Podcasts about ecthr

Im April 2024 sorgte die erfolgreiche Klimaklage des Vereins KlimaSeniorinnen gegen die Schweiz vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) für ein großes Medienecho. Doch bei all der Freude über diese Entscheidung und andere Errungenschaften aus der Rechtsprechung des EGMR wollen wir auch einen kritischen Blick auf den europäischen Menschenrechtsschutz werfen. Im Interview beleuchtet Jens Theilen koloniale Kontinuitäten in der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, die Doppelgesichtigkeit des Europäischen Konsensus im Minderheitenschutz, und wie Fortschritt und Stagnation mit der Rolle des EGMR und der gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung von Menschenrechten verknüpft sind. Im Grundlagenteil stellt Isabel Lischewski das Urteil der KlimaSeniorinnen sowie die zwei parallelen Beschwerden Carême gegen Frankreich und Duarte Agostinho und andere gegen Portugal und 32 weitere Staaten vor. Wir freuen uns wie immer über euer Feedback! Sendet uns Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik gerne an podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org. Abonniert unseren Podcast über RSS, auf Spotify oder überall, wo ihr eure Podcasts hört. Über eine 5-Sterne-Bewertung freuen wir uns sehr! Verwandte Folgen: #13 Regionaler Menschenrechtsschutz #30 “Backlash”: Was bleibt von internationaler Rechtsprechung in Zeiten der Krise?   Hintergrundinformationen zum Interview und erwähnte Quellen: Annalisa Ciampi et al., International Human Rights Law, in: Public International Law: A Multi-Perspective Approach (Hrsg. Sué González Hauck, Raffaela Kunz & Max Milas). Jens T. Theilen, The Future of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Human Rights: Where Will European Consensus Take Us?, Völkerrechtsblog, 09.02.2023. Lys Kulamadayil, Between Activism and Complacency: International Law Perspectives on European Climate Litigation, ESIL Reflections 10:5 (2021). Jens T. Theilen, The Inflation of Human Rights: A Deconstruction, Leiden Journal of International Law 34, no. 4 (2021): 831–54. Claerwen O'Hara, Consensus, Difference and Sexuality: Que(e)rying the European Court of Human Rights' Concept of ‘European Consensus'. Law Critique 32, 91–114 (2021). Silvana Tapia Tapia, Human Rights Penality and Violence Against Women: The Coloniality of Disembodied Justice. Law Critique (2023). Natasa Mavronicola, The Case Against Human Rights Penality, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 44, Issue 3, Autumn 2024, Pages 535–562. Quellen zum Grundlagenteil: Dina Lupin, Maria Antonia Tigre & Natalia Urzola Gutiérrez, KlimaSeniorinnen and Gender, Verfassungsblog, 09.05.2024. djbZ Zeitschrift des Deutschen Juristinnenbundes 2/2023  Corina Heri, Too Big to Remedy? What Climate Cases Tell Us About the Remedial Role of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, The 5, 3 (2024): 400-422. Corina Heri, Climate Change before the European Court of Human Rights: Capturing Risk, Ill-Treatment and Vulnerability, European Journal of International Law, Volume 33, Issue 3, August 2022, Pages 925–951.  Kilian Schayani, No Global Climate Justice from this Court: A Critical Analysis on How the ECtHR's Rulings in the Climate Change Cases Exclude the Most Affected People and Areas from Access to Climate Change Litigation, Völkerrechtsblog, 15.04.2024.  Joel Bella, Klimaklagen: EGMR stimmt Völkerrechtsblog zu, Völkerrechtsblog, 06.05.2024.    Moderation: Erik Tuchtfeld, LL.M (Glasgow) & Daniela RauGrundlagen: Dr. Isabel LischewskiInterview: Dr. Jens Theilen & Daniela RauSchnitt: Daniela Rau Credits: Tagesschau vom 09.04.2024, 20:00 Uhr

In this episode we hear two brilliant interviews on climate justice and migration.  First from the heavyweight barrister Jessica Simor KC, covering her remarkable career and role in the landmark ECtHR case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland.  Then from Yumna Kamel, Legal Education Officer at Right to Remain and the co-founder and executive director of Earth Refuge, the planet's first legal think tank dedicated to climate migrants.   Enjoy.      Resources referenced by Yumna for further reading: ICAAD report on the Right to Life with Dignity for Climate Displaced Persons: https://icaad.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ICAAD-RTLWD-Policy-Brief.pdf  Kerilyn Schewel's in/voluntary im/mobility work: https://mixedmigration.org/staying-put-why-its-time-to-pay-more-attention-to-mixed-immobility/ UNHCR statement on 'Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters': https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2020/en/123356  Annalisa Savaresi and Joana Setzer from LSE's Grantham Institute have identified more than 100 climate cases that rely on human rights arguments to promote action on climate change: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-first-global-mapping-of-rights-based-climate-litigation-reveals-a-need-to-explore-just-transition-cases-in-more-depth/   Earth Refuge website: https://earthrefuge.org/ Socials: @earthrefuge

