Uncategorized

ECHR Rules Spain Violated Right to Privacy and Freedom of Religion

October 7, 2024

By: Neha Chhablani

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On September 17, 2024, in the case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Spain had violated the right to privacy and religious freedom of Ms. Rosa Edelmira Pindo Mulla, a Jehovah’s witness, by administering blood transfusions against her will. The ruling marks another victory for individual autonomy and religious freedom in healthcare, reaffirming the ECHR’s commitment to self-determination.

*Photograph of the Pindo Mulla v. Spain judgement delivery. Photo Courtesy of the European Court of Human Rights.*

Ms. Rosa Edelmira Pindo Mulla, an Ecuadorian national living in Spain, firmly opposes blood transfusions due to her religious beliefs. Following a series of medical evaluations between May and July 2017, she was advised to undergo surgery to remove a myoma. In preparation for the procedure, she issued two legal documents—an advance directive and a lasting power of attorney—refusing blood transfusions under any circumstance.

On June 6, 2018, Ms. Pindo Mulla was admitted to the hospital due to severe internal bleeding. She reiterated her refusal of a blood transfusion and was transferred to a specialized hospital in Madrid that could provide alternative treatments. However, multiple miscommunications during this transfer—including incomplete sharing of her advance directive, unclear information about treatment preferences, and a failure to consult with her or her family—resulted in a duty judge authorizing blood transfusions without knowledge of her legal documents or religious beliefs. The doctors administered three life-saving blood transfusions while Ms. Pindo Mulla was unaware and unable to give informed consent.

Ms. Pindo Mulla pursued her case through each level of the Spanish judiciary before appealing to the ECHR. Both the local judge and the provincial court concluded that the absence of her advance directive and insufficient evidence of her refusal justified the transfusion. When the case reached Spain’s Constitutional Court, she argued that medical professionals violated her rights to legal protection, physical integrity, and freedom of religion, under Articles 24, 15, and 16 respectively of the Spanish Constitution. Ultimately, her appeal was deemed inadmissible as it did not meet the “special constitutional significance” threshold under Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

On March 13, 2020, Ms. Pindo Mulla brought her case to the ECHR, claiming that Spain violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Spain relinquished jurisdiction to the ECHR on July 4, 2023, and the Grand Chamber hearing took place on January 10, 2024.

The court scrutinized the medical professionals’ decision-making process and evaluated whether they had shown sufficient respect for Ms. Pindo Mulla’s autonomy. Based on its investigation, the court determined that the doctors’ shortcomings in providing incomplete information and failing to confirm consent prevented her from exercising self-determination and autonomy. The court ruled that Spain had violated Article 8 in light of Article 9 and ordered the government to pay Ms. Pindo Mulla 12,000 Euros in non-pecuniary damage and 14,000 Euros for her legal costs and treatment expenses.

In this case, the ECHR had to carefully weigh the right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR and the right to religious freedom. While medical professionals justified their actions as necessary to preserve life, the court held that when a patient refuses treatment freely, autonomously, explicitly, and without ambiguity—as Ms. Pindo Mulla had done—the right to autonomy supersedes the right to life. By ruling in her favor, the ECHR reaffirmed the primacy of self-determination in healthcare and strengthened the legal protections of religious minorities in medical jurisprudence.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain – 17 Sept. 2024

ECHR – Grand Chamber Judgment Pindo Mulla v. Spain – 17 Sept. 2024

ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights – 29 Sept. 2024

Human Rights Without Frontiers – EUROPEAN COURT: Ruling about forced blood transfusion of a Jehovah’s Witness – 17 Sept. 2024

Tribunal Constitucional de España – The Spanish Constitution – 29 Sept. 2024

ICJ Ruling Only Finds in Favour of One Ukrainian Claim Against Russia’s Alleged ICSFT Violation

August 16, 2024

Zoé Tkaczyk

Impunity Watch News Guest Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On January 31, 2024, the ICJ delivered a landmark judgment in the Ukraine v. Russia case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT). The Court investigated Russia’s alleged violation of five articles and found the nation only violated one. While the Court dismissed most of Ukraine’s allegations, it did investigate and find that Russia failed to fulfill its obligations under the ICSFT by not adequately investigating terrorism financing.

