 'One of the activists who brought the case was arrested after he had stood in front of a secondary school in Ryazan with placards stating “homosexuality is normal” and “I am proud of my homosexuality”. The second and third applicants had picketed a public library in Arkhangelsk with banners listing famous Russians believed to have been gay. One of the banners said: “Children have the right to know. Great people are also sometimes gay; gay people also become great. Homosexuality is natural and normal.” One of the men carried out another protest at an administrative building in St Petersburg. The three men had been fined for breaking the law and appealed to the ECHR in Strasbourg after Russia’s constitutional court dismissed their cases. In a long-awaited ruling the ECHR took apart the arguments put forward by Russian government lawyers, rejecting claims the law protected public morals, health and other people’s rights.' The applicants were represented in court by Mr Dmitry Bartenev, a human rights lawyer practising in St. Petersburg. In what The Guardian described as a 'comprehensive demolition of the arguments advanced by Russian [government] lawyers, the European Court of Human Rights in its ruling stated: “By adopting such laws the [Russian] authorities reinforce stigma and encourage homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society." The judgment was adopted on the basis of majority of six out of seven of the judges. The Russian judge Dmitry Dedov dissented. The Guardian quoted one of the applicants, Nikolai Alexeev, a gay rights activist, as saying the ruling was 'an enormous court victory for LGBT people in Russia. [...] We have managed to legally prove that by adopting those laws Russian authorities breached their international commitments under the European convention.' Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads: "ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads: "ARTICLE 14
Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status." Commenting on Article 14 of the Convention, UK Human Rights Blog writes: "This right is parasitic; it is of no use to someone wishing to complain of discrimination who cannot establish that another free-standing Convention right is engaged. [...] So, Article 14 must be pleaded in relation to some other substantive right in the Convention. It is not necessary to establish an actual violation of another Article; if the claim comes within the ambit of another protected right then it is possible for the applicant to succeed on discrimination alone, even if the primary violation has not been established, or the Member State’s action has been found to come within one of the permissible exceptions to that right (Belgian Linguistic Case (1967) 1 EHRR 252)." Sources: 'CASE OF BAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA,' European Court of Human Rights, 20 June 2017 Jennifer Rankin, 'Russian "gay propaganda" law ruled discriminatory by European court,' The Guardian, 20 June 2017 'ECHR rule exposes homophobic nature of Russian “gay propaganda law”,' Amnesty International, 20 June 2017 European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe website 'Article 14,' UK Human Rights Blog We are delighted you have been reading Rights in Russia. As a non-for-profit organization that does not carry advertising, we rely on our readers and well-wishers to support our work. If you share our belief in the importance of our mission, in the need to publicize the human rights situation in Russia, please consider making a donation to help keep Rights in Russia alive. To donate, see HERE |
|
|