Welcome to the twentieth edition of our Russian-language podcast Then & Now with me, Teresa Cherfas. My guest today is Olga Sadovskaya, a lawyer from the civil society group, Team Against Torture. The project's members have been investigating complaints by Russians about torture for over two decades. Thanks to their work, hundreds of cases of torture by law enforcement officers have reached the courts and compensation from the state has been awarded to their victims. Olga Sadovskaya lives and works in her native city of Nizhny Novgorod. She graduated from Lobachevsky State University with a degree in Public International Law, defending the first thesis in Russia on the prohibition of torture and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. She has been taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights for over 20 years. This podcast was recorded on 20 June 2024.My questions include: You chose a rather unusual topic for your diploma. In 2003, when you defended it, what did you think the future held for you in terms of a profesion?What do you think it was that brought you to this choice?How did it happen that you specialised in the issue of torture?In Russia, it seems to me, few people worry about torture – people think ‘that's just the way it is', or ‘they deserve it, that's all.' How do you explain the rather high tolerance for violence in Russia?Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has the Russian public's attitude to torture changed? Has it become better, worse, or have moral and ethical guidelines shifted in general?Previously, in such situations it was common to appeal to the ECtHR, but in 2022 the Russian Federation withdrew from the jurisdiction of the European Court. What tools are now left for Russian human rights defenders to seek justice?What levers of pressure or influence do international courts have on Russian authorities in cases of torture on the territory of Russia – or in Ukraine?I read somewhere that you said that “all wars end peacefully.” In your opinion, will Russia's war against Ukraine also end peacefully? With the intervention of international forums, or do the warring parties perceive them as longer trustworthy?What is it like for you and other human rights defenders working under current conditions?Since the spring of 2022, since when the register of foreign agents has been updated every Friday, have many of your colleagues left the country or given up human rights work?How does the ‘foreign agent' label affect your professional work. And can you explain what is an “undesirable organisation”?Have you ever received any threats yourself? Or have there been administrative cases initiated against you?What is meant by the word “torture” and what should a person do if they find themselves in a situation where, in their opinion, they are being subjected to torture?And what if they are in detention when that happens?Is there such a thing as psychological torture? Have you experienced it yourself in your work as a human rights defender?Can such a term be applied to what happened to your fellow resident of Nizhny Novgorod, Irina Slavina, who committed suicide in the most horrible way in front of the Interior Ministry building in the city centre in 2020?You said somewhere that ‘even if a person is not themselves directly involved in torture, they may be a full participant in the system of violence.' Can you explain what you meant by that?What does the police treatment of the suspects in the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall in March this year tell us about today's Russia?Today in Russia everyone is living in conditions of uncertainty. What options for the future of your work do you see?Can you imagine ever being forced to give up your work – that the screws will be tightened to such an extent that it will be impossible to do this work?

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

This week we speak to Ioannis, a senior lawyer at PI, about his and his colleague's work on the landmark case protecting encyrption at the European Court of Human Rights: Podchasov v. Russia. The case dealt with a Russian law obliging telecommunications service providers to indiscriminately retain content and communications data for certain time periods, as well as a 2017 disclosure order by the Russian Federal Security Service requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decoding of communications”. Links: PI case page: https://privacyinternational.org/legal-action/podchasov-v-russia ECtHR judgment in the Podchasov case: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-230854 PI's work on encryption: https://privacyinternational.org/learn/encryption PI's report on End-to-End Encryption (E2EE): https://privacyinternational.org/report/4949/securing-privacy-end-end-encryption More information about the Marper case: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-563146

The 1949 Statute of the Council of Europe requires Member States to accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, on pain, in cases of serious violations, of expulsion. One of the principal means for achieving greater unity and safeguarding the signatory States' common heritage was and is the European Convention on Human Rights and its innovative mechanism for the collective enforcement of individual rights. 75 years on, President O'Leary discusses what sort of challenges the European Court of Human Rights is facing as it seeks to uphold democracy, the protection of human rights, and the rule of law across 46 States. Further, President O'Leary addresses what challenges the Court's judicial work poses for national systems and why, despite some legitimate criticism of the Convention system, we in Europe should not lose sight, at this critical point in history, of what that system was established to do: namely, to monitor compliance with the minimum standards necessary for a democratic society operating within the rule of law. About the Speaker: Síofra O'Leary has been a Justice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), elected in respect of Ireland, since 2015. Having served as a Section President and Vice-President since 2020, she was elected President of the Court in 2022. Prior to the ECtHR, President O'Leary worked for many years at the Court of Justice of the European Union. She is a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and was previously Assistant Director of the Centre of European Law at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Emmanuel College.

In this episode, Giulia Dedej speaks with Dr. Aphrodite Papachristodolou (Postdoctoral Researcher at the ICHR) on her important research on maritime migration and human rights. To keep up to date with developments from the Central Mediterranean, you can follow: Sea-Watch International SOS Mediterranee Open Arms Alarm Phone MSF Sea InfoMigrants Lighthouse Reports IOM Libya Dr. Aphrodite Papachristodolou's articles: Aphrodite Papachistodoulou “The recognition of a right to be rescued at sea in international law” (2022) 35 Leiden Journal of International Law 337 Aphrodite Papachristodoulou, “Mediterranean Maritime Migration: The Legal Framework of Saving Lives at Sea” (2020) 20 University College Dublin Law Review 87 Aphrodite Papachistodoulou and Richard Collins, “Pulling Back Navies and Pushing Back Migrants: Questioning the EU's International Legal Responsibility in the Mediterranean Sea” (2020) UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1 / 2020 Further information on the numbers of migration in the Mediterranean: IOM Missing Migrants Project UNHCR Refugees Data Portal | Mediterranean Reports on Italy's influence over the Libyan Coast Guard: Forensic Oceanography: MARE CLAUSUM, Italy and the EU's declared strategy to stem migration in the Mediterranean Forensic Oceanography: reconstruction of S.S. and Others v Italy incident Cases: Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (2012) App no 27765/09 (ECtHR 23 February 2012) S.S. and Others v Italy, Application No. 21660/18; communicated in June 2019 UNHRC, A.S., O.I., D.I. and G.D. v Italy “Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning Communication No. 3042/2017*'**'***” (27 January 2021) UN Doc CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 This episode was produced by Giulia Dedej and Grainne McGrath. Intro music: "Smarties Intro - FMA Podcast Suggestion" by Birds for Scale (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence) Outro music: "Smarties Outro - FMA Podcast Suggestion" by Birds for Scale (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence) Other: "Uneasy" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence), "This Passage" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence), "Uncertainty" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence)

the first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda was stalled just before takeoff after a late intervention from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). As Priti Patel returned to the Commons to defend the policy, many Tory MPs are furious at the prospect of the courts taking precedent over government legislation. Could this lead to the UK leaving the ECtHR? Also on the podcast, is Keir Starmer too boring? After growing accusations, the Labour leader has urged his shadow cabinet to stop calling him boring and focus on returning to government. Cindy Yu is joined by Katy Balls and James Forsyth