*Ukrainian servicemen who were wounded in battle waiting to leave a field hospital near Bakhmut in Eastern Ukraine. Courtesy of Evgeniy Maloletka and the Associated Press.*

The first case was filed in 2017 by Ukraine under the ICSFT. It claimed Russia’s support for Russian separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, including in-kind contributions of weapons and training, violated the ICSFT. As part of that claim, Ukraine also argued that Russia violated the ICSFT by failing to investigate, prosecute, and extradite perpetrators guilty of financing terrorism found in Russian territory. The Court rejected all of Ukraine’s other claims under the convention largely because of insufficient evidence. This sliver of a win seemed to do little as Ukraine lost on nearly every other claim of significance.

The situation today is much different than when Ukraine first raised these complaints. This time around, Russia based its objection on the “clean hands” doctrine, which it raised in its Rejoinder on March 10th, 2023. Raising this objection at this late stage meant the Court viewed it as a defense on the merits. Several of the pieces of evidence submitted by Ukraine were already considered in the 2019 Judgement concerning the annexation of Ukraine

Aside from the acts Ukraine referred to by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) after 2019, Ukraine also referred to the acts of armed groups and individuals before 2019. Because the Court previously issued a judgment, the Court had tricky subject-matter jurisdiction questions to untangle, especially as the timeline of events became increasingly muddled. Ultimately, the Court determined there was jurisdiction under Article 24, paragraph 1, and entertained claims. This did limit the evidence and acts the Court could consider and narrowed the scope of the investigation significantly.

The Court did find that Russia violated its obligations under Article 9 of the treaty, related to the mandatory investigations of financing terrorism. An allegation alone is enough to invoke the investigation obligations since the treaty requires a low evidentiary threshold to investigate alleged terrorism financing. Because the Article had a low threshold, it was the only apparent “win” for Ukraine. Many regarded the proceedings as inadequately protecting the human rights regime. Many speculated that these lackluster decisions indicate that the Court is unwilling to intervene in politically charged situations, especially one rife with military confrontation. Some might wonder whether these lackluster decisions signal that the ICJ is having second thoughts about wading into highly politically charged situations. But the Court must work to preserve its legitimacy, especially concerning cases involving one of the Permanent Security Council members since referral to the Security Council is the only way to enforce an ICJ decision.

No one is contesting that Russia is in violation of international law in waging its war, but the variety of cases brought against Russia by Ukraine demonstrates the limits of international law. While nations can condemn Russia for the acts that they were found guilty of under the ICSFT, if the holding remains unenforceable, it is unlikely that anything will change on the ground. Because of this, it is unsurprising that the Court ruled how it did.

Note: this case was decided in tandem with a ruling on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

This article is one of a seven-part series exploring the Russo-Ukrainian War. Zoé Tkaczyk is a J.D./MAIR candidate (May 2025) at the Syracuse University College of Law and Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. This article series was inspired by sessions from the Carnegie-Maxwell Policy Planning Lab Fellowship: Postwar: Europe, Ukraine and the Future of European Order. Special thanks to Cora True-Frost and Alexa Connaughton for their guidance, feedback, and edits.

Just Security – Taking Stock of ICJ Decisions in the ‘Ukraine v. Russia’ Cases—And implications for South Africa’s case against Israel – 5 Feb. 2024

ICJ – Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) Summary of the Judgement – 31 Jan. 2024

Relief Web – Mixed decisions by the International Court of Justice on Russia’s responsibility in crimes committed in Ukraine – 6 Feb. 2024

ICJ – 182 – Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) – 18 Oct. 2022

Library of Congress – International: International Court of Justice Issues Decision in Terrorism Financing and Racial Discrimination Case Involving Russia and Ukraine – 31 Jan. 2024

Russian Departure from the European Council and EUCHR Leaves Behind Questions About How to Handle Cases

August 14, 2024

Zoé Tkaczyk

Impunity Watch News Guest Writer

STRASBOURG, France – After Russia’s departure from the European Court of Human Rights (EUCHR), questions about how to handle cases pending before the Court and the alleged dilution of standards that initially allowed Russia to join the Court remain.

