სტრასბურგის სასამართლომ 2008 წლის აგვისტოს ომის საქმეზე გადაწყვეტილება მიიღო

[Moor]

13 minutes წინ, t-90 said:

ეს ვინმეს ინგლისურად ან რუსულად არ გაქვთ?

უნდა ავუჭედო ზოგზოგიერთს ერთ ადგილას. 

https://civil.ge/archives/392226

ინგლისურად უფრო ვრცლადაა ჯერ. დაამატებენ ქართულ ვერსიასაც

 

TumblrPinterestVKontakteOdnoklassnikiPocketMessengerShare via Email

 

 

 

ECHR delivers judgement into Georgia vs Russia Case over August 2008 War and its consequences. Photo: Council of Europe / Sandro Weltin

New

European Court Verdict into Georgia vs. Russia Case over 2008 War

21/01/2021 - 14:45

 

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said today that Russia was responsible for the breach of six articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as for violating Art. 2 in procedural sense, involving failure to conduct effective investigation into alleged breach of right to life, in the aftermath of Russo-Georgian War of August 2008.

The judgement, delivered by the the Strasbourg-based court into inter-state complaint lodged by Georgia against Russia in connection to the War of August 2008, also said events following the ceasefire agreement of 12 August, 2008 that ended the active phase of the war, had fallen within the Russian jurisdiction.

The Court asserted that since August 12, 2008, “strong Russian presence and the South Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities’ dependency on the Russian Federation indicated that there had been continued “effective control” over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”

Besides, the ECHR stated Russian exercised “effective control” over the “buffer zone” during the period from 12 August to 10 October 2008, the date of the official withdrawal of the Russian troops.

The Court stated, however, that the events during the active phase of hostilities during 8 to 12 August 2008 had not fallen within the Russian jurisdiction and declared this part of Georgia’s application inadmissible, as no side enjoyed effective control over the war-affected territories.

 

The ECHR held:

• by sixteen votes to one, that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, involving right to life, prohibition of torture and respect for private and family life, respectively, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, involving protection of property.
• unanimously that the Georgian civilians detained by the South Ossetian forces in Tskhinvali between approximately 10 and 27 August, 2008 had fallen within the Russian jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1, and that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Article 3, involving prohibition of torture “as regards the conditions of detention of some 160 Georgian civilians and the humiliating acts which had caused them suffering and had to be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment.”
• unanimously that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Article 5, involving right to liberty and security as regards the arbitrary detention of Georgian civilians in August 2008.
• unanimously, that the Georgian prisoners of war detained in Tskhinvali between 8 and 17 August 2008 by the S. Ossetian forces had fallen within the Russian jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1; and by sixteen votes to one, that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture) as regards the acts of torture of which the Georgian prisoners of war had been victims.
• by sixteen votes to one, that the Georgian nationals prevented from returning to S. Ossetia or Abkhazia had fallen within the Russian jurisdiction; and by sixteen to one that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, involving freedom of movement as regards the inability of Georgian nationals to return to their homes;
• unanimously, that Russia had had a procedural obligation under Article 2 to carry out “an adequate and effective investigation” not only into the events which had occurred after the end of hostilities (after the August 12, 2008 ceasefire deal), but also into the events which of the active phase of hostilities (8 to 12 August 2008);
• and by sixteen votes to 1, in this regard, that there had been a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect, meaning obligation to conduct an effective probe into alleged breaches of the Article’s substantive limb.
• by sixteen votes to 1, that Russia failed to meet its obligations under Article 38, involving examination of the case.
• unanimously, that the question regarding Article 41, involving just satisfaction “was not ready for decision and should therefore be reserved in full.”

The Court Decision

Regarding the killing of civilians and the torching and looting
of houses in Georgian villages in Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia and the “buffer zone,” the Court stated that although Russian troops had intervened to stop abuses being committed against civilians, in many cases “Russian troops had been passively present during scenes of looting” committed by the S. Ossetian forces.

“Despite the order given to the Russian armed forces to protect the population and carry out peacekeeping and law-enforcement operations on the ground, the measures taken by the Russian authorities had proved insufficient to prevent the alleged violations,” ECHR remarked, adding that “this could be deemed to be “official tolerance” by the Russian authorities, as was also shown by the fact that the latter had not carried out effective investigations into the alleged violations.”

Holding Russia accountable for detention of 160 Georgian civilians in the aftermath of conflict, the Court said that although the Russian forces’ direct involvement had not been clearly demonstrated, the fact that the Georgian civilians fell within the Russian jurisdiction meant that the latter had also been responsible for the actions of the S. Ossetian authorities.