Russia's illegal military invasion of Ukraine has already cost countless lives, and forced millions of innocent people to flee their homes and the country, creating a massive humanitarian crisis both within and outside Ukraine. Many other civilians are unable to flee, being besieged by constant Russian shelling and threat, leaving them trapped in cities without access to the most basic necessities such as medicines and medical treatment, food, water and electricity. As the war goes on, the tragic toll on Ukraine and its people continues to grow. Through the legal claim it will bring before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ukraine will seek to hold Russia to account for its grave and flagrant violations of the fundamental human rights protections provided by the European Convention (the Convention) resulting from this illegal war.  Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan will represent Ukraine in this most important case, and in this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn joinsAlex Gerbi, a partner at Quinn Emanuel's London office, to unpack the different aspects of this claim.The episode begins by highlighting the firm's long-standing relationship with Ukraine, and how the illegal invasion and purported annexation of Crimea by Russia in early 2014 created a number of legal claims, including one for a state-owned bank Oschadbank, now a Quinn Emanuel client of many years. Alex shares how this significant case led the firm to grow its relationships in Ukraine, taking on other important cases along the way and ultimately leading to the firm's instruction on this case before the ECtHR.John and Alex then shift to the current claim to be brought by Ukraine against Russia before the ECtHR as a result of Russia's invasion of the country and the ongoing war. Together, they discuss the legal implications of Russia's breaches of human rights in the context of the Convention, and other issues relating to the conduct of the case before this European Court. With Russia having first renounced the Convention and then been expelled from the Council of Europe, how might the landscape of this claim be impacted? They discuss the nature of the Court, the make-up of the Judges, as well as the nature and timing of the proceedings. Finally, they discuss what relief Ukraine might look to obtain from the ECtHR and address the question -- will that make a difference in the face of Russia's continued acts of aggression?Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.meProducer www.alexishyde.com

Our guest on the podcast this week is the lawyer Kirill Koroteev, head of international legal practice of Agora International Human Rights Group. Previously, Kirill worked as legal director at Memorial Human Rights Centre, where he specialized in handling cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Kirill graduated from the Higher School of Economics in Moscow and received his master's degree from the University of Paris I - Panthéon-Sorbonne, where he also taught public law. The themes we discuss in the podcast include: the work of a Russian lawyer in international courts; Russia's exclusion from the Council of Europe and its consequences; Russia's war against Ukraine; the current brain drain from Russia; and the future of human rights in Russia. This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website, SoundCloud, Spotify, iTunes, Google Podcasts, Anchor and YouTube. The questions we ask Kirill Koroteev include: 1) As head of international legal practice at the Agora Human Rights Group you extensive experience in international courts and jurisdictions in various countries. How would you compare Russian lawyers today - especially human rights lawyers - with lawyers from other European countries? 2) Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe on March 16, 2022. This is only the second case of the exclusion of a state from the Council of Europe. Was there an alternative to this turn of events? 3) What will be the consequences of Russia's withdrawal for participants in Court proceedings – including those whose cases have already been decided, but not yet executed; those who have applied to the Court but whose cases are still in progress; and those who may still want to bring a case to the Court? 4) Russian lawyer and human rights activist Karinna Moskalenko has said that the inability of Russians to apply to the European Court would be ‘a punishment for ordinary people, not for the government.' Do you agree with this point of view? 5) What is the future of the interstate case filed by the Ukrainian government on 28 February, as a result of which on 1 March the Court issued interim measures (under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) requiring Russia to ‘refrain from military attacks on civilians and civilian objects, including homes, ambulances and other specially protected civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and immediately ensure the safety of medical facilities, personnel and ambulances on the territory attacked or besieged by Russian forces.' 6) What is the legality of showing public videos of conversations and press conferences with prisoners of war. Is this a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Valentina Melnikova, for examples, has argued that such videos can save the lives of Russian POWs (see Valentina Melnikova's interview with Gordeeva in the program "Tell Gordeeva"). 7) Do you see any scenario in which Russia could rejoin the Council of Europe? 8) Could the exclusion of Russia could have a positive impact on the Court, given that Russia has one of the worst records so far as implementing the Court's decisions is concerned? 9) According to existing estimates, as many as 250,000 people have left Russia because of the invasion of Ukraine. A great many of them are young professionals, including lawyers. Do you think this is a temporary phenomenon? Will people return to Russia in the near future? Or is this a development that will last for many years? 10) How do you see the future of human rights in the Russian Federation?Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: “For this reason, a lot of class specialists in the legal practice of the ECtHR appeared in Rusia,” Kirill Koroteev told us, referring to the fact that the flawed judicial system in Russia led to a large increase in applications to Strasbourg. However, on 16 March 2022 Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe. This is the first case of exclusion of a State from the Council of Europe: only Greece left the Council in 1969, and then on its own initiative.Simon Cosgrove and I asked Kirill if there had been any alternative to this course of events. His opinion is that there was an alternative: an even earlier exclusion of Russia from the Council of Europe. After all, the main purpose of this oldest European organization is cooperation among member states, not armed conflicts among them.According to Kirill in 2019, the Council of Europe for the sake of 60 million euros actually did everything to permit the Russian authorities to remain members. If the Council had suspended Russia's membership in 2019, as the organization's own documents demanded, perhaps membership would have ended sooner.Kirill, like many Russians, has left a country where the rule of law has long been dormant.“All we've seen in the last 10-12 years,” he says, “is deterioration. What hope for the future is there?”

Dr. Atieno Mboya interviews Corina Heri about her recently published book, Responsive Human Rights: Vulnerability, Ill-treatment and the ECtHR.

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief.