Kremlin forces in Russian-occupied Donetsk drive tanks during a rehearsal for the Victory Day parade, marking the anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in WWII. Courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko and Reuters.

In 2002, the Court issued its first judgment against Russia to assist a Russian national conscripted to work on the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster after brutal radiation exposure. But by 2012, 22,358 complaints had been filed against Russia. With a backlog of more than 120,000 cases, the Court was already facing a docket crisis, only exacerbated by Russia’s expulsion. In 2022, 2,129 judgments and decisions and 17,450 applications were pending against Russia.

The war in Ukraine only raised the count, and ECHR began publishing interim verdicts. Many view these procedural changes as undermining the Court’s ability to handle cases in its jurisdiction. That said, the interim ruling was the first international court to prove Russia’s occupation in Donbas since 2014 and considered the evidence from the occupied territories, including the downing of flight MH17 and actions by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and members of the Russian military.

But now, after the Russian exit, many question how the Court can handle the previously pending cases without jurisdiction, and these uncertainties are only exacerbated by Russia’s departure from the Council of Europe as well. Critics claim Russia was a thorn in both by weakening democratic standards in exchange for only mild internal reform in Russia.

These tensions have pervaded since Russia considered membership in 1994. And since 2014 and the annexation of Crimea, the relationship has been a sour one, with Russia refusing to pay dues. When Ukraine filed complaints against Russia’s acts, Russia did not listen to the ensuing Court orders. In 2022, after the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin did not listen to the Court order to stop hostilities. This situation deeply challenges the assumption that it is better to include rogue actors in international legal associations. Since Russia backed out, it is unclear if inclusion led to more harm or good, but it is clear that the Council and associated court were not successful in spreading liberal democracy to Russia as it had hoped.

Russia’s departure has not stopped the Council of Europe from acting on behalf of its victims in Ukraine and previously in Georgia. A key issue in these deliberations is identifying and defining conflict borders, which looks largely at where each state has control of its territory. Relying on past Georgian precedent, the ECHR did not have the jurisdiction to define borders because the “fog of war” prevented recognition of control during active hostilities. But earlier this year, the ECHR was able to rule that Russia controlled the DPR and LPR territories as of 2014 and assigned responsibility for the MH17 flight among other acts. Despite this ruling and revelation of the DPR and LPR alignment with Russia, the Kremlin continues to deny involvement. The ECHR ruling was certainly a political win for Ukraine, confirming the invasion began in 2014, not February 2022. It debunked Russian claims about independent separatist movements justifying the invasion. Russia’s objection to the ECHR’s subject matter jurisdiction over complaints concerning armed conflict was also rejected.

For now, the ECHR is considering issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The ECHR is considering any exceptional circumstances including jurisdiction ratione loci and jurisdiction ratione personae. The ECHR will consider occupation and annexation of another’s territory, whether unlawful or lawful and state agent’s authority over individuals in the territory. This is a win for Ukraine in that it legally declares when the war began, extending it to eight years earlier. The question that now remains is how to address violations that occurred after September 16, 2022, when Russia left the ECHR. It will remain responsible for acts carried out before that date, but no one is expecting compliance in the near future. If it seeks to return one day, a different question will emerge, but until then, the ECHR seems to be limited temporally by which violations it can examine.