The Court added that the conditions of the said detention of Georgian civilians and “the humiliating acts to which they had been exposed, which had caused them undeniable suffering..[..].. had to be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Speaking of war prisoners, it found that even though the direct involvement of the Russian forces had not been clearly demonstrated in all cases, the fact that the prisoners of war fell within the Russian jurisdiction meant that the latter had also been responsible for the actions of the South Ossetian forces.

“Although they had been present at the scene, the Russian forces had not intervened to prevent the treatment complained of,” the Court asserted.

The Court also highlighted, that “the de facto South Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities, and the Russian Federation, which had effective control over those regions, had a duty under the Convention to enable inhabitants of Georgian origin to return to their respective homes.”

Background

Georgia appealed ECHR on August 11, 2008, a day before the EU-mediated six-point ceasefire agreement was signed with Russia. The formal inter-state application was filed in February 2009, alleging Russian military and/or separatist forces under their control carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians and their property in different parts of Georgia, including the now-occupied Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions.

Georgia claimed Russia violated eight articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, involving right to life, the prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security, right to respect for private and family life, right to an effective remedy, protection of property and right to education and freedom of movement.

Russia on its part dismissed allegations as unjustified and unconfirmed by “admissible evidence,” claiming its military forces did not attack and instead defended the Tskhinvali region’s civilian population against a Georgian offensive. ECHR declared the application admissible in December 2011, relinquishing the case to the Grand Chamber, which consists of 17 justices.

Seven ECHR judges completed hearing 33 witness testimonies in the inter-state case in June 2016. Of the witnesses, the Court summoned six directly,16 through the Georgian government and 11 through the Russian government.

In the final stage before the ruling, ECHR Grand Chamber completed the oral hearing of the application in May 2018.

This was the second inter-state case of the total three against Russia in the Strasbourg-based court. Georgia won the first in 2014 when ECHR ruled that the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of Georgians from Russia in 2006 violated the Convention. In a follow-up decision in 2019, the Court ruled Russia had to pay EUR 10 million in compensation for damages related to the mass deportation.

Georgia lodged its third complaint against Russia in 2018, over the death of Archil Tatunashvili, a Georgian citizen, at the hands of Kremlin-backed authorities in Tskhinvali.

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian)

Edited 21 იანვარი, 2021 by Moor

[iaiameri]

https://ria.ru/20210121/gruziya-1593995098.html?fbclid=IwAR1pZzxcY94wizQD4uR_TNccGMdsbBoMc7x3WPjuuhpGD_Bki_3aUEwUBLA

 

ОСКВА, 21 янв — РИА Новости. Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) признал необоснованными обвинения Грузии в адрес России в связи с событиями августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии, сообщает пресс-служба российского Министерства юстиции.

Отмечается, что 21 января опубликовано постановление Большой палаты ЕСПЧ по межгосударственной жалобе "Грузия против России (II)", предметом которой являются события августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии и их последствия.После почти 12-летнего процесса ЕСПЧ постановил, что на Россию нельзя возлагать ответственность по Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод за инциденты, произошедшие в ходе отражения российскими военнослужащими нападения грузинской армии на миротворческий контингент и местное гражданское население в ходе событий в Южной Осетии.

ЕСПЧ отклонил обвинения Грузии в адрес России из-за Южной Осетии

13:22 21.01.2021 (обновлено: 15:16 21.01.2021)

25231

© РИА Новости

Читать ria.ru в

 

МОСКВА, 21 янв — РИА Новости. Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) признал необоснованными обвинения Грузии в адрес России в связи с событиями августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии, сообщает пресс-служба российского Министерства юстиции.

Отмечается, что 21 января опубликовано постановление Большой палаты ЕСПЧ по межгосударственной жалобе "Грузия против России (II)", предметом которой являются события августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии и их последствия.

1 января, 16:10

Бурджанадзе рассказала об обиде Грузии на Россию

После почти 12-летнего процесса ЕСПЧ постановил, что на Россию нельзя возлагать ответственность по Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод за инциденты, произошедшие в ходе отражения российскими военнослужащими нападения грузинской армии на миротворческий контингент и местное гражданское население в ходе событий в Южной Осетии.

 

 

 

Суд также не поддержал заявления Тбилиси о якобы вторжении российской армии на территорию Южной Осетии 7 августа 2008 года, то есть за день до начала грузинской агрессии.

Как отметил заместитель министра юстиции России Михаила Гальперин, Грузия пыталась доказать, что европейская Конвенция о защите прав человека применяется не только в мирное время, но и в ходе боевых действий, что противоречит основам международного гуманитарного права.