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Dilek Kurban's Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey's Kurdish Conflict (Cambridge UP, 2020) considers the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement with Turkey's ongoing Kurdish conflict. Tracing the legal mobilization of Kurdish people alongside legal and political histories, Kurban's work highlights the factors enabling ongoing violence in the Kurdish region. As Kurban argues, considering the effectiveness of supranational courts, like the ECtHR, in cases like that of Turkey invokes difficult questions about international human rights regimes. Limits of Supranational Justice contributes to studies of supranational courts and legal mobilization—as well as broader conversations about human rights—by pointing to new avenues of sociolegal inquiry alongside the broader sociohistoral context in the case of Turkey. Rine Vieth is a PhD candidate in Anthropology at McGill University, where they research the how UK asylum tribunals consider claims of belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Professor Paul Gragl, European Law at the University of Graz, Austria, gives a talk for the Public International Law seminar series. Abstract: Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are, in general, safe and effective, vaccine hesitancy continues to thrive due to various reasons, such as misinformation, the wish to protect one's personal autonomy, and/or religious or moral beliefs. Vaccine hesitancy therefore endangers attaining and maintaining herd immunity which protects those that cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons. Some States have consequently implemented compulsory vaccination schemes in order to close this gap in protecting public health, which, however, raises two essential questions in the context of human rights protection: (i) if a State has done so and implemented a compulsory vaccination scheme, does it potentially violate Articles 2,8, and 9 of the ECHR? In other words, are the ECHR Contracting Parties under a negative obligation to abstain from introducing such measures? Or (ii) if a State has not done so (yet), is it actually under a positive obligation to introduce such measures in order not to violate these provisions? On the basis of the ECtHR's recent judgment in Vavřička and others v. the Czech Republic (April 2021), I will discuss these questions and conclude that States are, if specific requirements are met, not prohibited from implementing such measures, whilst they are also not obligated to do so under the ECHR as long as they protect those most vulnerable to infectious diseases through other means. The presentation is based on a paper which will be published in the European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. Paul Gragl is Professor of European Law at the University of Graz, Austria. His research interests include public international law, EU law, human rights law, and legal theory as well as philosophy, which is reflected in his most recent monograph Legal Monism: Law, Philosophy, and Politics (OUP, 2018).

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe's latest decisions on jailed politician Selahattin Demirtaş and jailed human rights defender and businessperson Osman Kavala, show that Turkish judiciary is not independent, Yavuz Aydın, a judge and a former judicial councillor with Turkey's European Union delegation, said.The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings, has pronounced its decisions concerning Demirtaş and Kavala on Friday, who have not been released despite ECtHR judgements.The Committee of Ministers has extended time given to the Turkish government about the imprisoned former leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Selahattin Demirtaş until September 30. It has also decided to wait for Osman Kavala's release before imposing sanctions on Turkey. Aydın discussed CoE's decisions with Yavuz Baydar, Ahval's editor-in-chief, in the Hot Pursuit podcast.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe's latest decisions on jailed politician Selahattin Demirtaş and jailed human rights defender and businessperson Osman Kavala, show that Turkish judiciary is not independent, Yavuz Aydın, a judge and a former judicial councillor with Turkey's European Union delegation, said. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings, has pronounced its decisions concerning Demirtaş and Kavala on Friday, who have not been released despite ECtHR judgements. The Committee of Ministers has extended time given to the Turkish government about the imprisoned former leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Selahattin Demirtaş until September 30. It has also decided to wait for Osman Kavala's release before imposing sanctions on Turkey. Aydın discussed CoE's decisions with Yavuz Baydar, Ahval's editor-in-chief, in the Hot Pursuit podcast.

This week our guest on the podcast is Gleb Bogush. Gleb Bogush is a lawyer, with a PhD in law, and an associate professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow and an expert in international law. The issues discussed in the podcast include: what it means to be an expert in international law; human rights in the practice of an international lawyer; the European Court of Human Rights and its place in the Russian legal system; Russia and the International Criminal Court; repressive legislation in Russia - laws on foreign agents, undesirable foreign organizations, and so on; legislation on ‘historical memory', prosecution for ‘distortion of historical truth'; freedom of speech in Russia, including in academia; the meaning of constitutional amendments; the future of human rights in Russia. This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera. Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: "Would Pinochet be arrested today in London? There are signs of a regression in international law: the ICC was created in the early 2000s, there was the Pinochet case, but the old sense of optimism has been replaced - unfortunately in life things go down as well as up." Last week, Simon Cosgrove and I spoke with Gleb Bogush, lawyer, PhD and associate professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow and a specialist in international law. "I started with criminal law in Russia and other countries. I began to study international law later. Working in this field, I do not hide my respect and sympathy for human rights," Gleb told us. Our conversation touched on a great many topics, including the role of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia. Gleb Bogush pointed out: "The government wants to sit on two chairs at once, i.e. to participate in PACE on the one hand, and selectively refuse to execute the judgments of the ECtHR on the other. But the significance of the European Court is tremendous: for Russian citizens, it is an opportunity, albeit a slow and distant one, to find justice.” Talking about the latest legislative products of the State Duma, Gleb said, in particular: "What is happening, in my opinion, is following a strategy, it is a process that cannot stop. In fact, the authorities can no longer do anything else but produce these prohibitions. Everything is done to create a chilling effect, which creates a perception in society that certain topics are taboo, undesirable, that certain things shouldn't be discussed." In our podcasts at Rights in Russia Simon and I discuss whatever issues come to mind. And Gleb Bogush, our recent interlocutor, has certainly broadened our intellectual horizons. Take a listen, too.” Simon Cosgrove adds: A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here.

