Hotline2 405 505

News

Saturday, 11 March, 2023
Share

According to the Decision of the Strasbourg Court, the Territory of Abkhazia Has Been Occupied by Russia even Before the August 2008 War, and Russia Is Fully Responsible for Human Rights Violations

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published a decision on the case "Mamasakhlisi and others v. Georgia and Russia", according to which the territory of Abkhazia was under the effective control of the Russian Federation even before the August 2008 war, and Russia bears full responsibility for human rights violations in occupied Abkhazia.

As it is known to the public, on January 21, 2021, Georgia won a historic victory against Russia in the August 2008 war case at the Strasbourg Court, and it was confirmed that the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia have been occupied by Russia since 2008. In the present case, Russia's responsibility for human rights violations committed in the occupied territories before the 2008 war was established for the first time. In particular, the petitioners Levan Mamasakhlisi and Grigol Nanava were illegally arrested and imprisoned in Dranda prison in Russian-occupied Abkhazia in 2001-2007 and 2003-2005. They were subjected to inhumane treatment and were not allowed to see their family members.

Taking into account the given facts and the evidence provided by the government, the ECHR found that Russia is fully responsible for these human rights violations committed against Georgian citizens, as it exercised effective control over Abkhazia even before the August 2008 war. The Strasbourg court emphasized that, according to international law, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia, although it has not been under the control of the central government of Georgia since the 1990s due to decisive military, economic and political interference by Russia.

In addition, by the same decision of the ECHR, the occupation of the Democratic Republic of Georgia by Soviet Russia in 1921 and Russia's direct involvement in the military conflict in favor of the Abkhazians in the 1990s were already legally confirmed. In particular, the Strasbourg court concluded that in the mentioned conflict Abkhazians not only used Russian weapons and a significant number of Russians fought on their side, but without the direct involvement of Russian military units and combat equipment, it would have been impossible to end the conflict with a military victory for the separatists. At the same time, the European Court drew attention to the fact that a number of international sources point to the "ethnic cleansing" of Georgians during this conflict.

Consolidated legal positions and evidence of the Government of Georgia on the mentioned cases were sent in 2017. Among them are material from relevant national archives, reports and documents of international organizations, public statements of Russian government representatives, documents and Russian legislative acts, sources reflecting the "relationship" between the de facto "officials" of Abkhazia and the Russian Federation: information on the political, financial, military relations between them, and other types of close ties, passporting activities.

Thus, as a result of the reasonable and unrelenting struggle against de-occupation, which the Georgian government has been conducting since 2012, Georgia once again won an important victory, and this time the practice of the Strasbourg court confirmed the continuous line of occupation of Abkhazia by Russia before and after the August 2008 war, which also means that Russia is responsible for all other human rights violations committed on the territory of Abkhazia throughout this period.

For information, in the present case the ECHR found that in the territory of occupied Abkhazia, the Russian Federation violated the applicants' rights protected by Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention. Accordingly, Russia was ordered to pay 35,000 euros individually to Levan Mamasakhlisi and Grigol Nanava, and to reimburse costs in the amount of 23,300 euros.

Other News

Share
Print
Share
Print

According to the Strasbourg Court, Publicly Made Insulting, Obscene, and Degrading Statements Fall Outside the Scope of Freedom of Expression

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg upheld the position of the Ministry of Justice in the case of Miladze v. Georgia, confirming that publicly made insulting, obscene, and degrading statements directed at public officials are not protected under the right to freedom of expression.

The case concerned a video published on the social media platform TikTok in 2022, in which the applicant, civil activist Irakli Miladze, used obscene and insulting language toward the Mayor of Tbilisi, City Hall employees, and police officers. As a result, the national courts imposed a fine of 500 GEL, the minimum penalty provided for by law.

The Strasbourg Court unanimously held that the applicant’s statements did not amount to political criticism or the expression of views on a matter of public interest. According to the Court’s assessment, the language used was intended primarily to humiliate and insult public officials.

The Court also agreed with the reasoning of the national courts, noting that they had properly distinguished between harsh political criticism, which is protected in a democratic society, and personal insults, which are not. The judgment further emphasized that the sanction imposed on the applicant was minimal and proportionate, as he received only the lowest fine available under the law.

Today’s ruling by the Strasbourg Court reaffirmed an important principle: freedom of expression is one of the fundamental values of a democratic society and protects even strong and offensive criticism; however, it does not extend to humiliating or personally insulting statements directed at others, including public officials and civil servants.

The judgment further underscores that the state is entitled to protect political officials and public servants from unjustified verbal abuse and insults, ensuring that they are able to perform their duties in an environment free from attacks that undermine their dignity.

The Court’s assessment once again highlights the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, while clearly establishing that the exercise of this right — particularly on the internet and social media platforms — must not infringe upon the dignity and rights of others.