Kansainväliset oikeudelliset tietolähteet
20.12.2011
EIT tutkii Georgian valituksen Georgian ja Venäjän välisestä aseellisesta yhteenotosta vuoden 2008 syksyllä
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on päättänyt valituksen tutkittavaksi ottamisesta enemmistöllä 13.12.2011. Asiassa on kyse harvinaisesta valtioiden välisestä valitukesta, jossa Georgia väittää Venäjän loukanneen ennen kaikkea Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 2 artiklaa (oikeus elämään).
EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:The Court noted Russia’s arguments that the events of August 2008 had to be examined under the rules of international humanitarian law and not the Convention provisions, because the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia had been an international one.
It then referred to its earlier case law in which it had found that the obligation of States under Article 2 to carry out effective investigations continued to apply even when the security conditions were difficult, including in cases of armed conflict. In zones of international conflict, States party to the Convention were obliged to protect the lives of people who were not or no longer engaged in the hostilities.
The Court noted that neither Georgia nor Russia had requested a derogation of any Convention provision during the conflict.
Accordingly, the Court decided to join to the merits of the case the claim by Russia that the Convention provisions did not apply to the events in question.
The Court recalled that the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies applied to Inter-State cases in the same way as it did to individual applications. However, that rule did not apply where the applicant State complained of an administrative practice of officially-tolerated repetitive acts giving rise to violations of the Convention.
With reference to the evidence submitted by Georgia, the Court found that the allegations concerning the existence of an administrative practice could not be considered as being wholly unsubstantiated or lacking the requirements of a genuine allegation, as required by Article 33 of the Convention. It pointed out, however, that the examination of all the other questions concerning the existence and scope of such an administrative practice, as well as its compatibility with the provisions of the Convention, related to the merits of the case and could not be examined at the admissibility stage.
The Court further considered that the question of the application of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies was so closely related to that about the existence of an administrative practice that they had to be considered jointly during an examination of the merits of the case.
Finally, the Court observed that Georgia had submitted the application on 6 February 2009, which had been less than six months after the events which had started on 7 August 2008. Accordingly, the six-month rule under the Convention had been respected.
The Court declared the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Lehdistötiedote: Press Release
Koko päätös: Admissibility decision