This week our guest on the podcast is Vanessa Kogan, director of the Legal Initiative Project. Over the years, the project's lawyers have provided legal assistance to thousands of people. The Legal Initiative Project is one of the leading organisations in Russia in terms of the number of applications it has brought to the European Court of Human Rights; the organisation has won more than 250 cases at the ECtHR. On 2 December 2020, Russian migration authorities annulled Vanessa Kogan's residence permit.The Issues discussed in the podcast include: choice of a career - why human rights, why in Russia; what is the Legal Initiative; working in the organization; Legall Initiative's main priorities; successes; problems with the authorities; departure from the country; recent developments in human rights and civic activism; the future of human rights in Russia.This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: Our interviewee Vanessa Kogan speaks Russian so well it is hard to believe you are talking to an American born and raised in the United States. Indeed, Vanessa and her family have lived and worked in Russia for the past 11 years. She worked well. She and her colleagues worked to defend human rights in Russia, including in the Caucasus, and there is no doubt that such work, as often happens now, has become problematic for the Russian authorities. In December 2020, Vanessa Kogan was told to leave Russia within two weeks. As is now customary, the authorities kept the reason for this decision a closely guarded secret: Pack your suitcase. Then the secret was uncovered, saying that the human rights activist "poses a threat to the security of the Russian Federation.' But Vanessa, who has done so much to protect the rights of our compatriots, sought to protect her own rights as well: the right to family life and the right to freedom of association and expression. The ECtHR set a deadline of 25 March 2021 for a peaceful resolution of the situation. We know that the system does not know how to backtrack, but nevertheless we note that in this case the Lubyanka was forced to give Vanessa and her family time to get ready to leave. Vanessa Kogan and her family left the Russian Federation, the largest in the world and one where human rights defenders are a threat to its security. Vanessa's grandfather, after whom she received her middle name, Stessel, was a U.S. ambassador to the USSR. Walter Stessel helped reduce tensions between our two countries, he participated in a meeting between Leonid Brezhnev and Henry Kissinger. During his years in the Soviet Union, the U.S. Consulate in Leningrad was opened, and large-scale grain exports to the USSR began at the same time. And Vanessa's contribution to a noble cause has also been significant: over the years she and her colleagues have provided legal assistance to thousands of people in Russia seeking justice and an end to human rights abuses such as abductions and enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and gender-based violence. With the help of Vanessa and her colleagues, our fellow citizens have won more than 250 cases at the ECtHR. In the podcast, Vanessa Kogan tells Simon and me what it has all been like, and what will come next.Simon Cosgrove adds: If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here.

This week our guest on the podcast is Kirill Koroteev. Kirill is head of international legal practice at the Agora International Human Rights Group. Kirill used to work as legal director of the Memorial Human Rights Center, where he specialised in handling cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Kirill graduated from the Higher School of Economics in Moscow and has a Masters degree from the University of Paris I - Panthéon-Sorbonne.Among the issues discussed in the podcast are: important differences between the legal systems of France, England and Russia; whether lawyers require different skills to work in the legal systems of Russia, France and the UK; the European Court of Human Rights - what is good and what is bad; the law on 'foreign agents'; the ECtHR and the law on 'foreign agents'; the work of the Agora Human Rights Group; major human rights issues in Russia today; last year's Constitutional changes and the ECtHR; Russia and the Council of Europe; the future of human rights in Russia.This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: "-You see, if we consider the Russian judicial system with regard to its formal norms, we find everything that we can find in other countries: the system of legislation, constitutional oversight, judicial review of the executive. Reading the jurisprudene of the Supreme Court, we can find both the concept of legal certainty and the concept of judicial review over the abuse of power, and so on and so forth. All of this exists as general principles of jurisprudence, but when you go to court, the answer you get in the courts-at least in the courts where the state is involved-is that the minister's decision is correct because it was made by the minister. A bureaucratized judicial system is combined with a complete lack of judicial independence. The judge knows that a judgment not in favour of the state will be overturned, and by the number of judgments that are overturned, their work will be judged. Our interlocutor, Kirill Koroteev, is head of international legal practice at the Agora International Human Rights Ggroup and was formerly legal director at Memorial Human Rights Centre. Kirill told Simon Cosgrove and me about his rich legal experience, about the Romano-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon legal families, about his work and much more. I regret that the subject matter of our podcast this time did not give Kirill an opportunity to reveal his knowledge of the musical collective The Beatles, where he is also a first-class specialist." Simon Cosgrove adds: "If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here"

This week our guest on the podcast is Sergei Davidis, a member of the board of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and director of the Centre's programme in support of political prisoners.The questions discussed in the podcast include: Sergei Davidis' recent prosecution and jailing ['administrative arrest']; conditions of detention; application to the European Court of Human Rights; numbers of detentions and administrative and criminal cases following this year's protests; Evgeny Roizman, former mayor of Ekaterinburg; Aleksei Navalny; Amnesty International; politics and human rights; ECtHR; right of assembly; freedom of association; Anti-Corruption Foundation; application of extremism law; new legislation and human rights; future of human rights in Russia.This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website [https://www.rightsinrussia.org/category/podcasts/] or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes: "Sergei Davidis, a member of the board of Memorial Human Rights Centre, was seized in the entryway of his home. The explanation for such an act of gallantry by the police is simple: according to the Russian authorities, notification of an event is now considered to be organization of an event. If we are talking about the kind of event that the authorities in their own jargon call 'unsanctioned', then a person who reposts information about the protest will receive a visit early in the morning. Sergei spent eight days in a special detention centre where those sentenced to administrative detention are held. He was given a total of 10 days, but two of those 10 days were spent in police custody. Simon Cosgrove and I are people with little prison experience (mine is richer than Simon's, but I won't go into that now), so we were interested in what Sergei had to say. Sergei Davidis was good at building relations with cellmates who had nothing to do with Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. "None of them like the authorities, they don't approve of them, but they don't want to get involved in the fight." He successfully conducted - according to him - explanatory work to show what political institutions are and what political tools exist. "I did not see any aggression from the staff of the detention centre. Except for one moment, though it was not really aggression but overzealous performance of duty: one of the officers told me that wearing a T-shirt with the slogan 'No to political repression' in their honorable institution was unacceptable. Our podcast proved an interesting conversation with an interesting interlocutor on many topics, including Amnesty International's infamous decision to strip Navalny of his title of prisoner of conscience."Simon Cosgrove adds: "If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here: https://www.rightsinrussia.org/week-ending-21-may-2021/ "

Dr Lea Raible University of Glasgow; 2020/21 re:constitution Fellow, gives a talk for the Public International Law discussion group on 20th May 2021.

