associate Editor

GENEVA, Switzerland — France violated French children’s rights by failing to repatriate them from Syrian detention camps in which they were detained for years in dangerous conditions, according to new findings issued by the UN Child Rights Committee.

The Child Rights Committee, which monitors States parties’ adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, issued its findings after considering three separate cases filed by a group of French nationals whose relatives were currently detained in Rawj, Ayn Isa, and Hawl camps in northeastern Syria, which is under the control of Kurdish forces.

The three cases involved 49 children who were detained in these camps due to their parent’s alleged ties with Da’esh, an ISIL terrorist group. Of those 49 children for whom the cases were brought, 38 remain detained in these camps without a timeline for release. Most of these children are under twelve and many are as young as five years old.

In these findings, the Committee condemned France’s failure to repatriate these children based on the lack of due consideration given to the best interests of the child victims when reviewing requests for repatriation, in part due to the inhumane and life-threatening conditions endured by detainees. Committee member Ann Skelton commented on the state of the camps, saying, “The children are living in inhuman sanitary conditions, lacking basic necessities including water, food and healthcare, and facing an imminent risk of death.” She recounted the fact that since 2021, 62 children have reportedly died in the camps and called on France to take immediate action to protect the children. This immediate action refers to repatriation when viable but includes additional measures in the meantime meant to mitigate the health and safety risks of detainees while they still reside in Syria.

Health concerns from unsanitary conditions are far from the only issue that implicates human rights violations occurring in these camps. Children are deprived of their right to education, liberty, security, life, and freedom from violence. Physical violence, psychological trauma, harassment, violent extremism, and trafficking are rampant in these camps and pose a daily threat to those who live there.

Many countries have been hesitant to repatriate these children due to both legal and practical concerns, citing national security concerns and logistical difficulty in ascertaining the identity and nationality of the children as top reasons for the failure of repatriation of the children thus far. However, the interests in protecting these children from the harm they endure from continuing to be detained in these camps cannot be justified by the fact of their parent’s alleged ties to ISIL. France and other countries that have the power to repatriate these children must take action to prevent more human rights violations and return them to their country of origin.

For further information, please see:

HIR – French Children in Syria: The Repatriation Question – 13 May 2021

OHCHR – Convention on the Rights of the Child – 2 Sept. 1990

OHCHR – France Violated Rights of French Children Detained in Syria by Failing to Repatriate Them, UN Committee Finds – 24 Feb. 2022

OHCHR – The World Must Bring Children Home from Syrian Detention Camps – 22 Sept. 2021

OSJI – European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria – Jul. 2021

UN News – France Violated Rights of French Children Detained in Syrian Camps – 24 Feb. 2022