Vladimir Putin Signs Law Allowing Russia To Overthrow Human Rights Court Verdicts

MOSCOW, Dec 15 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin has signed a law allowing Russia's Constitutional Court to decide whether or not to implement rulings of international human rights courts.

The law, published on Tuesday on the government website, enables the Russian court to overturn decisions of the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) if it deems them unconstitutional.

Human Rights Watch has said the law is designed to thwart the ability of victims of human rights violations in Russia to find justice through international bodies.

Vladimir Putin Signs Law Allowing Russia To Overthrow Human Rights Court Verdicts

Um... Double You Tee Eff? Is this for real? Wow... This part really gets me:

Human Rights Watch has said the law is designed to thwart the ability of victims of human rights violations in Russia to find justice through international bodies.

Thwart victims from seeking justice? Wow! Is there isn't a more obvious sign of blatant government corruption, I don't know what is. Keep this in mind:

The law comes after the ECHR ruled in 2014 that Russia must pay a 1.9 billion euro ($2.09 billion) award to shareholders of the defunct Yukos oil company, a verdict that added to financial pressure on Moscow as it struggles with shrinking revenues due to tumbling oil prices and Western sanctions.

The ECHR said it had received 218 complaints against Russia in 2014 and that it had found 122 cases in which Moscow had violated the European Convention on Human Rights, including the deportation of Georgian citizens in 2006 and the incarceration of defendants in metal cages during Russian court hearings.

Well that's one way to make the human rights problem go away. Make it so your government legally doesn't have to abide by international human rights violations. To all the people who complain about imminent government tyranny from the US government, THIS is what real government corruption/tyranny looks like. When you are legally punishing victims who suffered human rights violations, you ARE the bad guy.

I'm not saying this is a good thing but I wouldn't want a European court tellling me what to do if I was Putin either. He's currently at odds with NATO and Europe can't even get their own # together, who are they to dictate to others?

The example shown isn't a human right issue but a way of fleecing Russia for corporation, and this may be what they have planned. All nations have the right to ignore international crapola.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't "international" per se. It's the ECHR...not the UNHRC.

Why would anyone outside the EU give them creedence? Plus Russia said they would be open to dialogue if any issues were brought to them

That said, it isn't like they are trying to play nice, but let's be honest... Russia is being messed with by the west. They technically have every right to not acknowledge this organization.


And the metal cage thing...ever hear of Guantanamo Bay?

I'm not saying it's right, or that the EU was responsible for it, but it is two faced to some degree, considering that the EU and US are allies.

Just more cold war style rhetoric really.

He didn't change the constitution he signed a law stating that the ECHR cannot conflict with the Russian constitution if it does the Russian constitution takes precedent. Germany Britain and Austria have similar laws where is the write up over them?

a reply to: sosobad
The USA likes those countries. If America likes you then do what you want.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Quite a headline . doesn't sound like much to me. Don't these international human rights courts come out with all sorts of verdicts? They "charge" George H. W. Bush and Cheney with War Crimes but nothing ever happens, are these the same courts I'm thinking of?

He probably doesnt feel it necessary to give his power away to a global agenda. Just look at the atrocities all over the world, how effective is this Human Rights Convention? Personally, I think he should retain his countries sovereignty, and tell the rest of the world to mind their own business.

a reply to: sosobad

Change the constitution? Where did I say anything about changing the constitution?

I really feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone with this thread. Russia passes a law that punishes victims of human rights crimes and everyone celebrates it as Russia retaining its autonomy. Yet, I'm pretty sure a bunch of these same people constantly demand we go blow up ISIS because of their own slew of human rights violations.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is he punishing victims? Are these people getting blow back from the Russian Govt by running to the Human Rights People? Or is he just not acknowledging their judgments against Russia?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sosobad

Change the constitution? Where did I say anything about changing the constitution?

Either way, you said they made it legal to ignore "international human rights violations"... Well, that isn't true. The EU is not the UN. No one outside the EU is legally required to listen to them.

So, I'm not sure what's so important about this article. Seems like you just want to smear totally legal Russian decisions.

I'm not supporting one side or the other. But maybe take a step back and consider the relationship between Russia and the west lately.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sosobad

Change the constitution? Where did I say anything about changing the constitution?

The hit piece that was written by the huffo alludes that this is some sort of shady thing that only Putin would do. Not quite the case when the two most powerful countries in Europe have similar laws in place. Wasn't directing the reply to you that's why I didn't quote you. Just clearing it up before the usual suspects storm in see 2 and 2 and jump to 10.

The USA routinely thwarts the ICC:

US Opposition to the International Criminal Court

The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. The Obama administration has so far made greater efforts to engage with the Court. It is participating with the Court's governing bodies and it is providing support for the Court's ongoing prosecutions. Washington, however, has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals.

Putin is just taking his lead from the US in this. The ICC at this point is a joke, when it's powerless to even look into matters involving the bigger nations like the USA.

a reply to: misskat1

Well I'd say that if a victim feels like it is necessary to go outside of their own government to seek justice for the slights against them, they have given up on the government actually helping them. So with that being said, if Russia makes it legal to not listen to outsiders on what is and isn't a human rights violation then there is no recourse for the victims. They are just left to suffer at the hands of whatever organization is causing a human rights violation to them as well as the overly (and openly) corrupt government that can easily be bought off.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

EU is international... You know that international means between nations right? Well what do you think the EU is?

Plus I know that what Russia is doing is legal here, it doesn't make it right though.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I have no problems pointing out the US's hypocrisy in this matter. Human rights violations shouldn't be legislated away by the country that finds them inconvenient.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sparkymedic

EU is international... You know that international means between nations right? Well what do you think the EU is?

Plus I know that what Russia is doing is legal here, it doesn't make it right though.

It isn't an international jurisdiction, like the UN, which Russia acknowledges. It's an EU jurisdiction, which Russia does NOT legally have to recognize. I agree it isn't "right"... But what are ya gonna do? Like I said, take the political climate into consideration here.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Oh I get why Russia did it. I understand all of that. I'm just recognizing this as an overt sign of corruption. There is nothing that can be done here. It's not like I'm suggesting we invade Russia and get them to change their laws or anything.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

It's not EU it's European, there's a difference. Russia is not part of the EU but is one of the 48 member states of Europe, meaning they have signed inclusion and therefore do fall under the ECHR, however this new law like sosobad has mentioned is no different to laws already in place for other member states