ЕСПЧ отклонил обвинения Грузии в адрес России из-за Южной Осетии

13:22 21.01.2021 (обновлено: 15:16 21.01.2021)

25231

© РИА Новости

Читать ria.ru в

 

МОСКВА, 21 янв — РИА Новости. Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) признал необоснованными обвинения Грузии в адрес России в связи с событиями августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии, сообщает пресс-служба российского Министерства юстиции.

Отмечается, что 21 января опубликовано постановление Большой палаты ЕСПЧ по межгосударственной жалобе "Грузия против России (II)", предметом которой являются события августа 2008 года в Южной Осетии и их последствия.

1 января, 16:10

Бурджанадзе рассказала об обиде Грузии на Россию

После почти 12-летнего процесса ЕСПЧ постановил, что на Россию нельзя возлагать ответственность по Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод за инциденты, произошедшие в ходе отражения российскими военнослужащими нападения грузинской армии на миротворческий контингент и местное гражданское население в ходе событий в Южной Осетии.

 

 

 

Суд также не поддержал заявления Тбилиси о якобы вторжении российской армии на территорию Южной Осетии 7 августа 2008 года, то есть за день до начала грузинской агрессии.

Как отметил заместитель министра юстиции России Михаила Гальперин, Грузия пыталась доказать, что европейская Конвенция о защите прав человека применяется не только в мирное время, но и в ходе боевых действий, что противоречит основам международного гуманитарного права.

12 декабря 2020, 15:41  

В Сухуме раскритиковали слова президента Грузии об "оккупации" Абхазии

По его словам, российская сторона смогла убедить судей в том, что правовая оценка событий августа 2008 года в Абхазии и Южной Осетии не входит в их юрисдикцию.

 

"Также ЕСПЧ не установил ни одного случая нарушения российскими военнослужащими прав гражданского населения во время событий августа 2008 года", — подчеркнул Гальперин.

При этом в министерстве отметили, что не согласны с выводами ЕСПЧ, в соответствии с которыми на российскую сторону возлагается ответственность за инциденты, случившиеся после 12 августа на территории Абхазии и Южной Осетии, хотя причастность к ним российских военнослужащих суд установить не смог.

Постановление ЕСПЧ по делу "Грузия против России (II)" не содержит решения о денежной компенсации. Соответствующий вопрос оставлен судом в Страсбурге для дальнейшего рассмотрения.

 

 

 

7 minutes წინ, iaiameri said:

Ну если вы такие грамотные перечислите какие 6 из 8. И почему тогда Страсбург принял основное решение в том, что Россия не нападала на Грузию, а именно Грузия напала на Южную Осетию и Российских миротворцев.

 

Мда, российские СМИ, конечно, совсем заврались. Нагло врут в лицо, принимают людей за идиотов. Зайдите на сайт ЕСПЧ. На главной странице сайта вы прочтете прямым текстом. ЕСПЧ удовлетворил 6 из 8 обвинений, предъявленных Грузией. Но российские СМИ, конечно, сфокусировались на оставшихся 2)

 

ასეთი კომენტარებია მანდ და, რაზე გვითხრა ბოლო ბოლო სტრასბურგმა უარი, ის ორი პუნქტი რომელია?

 

Edited 21 იანვარი, 2021 by iaiameri

[Seth]

41 minutes წინ, Chigurh said:

გილოცავთ, ყოჩაღ ყველას ვინც იმუშავა ამაზე.

[iaiameri]

ის ორი პუნქტი რა არის რომელიც არ დაგვიკმაყოფილეს?

[Jimmy]

2 საათის წინ, iaiameri said:

სასამართლომ თერთმეტი ხმით ექვსის წინააღმდეგ დაადგინა,

ეს თერთმეტი ვინ არიან და ის ექვსი ვინ?

[Moor]

 

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Robert Spano (Iceland), President, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark), Paul Lemmens (Belgium), Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), Helena Jäderblom (Sweden), Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), 4 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal), Helen Keller (Switzerland), Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland), Dmitry Dedov (Russia), Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus), Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar.

 

Separate opinions Judge Keller expressed a concurring opinion; Judge Serghides expressed a partly concurring opinion; Judges Lemmens, Grozev, Pinto de Albuquerque, Dedov and Chanturia each expressed a partly dissenting opinion; Judges Yudkivska, Pinto de Albuquerque and Chanturia expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion; and Judges Yudkivska, Wojtyczek and Chanturia expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion.

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/GC_Judgment_20210121_ENG.PDF  განაჩენიც და რელიზიც https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Press_release_Georgia_Russia_2_ENG.pdf

 

 

Edited 21 იანვარი, 2021 by Moor

[omerta]

რა მოვიგეთ? 

თარგმნეთ ვინმემ განაჩენი

[Chigurh]

რომელი ქვეყნების წარმომადგენლები იყვნენ ვინც საწინააღმდეგოდ მისცა ხმა საინტერესოა