This week our guest on the podcast is Elena Pershakova. Elena is head of the Legal Practice for Fundamental Freedoms department at the Public Verdict Foundation. She has been involved in human rights activities since 1999 and began her career in Perm. The questions discussed in the podcast include: freedom of conscience in Perm and in Russia (about Jehovah's Witnesses); how Russia's regions differ from one another in terms of the judicial system; the work of a human rights lawyer; Public Verdict Foundation; freedom of association in Russia; the law on 'foreign agents'; the Public Oversight Commissions; regional human rights ombudsmen; freedom of assembly in Russia; the role of the ECtHR in Russia; last year's amendments to the Constitution; Russia and the Council of Europe; the future of human rights in Russia.This podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on our website [https://www.rightsinrussia.org/category/podcasts/] or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes: "Many years ago I questioned Sergei Borisovich Parkhomenko about his arrest outside the Moskvoretsky Court. At that time two different police officers wrote different reports on him and each said that he had detained Parkhomenko - but for different acts. Sergei Parkhomenko said he would challenge the decision in the Eurpean Court of Human Rights and that his case was being handled by Elena Pershakova, an excellent lawyer from Public Verdict Foundation, as he particularly emphasized. Six months ago, I learned that the ECtHR had found that Russia in this case had violated the rights to peaceful assembly and fair trial and ordered the Russian Federation to pay each of the detainees, including Sergei Parkhomenko, 5,000 euros in compensation. Sergei Borisovich said on this occasion: 'I would particularly like to express my gratitude and admiration for the tenacity and resolve of the lawyers Kirill Koroteev, Elena Pershakova and their colleagues who brought the case to a victorious end after all these years.' Last week Simon Cosgrove and I spoke with Lena about her work at Public Verdict, the human rights situation in Russia and in Perm, the role of the ECtHR, whether Russia will withdraw from the Council of Europe and much more. I took the opportunity to tell Lena how much I love her pictures of the Kama River from the 18th floor. Truly, Lena has many talents! "Simon Cosgrove adds: "If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here: https//rightsinrussia.org/week-ending-14-may-2021 ."

This week our guest on the podcast is Tatiana Glushkova. Tatiana is a lawyer with Memorial Human Rights Centre, a member of the programme, Human Rights Protection Using International Mechanisms, a member of the coordinating council of the Project to Provide Legal Aid to Transgender People and of the board of the ‘Stumul' LGBT group.The questions discussed in the podcast include: what it means to be a human rights lawyer in Russia today; what led Tatyana Glushkova to take up this work; the workload and pace of work; the main human rights issues in Russia today; the right to freedom of association in Russia; the law on foreign agents; the application to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the law on foreign agents; the role of the ECtHR in Russia; the significance of last year's constitutional amendments; Russia and the Council of Europe; the future of human rights in Russia.You can also listen to the podcast on our website [https://www.rightsinrussia.org/category/podcasts/] or on SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: “My entry into human rights work was, by and large, an accident. Having experience in a commercial legal structure, after graduating from Moscow State University I decided to find something different from what I had encountered during my years of study. The story of a friend about the non-profit organisation JURIX caught my attention. I was lucky – there was a vacancy and I went to join Anita Karlovna Soboleva and her team. I found the job much more interesting than working in a commercial firm.” Last week Simon and I spoke with Tatiana Glushkova, a lawyer in the programme ‘Human Rights Protection Using International Mechanisms' at Memorial Human Rights Centre, where she is also a board member. Cases she has worked with range from summary executions in Chechnya to LGBT rights. “In Russia today there is so much work for human rights lawyers that the situation can be figuratively compared to patching up one hole while two new ones appear. And so on,” Tatiana told us. “You can do a tremendous amount of work, collect all the evidence, and the result will not be different from if you had done nothing at all.” But Tatyana Glushkova finds the strength to carry on her work: she is well known in the human rights world as a successful lawyer who works 25 or even 48 hours a day. It was very interesting for us to talk to Tatiana, and it's great that she was able to find time to talk to us as well.“Simon Cosgrove adds: "If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here."

This week our guest on the podcast is Olga Sadovskaya from the Nizhny Novgorod-based human rights organisation Committee against Torture. Olga Sadovskaya is the head of the organisation's international protection department. Established in 2000, the Committee against Torture has undergone many changes but continues to be one of the leading human rights organisations in Russia working to prevent torture in police custody.The questions discussed in the podcast include: latest developments at the Committee against Torture; court cases before the Russian courts and the ECtHR; legislative changes affecting its work; cities where the Committee against Torture operates; Chechnya; risks doing human rights work in Russia; public support; ombudsmen and public oversight commissions; the future of human rights.The podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on Rights in Russia [https://rightsinrussia.org/podcasts/], SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: 'Inquisitor 286 is a new computer game from the Committee against Torture, and the number 286 is clearly not random. Everyone knows Article 286 of the Russian Criminal Code does not contain the word torture, and Russia does not adhere to the definition set forth in the UN Convention. It should.The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person when such pain or suffering is inflicted by a public official. We are well aware how the authorities twist and turn and - as a rule - cover up for these very officials. Olga Sadovskaya in our recent conversation reminded Simon Cosgrove and me of the many tragic stories in which the "heroes" - the so-called siloviki - have gone into hiding or disappeared. But it is encouraging to know that organisations like the Committee against Torture and many other Russian human rights defenders are tirelessly fighting torture and ensuring that the villains are brought to justice. And that this is not a game at all.'Simon Cosgrove adds: If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here: https//:rightsinrussia.org/week-ending-23-april-2021.

This week our guest on the podcast is Damir Gainutdinov, PhD in law, head of the 'Online Freedoms' Project at Agora international human rights group and an expert on freedom of expression and the Internet.The questions the podcast discusses are: the internet and traditional media; how free is the Runet today; the vulnerability of social media users to administrative or criminal prosecution; why the authorities are increasingly complaining about Twitter and FB; politics and the internet; how "oppositional" is Runet; Russia and the 'Chinese version'; the authorities and the internet; international regulation - the European Court of Human Rights and the UN; the future of the internet in Russia.The podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on Rights in Russia [https://rightsinrussia.org/podcasts/], SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on FB: '"I don't think they didn't wanted to block Twitter, it was just a bluff on the part of the authorities," Damir Gainutdinov, PhD in law, head of the Online Freedoms project at Agora International human rights group and an expert on freedom of expression and the Internet, told us: "The Telegram story showed that it's not that simple." Simon Cosgrove and I spoke with Damir about the war going on on the World Wide Web. The Russian authorities, threatening, maneuvering, bluffing, knowing full well that everyone has been laughing at their attempts to block Telegram. The Kremlin would obviously like to block Google and YouTube, but they understand that such weapons can only be used once, and they cannot afford a false start. So they are using those networks that are less popular in Russia to train on. Damir is the co-author of many of Agora's reports on freedom of expression, including the most recent ones on 'fake news,' and the application of the so-called 'law on contempt of the authorities'. He shared his opinion that the ECtHR is clearly behind the curve when it comes to the Internet, losing out to UN institutions. We talked about how 'oppositional' the Runet is, whether the 'Chinese version' is possible in Russia, and whether Kremlin officials understand the Internet without using a magnifying glass. Listen to Damir's answers."Simon Cosgrove adds: If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here.