Court House News – One year after Russian expulsion from top European human rights body, Ukraine war rages on – 15 Sep. 2023

European Committee on Legal Co-operation – Supporting Ukraine in the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Atlantic Council – ECHR ruling confirms Russian invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 – 14 Feb. 2023

Gibson Dunn – Russia in the European Court of Human Rights – Recent Decisions May Impact Rights of Investors – 30 May 2023

Just Security – Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine and Beyond: Seizing Opportunities, Confronting Challenges and Avoiding False Dilemmas – 2 April 2024

ICC Seeks to Prosecute a Military Mastermind

August 7, 2024

Zoé Tkaczyk

Impunity Watch News Guest Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Since March of 2023, the ICC has sought to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Ms. Maria Lvova-Belova. However, as Russia is not an ICC signatory, it is unlikely that Putin or Lvova-Belova will be extradited for trial soon.

*President Vladimir Putin delivers a statement at the Kremlin in Moscow on July 5, 2024. Courtesy of Alexander Nemenov and Agence France-Presse.*

Both are allegedly responsible for war crimes related to unlawful deportation and transportation of population, specifically children, from Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine as far back as 2022 in violation of Rome Statute Articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii). Incidents identified by the prosecutor’s office include deporting children removed from orphanages and child care homes. Many of these children were allegedly given up for adoption in the Russian Federation, and Russian law was changed via presidential decree to expedite citizenship. These acts demonstrate an intention to remove these children from their home country permanently, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Moscow has denied the allegations and called the warrants outrageous.

Pre-Trial Chamber II considered, based on the Prosecution’s applications in February 2023, that there were reasonable grounds to that each suspect may bear responsibility for the unlawful deportation of population and the unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, particularly in prejudice of Ukrainian children. The Court had evidence of individual criminal responsibility for both under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute and against Putin for failure to properly control civilian and military subordinates under Article 28(b). The warrants were considered in secret to protect the witnesses and investigation.

Prosecuting a military mastermind is no easy task and could undermine the Court; however, as the crimes addressed are allegedly ongoing, there is some hope that despite the unlikelihood of extradition, public awareness of the warrants may prevent further crimes. The Chamber considered this to be in the interest of justice and allowed the Registry to publicize the warrants’ existence, the suspect’s names, the warrants’ crimes, and the modes of liability the Chamber established.

The UN Commission of Inquiry of Ukraine found that Russian authorities took over 16,200 children out of Ukraine into Russia. The same Commission found evidence of rapes, torture, and killings, and has been investigating as far back as 2013 before the illegal annexation of Crimea. While the ICC can bring a prosecution against political leaders for waging an aggressive war, the Court seems to be focusing on civilian and children’s rights for now. Additionally, while the warrants recognize these acts as war crimes, commentators are making the case that the conduct also constitutes genocide and crimes against humanity. The decision to pursue these as war crimes may be an indication of evidence related to intent. With both the alleged crimes and evidence collection ongoing, the charges may be amended.

The Court has no power of enforcement instead relying on the 124 nations that are signatories to the Rome Statute to arrest those indicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity if they visit their territories. And yet, the Court issued the warrants. The decision to pursue charges against Putin sends a strong signal to low-level perpetrators that none are immune from prosecution and may serve as a deterrent. Plus, while Putin is not the first sitting head of state to be indicted, he is the first leader of a P5 country to be indicted. The ICC arrest warrants have impacted Putin internationally. He did not attend the BRICS summit in August 2023 in South Africa. Besides hindering potential international travel for Putin, the warrants make meeting with Putin less appealing. The stakes for engaging with Putin are becoming increasingly high for foreign governments. Combined with sanctions, the ICC warrants make it harder to ignore Russian actions in Ukraine and the brutality of its war. Even as many celebrate the ICC’s announcement, the Ukrainian government and like-minded partners continue to press for international support for the establishment of the tribunal to hold Russia accountable for the full breadth of crimes committed, specifically the crime of aggression.

United States Institute of Peace – How the ICC’s Warrant for Putin Could Impact the Ukraine War – 23 March 2023

ICC – Statement by Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Lvova-Belova – 17 March 2023

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

International Crisis Group – A New Court to Prosecute Russia’s Illegal War? – 29 March 2023

BBC News – What is a war crime and could Putin be prosecuted over Ukraine? – 20 July 2023

Foreign Affairs – Would Prosecuting Russia Prolong the War in Ukraine? – 12 July 2023