Summary and Conclusion
Under the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms States are obliged to make reparation for the damages by mean of just satisfaction. If just satisfaction could not redress the situation, in many instances it is required to adopt individual measures, most commonly, the reopening of domestic judicial procedure. In many cases, the States are also obliged, under Article 46 §1 of the Convention, to abolish or amend the law, or to change jurisprudence to ensure that the relevant violation of the Convention is not repeated. These measures are normally referred to general measures. The Russian Federation ratified the Convention in 1998. By doing so it made the Convention directly applicable in the domestic legal system. Accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian Federation by virtue of Article 46§2 of the Convention must abide by the judgments of the European Court. However, implementation of the judgments of the Court in the Russian legal order needs improvements. Although the payment of just satisfaction to the injured parties is executed, it is in some instances paid with delays. The reopening of domestic proceedings is available according to the Russian law under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Code on Arbitration Procedure. However, the Code of the Civil Procedure is confusing due to an unclear provision on reopening of a final judicial decision under newly discovered circumstances, which does not include the finding of the violation by the judgments of the European Court. The case law of the European Court shows that the Russian Federation has systematic problems which lead to the similar violations of the Convention. It can be noted that in most of the cases against the Russian Federation the Court found a violation of the following provisions of the Convention: Article 6 (Right to fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of property) due to the non –enforcement of final domestic judicial decisions, Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) due to the unsubstantiated arrest and detention and unjustified length of detention and Article 3 (Prohibition of torture). The Russian Federation attempts to adopt general measures to avoid similar violations but it seems that their efforts do not entirely satisfy the spirit and purposes of the Convention. Unfortunately, despite legislation that prescribed the application of the Court's judgments, national courts of the Russian Federation are applying provisions of the Convention and the case law of the Court very rarely. This also will lead in many cases to similar violations of the Convention. All above mentioned factors give an answer to the question which was addressed in the presentation of the topic. Thus, it could be concluded that more efforts and willingness of the Russian authorities on compliance with the judgments of the European Court are required in order to ensure the protection of rights and freedoms of each human being under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.