This week our guest on the podcast is Sergei Golubok, a lawyer [advokat] from St. Petersburg. The topics we discuss on the podcast include: how to become a lawyer; lawyers and human rights; the rule of law; the European Court of Human Rights; conflicts between national and international law; impact of the reforms of the 1990s on the Russian legal system; the significance of the constitutional amendments introduced last year; reform of the Constitutional Court; the future of the Russian legal system and human rights in the Russian Federation.The podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to the podcast on Rights in Russia [https://rightsinrussia.org/podcasts/], SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: A lawyer [advokat] should be a human rights defender by virtue of his work. And the hallmark of a lawyer [advokat] is that they don't have a boss, they have clients. Our guest on the podcast this week, the lawyer Sergei Golubok, has a wealth of experience, including with bosses. Today Sergei is a member of the St Petersburg Bar Association and someone well known in the human rights world. Simon Cosgrove and I had time to discuss a great deal with our Sunday guest and are happy to share what Sergei told us. We discussed – and not without reference to events today – why there are regimes that do not live up to the obligations they took upon themselves. “Human rights treaties – unlike ordinary treaties – create a web of obligations rather than bilateral relations. And so regimes like Erdogan's or Putin's don't really understand such obligations – why they should be implemented,” says Sergei Golubok, and adds: “This is a short-sighted point of view, because there are some things more important than momentary gain.” One of the biggest questions facing the Council of Europe today is what to do when Russia, along with a number of other countries, ignores ECtHR judgments. After all, there are no international riot police and no ECtHR bailiffs either. “I believe that the right thing to do in this situation would be to expel Russia from the Council of Europe. This would, in the first place, protect the Council of Europe itself. However, the Council of Europe has taken a different path, that of endless negotiations. It is the wrong approach, and the policy of appeasement of the 1930s is proof of that. It is not a solution to the problem, but an aggravation. Exclusion is the only legal remedy that can be applied”. We recommend listening to what Sergei Golubok has to say.Simon Cosgrove adds: If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here.

Part Two: Threats, Moscow and the regions, human rights lawyers, Public Oversight Commissions and Human Rights Ombudsmen, the European Court of Human Rights, Aleksei Navalny.

Professor Martin Scheinin, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, gives a talk for the Public International Law series. On 13 November 2020, the European Court of Human Rights communicated to 33 governments an application by a group of young Portuguese persons who claim that conduct by the respondent States in respect of the phenomenon and human rights impact of climate change amounts to violations of ECHR Articles 2 and 8, also in conjunction with Article 14. Notably, when communicating the case of Duarte Agostinho and Others to Member States, the Court added Article 3 in the list. The case belongs to a wider trend of efforts to take issues of climate change to human rights fora, and it raises complex issues concerning the interaction between human rights law, climate change law, international environmental law and public international law. There are two interrelated reasons for being open but critical in respect of the prospects of success in climate change cases brought before human rights courts or treaty bodies: (1) Some of the litigation may be ‘strategic' in the sense that the cases are about the use of human rights for the purpose of climate change litigation. What the initiators want in those cases primarily is a pronouncement, as a remedy for a human rights treaty violation established, of a government's obligation radically to reduce its emissions and thereby contribute to the turning of the tide of global warming. (2) In preparing such cases, insufficient thought may have been put into framing the claims for purposes of human rights adjudication, including in respect of (a) the admissibility condition of the victim requirement and (b) the issue of jurisdiction, closely linked to the notion of attribution. The questions posed by the European Court of Human Rights to the respondent governments in Duarte Agostinho suggest that these issues will have a prominent place in the proceedings that will soon follow. We can expect governments arguing that they, sitting perhaps 2000 kilometres away from Portugal in a country of free markets and free enterprise, have no concrete obligations in respect of, and no concrete impact upon, how a 1.5 oC rise in global temperatures would affect the lives and human rights of youths in Portugal. Without wanting to put into question the genuine interest by the ECtHR to address the impact of climate change in respect of substantive human rights, or the prospects of the case of Duarte Agostinho to pass the hurdles of preliminary objections and admissibility, there is a clear need for exploring ways of framing a human rights case so as to avoid being trapped in issues of victim status and jurisdiction. A case to keep an eye on is Billy et al. v. Australia, a complaint by a group of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, pending before the UN Human Rights Committee. According to a pre-submission press release, the case is about “the threat to their culture and their ability to live on their home islands”. There has also been some informative press coverage, as well as utilization of a new procedure for submitting amicus curiae briefs to the Committee. Billy is a possible game changer in climate change litigation, as it represents a potential of moving past the hurdles of victimhood and jurisdiction. This is because of the prominent place the notion of ‘culture' has in the case and more broadly in indigenous peoples' human rights claims. Culture is by definition intergenerational. Therefore, the right to transmit a culture belongs to the essence of the human right to enjoy one's culture in community with other members of the group (ICCPR Article 27). This right to transmission is a right that belongs both to one or two living generations of today who seek to transmit, and to one or two generations of living individuals who are the recipients of that transmission. Where the right to transmit is frustrated and rendered meaningless –- or ‘denied' in the language of Article 27 ICCPR -- we have ‘victims'. The enjoyment of a culture is also local, usually tied to the particular natural resources and conditions of a place or area. Culture is wide in scope, including traditional or otherwise typical means of livelihood, often collective and intergenerational in nature. It also includes a living language that is learned, used and developed in the context of a community engaging with its culture, including in its intergenerational transmission. And culture is about a way of life, wellbeing and identity. In respect of the territorial State at least, we hence have ‘jurisdiction'. (The issue of attribution in respect of other States would, however, remain.) The elaboration of a line of argument for indigenous peoples' climate change litigation that is based on the intergenerational dimension of the right to culture also has heuristic value beyond the context where it is developed. This is because there is an intergenerational dimension also in general human rights such as Article 8 ECHR and Articles 17 and 23 ICCPR. This has been properly addressed and acknowledged in the Human Rights Committee case of Hopu and Bessert v. France where the Committee decided to treat as a valid reservation the declaration by France of the inapplicability of the minority rights clause in Article 27 but then turned to other, general, provisions of the ICCPR. A fresh reading of the ECtHR case of López Ostra v. Spain suggests that the intergenerational nature of ECHR Article 8 could have had a prominent role in that case. Litigation concerning carefully selected and articulated indigenous peoples' claims concerning the tangible impact of climate change upon their ability to pass on to new generations their culture, way of life, traditional means of livelihood and identity may during this decade spearhead climate-change-related human rights litigation. But once that line of argument has been established and it has produced some result, also members of non-indigenous or non-minority communities can build the same line of argument under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR and Articles 17, 23 and 26 of the ICCPR. Professor Martin Scheinin is a British Academy Global Professor at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights. His four-year project addresses a range of challenges to international human rights law posed by developments in the digital realm. Throughout his career, Professor Scheinin has engaged with human rights practice, including by serving eight years as member of the Human Rights Committee, the expert body monitoring States' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For six years he was the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism. He retains an interest in human rights adjudication, first and foremost in issues of indigenous peoples' rights.

This week the guest on our podcast is Timur Georgievich Kobaliya, a Russian human rights activist and graduate of the American International Visitor Leadership Programme and the UK Foreign Office's first visitor's programme for human rights defenders in Russia. Timur is the founder of the NGO TV Russia and former head of the Human Rights Council of Volgograd. Timur also heads the international organisation Georgian-Russian Forum and has three applications against the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.The questions we discuss in the podcast include: When and why Timur Georgievich became a human rights defender; when NGO TV was set up and why; successes and difficulties; the impact of the law on foreign agents; Volgograd as a region in terms of human rights; cooperation with the authorities; future change for better or worse; Navalny's return; what's next for human rights organisations in Russia; what lies ahead for Russian civil society in the coming years.The podcast is in the Russian language. You can listen to the podcast here on Podcasts.com and also on Rights in Russia (https://www.rightsinrussia.org/podcast-6), SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes. The music, from Stravinsky's Elegy for Solo Viola, is performed for us by Karolina Herrera.Sergei Nikitin writes on Facebook: Timur Kobaliya was one of the founders of the Youth Advice and Training Centre in 2010 which is when he began working on human rights issues. In 2013 the centre was labelled a “foreign agent”. As Timur told us, the formal impetus for this was the NGO's participation in the Georgian-Russian forum, which the human rights defender heads. The actions of the Russian authorities, including the fines levied against the Centre, prompted Timur and his colleagues to appeal to the ECtHR. The closure of the Centre prompted Timur to set up two organisations: the Volgograd Human Rights Council and the Internet Channel for NGOs (NGO TV). Timur runs the television channel with a staff of six and, understandably, the authorities could not but give it their attention. The channel's presenter, journalist Aleksandr Batmanov, was sentenced in October 2017 to two years and one month in a maximum-security penal colony after being found guilty of stealing Kolbasa [like a German sausage] from a supermarket. The European Federation of Journalists added Aleksandr Batmanov to its list of journalists prosecuted for their professional activities. Although the mission of NGO TV Russia is to promote the activities of non-profit organisations and civic associations, activists and youth, the local authorities are stubborn in their unwillingness to cooperate with such groups, refusing to see them as allies. The picture is familiar, and not only for Volgograd. Simon Cosgrove and I had an interesting conversation with Timur, and we invite you to listen to this recording.Simon Cosgrove adds: If you want to listen to this podcast on the podcasts.com website and it doesn't seem to play, please download by clicking on the three dots to the right. A summary of some of the week's events in Russia relevant to human rights can be found on our website here.

This week Dr. Helen Duffy joins me to discuss Extraordinary renditions and detentions in light of ECtHR's recent judgment on Lithuania alleged involvement in facilitating rendition on their territory. Judgment Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/…0violations.pdf Helen Duffy's new book "Strategic Human Rights Litigation: Understanding and Maximising Impact" www.amazon.com/Strategic-Human-R…ing/dp/1509921974 Lecture : Strategic Human Rights Litigation: ‘Bursting the Bubble on the Champagne Moment' openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/59585

On Friday 2 May 2014, Hasan Bakirci (Senior Lawyer, ECtHR) spoke at an event held at Wolfson College in association with the Wolfson Law Society.Hasan Bakirci is a senior official at the European Court of Human Rights. He studied law in Istanbul and Oxford, graduating from both places with distinction. He is the author of a practitioner's handbook on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Mr Bakirci has sixteen years' experience as a lawyer at the Court, and prior to that worked for two years as a lawyer at the European Commission of Human Rights. He is currently a Head of Division at the Court and Deputy to the Registrar of the Filtering Section. He was recently responsible for overseeing a major initiative designed to bring the Court's famously large backlog of cases under control.The talk was followed by a Q&A session chaired by Mr Jamie Trinidad, Junior Research Fellow of Wolfson College.

On Friday 2 May 2014, Hasan Bakirci (Senior Lawyer, ECtHR) spoke at an event held at Wolfson College in association with the Wolfson Law Society.Hasan Bakirci is a senior official at the European Court of Human Rights. He studied law in Istanbul and Oxford, graduating from both places with distinction. He is the author of a practitioner's handbook on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Mr Bakirci has sixteen years' experience as a lawyer at the Court, and prior to that worked for two years as a lawyer at the European Commission of Human Rights. He is currently a Head of Division at the Court and Deputy to the Registrar of the Filtering Section. He was recently responsible for overseeing a major initiative designed to bring the Court's famously large backlog of cases under control.The talk was followed by a Q&A session chaired by Mr Jamie Trinidad, Junior Research Fellow of Wolfson College.